Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Dr Rick · 06-17-2003, 11:37 AM

Damn, you guys didn' even leave me any scraps...

Mageth · 06-17-2003, 11:49 AM

So far, this has been about as much of a debate as a pride of lions stalking, killing and devouring a zebra is a debate.

"Hold on there, Leo! Let's talk about this for a bit..."

RBH · 06-17-2003, 01:30 PM

simian wrote

Quote:

Ah, I see, so mammals and reptiles have different designers - their hearts have different numbers of chambers - of course, both are pulling for earlier designs - perhaps intelligent designers also reproduce and die.

And, of course, the designer of the squid eye and the mammalian eye were different designers - the squid ID seemed to be much better at the wiring process. You would think the mammal designer could go back and copy the squid design - but perhaps the community of intellegent designers have some sort of copyright infringement laws. (don't blame me, I am just trying to make sense of the reason a later design is worse than an earlier one)

Of course it's multiple designers, and Multiple Designers Theory (stealing liberally from Nic Tamzek's Invisible Tinkering Warrior Armies somewhere-on-II-but-search-is-disabled) accounts for it!

RBH

SimplyAtheistic · 06-17-2003, 02:41 PM

I love it when christians come in here and begin a creation debate, it is like they accidently press the "open" button to all the tiger cages right after they lock the exit door.
Jake

simian · 06-18-2003, 04:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by JakeJohnson
I love it when christians come in here and begin a creation debate, it is like they accidently press the "open" button to all the tiger cages right after they lock the exit door.
Jake

But when they saw the tiger from 3 blocks away, they see something smaller than a house cat. How were they to know that tigers grow so fast?

Simian

Goober · 06-18-2003, 05:32 AM

Quote:

Of course it's multiple designers, and Multiple Designers Theory (stealing liberally from Nic Tamzek's Invisible Tinkering Warrior Armies somewhere-on-II-but-search-is-disabled) accounts for it!

It should be called 'Creation by Committee'. That would explain all the screw ups and inefficiencies.

Also, Oolon you have the best name ever for any atheist. Unfortunately there is no prize, but congratulations anyway.:notworthy

"and more controversial than Oolon Colluphid's trilogy of philosophical blockbusters Where God Went Wrong, Some More of God's Greatest Mistakes and Who is this God Person Anyway?"

-Douglas Adams 'The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy'

Worldtraveller · 06-18-2003, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Now a prediction or two.

We�ll get a lot of waffle about how these are not poor designs, which we will refute.

Then there�ll be something about how we mere humans cannot discern god�s purpose. Which will totally undercut the claim for good designs too. So we�ll point that out.

Then, or possibly sooner, Disciple will vanish in a puff of logic, possibly complaining about how mean-spirited we all are, possibly threatening us with hell, or simply go silent, maybe to complain about us elsewhere.

Or... and this is what I would really like to happen... Disciple will start to investigate for him/herself, ask questions, wonder about all the lies he/she has been fed, and at some point Scigirl will point out that evolution has no bearing whatsoever on religion, only on literal interpretations of an old book.

Well, there�s the predictions. Now to test them.

TTFN, Oolon

Ooohhhh All that, and prophecy too!! :notworthy
Maybe Oolan is the second coming?? ewwww.....

Calzaer · 06-18-2003, 08:16 AM

*sniff* *sniff*

Is that a puff of logic I smell?

Oolon Colluphid · 06-18-2003, 08:42 AM

Worldtraveler, Deadbeat...

Much as I enjoy basking in your adulation...

< waits for some more... ah well

>

... I ought to point out that this is very much a team effort!

And as pz has noted in the other Disciple thread, it may be a bit early to write Disciple off. Personally, I�d like to see him actually, honestly question some of the info we�ve provided.

So, just to repeat, on the off-chance he sees this:

Disciple, please read this...

Evolution does not disprove god.

You can have all the gods you want. The EoG people might want to talk with you about it, but you can have these gods, provided they don�t interfere with nature... or if they do, that you can provide evidence of it.

You can even, if you like, have them guide evolution, and even have them light the blue touchpaper and set the first self-replicating molecules going. (Though there is no evidence for these ideas, and science says they are superfluous, there�s no reason scientifically why you can�t have them do these things, if it makes you happier.)

All evolution says is that an ancient book is no guide to biology. Well duh. Publishers are lucky if they get a ten-year shelf life out of a textbook. Why should something written a couple of thousand years ago stand a chance? Even if it was divinely inspired, how could god tell the people then, with their level of understanding, what really went on? Would he not be likely to say, �I did it, I was involved, and here�s a handy story to remember that by�?

Cheers, Oolon

Bubba · 06-18-2003, 10:47 AM

We need a new suboptimal design thread. There are just way to many more examples than the several hundred on Oolons list.

For instance, what about the flowers in my yard? Why do they keep putting energy into flowering after the flowers themselves have died? This seems to me to be like putting 25 gallons of gasolene into an 18 gallon gas tank.

Or what about the fact that plant breeders can improve upon natures design? Why can the intelligent designer do such a wonderful (actually, sloppy) job with the universe itself and be outdone by his creatures on this pale blue planet?

What about most of nature that seems utterly cruel and dependent upon predation?

Is the intelligent designer a Sadist?:banghead:

Suboptimal design ought to

convince even the staunchest creationist that evolution exists and is the best answer to where we came from.

In Darwin

Bubba

06-18-2003, 10:47 AM	#40
Bubba Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Orient, OH USA Posts: 1,501	Suboptimal Design We need a new suboptimal design thread. There are just way to many more examples than the several hundred on Oolons list. For instance, what about the flowers in my yard? Why do they keep putting energy into flowering after the flowers themselves have died? This seems to me to be like putting 25 gallons of gasolene into an 18 gallon gas tank. Or what about the fact that plant breeders can improve upon natures design? Why can the intelligent designer do such a wonderful (actually, sloppy) job with the universe itself and be outdone by his creatures on this pale blue planet? What about most of nature that seems utterly cruel and dependent upon predation? Is the intelligent designer a Sadist?:banghead: Suboptimal design ought to convince even the staunchest creationist that evolution exists and is the best answer to where we came from. In Darwin Bubba

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-17-2003, 11:37 AM	#31
Dr Rick Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: USA Posts: 5,393	Damn, you guys didn' even leave me any scraps...

06-17-2003, 11:49 AM	#32
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	So far, this has been about as much of a debate as a pride of lions stalking, killing and devouring a zebra is a debate. "Hold on there, Leo! Let's talk about this for a bit..."

06-17-2003, 02:41 PM	#34
SimplyAtheistic Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Omaha, Nebraska Posts: 503	I love it when christians come in here and begin a creation debate, it is like they accidently press the "open" button to all the tiger cages right after they lock the exit door. Jake

06-18-2003, 08:16 AM	#38
Calzaer Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Ohio Posts: 2,762	sniff sniff Is that a puff of logic I smell?

06-18-2003, 08:42 AM	#39
Oolon Colluphid Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Alibi: ego ipse hinc extermino Posts: 12,591	Worldtraveler, Deadbeat... Much as I enjoy basking in your adulation... < waits for some more... ah well > ... I ought to point out that this is very much a team effort! And as pz has noted in the other Disciple thread, it may be a bit early to write Disciple off. Personally, I�d like to see him actually, honestly question some of the info we�ve provided. So, just to repeat, on the off-chance he sees this: Disciple, please read this... Evolution does not disprove god. You can have all the gods you want. The EoG people might want to talk with you about it, but you can have these gods, provided they don�t interfere with nature... or if they do, that you can provide evidence of it. You can even, if you like, have them guide evolution, and even have them light the blue touchpaper and set the first self-replicating molecules going. (Though there is no evidence for these ideas, and science says they are superfluous, there�s no reason scientifically why you can�t have them do these things, if it makes you happier.) All evolution says is that an ancient book is no guide to biology. Well duh. Publishers are lucky if they get a ten-year shelf life out of a textbook. Why should something written a couple of thousand years ago stand a chance? Even if it was divinely inspired, how could god tell the people then, with their level of understanding, what really went on? Would he not be likely to say, �I did it, I was involved, and here�s a handy story to remember that by�? Cheers, Oolon

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.