The Argument From Design

[Godscreated]

Cop-out, none of you can explain it and Dawkins is a rambling nut job. Dawkins never explained the optic nerve nor the development of the part of the brain responsible for sight, nothing about how the image is inverted.

[Napoléon]

Dawkins is a rambling nut job.

Hey there Mr Pot. Let me introduce you to Mr Kettle, you can call him black.

Dawkins never explained the optic nerve nor the development of the part of the brain responsible for sight, nothing about how the image is inverted.

So fucking what?

[The Grand Nudger]

Here you go, but of course, PBS probably has a liberal bias, and an anti god agenda. Fucking moron. Seriously, what do you do when you're not here? Huff paint thinner?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/librar...11_01.html

Go forth and educate thyself, confused one. Who would have thought btw, photoreactive cells within organisms that depends on light for their existence, no....couldn't be, far too simple. And as we all know; nothing is simple, everything is so complex that godmusthavedoneit. You just can't let go of genesis can you? Do you feel less special somehow when you contemplate the possibility that you are wrong? Frodo doesn't have this problem, he's probably a true christian.

[Shell B]

Dawkins never explained the optic nerve nor the development of the part of the brain responsible for sight, nothing about how the image is inverted.

Neither have you. You must be wrong about everything, Stat. I mean, godschild.

[fr0d0]

---

we, as human beings, have re-engineered food crops enough that we can even begin to look at dealing with a problem like "world hunger"

The world population was stabilized at 1bn before we started improving food production. When we hit the 9bn barrier that available fresh water will support what will we blame then?

Chuck, the better way to respond to any line of reasoning like that, would be to ask the person making the claim why they introduced the concept of blame to the argument? Stating that such and such are the states of things, and that the "design" of things is missing, doesn't imply blame, since there is no one to blame in the first place. Not that whoever would be to blame has anything to do with the design argument. By the way Frodo, what did your blurb about population stats have to do with the emergence and refinement of agriculture? Oh, that's right, nothing, because you cant address me honestly, you have to "push me out of your territory". Which actually means "retreat from reality", but it sounds more aggressive, so you go with it.

---

You started with the blame angle jerkoff.

The point I was making was that your supposed champion to save mankind just postpones the problem. Cut the bullshit k.

[The Grand Nudger]

That's only blame to those who claim evidence of design. There are no wizards in my worldview, especially the kind that are responsible for providing me with a suitable environment. It only becomes an issue of blame when one foolishly insists that their fantasies are in fact responsible for everything we see (except when they're not). Even then, it's only blame in the mind of the deluded. What champion have I picked? That you find apocalypse everywhere you look is a function of your own wiring. Doesn't belong in mine. In any case, I coud be dead wrong about everything, and it wouldn't make you right about anything. I'm not sure why you even went down this road, since you must know from many other threads that I don't believe that god deserves credit or blame for anything, since he doesn't exist. That's something that's probably pretty clear about my position, at this point.

Did you have something to say? Evidence?

(edited to seperate you from the "materialist christians" you find so provincial)

[Shell B]

Easy, frods. Unless you're god, you shouldn't take it personally.

The fact of the matter is that there is no possible way to disprove Creation if Creationists find a reason or excuse for everything involving god, which they do. Should we prove the Big Bang Theory, goddidit. Should we say, "That looks like god wasn't very smart." someone will say, "God wanted has to have struggles." It is the argument that never ends. That being said, to the Creationists here, you will never convince anyone who doesn't believe in intelligent design with arguments like that. You have to admit that they are unconvincing. If I said, fairies want you to have to struggle, would you then believe that fairies do not intervene to help humans because they want us to learn for ourselves? If I said, Santa wants you to have faith, so he doesn't reveal himself in obvious ways, would you then believe in Santa? You can't really get pissy when a person comes from a position like that. You can't expect everyone to have that kind of blind faith. On the other hand, I can hardly get mad at a Creationist for making what appear to be excuses to us because not doing so would destroy the fabric of their beliefs. Either way, there is no end to the argument.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well put. On the other hand, reality does begin and end with facts. Hard evidence. We have it, they do not. Frodo is only speaking for god because god is unable to speak for himself, being confined to the immaterial, locked somehow in Frodo's mind.
Honestly, why is it that I can find meaning in the religious experience without requiring it to be factually accurate in any way, without the crutch of it's being some objective moral truth; whereas the believer seems unable to do the same?

[Shell B]

Well put. On the other hand, reality does begin and end with facts. Hard evidence. We have it, they do not. Frodo is only speaking for god because god is unable to speak for himself, being confined to the immaterial, locked somehow in Frodo's mind.
Honestly, why is it that I can find meaning in the religious experience without requiring it to be factually accurate in any way, without the crutch of it's being some objective moral truth; whereas the believer seems unable to do the same?

Because your disbelief makes it unnecessary for it to be true.

[Napoléon]

Either way, there is no end to the argument.

Can't we all just get along?




Oh that's right. No we can't.