Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeA moot point in light of how evolutionists consistently do the same with the word 'evolution'.
'Designed' was your word, not his.
If I say to you, "So why is the eye so poorly designed," this does not mean I agree with you that the eye was designed. I would merely be using your own language back at you.
How the reader interprets the word 'design' or 'evolution' is dependent on what he already believes. And like it or not, atheists are just as prone to having faith in what they believe as are theists. Whenever they talk about evolution it's treated as a given, and will even go so far as to imply evolutionists are a higher order of human (more intelligent) than their more primitive counter parts... and especially so if the 'ignorant' (and arrogant) primitives dare to confront the core tenets of evolution.
There are also theists who operate under the same self serving delusion of being supremely correct, so the predilection to mindlessly protect an idea and automatically attack an opposing one is not restricted to any particular group of people.
Originally posted by @lemon-limeNo - you are wrong.
A moot point in light of how evolutionists consistently do the same with the word 'evolution'.
How the reader interprets the word 'design' or 'evolution' is dependent on what he already believes. And like it or not, atheists are just as prone to having faith in what they believe as are theists. Whenever they talk about evolution it's treated as a give ...[text shortened]... a and automatically attack an opposing idea is not restricted to any particular group of people.
And repeatedly saying it will never make it right.
Originally posted by @wolfgang59Shirley, you jest!
No - you are wrong.
And repeatedly saying it will never make it right.
( You are joking... right? )
Here's another good one, though it may not be immediately apparent to some of the more *cough* highly evolved humans gracing these boards:
Have you noticed how the word 'arrogant' is most frequently used as a blunt weapon by those who are arrogant?
21 Sep 17
Originally posted by @wolfgang59If 'necessity' is not a factor (in this debate) then what did you mean when you said:
We were not debating necessity.
I was arguing against the position that our eyes are [b]better than cameras.[/b]
Because it has evolved the human body is more complex
than necessary... (pg 6)
More complex than is necessary for what?
( survival? )
21 Sep 17
Originally posted by @lemon-limeMore complex than if it had been designed.
If 'necessity' is not a factor (in this debate) then what did you mean when you said:
[b]Because it has evolved the human body is more complex
than necessary... (pg 6)
More complex than is necessary for what?
( survival? )[/b]
Consider a car with the exhaust pipe wrapped around the roof then through the passenger door then out the back.
Still works but badly designed.
21 Sep 17
Originally posted by @lemon-limeSome humans are more evolved than others?! 🙄
Shirley, you jest!
( You are joking... right? )
Here's another good one, though it may not be immediately apparent to some of the more *cough* highly evolved humans gracing these boards:
Have you noticed how the word 'arrogant' is most frequently used as a blunt weapon by those who are arrogant?
Boy do you need to read more.
Originally posted by @wolfgang59What appear to be design flaws or anomalies can be explained as trade offs. For example, there is a natural 'blind spot' in the human eye caused by a small collection of nerves (ganglia). You can call that a design flaw if you wish, but the fact is this doesn't impede normal vision. But even if it did impede vision the brain automatically fills in that tiny blind spot with what should be there. We have software for doing basically the same thing... clearing up foggy or distorted videos and photos. We humans were high tech long before we began creating our own high tech devices and machines.
More complex than if it had been designed.
Consider a car with the exhaust pipe wrapped around the roof then through the passenger door then out the back.
Still works but badly designed.
A car is able to have a simpler design because the human body does considerably more than a car can do. In fact, I doubt you could name one designed machine or structure that can do more for the humans who designed it than the human body is able to do for itself.
And by "do more" I don't mean things like travel faster or lift greater weights. I'm referring to the sheer number of functions a human body is able to perform for itself (ie. for its own benefit).
22 Sep 17
Originally posted by @wolfgang59Oh Shirley, you are such a tease.
Some humans are more evolved than others?! 🙄
Boy do you need to read more.
22 Sep 17
Originally posted by @sonhouseYou know how to build a human life from a sperm and egg?
How long have humans been around?
I don't think a design is very good given 2 year old children with cancer, dying before they are 3. Not a good design at all. Chimps are almost twice as strong as humans pound for pound and can bite right through your hand if they so chose. Humans have to rely on stealth and cunning and if they are caught out by some an ...[text shortened]... around the urinary tract, what kind of design is that? Females don't have that kind of problem.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
22 Sep 17
Originally posted by @lemon-limeEarthquakes? Meteorite strikes?........Wasps?
What appear to be design flaws or anomalies can be explained as trade offs. For example, there is a natural 'blind spot' in the human eye caused by a small collection of nerves (ganglia). You can call that a design flaw if you wish, but the fact is this doesn't impede normal vision. But even if it did impede vision the brain automatically fills in that t ...[text shortened]... sheer number of functions a human body is able to perform for itself (ie. for its own benefit).
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
22 Sep 17
Originally posted by @sonhouseBy 'best estimate' you mean a wild guess that I cannot prove? Of what use is that?
Well tell me your best estimate then of how long humans, modern humans, have been around.
I notice BTW, you didn't have an answer about the prostate or babies dying of cancer.
I'm sure you've heard of mutations? They are errors in DNA code. They cause cancer disease, etc. My explanation for their existence is the fall of man. What is yours?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
22 Sep 17
Originally posted by @wolfgang59In order to get performance you require design no?
You are confusing performance with design.
As I said before a simple pencil has to be designed and any fool can tell by looking at it that it has been designed.
Whereas who could say a penguin has been designed to hunt underwater?
(Even though it is fantastic at it?)
And who can say a giraffe has been designed?
[youtube]cO1a1Ek-HD0[/youtube]
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
22 Sep 17
Originally posted by @dj2beckerQuite a weak explanation. Do you have a better one?
By 'best estimate' you mean a wild guess that I cannot prove? Of what use is that?
I'm sure you've heard of mutations? They are errors in DNA code. They cause cancer disease, etc. My explanation for their existence is the fall of man. What is yours?