Every theist claims that their god/s are the creator. They all claim that the universe is evidence for this god. Please show me that your god is this creator and no other is. As for pretty ducks, do you also consider things like bot flies that insert their eggs into children’s eyes evidence for your god too?
When you buy a computer or a painting, you assume it was made by someone, right? You don’t say “well since there is no evidence for who the Creator was, I’m going to assume that this computer/painting was created by blind chance.”
By the way, do you know why zebras have stripes? A growing body of evidence suggests that the stripes help protect the zebras from flies. It turns out the flies get confused by the striped pattern due to the way their eyes work. The question is how did this adaptation “evolve” by “chance”? Somehow, the zebras just happened to evolve a trait that causes fly eyes to go haywire?
When you have books from late antiquity you assume it was written by human beings, right? When you find in them tales and legends from that time and area, you do not assume it is somehow “uncreated” word of God, right?
A painting, or a computer was made by a person. I have plenty of evidence of that. Now, where is the evidence that *your* god is the creator? Why isn’t it Vishnu or Nanabozho or the Wiccan Goddess or the demiurge?
The universe isn’t a painting or a computer, so your analogy fails. The evidence we have is that only the laws of physics are needed to create the universe, and they can be as “eternal” as your god.
Zebras have stripes and yep, it does seem that they make flies not bite them as much. It’s a shame that you know nothing about evolutionary theory but think you can attack it.
Zebras likely evolved to have stripes from a genetic change on the genes that control color patterns, and those stripes may have been initially neutral evolutionarily speaking, and were likely only on parts of the body. A fair number of other animals have stripes too, okapi, tigers, etc.
These stripes just happened to bother flies. Those animals with the stripes were not as bothered by flies and the parasites and diseases they carry so they lived to breed more than the less stripy proto-zebras. This continued on since the environment, with flies, was a pressure to select for stripes.
You assume that somehow evolution and the zebras have to “know” that the stripes would bother the flies, but that is not the case at all. Evolutionary theory is based on trial and error, dependent on how genes and the attributes they cause to arise interact with the environment.
Before you attack something and try to claim it is wrong, learn about it.
“When you have books from late antiquity you assume it was written by human beings, right? When you find in them tales and legends from that time and area, you do not assume it is somehow “uncreated” word of God, right?”
LOL, another deflection.
If you want to talk about whether the Quran is the word of God, that is a different topic, stupid. We are talking about evidence of design in nature. You think it’s all just an illusion. I am asking why we should think biological complexity could just evolve by chance rather than being designed by an intelligent source (whatever that source is). I gave the example of zebra stripes. How do the zebra genes know that striped patterns will confuse biting flies? Sounds like design, doesn’t it? Oh but no. You idiots would have us believe that it’s all just a cosmic accident. Somehow, by chance, zebras evolved stripes to confuse flies, through trial and error? The chances of that happening are mathematically impossible, just like even functional protein evolving by chance is mathematically impossible. And then multiply that by 500,000 proteins, and you enter into absurd levels of improbability.
LOL, Freud thinks I don’t know about evolutionary theory! That’s your first incorrect assumption. Maybe stop pretending you always know better than anyone else. That should be your starting point, so you don’t come off as arrogant.
Second, you presented no evidence for most of your rambling. I see words like “likely”, and “may have been” but no evidence. Hmmm, assumptions much?
Also Freud, the analogy using paintings or computers was to refute your deflection about the botfly. When confronted with design arguments, atheists usually respond by trying to find flaws in the design. Thus, they make a theological argument (“why would an intelligent designer allow pain, suffering…”) My point was that if you had a computer that has some design flaw, you would not assume that it somehow proves that the computer was constructed by blind chance. So whatever “flaws” you might see, or if the design doesn’t meet your standards, it does not automatically prove that it must be the result of blind chance.
Pavlov, Mr. superstupid, the question is if your “reasoning” is consistent. You see if one applies your principles to your religious propaganda it all breaks down.
And, once again, the jump from intelligent design in nature to your idiotic brand of monotheism is a non sequitur.
Hey doorknob, Mr. Moron, you still haven’t refuted the reasoning. You just committed a red herring.
If you want to discuss my religion, that is a different topic. It does not contribute to a general discussion about intelligent design. Think of it this way. Islam, or theism in general, is point c. You are at point a. But you have stopped there because of your trust in blind chance. I am showing you point b. Before you get to point c, you need to move to point b. Get it?
Intelligent design theory, while it does not attempt to identify the designer, has obvious implications for theism. But before we get there, we need to accept that design is detectable in nature. That is what this topic is about. Get it Mr. moron? By the way, how about those neanderthals, huh? 😉
Evidence that your belief is true? You all claim that your god wants what you want, inventing your god in your own image. You disagree on what this god wants, how it works and how it saves people.
What you believe is quite clear to me, I used to believe it too. What bemuses me is that each theist wants to claim that they worship the “right” god and have no more evidence for that than the next person, whom they’ll claim as wrong.
And again, how do bot flies laying their eggs in human eyes go with your god and your attempts to claim that the universe is evidence for it?
I’m asking you to support your claim. Can you? If you cannot, then there is no reason to believe in the claims of theists when they cannot show that their claims are true.
@clubschadenfreude
I love when atheists say things like “Evolution theory based on trial and error”, it shows they don’t have a leg to stand on. Lets take it a step back prebiotics, origin of life. Very informative video, inshallah. https://youtu.be/r4sP1E1Jd_Y
Actually it’s very profound because it indicates to the concept of Causality.
In contrast, Hawking said in his book ( The Grand Design ) pp. 144, ” Because there is a law of gravity, The universe can and it will create itself from nothing ”! This’s what I call the most ridiculous argument.
Every theist claims that their god/s are the creator. They all claim that the universe is evidence for this god. Please show me that your god is this creator and no other is. As for pretty ducks, do you also consider things like bot flies that insert their eggs into children’s eyes evidence for your god too?
Why do atheists always deflect?
When you buy a computer or a painting, you assume it was made by someone, right? You don’t say “well since there is no evidence for who the Creator was, I’m going to assume that this computer/painting was created by blind chance.”
By the way, do you know why zebras have stripes? A growing body of evidence suggests that the stripes help protect the zebras from flies. It turns out the flies get confused by the striped pattern due to the way their eyes work. The question is how did this adaptation “evolve” by “chance”? Somehow, the zebras just happened to evolve a trait that causes fly eyes to go haywire?
When you have books from late antiquity you assume it was written by human beings, right? When you find in them tales and legends from that time and area, you do not assume it is somehow “uncreated” word of God, right?
deflect? where have I deflected?
A painting, or a computer was made by a person. I have plenty of evidence of that. Now, where is the evidence that *your* god is the creator? Why isn’t it Vishnu or Nanabozho or the Wiccan Goddess or the demiurge?
The universe isn’t a painting or a computer, so your analogy fails. The evidence we have is that only the laws of physics are needed to create the universe, and they can be as “eternal” as your god.
Zebras have stripes and yep, it does seem that they make flies not bite them as much. It’s a shame that you know nothing about evolutionary theory but think you can attack it.
Zebras likely evolved to have stripes from a genetic change on the genes that control color patterns, and those stripes may have been initially neutral evolutionarily speaking, and were likely only on parts of the body. A fair number of other animals have stripes too, okapi, tigers, etc.
These stripes just happened to bother flies. Those animals with the stripes were not as bothered by flies and the parasites and diseases they carry so they lived to breed more than the less stripy proto-zebras. This continued on since the environment, with flies, was a pressure to select for stripes.
You assume that somehow evolution and the zebras have to “know” that the stripes would bother the flies, but that is not the case at all. Evolutionary theory is based on trial and error, dependent on how genes and the attributes they cause to arise interact with the environment.
Before you attack something and try to claim it is wrong, learn about it.
“When you have books from late antiquity you assume it was written by human beings, right? When you find in them tales and legends from that time and area, you do not assume it is somehow “uncreated” word of God, right?”
LOL, another deflection.
If you want to talk about whether the Quran is the word of God, that is a different topic, stupid. We are talking about evidence of design in nature. You think it’s all just an illusion. I am asking why we should think biological complexity could just evolve by chance rather than being designed by an intelligent source (whatever that source is). I gave the example of zebra stripes. How do the zebra genes know that striped patterns will confuse biting flies? Sounds like design, doesn’t it? Oh but no. You idiots would have us believe that it’s all just a cosmic accident. Somehow, by chance, zebras evolved stripes to confuse flies, through trial and error? The chances of that happening are mathematically impossible, just like even functional protein evolving by chance is mathematically impossible. And then multiply that by 500,000 proteins, and you enter into absurd levels of improbability.
LOL, Freud thinks I don’t know about evolutionary theory! That’s your first incorrect assumption. Maybe stop pretending you always know better than anyone else. That should be your starting point, so you don’t come off as arrogant.
Second, you presented no evidence for most of your rambling. I see words like “likely”, and “may have been” but no evidence. Hmmm, assumptions much?
Also Freud, the analogy using paintings or computers was to refute your deflection about the botfly. When confronted with design arguments, atheists usually respond by trying to find flaws in the design. Thus, they make a theological argument (“why would an intelligent designer allow pain, suffering…”) My point was that if you had a computer that has some design flaw, you would not assume that it somehow proves that the computer was constructed by blind chance. So whatever “flaws” you might see, or if the design doesn’t meet your standards, it does not automatically prove that it must be the result of blind chance.
Pavlov, Mr. superstupid, the question is if your “reasoning” is consistent. You see if one applies your principles to your religious propaganda it all breaks down.
And, once again, the jump from intelligent design in nature to your idiotic brand of monotheism is a non sequitur.
Hey doorknob, Mr. Moron, you still haven’t refuted the reasoning. You just committed a red herring.
If you want to discuss my religion, that is a different topic. It does not contribute to a general discussion about intelligent design. Think of it this way. Islam, or theism in general, is point c. You are at point a. But you have stopped there because of your trust in blind chance. I am showing you point b. Before you get to point c, you need to move to point b. Get it?
Intelligent design theory, while it does not attempt to identify the designer, has obvious implications for theism. But before we get there, we need to accept that design is detectable in nature. That is what this topic is about. Get it Mr. moron? By the way, how about those neanderthals, huh? 😉
We believe in A creator, in a single God, who is the lord of the worlds and all that is in between, what’s so unclear to you?
Evidence that your belief is true? You all claim that your god wants what you want, inventing your god in your own image. You disagree on what this god wants, how it works and how it saves people.
What you believe is quite clear to me, I used to believe it too. What bemuses me is that each theist wants to claim that they worship the “right” god and have no more evidence for that than the next person, whom they’ll claim as wrong.
And again, how do bot flies laying their eggs in human eyes go with your god and your attempts to claim that the universe is evidence for it?
Why does it matter to you if my God is the creator?
I’m asking you to support your claim. Can you? If you cannot, then there is no reason to believe in the claims of theists when they cannot show that their claims are true.
Support my claim?
Sure.
The utter failure of Atheists to support their position is my evidence.
@clubschadenfreude
I love when atheists say things like “Evolution theory based on trial and error”, it shows they don’t have a leg to stand on. Lets take it a step back prebiotics, origin of life. Very informative video, inshallah.
https://youtu.be/r4sP1E1Jd_Y
What type of bird is this? The bird species?
its a duck
Specifically, a mandarin duck.
Specifically, a transgender duck.
Well, if that’s what it “identifies” as…
Instead your post, not when are you going to answer: why you are not an atheist; a photo of a duck is not answer is it?
This is the most ridiculous argument for god. Sandcastles anyone?
Actually it’s very profound because it indicates to the concept of Causality.
In contrast, Hawking said in his book ( The Grand Design ) pp. 144, ” Because there is a law of gravity, The universe can and it will create itself from nothing ”! This’s what I call the most ridiculous argument.
@ QB
He says: “Before you attack something and try to claim it is wrong, learn about it.”
Doesn’t know you have a Mater’s in Biology
https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/about-the-blog/
And have a blog dedicated to the subject:
http://themicroscopicworld.blogspot.com/
Hey, what do you think Freude’s credentials are?