Stab yourself in the arm to prove evolution.

Why do you consider something to be a "very basic design flaw"?

What would, according to you, be a being *without* that "very basic design flaw"?

What traits would a being have to have for you to accept that it was made by an intelligent creator?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Average pre-scientific minds were not yet capable of understanding these things past the nursery school level. (sorry ancestors). We are smarter now, so our understanding needs to be better.
How does someone who can't even read comprehend anything past oversimplified concrete ideas? How can those ideas explain things the greatest minds still cannot really agree upon?
How could God have let errant humans take charge of spreading, and twisting these ideas? Because we are to be responsible for the planet and what happens on it. That is the system, apparently. "Why?" is a good question, I agree.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

flaws seem to exist only from a dualistic, personal, perspective. but from god's universal perspective, everything's perfect, even the 'flaws'.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"Flaws" seem to serve a purpose -- we get to know what perfection might be.

 

Each atom can be view as perfect in its own, but when binding them together, flaws are not uncommon.

 

I'll wade in with a few more flaws:

The human retina has the nerves IN FRONT, which limit the max sensitivity. A DESIGNER could easily have placed the nerves in the back ...

The size of the human head at birth is dangerously large, to the host mother. Prior to modern medical tech, many human mothers died giving birth to the overlarge heads. Wouldn't an INTELLIGENT designer have considered this? From an evolutionary standpoint, if the baby lives, the mother was "successful" ...

Human hearing is quite sensitive: within it's range, it's as sensitive as any animal out there. Young, human hearing, that is. Why do not our hearing-nerves regenerate? There IS an example of regenerating nerves in humans: those in your skin, will regrow if damaged by cuts, etc (so long as the major structures of the skin are intact). These short, surface nerves will regenerate. So. Why not permit HEARING nerves to regenerate? They are composed of small hairs that will "self destruct" in the presence of too much sound. Moreover, over time, they will degrade, too. If we were DESIGNED, wouldn't it be more useful to keep renewing these nerves, to maintain our hearing health? From evolutionary standpoint, good hearing lasts well into your 20's, more than enough time for reproduction and to be considered "successful".

 

More ...

Why, if Humans are the "pinnacle of design" do we have a single heart?

Wouldn't it make more sense, to have a secondary heart, say at the junction of the major arteries at the top of the legs, to assist the main heart. This 2nd heart would really shine, during long runs or other extended use of our legs.

Finally, when the main heart is damaged, the 2nd heart could help carry the load, giving the main heart time to heal.

An INTELLIGENT designer would have thought of this ... (I'm not all that smart, and _I_ thought of it ..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

 

Why have a heart at all? Why not have the entire arterial system act as a distributed pump by rythmically pulsing just like the intestines do (peristalsis)?
That would be virtually inpervious to single-point failure. God must be a shitty engineer.

 

Why do we have toes that can be broken/stubbed? Why not a simpler ridge of nail or bone? Because we evolved from tree dwelling primates who used them for grasping branches. Duh.

 

God believers have a distinct lack of imagination.

 

Yes, hooray for redundant organs sytems.
Either god does not exist or he's a prick.

 

I agree as well.

Evolution is about change in allelic frequency in a population from one generation to the next. Evolution says nothing about creation (ie: abiogenesis) or a creators (ex: Oden).

That said if I were to believe in Gods, which I do not, and I had to choose one to worship. I surely would not worship that pin-dick YHWA, talk about a bore.

Aphrodite is the way to go. She is hot . Plus she may even do a little sandal knocking with you - if you`re lucky

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I love her pouring-water effigy in the British Horde . . . . . I mean museum.



Here she is taking her comic book form

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Gotalove then buns

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Evolution does not disprove god, however it does disprove the notions taken by world religions. However to a deist, who can believe in evolution, evolution is just a vehicle used by god.

the argument becomes moot, evolution only explains naturally the way we evolved, not the why we are here, nor the reason for existence. This questions never will be answered to justify and please anyone, these questions are used by theist, to entice the qullible, to believe their propaganda. They believe they have the answers, to that the answer is "god" But ask them what the hell is god? And they will just give you circular answers.

click

Godless

 

I always heard it was god doing that. Beware bad little boys and girls.. god will strike you down with a lightning bolt. As such he has no reason to implement a "grounding system", because it would undo his system of punishment.

 

Aphrodite... (*drool*) Mmmm.... Instead of me bowing before her, maybe she'd bow before me? Oops. That was pretty blasphemous. Now she'll have to come punish me. Yay!

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

LOL

 

Wow, an example of superstimuli!! I must remember not to try to mate with her (or pick fleas off her)! :bugeye:

There's a lot of confusion between LITERAL truth and ALLEGORICAL truth among theists. Genesis is one of many creation myths - all cultures have developed them. It is allegorical, as were the parables that Jesus told. It's value is in the symbols and the purpose of the narrative. For instance, Gen1 gives a concept of the "mysterious" nature of God the creative principle at the heart of the universe. They are only taken as literal by (maybe dumb) people who think that that is the only form of truth.

I disagree Godless. I think the "what is the reason for my existence?" question is a genuine human existential quest, even if not an intellectually rigorous question.
There is no intellectual route to solving it, and the answer may of course be "no reason". However, one benefit theists have is that they believe they are onto the scent of an answer through non-rational (NOT irrational) means. God cannot be aprehended by rational intellectual means, so a theist therefore struggles to define God to a rationalist, and probably falls into circular answers. Hence the need for allegory and the myths told in Genesis!

 

It is your perogative to esue on an unatainable quest. This is a waste of time, when basically the answer truly is "Existence exists" and the reason for your existence is the fornication of two other individuals resulting in your birth. Without them, you wouldn't be here. Without their ancesters none would be here. There's no reason for existence. It just is.

Fueled by irrational dogma, and myths, none of which would stand rigorous scientific scrutiny. So basically they fantasize, that some supreme diety is their creator, and thousands of different religions exist, conflict, and beget conflict amongs nations for these silly notions. Totally irrational beliefs proven by behavior.

Godless

 

You assert a belief as ardently as any fundementalist. How do you know with such certainty that there is no deeper purpose for your life? Or have you simply closed your mind to the possibility?

Like many atheists, I think you confuse "non-rational" with "irrational". Not all phenomena are "objective" and not everything therefore is open to scientific scrutiny.

 

The deepest purpose to life, which has so far been the only thing apparent, is life itself. What other deeper purpose do your refer?

Both are the non use of reason, just different contexts.

Name one that doesn't invoke the supernatural.