The Argument From Design

[theVOID]

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.

You're complaining about Dawkins not explaining every detail in a 5 minuet video? Ha! And yet the countless things the bible doesn't even grasp are somehow acceptable?

[The Grand Nudger]

Demonstrated, lol, no, asserted, yes.

"The bible is not factually accurate, but the biblical god still exists" Would that be a fair way to distill your argument Frodo?

With respect to this thread, could that be stated as:

"The argument from design is not factually accurate, but God still exists"

God is not a designer, right Frodo? Thats a material claim, and god belongs in the "metaphysical". Correct? You could correct me in your own words of course.

[ElDinero]

Finally (until he stops chickening out and answers the questions raised) to GC, take a look at this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rWEjnyC8i8

[popeyespappy]

Some stupid ass argument from ignorance.

Eye spots, eye pits, pin holes, covered pinholes, lenses, and finally the cornea, a logical procession with each succeeding step more complex and useful than the previous one. It is a progression that refutes the hell out irreducible complexity since you can remove components from an eye and still have a useful organ.

We have examples of each step in the process. More importantly than that alone though is that each step is found exactly where evolution predicts it should be. There’s nothing where it shouldn’t be in the fossil record. The comparative anatomy all works out. The genetics of every species that’s ever had its DNA sequenced confirms rather than refutes evolution.

It all adds up to a collection of facts that even His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, the Vicar of Jesus Fucking Christ himself, admits leads to only one logical conclusion; the conclusion that humans evolved over time along with every other living organism on this planet.

[The Grand Nudger]

Interestingly, if christianity continues into the very far future, evolution will be one of it's pillars of faith. Proponents will argue that anything other than evolution is blasphemy, that evolution was revealed to us through the holy spirit of science, and that the faithful have always held this position. Those who did not, were not true christians. Furthermore, they will assert that all of the evidence points to the end of days, in the very near future, most likely within their lifetimes. That's how it goes with religion, if history can be relied upon as an indicator of future trends.

[Minimalist]

You're complaining about Dawkins not explaining every detail in a 5 minuet video?

Xtians need (very) simple explanations, Void. They can't handle anything more complex than "Goddidit" afterall.

It's a significant drawback to the breed.

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't know Min, the amount of time and thought it takes to build a christ-based worldview. The effort alone. They can do better, they don't get a pass on the grounds of ignorance.

[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.

You're complaining about Dawkins not explaining every detail in a 5 minuet video? Ha! And yet the countless things the bible doesn't even grasp are somehow acceptable?

The Bible is not about science, it's a spiritual book.

[The Grand Nudger]

Excellent, remove all claims of a material nature and then get back to me on what's left.

[edk]

Engineered, no camera, digital or other wise comes close to human vision, even the best supercomputers can not process the info from the eye to the brain and then to the hand to reach out and touch an object as fast as the brain can,so do not spout your drivel at me.

Show me a source for that.