15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

[alang1216]

The laws of nature are statements about the universe, they have no meaning if there is no universe. Also 1 + 1 = 2 is only true with a specific definition for the symbols, as the definition might vary so might the validity of the statement.

Language may change but the concept holds true even if there is nothing to add. The fact that mass affects space is probably true regardless of the existence of either.

 

[alang1216]

I was always impressed by the incredible complexity produced by nature. Not sure how anyone could believe they could do it better.

Nature is certainly complex but that is not necessarily a good thing. If you were to design an eye from scratch I doubt you design one that is inside out as ours are. Now, the eyes of an octopus, that is a much better design than ours.

 

[ding]

Nature is certainly complex but that is not necessarily a good thing. If you were to design an eye from scratch I doubt you design one that is inside out as ours are. Now, the eyes of an octopus, that is a much better design than ours.

I imagine they are fit for purpose. The eye (i.e. sight) is one of the things I find most incredible.

 

[alang1216]

I imagine they are fit for purpose. The eye (i.e. sight) is one of the things I find most incredible.

They obviously do work but no intelligence would have designed our eyes as they are. The octopus has a much better design why not go with that for us too? Answer: our eyes evolved.

 

[ding]

They obviously do work but no intelligence would have designed our eyes as they are. The octopus has a much better design why not go with that for us too? Answer: our eyes evolved.

Again... fit for purpose. I would be a better fighter if I had titanium arms and pneumatic thrusters. Clearly since I don't there can be no God.

 

[alang1216]

Again... fit for purpose. I would be a better fighter if I had titanium arms and pneumatic thrusters. Clearly since I don't there can be no God.

You're obviously not designed to be a fighter and God doesn't believe in the KISS principle of design. How many people have eye problems like blindness, need glasses, cataracts, detached retinas, glaucoma, etc. Poor design is poor design.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

They obviously do work but no intelligence would have designed our eyes as they are.

How did you establish that? is this provable?

The octopus has a much better design why not go with that for us too? Answer: our eyes evolved.

How do you define "better"?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

You're obviously not designed to be a fighter and God doesn't believe in the KISS principle of design. How many people have eye problems like blindness, need glasses, cataracts, detached retinas, glaucoma, etc. Poor design is poor design.

Unless you know the goals and target specifications there is no way to assess the efficacity of any design.

 

[alang1216]

How did you establish that? is this provable?

How do you define "better"?

Have you looked at the design of our eyes vs the design of other eyes? If you did, you wouldn't have to ask. Do some homework and see if you can answer your own questions.

 

[alang1216]

Unless you know the goals and target specifications there is no way to assess the efficacity of any design.

I think the goal of having an eye is pretty obvious, to see adequately in whatever environment they are in. The universal 'target specifications' are robustness and maintainability. Our eyes meet their goal but they lack robustness and maintainability. Poor design I'm afraid. There are many such examples that are best explained by evolution rather than design.

 

[ding]

You're obviously not designed to be a fighter and God doesn't believe in the KISS principle of design. How many people have eye problems like blindness, need glasses, cataracts, detached retinas, glaucoma, etc. Poor design is poor design.

It's amazing how on one hand you credit nature for its amazing complexity and on the other hand you argue God is a poor designer. So according to your standards all designs should last forever without any drop off in performance? Or you consider it a poor design and your proof God does not exist. Brilliant.

You are like a guy who set up a particle test and concludes photons can't be waves. And you can't even see it.

 

[alang1216]

It's amazing how on one hand you credit nature for its amazing complexity and on the other hand you argue God is a poor designer.

Is complexity a good thing? EVs will eventually replace ICEs if only because they will be simpler to build and maintain.

So according to your standards all designs should last forever without any drop off in performance? Or you consider it a poor design and your proof God does not exist. Brilliant.

There are good eye designs and bad eye designs. Why give an octopus a good design and give us a bad one.

 

[ding]

Is complexity a good thing? EVs will eventually replace ICEs if only because they will be simpler to build and maintain.


There are good eye designs and bad eye designs. Why give an octopus a good design and give us a bad one.

Increasing complexity is a natural thing. You do know I'm ok with you looking for reasons not to believe in a Creator, right?

 

[alang1216]

Increasing complexity is a natural thing. You do know I'm ok with you looking for reasons not to believe in a Creator, right?

So is decreasing complexity so that is not a great argument. As I've said before, I'm agnostic on the existence of a Creator, so I neither believe nor disbelieve. I'm waiting for more evidence. As for the God of the Bible, I went looking for reasons to believe but came up empty.

 

[ding]

So is decreasing complexity so that is not a great argument. As I've said before, I'm agnostic on the existence of a Creator, so I neither believe nor disbelieve. I'm waiting for more evidence. As for the God of the Bible, I went looking for reasons to believe but came up empty.

You have a personal vendetta against the God of Abraham. That's funny. I'm not sure you could be described as an agnostic with such certainty of beliefs as that. Maybe research what an agnostic is.

 

[alang1216]

You have a personal vendetta against the God of Abraham. That's funny.

Untrue. It is lies and deceptions I have a personal vendetta against.

I'm not sure you could be described as an agnostic with such certainty of beliefs as that. Maybe research what an agnostic is.

No, I know what I am.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I think the goal of having an eye is pretty obvious, to see adequately in whatever environment they are in. The universal 'target specifications' are robustness and maintainability. Our eyes meet their goal but they lack robustness and maintainability. Poor design I'm afraid. There are many such examples that are best explained by evolution rather than design.

So this is the old "evolution of the gaps" that because of a perceived design shortcoming we can conclude something wasn't designed.

I guarantee you, choose the most "well designed" thing you can and I'll show that it wasn't really designed by showing you shortcomings, go on, choose something, anything you want.

Design (if you ever did any) always, always, always involves making compromises.

 

[scruffy]

Unless you know the goals and target specifications there is no way to assess the efficacity of any design.

Sure there is.

MTBF.

 

[scruffy]

Design (if you ever did any) always, always, always involves making compromises.

So God had to make compromises ? ???

 

[ding]

Untrue. It is lies and deceptions I have a personal vendetta against.


No, I know what I am.

Horseshit