Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Is there any better argument against intelligent design that the human mouth/teeth?

page: 25
21
<< 22  23  24    26  27 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 



It's funny how I have to explain the same concept a billion times, because you people are so closed-minded that you have a complete inability to understand very simple ideas, independent from whether you agree with them or not. All I get in return is red herring arguments. Your minds are too tainted with the idea that you are some sort of police that needs to shut down anyone who does not join your anti-"anything that's not 'science'"-club. Which is why, again, I will be leaving this thread, due to this not being a discussion, but an act of violence.

Not that you will understand what I mean with what I said above. All I'll get in return is me being a superstitious creationist that spouts nonsense blah blah, because that's the only thing your minds allow. I'm tired of playing defense all the time with the same retarded old arguments. Find someone else to bully. The inability to crawl out of your little box is quite sad. And spare me the comments about me being the same. I have gone beyond the current paradigm, while you're still in the old religion vs science battle that started in the beginning of the 19th century.

Actually, it's funny how people post the same old nonsense from the shelter of their close minded creationist viewpoint and wonder why they are challenged on those beliefs.

From the scientific viewpoint we can change as the evidence suggests change is required. Not only does science change, but science appreciates those that make those changes, people such as Newton, Darwin, Einstein, Copernicus, Galileo, Wallace and many more.




posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by vasaga
It's funny how I have to explain the same concept a billion times, because you people are so closed-minded that you have a complete inability to understand very simple ideas, independent from whether you agree with them or not. All I get in return is red herring arguments. Your minds are too tainted with the idea that you are some sort of police that needs to shut down anyone who does not join your anti-"anything that's not 'science'"-club. Which is why, again, I will be leaving this thread, due to this not being a discussion, but an act of violence.

Not that you will understand what I mean with what I said above. All I'll get in return is me being a superstitious creationist that spouts nonsense blah blah, because that's the only thing your minds allow. I'm tired of playing defense all the time with the same retarded old arguments. Find someone else to bully. The inability to crawl out of your little box is quite sad. And spare me the comments about me being the same. I have gone beyond the current paradigm, while you're still in the old religion vs science battle that started in the beginning of the 19th century.

Why do you get bent out of shape when people converse with you? If you don't want to discuss the topic, then don't respond. You talk to me about red herrings, when I broke down your post point by point, and your response ignored pretty much all of it. Debating is a hobby of mine. Don't get angry about it. Respond with facts and school me, if you can. I gave you examples of 'stupid' design. I got no response. You even asked me to point out a vestigial organ and said that you would justify it. You instead ignored it when I brought up the tailbone. I have not used any personal insults, yet here you are insulting my intelligence. I'm not the one that claimed the more advanced something is, the more mistakes are made. Just because you explain something, doesn't mean I have to agree with your explanation. You have made incorrect assumptions and when people point it out, you get angry about it. That's no way to have a conversation, and this certainly isn't the first time its happened. I know you can never resist poking at evolution or natural selection any chance you get, but don't dish it if you can't take it.
edit on 12-4-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2013 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


You think you replied to what I posted, but that's not the case. This describes exactly what you do:

The red herring is a seemingly plausible, though ultimately irrelevant diversionary tactic. The expression is mainly used to assert that the argument provided by an individual is not relevant to the issue being discussed. For example, "I think that we should make the academic requirements stricter for students. I recommend that you support this because we are in a budget crisis and we do not want our salaries affected." Here the second sentence, though used to support the first, does not address the topic of the first sentence, instead switching the focus to the quite different topic of lecturer salaries.
Source

Take the example of the airplane. You suddenly bring in flight time and a bunch of stuff that are completely irrelevant to the main point and the analogy is supposed to make. And all your replies are full of those, which means ultimately, almost nothing of what I meant was actually addressed which is why I often don't bother replying anymore. Maybe you do it unknowingly, due to your lack of understanding of my arguments or analogies, or due to a lack of understanding of logic, or maybe you do it on purpose, so you can beat around the bush rather than address the main issue. In either case, I'm tired of responding to things I didn't mean. Maybe that's why I suck at debating, because I don't use deceptive arguments just to appear right. Or maybe I just suck at explaining. Meh. And I apologize if I insulted you. It was not meant as an insult, but rather, as an explanation.


Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by vasaga
 



All I'll get in return is me being a superstitious creationist that spouts nonsense blah blah, because that's the only thing your minds allow.

Actually, it's funny how people post the same old nonsense from the shelter of their close minded creationist viewpoint and wonder why they are challenged on those beliefs.

So predictable...
edit on 12-4-2013 by vasaga because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2013 @ 12:29 PM
link   
You brought up the paper airplane, not me. That was your one liner response to my entire post, and you call my post a red herring? Your reply in itself was a distraction from my counter point that gave several specific examples showing how complexity does not necessarily always indicate that more mistakes are made, as per your claim. I showed that it can be relative to the situation. You failed to address these points, and essentially said "PAPER AIRPLANE! I WIN". If your claim is correct it will always be true, but that's not always the case. Disagree? Show me the evidence, or show me where my examples are wrong. Paper airplane is irrelevant.

I mentioned flight time because I was demonstrating the absurdity in comparing a piece of paper to a 747. A paper airplane is not an airplane. So your post about red herrings is actually a big red herring because again, it ignores the primary points I have made.

Not only is the paper airplane a red herring, it is also a non sequitur and a strawman. It was a distraction, it was irrelevant to most of my post, and it was a false definition of air plane set up to be easily swatted down. So that's 3 fallacies in a one. It's on the border of quote mining as well since the majority of that post was ignored.

edit on 13-4-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2013 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Wouldn't overall design flaw suggest more twords being a design of a bad creator, yet still intelligent? A shark, designed by nature has no trouble as they were formed by their surrounding and needs. Humans are clearly a botched/modified great ape. Yet we have been severely weakened physically.Smart enough to use a tool and complete work, weak enough not to fight back without tool use. Like a engineered slave class.



posted on Apr, 13 2013 @ 01:20 PM
link   
My comment is not based on religion and I often see good arguments on both sides. Weather correct or not intelligent design is interesting to ponder though.

That said, without using google I will ask some questions.

1) Do all humans have wisdom teeth?

I know i had four, two on top and two on bottom. For some reason I was happy to have them extracted. They were "impacted" but I have no memory that they bothered me.

2) If I had lost a tooth on each side would the wisdom teeth have had room to pierce through and be useful?

3) Looking at a few images i notice that wisdom teeth often (or is at always) push into the teeth in front.

In relation to number 3 - do wisdom teeth help to push the other teeth tightly together keeping the other teeth from spreading out and creating gaps?

Do wisdom teeth help keep teeth tight, helping us to eat, and straight? Whereas without them the other teeth would be more likely to become crooked etc.
edit on 13-4-2013 by Malcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2013 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs
You brought up the paper airplane, not me. That was your one liner response to my entire post, and you call my post a red herring? Your reply in itself was a distraction from my counter point that gave several specific examples showing how complexity does not necessarily always indicate that more mistakes are made, as per your claim. I showed that it can be relative to the situation. You failed to address these points, and essentially said "PAPER AIRPLANE! I WIN". If your claim is correct it will always be true, but that's not always the case. Disagree? Show me the evidence, or show me where my examples are wrong. Paper airplane is irrelevant.

I mentioned flight time because I was demonstrating the absurdity in comparing a piece of paper to a 747. A paper airplane is not an airplane. So your post about red herrings is actually a big red herring because again, it ignores the primary points I have made.

Not only is the paper airplane a red herring, it is also a non sequitur and a strawman. It was a distraction, it was irrelevant to most of my post, and it was a false definition of air plane set up to be easily swatted down. So that's 3 fallacies in a one. It's on the border of quote mining as well since the majority of that post was ignored.

edit on 13-4-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)
Your primary points you made are irrelevant. I was obviously talking about objects, and you suddenly started talking about medicine, which is about methods, hence the red herring, hence me ignoring the rest of your irrelevant babble.



posted on Apr, 13 2013 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 



Your primary points you made are irrelevant. I was obviously talking about objects, and you suddenly started talking about medicine, which is about methods, hence the red herring, hence me ignoring the rest of your irrelevant babble.

So predictable...



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by vasaga
Your primary points you made are irrelevant. I was obviously talking about objects, and you suddenly started talking about medicine, which is about methods, hence the red herring, hence me ignoring the rest of your irrelevant babble.


You have made an art out of selectively responding to posts. I'll rehash the same point AGAIN, that has been already said and you have ignored.

This extremely simple point debunks your premise. Let's take 2 "objects". We have 1940s style WW2 plane and a modern day bomber. The modern day bomber would be more advanced correct? Now we will take 2 cultures. One culture is ten thousand years more advanced than we are today. The other culture is 19th century America. Now we will have both cultures assemble both objects. Wouldn't the more advanced culture make less mistakes, than the 19th century culture, regardless of the complexity of the object? If the older culture assembles the WW2 plane and the advanced culture assembles the bomber, there's a very good chance that the advanced culture makes less mistakes on the bomber than the older makes on the WW2 plane. Unless you are claiming this is not possible, your statement is debunked as complexity does not always lead to more mistakes. It depends on WHO is assembling. I'd expect any entity capable of creating life to be a lot more advanced than us, and it should show in their design... but it doesn't. You see descent with slight modification from one species to another.
edit on 17-4-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2013 @ 04:58 AM
link   
If that's the best argument you have against intelligent design, then my world view is not in jeopardy. I don't understand how wisdom teeth lead you to the conclusion of an accidental universe. Because I believe in the Christian God, a personal God who I will eternally worship in Heaven after this life, I really don't have a problem with entropy.

On a bigger note, billions of people have a fully functional mouth. They take in food through it, and start the digestive process with chewing and saliva. The teeth grind and tear their food for them. It's pretty ingenious if you ask me.

I have to wonder if you're critically thinking, or just have a problem with a designer in general.



posted on Apr, 18 2013 @ 05:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by vasaga
 


You say that people are incapable of manufacturing things like the brain. That is true today.

What about the heart. A mathematical proof has been worked out showing that the heart has a major fault in it that allows things like young healthy athletes to die of heart attacks. Humans as you point out can't make a brain, yet they are smart enough not to design a heart with a built in defect. Wow.

If the heart is designed as some people would claim, it seems that at least in one instance the designer was not as smart as people.

Then again I don't subscribe to the designer faith. I just see the heart defect as the sort of thing that happens when evolution is involved. Defects happen.
The fall of man. Adam ate the apple.



posted on Apr, 18 2013 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by addygrace
 



The fall of man. Adam ate the apple.

Would you care to explain what this has to do with man being able to prove mathematically that there is a flaw in the human heart? It seems that man can prove that the heart contains a fatal flaw.

Are you suggesting that eating the apple made people smarter than this supposed designer?
Are you suggesting that eating the apple introduced this flaw?

Either way makes the designer notion look pretty bad doesn't it?



posted on Apr, 18 2013 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by addygrace
 



The fall of man. Adam ate the apple.

Would you care to explain what this has to do with man being able to prove mathematically that there is a flaw in the human heart? It seems that man can prove that the heart contains a fatal flaw.

Are you suggesting that eating the apple made people smarter than this supposed designer?
Are you suggesting that eating the apple introduced this flaw?

Either way makes the designer notion look pretty bad doesn't it?
First, I challenge your idea of a mathematical fatal flaw in the heart.

As to what I was refering to about the fall of man; it explains decay, and why this existence is governed by entropy.

Let's pretend however, there is this mathematical fatal flaw in the human heart. How does this damage the idea of a designer? The fact that we are on a computer talking about our "designer", and bringing up concepts of mathematics and how this pertains to the human heart, allows me to fully embrace intelligent design. In my mind it's easy to look around and see what a grand design our existence is.



posted on Apr, 18 2013 @ 10:57 PM
link   
I have to laugh every time someone hasn't a clue what they are talking about. How about you ID people show us some of this vaunted scientific research that is being done in the name of ID. The ID argument boils down to...God did it. And that is not an answer, even if the Bible were all true and god actually exists. It still doesn't answer the "how" and that is the important part.
There is no getting around this fact, which will forever leave ID irrelevant to any question about nature.



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by flyingfish
I have to laugh every time someone hasn't a clue what they are talking about. How about you ID people show us some of this vaunted scientific research that is being done in the name of ID. The ID argument boils down to...God did it. And that is not an answer, even if the Bible were all true and god actually exists. It still doesn't answer the "how" and that is the important part.
There is no getting around this fact, which will forever leave ID irrelevant to any question about nature.

Science is being done all of the time by scientists who believe in God. Science is being done all of the time by scientists who don't believe in God.
Research done in the name of ID? How about trying to create life in a lab? I'm sure the scientists aren't just sitting there waiting for abiogenesis to happen right in front of their eyes. These scientists aren't just sitting there invoking God. "Oh, God did it!! All of my scientific thirst has been quenched!!"

"God did it", is not being put forth as an idea of how, but who. Believing all scientist's who believe in God are using "God of the gaps", is silly.



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by addygrace
 



First, I challenge your idea of a mathematical fatal flaw in the heart.

It was published in the early 1980s. I'll look for the article.


As to what I was refering to about the fall of man; it explains decay, and why this existence is governed by entropy.

Let's pretend however, there is this mathematical fatal flaw in the human heart. How does this damage the idea of a designer? The fact that we are on a computer talking about our "designer", and bringing up concepts of mathematics and how this pertains to the human heart, allows me to fully embrace intelligent design. In my mind it's easy to look around and see what a grand design our existence is.

Entropy deals with closed systems, not open systems such as living organisms.

For arguments sake let me suppose that a "designer" exists. The "designer" has designed a heart with a flaw so simple that even humans recognize the design flaw. Is it too far fetched to claim that humans are smarter than this "designer"? I don't think so.



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 09:17 AM
link   
The source is:

Sudden Cardiac Death: A Problem in Topology

Arthur T. Winfree

Scientific American 248, 144-161 (May 1983) doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0583-144

About the author
www.siam.org...

There are discussions in there about his math and cardiac issues.



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Monger
 

Absolutely - the Human spine, the Human Heart, the Human Digestive tract, The Human Immune system, The Human Brain, the Human Foot, the Human Small Fingernail on each hand, I could go on, but I think you get where I'm going. These are all fragile, poorly designed systems that have high failure rates versus low usage hours. As a design experiment, total failures. But when taken as a whole, with it's ability for self repair, or adaptation, or the pressures of natural selection, it is a magnificent machine, that pretty much is where it is at right now because of things like, radiation, starvation, predation, self-extermination. Without the ability to evolve and cope, there would be no Human race and no need for ANYTHING Divine. Of course. making intelligent mobile learning machines with an inherent thirst for knowledge and conquest, I'd say the original draftsman decided to 'work' outside the box when coding our DNA. Now with the advent of the Human race on the verge of downloading human consciousness into custom made machines, we will have what we need to master our galaxy and perhaps this Universe. Go forth an multiply, yeah it's like that. The Great Geometer shows it's Divine Hand once more. That isn't 'intelligence', that's majesty!



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by vasaga
Your primary points you made are irrelevant. I was obviously talking about objects, and you suddenly started talking about medicine, which is about methods, hence the red herring, hence me ignoring the rest of your irrelevant babble.


You have made an art out of selectively responding to posts. I'll rehash the same point AGAIN, that has been already said and you have ignored.

This extremely simple point debunks your premise. Let's take 2 "objects". We have 1940s style WW2 plane and a modern day bomber. The modern day bomber would be more advanced correct? Now we will take 2 cultures. One culture is ten thousand years more advanced than we are today. The other culture is 19th century America. Now we will have both cultures assemble both objects. Wouldn't the more advanced culture make less mistakes, than the 19th century culture, regardless of the complexity of the object? If the older culture assembles the WW2 plane and the advanced culture assembles the bomber, there's a very good chance that the advanced culture makes less mistakes on the bomber than the older makes on the WW2 plane.
You're still misrepresenting my point. What you're doing is focusing on the culture's abilities, not on the mistakes. Both cultures will highly likely make more mistakes on the modern bomber than the 1940s plane, even if the advanced culture makes less on the modern one, that the 19th century one makes on the WW2 one, it still does not remove the fact that more mistakes will be made when an object is more advanced.



Originally posted by Barcs
Unless you are claiming this is not possible, your statement is debunked as complexity does not always lead to more mistakes.
You didn't debunk squat.


Originally posted by Barcs
It depends on WHO is assembling. I'd expect any entity capable of creating life to be a lot more advanced than us, and it should show in their design... but it doesn't. You see descent with slight modification from one species to another.
Going back to the example of airplanes, just because the 19th century culture is able to tell that a modern day bomber is more advanced than a WW2 bomber, it doesn't mean that the WW2 place was not created by intelligence. And that's the equivalent of the arguments presented in this thread.


Originally posted by flyingfish
The ID argument boils down to...God did it. And that is not an answer, even if the Bible were all true and god actually exists. It still doesn't answer the "how" and that is the important part.
There is no getting around this fact, which will forever leave ID irrelevant to any question about nature.
That is pure bullsh1t. This is the exact reason why I often just shut up and let you people ramble on. Just because religious people are pushing ID, doesn't mean that ID only goes into the direction of an Abrahamic God. There are multiple possibilities and I've said them a thousand times. It implies intelligence while leaving the nature of the intelligence untouched. Want a few non-God examples?

There is the idea that the universe itself contains intelligence in some shape or form and/or is alive in and of itself, and we are part of it. As a proper example, say your body is the universe. The anaerobic bacteria in your gut are us. The bacteria would not be aware of our bodies being alive, just like we would be clueless if the universe is alive. And the universe appears hostile to us, just like oxygen appears hostile to the bacteria. This perspective comes from the idea of fractals. Essentially, we are fractals of the universe. Acknowledging this would give us a better understanding regarding our connection to nature.

Another alternative is the idea of the biocentric universe. It's the idea that life creates the universe, rather than the other way around. I know you're wtf-ing right now... Rather than trying to explain it to you, I'll just give you a few links below. Essentially, it arrives from the combination of multiple concepts and fundamental problems in modern science, including the idea that the universe is a hologram.

www.biocentricity.net...
Robert Lanza - What are space and time?

What both alternatives do, is add consciousness in the mix. That's the only way forward. Nowadays people love to dismiss it as some deterministic chemical process, but it's not working out. I obviously don't know which is right or isn't right, but, that's why we should have the right to question. If we stay in the evolution vs creationism paradigm, we'll keep going in circles forever. And people defend evolution like it's the gospel that's gonna solve all of our problems, which it obviously won't, since Darwinist thinking is causing a lot of problems already.
edit on 19-4-2013 by vasaga because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 11:47 PM
link   
Isn't it healthier to eat raw things, with the exception of meat? Funny, fire is not mentioned in the Eden story. Eating raw and being naked was the norm in Genesis. Sounds like a blast to me.






top topics



 
21
<< 22  23  24    26  27 >>

log in

join