...and then made it 70% salt water.
Dickhead.
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
Assuming you are referring to Yahweh...
He also screwed things up so badly, he had to kill every living thing except a few, and start life all over again by the use of massive inbreeding.
He screwed up with the design in humans and most animal as well...
- Wisdom teeth.
- Inverted retina in the vertebrate eyes (causing a blind spot) even though he got it right in octopus and squids.
- The "recurrent laryngeal nerve" that originates in the brain, loops around an aorta next to the heart, then returns up to the larynx. It's not all to bad in humans, but this applies to many animals, most notably the giraffe.
- Haemoglobin is better at carrying carbon monoxide, a poisonous gas, than at carrying oxygen, the job it was "designed" to do.
- Whales, snakes and Manatees have pelvises and remains of hindlimbs inside their bodies.
And countless other mistakes and backwards solutions...
You are much better at this than I am... I would also mention being short-sighted, on account of a lack of error-correction.
:)
Dawkins participating in an autopsy of a giraffe, showing the laryngeal nerve.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO1a1Ek-HD0
I disagree with Dawkins here.
An apologetic could easy say something like this:
"Just because we do not know the purpose of an organ function yet, it does not mean it is evidence for lack of foresight."
And he would be correct, Dawkins argument is weak at best.
Even though evolution is a very likely explanation for such an occurrence(the nerve), it does not mean it was the only factor or process that made such changes either. The nerve might have unknown functions that hasn't been discovered yet, that would dictate its structure.
Also imperfections is a well established thing, I doubt anybody would argue that nature does not produce imperfections.
eg; Mormons come to mind :P
:)
The theistic argument usually is around "ORIGINALLY there were no imperfections".
Showing a specie today with imperfections after 1000's of years of mutations/adaptation/evolution etc.. is not enough to claim that this is evidence of no original designer.
The appendix in humans would have been a much stronger argument, if he used that one instead of the giraffe, but it would still suffer from the same points I mentioned above since at it's core it is still a weak argument.
The problem is that we are not just dealing with biology here, but also with history and we lack enough knowledge to make strong claims on what might have happened(or not) a few million years ago.
It is true that one might find a deluded nut job theist that might say, that everything around him is perfect, but I doubt that is the actual theistic position.
Most acknowledge that their god does not make sure everything remains perfect.
Just looking at cancer/disabled/miscarriages is enough to prove how imperfect we are to most theists.
See this comment of yours:
The theistic argument usually is around "ORIGINALLY there were no imperfections".
Surely this fails as an argument because if there were no imperfections then the system would not allow mutations which would wreck it?
yea but their usual claim would be, "after sin happened everything went to hell...., even though that doesn't make much sens anyway.
Usual reply to that is:
Who created sin?
Theist changing subject or leaving the room at this point.
@ Jeff
It's as if you are suggesting that Dawkins was attempting to present evidence that would completely annihilate Intelligent Design. That would be impossible, since they can redefine their position as they wish. Any single argument against I.D. will always be weak. It's only by heaping up such massive amounts of evidence that they can't manage to succeed in indoctrinating the next generation, that we can counteract such willful ignorance.
In my view, Dawkins is merely giving an example that clearly points away from Intelligent Design and towards gradual evolution. Still, I think he makes a good argument saying that:
"The imperfections are very revealing because they are exactly the kind of imperfections you would expect, from the accidents of history if there were no designer."
Of course there could be unknown factors, but there are no such factors know in this particular case. From the factors that are known, it's very plausible that since the nerve has a direct route in fish, it stayed looped around the aorta during progressing evolution from our fish-like ancestors to present day, producing the absurd result seen in modern giraffe.
Certainly, we must "think outside of the box" and try to work out if something we haven't thought of is involved. But we cannot continuously factor in everything that is not known. If any unknown factors were to be discovered about this nerve, perhaps it would add or subtract a little from the current understanding. But it seems highly doubtful that it would be anything that would cause a complete reworking of the theory of why it is looped around the aorta.
I understand your point about "ORIGINALLY there were no imperfections", and that is of course part of the problem of how they can always redefine Intelligent Design.
"The imperfections are very revealing because they are exactly the kind of imperfections you would expect, from the accidents of history if there were no designer."
1. He is assuming they are imperfections based on our current knowledge.
2. Even if there was a designer, it does not mean that "accidents of history" do not happen.
= weak argument.
"But it seems highly doubtful that it would be anything that would cause a complete reworking of the theory of why it is looped around the aorta."
Just an example how it could change the entire picture.
Maybe the nerve is needed to be close to the heart or the approx center of the animal for some yet unknown reason.
In the case of the fish it happens to be a short distance but in case of the giraffe, it is a long distance since her brain is so far away.
Since we honestly do not know what happened, trying to support the "no designer" argument based on an assumption he provided little to no support for, makes it a weak argument.
Just because something is similar, it does not mean it is related.
Like comparing a cat with a rabbit just because when they are served for differ, they look the same.
"I understand your point about "ORIGINALLY there were no imperfections", and that is of course part of the problem of how they can always redefine Intelligent Design."
Thanks for understanding, but what I said is that most theist never claimed that nature does not make imperfections.
I think they are sane enough to know that disabled people exist, so in this instance it is not them redefining the argument but Dawkins making a huge straw-man.
And yes they do "always redefine Intelligent Design."
It is one of the god of the gaps talents.
You make a good point, especially about theist views on imperfection.
I still think it's a good example of "bad design" vs "gradual changes", since there is nothing to suggest that the laryngeal nerve has any such extra functionality. And since most I.D. advocates at most admits to micro-evolution, it would make no sense to wire up the Giraffe that way.
It would be interesting to hear a couple of I.D views on the subject...
man screwed everything up just as they are doing it today, its called sin
man screwed everything up just as they are doing it today, its called sin
man screwed everything up just as they are doing it today, its called sin
All vertebrates are descended from fish and how we got from there to here explains a lot of the wierdness in our anatomy e.g. the course of the laryngeal nerve. For those who are interested, there is a wonderful book that describes this process:
Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body, by Neil Shubin. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0010SKTRA/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?ie=UT...
So we didn't evolve from monkeys...? What (@_@ )
The current hypothesis is that we evolved from Miocene apes, not monkeys, and we were talking about giraffes not humans before.
Also the apes have an ancestor too, which would be a fish(Deuterostomia) if you go back enough, according to he current Taxonomy.
http://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Hominidae/classification/
I see no intellegent designer creating the universe or earth for man kind, we have many flaws, many birth defects, an entertainment complex in the middle of a sewage system.
Dolphins have a seperate hole to breath and eat, yet we have to eat, breath and talk with the same hole, which highers the chances of choking by alot.
We also are warm blooded, meaning we need to ear ALOT, an alligator can eat a chicken a month and it is fine, if we were made perfect with no flaws that would be some compelling evidence, but even our cameras today are better designed then our eyes.