Ex-AtheistMuslims.com - No biological man-made life yet – Science is decades behind..

[White Rose]

Our eyes are wonderful products of evolution, but surely an all powerful designer could have done much better. We only see a very small segment of the light spectrum, and we have blind spots.

And evidence for evolution keeps getting found, misleading scientists into concluding we evolved. Did God plant this just to confuse us? Is God a trickster God more in this for his own entertainment?

Evolution simply fits better as an explanation than does direct creation by Allah.

What do you mean by better? Is it in terms of what you want to see?

 

[Pygoscelis]

The 'creationist' need not make a case for creation, all they need to do is point out the flaws in the so-called 'scientific theory'

If no argument is made for creation, then can he really be called a "creationist"? He's just an anti-evolutionist who falls into God of the Gaps logic from there, failing to realize that disproving evolution doesn't prove creation.

I think it was not really that long ago when the broad concept of a flat earth was easy to understand and appeared to fit with the world people saw in many ways. I suppose that proved that the earth was flat, right?

It may have been a reasonable conclusion initially, if the evidence fit, before some thought and research was done. Then it would have been replaced with a better understanding as more evidence came in. Science works like that. Evolution is no exception. The Theory of Evolution is falsifiable. If we find enough evidence to falsify it then we will have to move on to better theories, with more evidence for them. And in doing so we should always admit that our knowledge is not perfect.

Kind of off topic, but interesting, is that it didn't take much to realize the world is round.

Are you familiar with the Greek God Atlas? Have you noticed he carries a sphere and not a disc?

The ancient Greeks knew the world isn't flat. So did medieval Europeans.

The pople who opposed Columbus's voyage did not do so because they thought the earth was flat, but because they thought Columbus had miscaluclated the size of the earth, and that it would actually take him a lot longer to get to India than he thought it would. And they were right. That is why Columbus thought he was in India when he was actually in the Caribbean.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Again, more stuffing less science by non-scientists who proclaim to have better understanding than those who're actually studied in the fields of genetics, molecular biology and medicine. Sobhan Allah!

How many of your experts who have studied genetics, molecular biology, and medicine, and who oppose evolution, are named Steve?

Look Here! http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve

If you really think truth is determined by votes of scientists, I think you lose.

Take some comfort in knowing that it isn't, and that your constant Ad Hominems never mean anything.

If you'd like to address the actual points made in my posts, feel free to do so.

 

[observer]

What do you mean by better? Is it in terms of what you want to see?

Well, it'd be nice not to have a big blind spot in your eye wouldn't it? That's not really very perfect "design" is it?

http://www.moillusions.com/2012/03/find-your-blind-spot-trick.html

 

[جوري]

If no argument is made for creation, then can he really be called a "creationist"? He's just an anti-evolutionist who falls into God of the Gaps logic from there, failing to realize that disproving evolution doesn't prove creation.

it is the default conclusion!

How many of your experts who have studied genetics, molecular biology, and medicine, and who oppose evolution, are named Steve?

Look Here! http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve

If you really think truth is determined by votes of scientists, I think you lose.

Take some comfort in knowing that it isn't, and that your constant Ad Hominems never mean anything.

If you'd like to address the actual points made in my posts, feel free to do so.

I have no idea what this rant is all about really? My previous posts were a direct response to the fusion/translocation claims.
I understand your desire to meander and bait.. I find that to be rampant amongst trolls but it doesn't aggrieve me. If you wish to discuss science please do so. If you've personal beef then simply report the alleged 'adhoms' to the mods, they can be the judge of that!

best,

 

[جوري]

Well, it'd be nice not to have a big blind spot in your eye wouldn't it? That's not really very perfect "design" is it?

http://www.moillusions.com/2012/03/find-your-blind-spot-trick.html

The best cameras don't compare to the eye and I won't get into details of that for brevity' sake, but I have not seen anyone make the claim that cameras aren't designed for running the gamut of imperfections.

Is that really an argument you wish to make?

 

[White Rose]

The best cameras don't compare to the eye and I won't get into details of that for brevity' sake, but I have not seen anyone make the claim that cameras aren't designed for running the gamut of imperfections.

Is that really an argument you wish to make?

You said it better than I could.

 

[observer]

The best cameras don't compare to the eye and I won't get into details of that for brevity' sake, but I have not seen anyone make the claim that cameras aren't designed for running the gamut of imperfections.

Is that really an argument you wish to make?

But no camera is claimed to have been designed by a perfect being. You claim the eye was. Why would a perfect being design something faulty?

 

[جوري]

But no camera is claimed to have been designed by a perfect being. You claim the eye was. Why would a perfect being design something faulty?

A perfect being can design whatever he deems fit, it isn't per your standards to define that perfection!

 

[observer]

A perfect being can design whatever he deems fit, it isn't per your standards to define that perfection!

Oh of course, absolutely; I agree that I can never guess what a god would design or why - just interesting that he'd design something so obviously flawed, no?

 

[جوري]

Oh of course, absolutely; I agree that I can never guess what a god would design or why - just interesting that he'd design something so obviously flawed, no?

As stated what you see as flawed others see as nothing short of a miracle. Yours isn't the compass by which we measure perfection or flaws!

best,

 

[observer]

Yes, I agree that it's horses for courses. Just interesting that something so obviously flawed would be designed by a perfect designer.

 

[جوري]

You keep peddling nonsense not sure why?
There's no room for a philosophical/ religious debate of why, if you don't meet on a common ground and there's no room to discuss science if you don't know how science works or how it is tied into philosophy at this stage. I don't like nonsense questions even if in rhetoric!

best,

 

[observer]

You keep peddling nonsense not sure why?
There's no room for a philosophical/ religious debate of why, if you don't meet on a common ground and there's no room to discuss science if you don't know how science works or how it is tied into philosophy at this stage. I don't like nonsense questions.

best,

Well, I'm not sure why it's nonsense.

Interesting that you've not suggested why a perfect designer would design something so obviously flawed. But I understand that if my religious, scientific and philosophical intelligence is beneath you that you may not want to furnish my nonsense with an answer. Fair enough.

 

[جوري]

Well, I'm not sure why it's nonsense.

Interesting that you've not suggested why a perfect designer would design something so obviously flawed. But I understand that if my religious, scientific and philosophical intelligence is beneath you that you may not want to furnish my nonsense with an answer. Fair enough.

In fact I have already summed up for you why and hate to repeat myself. There's no point arguing finite details of philosophy to someone who doesn't subscribe to it all together, and there's no point discussing terms of perfection when your baseline is also not in concert with what we know of science. If you're of the disposition of posing your own queries and answering for others as is the case with most atheists then by all means don't let me interrupt this soliloquy!

 

[observer]

In fact I have already summed up for you why and hate to repeat myself. There's no point arguing finite details of philosophy to someone who doesn't subscribe to it all together, and there's no point discussing terms of perfection when your baseline is also not in concert with what we know of science. If you're of the disposition of posing your own queries and answering for others as is the case with most atheists then by all means don't let me interrupt this soliloquy!

So no answers from you then?

Have I posed and answered questions for others? Not sure that I have... But hey, I'm just an idiot atheist so I probably don't understand.

 

[جوري]

Have I posed and answered questions for others? Not sure that I have.

Interesting that you've not suggested why a perfect designer would design something so obviously flawed

I understand that if my religious, scientific and philosophical intelligence is beneath you

I hate going around in circles- we should get back to the original topic not why God would create this or would create that!

best,

 

[observer]

Yes, let's.

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Independent;

I don't think bones present a specific challenge to evolution ahead of other issues.

I think bones present a massive challenge for evolution, three billion years ago cells just needed a chemical and biological advantage to survive, bones need to form shapes that aid movement. If for arguments sake the best biochemical shape for a bone is a ball; that might not be the best shape for movement.

The evolution of the bone structure is extremely unlikely to have occurred one by one, bone by bone.

I agree, they need to evolve with tendons, muscles, ligaments, a nervous system and a brain to direct movement. If they evolve two by two or three by three, I see more problems, because it just compounds the number of extras to make each bone a workable advantage. If a worm like creature evolves with a bone, it could make it less flexible than its boneless rivals, the bone could become a burden and slow it down, no heritable advantage.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Pygoscelis;

If we accept the presumption that life forms on earth were created in their present form by a designer, then we can reasonably conclude that the designer is either incompetent or malevolent.

It has been said that anyone who expresses an opinion about the nature of God, reveals more of their own nature, than they do about the nature of God.

We eat, breathe, and speak through the same hole, guaranteeing some of us will choke to death every year. Dolphins have separate holes for eating and breathing. Does God like dolphins more than humans? We have cross-wired brains where the left side of the brain controls the right side of our body and the left side controls the left. Our eyes are wonderful products of evolution, but surely an all powerful designer could have done much better. We only see a very small segment of the light spectrum, and we have blind spots.

You may have missed out another design fault, we die.

And evidence for evolution keeps getting found, leading scientists into concluding we evolved. Did God plant this just to confuse us? Is God a trickster God more in this for his own entertainment?

God gave us a clue in scriptures, he created every living creature according to its kind, scientists may not want to believe this, it is their choice.

Evolution simply fits better as an explanation than does direct creation by Allah.

I would have to disagree, evolution seems very flawed, and as Independent said, the maths don’t add up for evolution.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric