Yes, that was mentioned by Jackmannii in a less evasive way. About that other post…?
I used to own a Pinto and I dispute this.
It was very useful in keeping people from tailgating me. You see, whether or not it is a design flaw depends on the requirements, or, as we say, it’s not a bug, it’s a feature.
Evolution is opportunistic, and works with what it can get. This is one reason why there are many non-optimal structures in nature. As pointed just a couple of posts before, the Appendix helps in some cases and in others it makes things worse.
Just what one would expect from a non-optimal structure in our bodies.
Nope, you are saying you could build the human body better yet you don’t have a clue on how to build a human body. Wind pipe in the wrong spot? Ok, where are you going to put it? And how do you know a relocation wouldn’t intefer with some other bodily function?
Atheists differ from scientists because atheists present their position as concrete conclusive proof. No, a perceived design flaw does not concretely disprove God. And even if the human body did not have your noted flaws, you would find some other way to criticize. WHy are bones allowed to break? Why can’t a decapitated head reattach? Why didn’t God give us 4 arms instead of two? It would be endless complaints with the insane judgements that atheists hurl in defiance to a living God.
Well, cetaceans have separated windpipes and esophagi, so the engineering can be done without messing up the dolphins to much.
AND, a “perceived design flaw does not concretely disprove God.” It does, however, cast great doubt on the literal interpretation of the Bible. That is not the same thing, and anyone who tells you so has a very weak faith.
What DrFidelius said, and scientists already have clues on how and why it could be better.
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/11/ask_a_scienceblogger_which_par.php
NO ONE is saying we could build a human body better. That is what I’m trying to tell you! What we are saying is, even though we cannot build a human body, we can recognize design flaws that an intelligent creator would have/should have fixed. Again, I can’t build a Pinto, but I know having the gas tank explode easily is bad design (Voyager’s joking aside).
Part of the reason we see this is simple intelligence, and part is by noticing that some animals that evolved along different paths don’t have our same flaws. All these things point to gradual evolution, NOT design by an intelligent creator. Whether humans can make another human life is a complete non-sequitur. It’s a strawman. It’s irrelevant to the discussion.
Ok, put another way. Science works by making an observation, and then a hypothesis based on that observation. Then you test the hypothesis. Okay? So, scientists observed that there are parts of our bodies (and ever other animal’s body) that could work better. The hypothesis for why this could be is that perhaps we evolved slowly, over many millions of years, adding complexity and changes as time went on, and unable to reverse course once certain evolutionary paths had been set. Meaning that if a creature had a blind spot when it’s eyes began evolving, everything that evolved from that creature would also have a blind spot. Or that whales, who evolved from land mammals, would retain vestigial hip bones from the legs they once had. And what do you know!? Upon testing this hypothesis against the fossil record, and the DNA record, and looking at modern day living things, it happens exactly as predicted!
Can you offer a testable hypothesis for intelligent design or creationism? If we were created by a loving intelligent deity, as you contend, what should we expect to see?
One thing people are saying is that we should expect to see really great design. I mean, we’re talking about an omnipotent designer here! And since, by your ideas, humans are the pinnacle of this design, we should have the best stuff of all! And yet, that isn’t how the world actually is. In fact, it’s the opposite of that. Can you offer an explanation for that?
No one is trying to disprove God. They are trying to understand how life arrived to this state on our planet. It has nothing to do with God at all, really, and the fact that a HUGE number of religious people, including scientists, accept the fact of evolution proves it.
Nobody said it did. They disprove your argument that the complexity of the human body requires a designer. That’s how this tangent came up in the first place.
How can we disprove God if a standard working definition of God isn’t given to us to disprove?
Fucking hell, can we stick to one subject in this thread?! Preferably the one in the OP??! How on earth does this have ANYTHING to do with evolution or creation?? All you do here is prove to people like GEEPERS that scientists actually have some desire to prove or disprove the existence of God, which, unless you are a fucking imbecile, you *KNOW *is crap. Are you trying to make this thread more contentious?
Sorry.
edited to add: I thought that whether or not a Designer even exists would have some bearing on the question.
It can’t be possible to detect design, but not detect poor design.
Otherwise, it’s like saying it’s possible to tell the difference between geese and ducks, but impossible to tell the difference between ducks and geese.
And of course, no sooner did I post my complaints about creationists coming up with strawman attacks and other logical fallacies that GEEPERS shows up and does just that several times.
Honestly, why even argue seriously with people like GEEPERS when they aren’t even going to address your logic, but just commit logical fallacy after logical fallacy. DEMAND that GEEPERS and others use reasonable arguments, and if they do, then go ahead and engage them. Otherwise, how is it even worth the effort?
I’m curious why the default alternate explanation keeps coming back to the JudeoChristian God, as opposed to any of the numerous other just-as-sound creation myths.
Because, to a Christian with blinders on, their story is not a myth and all the others are.
Typical atheist escape route. Just claim logical fallacy or straw man to create the illusion of winning the argument. Those sneaky atheists. I would love to just see once where an atheist agrees that a Christian has mad a good point. Not gonna happen.
Why didn’t God design us to be fireproof?
There are Christians in this very thread who have made good points. It’s you that haven’t made any good points.
Christians are wrong about their God, but they don’t have to be wrong about evolution.
Because he wanted hell to be painful. Checkmate, Atheists!
All the Christians in this thread who’ve said that your argument sucks?
Pretty much all of them have made good points. Do I win a pony?