“Billions of years ago, a big bang produced a large rock. As the rock cooled, sweet brown liquid formed on it’s surface. As time passed, aluminum formed itself into a can, a lid, and a tab. Millions of years later, red and white paint fell from the sky and formed itself into the words “Coca Cola… 12 fluid ounces.”
Of course my theory is an insult to your intellect, because you know that if the Coca Cola can is made, there must be a maker. If it is designed, there must be a designer. The alternative, that it happened by chance or accident is to move from the intellectual free zone.
Here is another:
“The Banana: The Atheist Nightmare”
Note that the banana…
1. is shaped for the human hand.
2. has a non-slip surface.
3. Has outward indicators of it’s inward contents. Green – too early, yellow – just right, black – too late.
4. Has a tab for removal of it’s wrapper.
5. Is perforated on wrapper.
6. Has a bio-degradable wrapper.
7. Is shaped for the human mouth.
8. Has a point at the top for ease of entry.
9. Is pleasing to the taste buds.
10. Is curved towards the face to make the eating process easy.
To write that the banana happened by accident is even more unintelligent than to write that no one designed the Coca Cola can.
Test 1.
The person who thinks the Coca Cola can has no designer is:
A. Intelligent
B. A fool
C. Has an ulterior motive for denying the obvious
Now the document that I am referring from states that the eye has 40,000,000 nerve endings and focuses it’s muscles approximately 100,000 times a day. and that the eye has a retina that contains approximately 137,000,000 light sensitive cells.
The document continues and states that Charles Darwin stated:
“To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree” Agreed… it does not have the reference recorded so I do not know if this statement is true or false. But let me get to the point at hand.
If man can not create the human eye then how can anyone in their right mind believe that it was created by chance? In fact… man can’t create anything from nothing… we just do not know how to do it. We can re-create, reform, develop… but we can not create one grain of sand from nothing. Yet the human eye… is a mere tiny part of the most sophisticated part of creation – the human body.
Again… another statement which I would have to research and verify if this person actually made this comment:
“George Gallup; “If I could prove God statistically; take the human body alone; the chance that all the functions of the individual would just happen, is a statistical monstrosity.”
Now this statement concerning Albert Einstein. This is confusing… why would this man contradict himself? If he stated this… then every other statement that has been quoted at this forum is invalid because the man appears to be speaking from both sides of his mouth. In this statement Einstein is quoted to have said:
“Everyone who is seriously interested in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe – a spirit vastly superior to man, and one in the face of our modest powers must feel humble.”
Test 2:
1. Do you know any building that did not have a builder? Yes? No?
2. Do you know any painting that did not have a painter? Yes? No?
3. Do you know any car that did not have a maker? Yes? No?
If you answered “Yes” to any of those statements… please give details:______________________…
Third analogy:
Could I convince you that I dropped 50 oranges onto the ground and then by chance fell into ten rows of five oranges? Logically, anyone with an intelligent mind might conclude that someone put them there. The odds that ten oranges would fall into a straight line is mind boggling. Let alone ten rows of five.
Test 3
Yes or No 1. From the atom to the universe is there order?
Yes or No 2. Did it happen by accident or must there been an intelligent mind?
3. What are the odds of 50 oranges falling by chance into ten rows of five oranges? ______________________________…
To declare that there is no God is to make an absolute statement. And for an absolute statement to be true; one must have absolute knowledge. Here is another such statement: “There is no gold in China.”
Test 4 What would I need to have for that statement to be true?
A. No knowledge of China?
B. Partial knowledge of China?
C. Absolute knowledge of China?
“C” is the correct answer. In order for the statement to be true, I must know that there is no gold in China.
Likewise; to state that there is no God and to be correct then you are stating that you are omniscient. You must have absolutely certain knowledge that there isn’t one.
Let’s say that a circle contains all the knowledge of the universe. And let’s say that you have an incredible understanding of one percent of all that knowledge. Is it possible that the knowledge you haven’t yet come across, that there might be ample evidence to prove that God does indeed exist?
If you are reasonable, you would have to admit, “Having the limited knowledge I have at present, I believe that there is no God.” In other words, you don’t know if God exists, so you are not an atheist. You are an “agnostic.” You are like a person that looks at a building and doesn’t seem to know if there is a builder.
Test 5 The man who sees a building and doesn’t know if there is a builder is:
A. Intelligent
B. A fool
C. Has an ulterior motive
In summary: There are plenty of things that we have faith in that we do not fully understand. Most of us do not have a complete understanding that when you turned your computer on as to why it worked. You took a step of faith that turning it on… that somehow that it would work. You accept the unseen electrical waves that appear right in front of your eyes when you type your comments here. We do not see the reason for why the messages appear… because the powers that be are invisible to the naked eye. For them to be manifest, we need a monitor… so we can enjoy the experience of this forum.
God is not flesh and blood; He is an eternal Spirit. Immortal and invisible… like the computer waves. He can can not be experienced unless the monitor is turned on. One should approach the Bible in the same way as the monitor. If it works, enjoy it and if it doesn’t, forget it.
Or do you have an ulterior motive? Could it be that the “atheist” can’t find God… as a thief can’t find the policeman? Could it be that your logic is clouding your good judgment?”
-Jonathon
Billions of years ago
Published by Bobby Henderson February 26th, 2008 in Hate Mail (and concerned criticism). 599 Comments
599 Responses to “Billions of years ago”
g
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Yeah, but you’re wrong.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
a lack of evidence doesn’t allow for a lack of intellect.
many of us believe in science.. the process of science
i’m not sure if you’ve seen this graph… but it pretty much proves my point.. i don’t need to write a novel and this picture is worth much more than 1000 words.
http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/2306/sciencefaithdx8.jpg
if it doesn’t come through
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
the Banana is the “evolutionists nightmare” to people who have no concept of evolution (I also love how GAY the religious nut looks on Youtube who discussed this by giving head to a banana, the penis is also designed to be put in the mouth by that rationale..lol…). Bananas are as simple as anything else, they EVOLVED to be eaten by monkeys, so that they would eat the tiny seeds in the middle, mix them with their poop (a perfect fertilizer for growing plants), poop it out somewhere else, and grow a new banana tree far away from the first one where it wasn’t in competition (this is why nuts are eaten as well). That is the reason fruit tastes good, better tasting fruit was eaten, seeds were spread, and so survival of the fittest took place.. sorry pal, no nightmare, in fact it backs up the evolution argument and is only a nightmare to people who really don’t get it..
This concept always seems to confuse people who are not smart enough to understand statistics (which admittedly is one of the more complex math classes taught at the college level), that if the chances are one in 100quadrillion that something will happen, then given enough time, it WILL happen. Given enough time a billion monkeys banging on typwriters WILL statistically recreate a work of Shakespeare word for word so yes.. given a long enough timeline non-synthetic materials (which humans are created 100% out of) will eventually “try out” all possible connections and shapes.
Test… a 6 word sentence, (”you are a moronic dill hole”.. for example) containing 27 characters (including spaces) would be recreated by a monkey at random if he were to bang on a qwerty keyboard typewriter containing 60 keys, once every 60 to the power of 27 times that he banged 27 consecutive keys randomly… Does that make the monkey a god? NO… it makes him a monkey randomly banging keys and once every few billion chances he happens to write “you are a moronic dill hole”. Which means given a long enough timeline ANY sentence (or order of sentences with punctuation etc..) STATISTICALLY would eventually be banged out.
Add to that trillions of years with trillions of monkeys, with someone killing off the monkeys that were not writing that exact sentence (and only letting the ones who DID tend to write that sentence or variants there of, breed), and you would start with monkeys who liked hitting text and spacebars more often, then you would end up with monkeys who liked typing specific works, like “dill” or “hole” and then end up with monkeys that would ONLY write “you are a moronic dill hole”, over and over and over.
Humans have PROVEN you can do this through selective breeding.. Dogs who heard Sheep, were bread based on a human induced “survival of the fittest” to know how to do that behavior without EVER BEING TAUGHT, through instinct/genetic memory, (if you have ever owned a border collie puppy and children, you know this to be a fact, they will heard kids). Humans can do this over a couple years by being selective about the dogs they breed.. Survival over billions of years.. of course people with more/better photo receptors survived, they avoided being eaten. Sadly humans (like yourself I am sure) have proven you can do this with Humans (on slaves, they were selectively bread to be stronger, and faster, so they could do more work)… which is why american Black people dominate all our sports that involve power and speed…. So we have forced evolution on human beings in america in the past 100 years… over billions of years of natural selection, we have become a machine.
Proof number 2 is that our DNA contains trillions of outdated “code” that does nothing, or does bad things like cause cancer. We have so much redundant DNA that what makes us human is and not frogs is only about 10 percent of that code… what makes us not monkeys is less than 1 percent of it. Are you saying that God was just stupid? Or lazy? If you understand genetics and DNA you can see quite clearly that there is more redundancy in the system than any intelligent being would design into it, the system of human DNA actually maps much more closely to any system that appears to have happend “by reinforced random chance” in statistics, and DNA can actually be proven mathematically to have occurred by chance over the same timeline of the earths existence that has been proven by carbon dating taking into account natural selection and statistics on survival and death rates of the mammalian species (beginning with the Morgoukodon, the first mammel).
So before you start showing me the earth is flat by connecting a string to 2 sticks and spacing them 20 yards apart and measuring the distance between the ground and the string at each stick and then at the middle, using a ruler…. you need to go back to college and take some courses on just how long a trillion years really is, and just how many trillions of species have NOT survived for the same reasons that we did.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Nice. But wrong. Evolution didn’t just work out by chance. Things that failed in the past BILLIONS of years have led to species dying out. That has happened quite often, right? Is it necessary to point out that one nerve indicating light for the life form might have been helpful, so that this was successful? .. So that it could.. evolve?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
that´s a lot a crap…. how can you be so stupid to write all this crap????
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I know that I have already left a reply to our pal Jonathon here, but one more thing. If you think that any part of our body or any animal on the planet was created by SIMPLE CHANCE you obviously have no grasp on the accepted scientific theory of evolution. Get a real education and then come back to see us, please!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Let’s just try this one slowly shall we…Coke cans are not people.
No-one (except creationists) is claiming that the man spontaneously burst into being. We evolved (granted, some more than others) over periods of time that are hard to grasp, in increments that are equally difficult to imagine. No-one is claiming that eyes just sprouted on faces one day. They evolved piecemeal, starting with light sensitive cells, developing through differentiating light and shade, then colours, controlling the amount of light hitting the light sensitive cells came along, then the ability to focus, etc. This is all documented if you care to look for it. Also ask yourself – if it was designed, why do we have a blind spot where the optic nerve hits the retina? Surely this could have been designed better.
No-one claims that buildings evolved. They were clearly designed, and we generally know the designers, because they were people and it’s documented somewhere. This is not a sound analogy.
Bananas are a fruit. If you have fallen for that ridiculous Kirk Cameron Banana video, then I’m afraid there isn’t much hope for you, but I’ll give it a go. See how this logic stacks up against yours: The Banana –
1 Has an easy grip shape
2 Is non-absorbent, allowing ease of lubrication
3 Has a tapered end allowing ease of insertion
4 Has a stalk allowing removal again
5 Is the right size and shape to fit snugly into rectums
Therefore god designed bananas to be stuck up our arses!
Douglas Adams gave a brilliant example of how humans are rationalising, not rational, and I will paraphrase him here:
We are like a puddle that forms after a rainstorm. We look around and think “Wow, this hole is just the right size and shape for me. It must have been designed, and put here just for me!”
Good luck with working out where you fit into the world.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Your argument is flawed, Jonathon, because it starts with what exists now, rather than starting at the beginning, and understanding that billions of years of small and gradual evolutionary steps will eventually add up to complexity that seems designed from the perspective of billions of years of fine tuning. But you won’t try to understand that or educate yourself on Evolution because you need to believe. And we understand that you need to believe. That’s not what bothers us. What bothers us is that you feel compelled to force us to believe when do not wish to. Why des it upset you so much that we can reject your beliefs and still be happy, moral people? Is it because you aren’t as sure of your belief system as you wish you were and need to convert others so that the opposition arguments stop tempting you? Won’t happen. Belief is dubious because it is based on flawed arguments. When you all stop forcing your need to belief on the rest of us, we won’t be a problem anymore. Unfortunately, I don’t think your side can say the same…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Everyone had an argument and an explanation for everything. I feel that they are all valid. Religion and belief systems should be about what makes YOU happy, not about what you force on others. Everyone needs to search within themselves for the answer to what makes them happy. Most atheists have no ulterior motive; it doesn’t make sense to us to believe in what you believe, even with your most logical arguments and quizzes here. We are not omniscient, but neither are you. Our proof is based in science, yours is based in belief.
I feel that the difference between a can of Coke and a banana has to do with millions of animals and humans choosing the bananas the worked the best for them, thus helping that tree survive and reproduce. Therefore, there was a hand helping make that banana the perfect fruit that it is, it just wasn’t some mystical creation, but survival and evolution at its most basic.
Thank you for caring about our emotional and spiritual well-being. Many will try to take it in the spirit it is intended as long as it is offered politely.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi, It seems your argument is based on the premise that everything has to have a designer. So who designed God? If you say no one did you negate your own argument,by claiming not everything has to have a designer. So I can claim, with as much justification as you, that the universe didn’t need a designer.
may your life be touched by the gracious noodly one.
sam
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
darling, the banana does have a designer. Man. Modern bananas that you describe do not exist naturally. They have no seeds and have been created that way through generation after generation of selective “breeding” if you will. without human cultivation, the banana does not exist. take a botany class.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You’re a fucking idiot.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ok, starting from the begining…..
“Billions of years ago, a big bang produced a large rock. As the rock cooled, sweet brown liquid formed on it’s surface. As time passed, aluminum formed itself into a can, a lid, and a tab. Millions of years later, red and white paint fell from the sky and formed itself into the words “Coca Cola… 12 fluid ounces.”
Alrighty, here you seem to be saying that since it is absurd to describe the comming about of coke cans by purely random chance, it is also absurd to talk about living things comming about by random chance. The problem with this kind of example is that evolution is the exact opposite of random chance. Evolutionary theory is, essentially, a description of the non-random-chance mechanism that would make possible the creation of new species from other species. It is not so much a theory ‘that’ such and such happened but rather a theory about ‘how’ such and such happened. In your description, you are describing ‘That’ such and such changes happened, without saying anything about how. That is the point of evolutionary theory; it explains ‘how’. The processes of procreation and natural selection provide forces that drive the evolution of species and make it possible for one species to become another. However, you cannot use these processes to explain the process of how a coke can might have come into existence since it does not procreate and does not require and food, water or shelter for which it would need to compete. Thus, there is no reason why a cola can covered in red paint should last longer than one without, there is no reason why a cylindrical can should last longer than amorphous aluminum blobs…there is no mechanism here, just random chance. This is not the case with evolution since evolution IS mechanism.
Now for: “The Banana: The Atheist Nightmare”
1. “is shaped for the human hand.” Really? Pretty much any shape fits well in the human hand. Oranges fit well in my hand. So do apples. So do alot of rocks whose shapes really were caused by pure random chance. Besides, if the banana really were the perfect shape for the human hand, why wouldn’t God make all fruits that shape? Why just one? Isn’t that more like what you would expect if things happened by evolution rather than design? Fruit shapes reflecting the needs of the fruit rather than the humans that eat them?
2. “has a non-slip surface.” Why shouldn’t it? In order for it to be slippery it would have to be covered in goo, the making of which would seem like an unnecessary expenditure of energy. I mean honestly, how would it NOT have an non-slip surface and how would having a slippery surface benifit the fruit? Again, I fail to see the significance of this observation.
3. “Has outward indicators of it’s inward contents. Green – too early, yellow – just right, black – too late.” This just means that the inside does not mature and rot independantly of the outside. It would be really odd if fruits did not exhibit changes in colour or texture as they matured and passed their prime. The fact that humans have learned what to look for in order to identify what stage the fruit is in does not indicate interference on the part of a creator, it just means that we are not completely unobservant.
4. “Has a tab for removal of it’s wrapper.” First, in order to spread seeds, bananas have to be easy to get at and tasty to eat so it is to surprise to evolutionary biologists to find fruits with these qualities. Plus, I would be more convinced of devine intervention if I didn’t often end up squishing the top bit of my bananas in my attempts to peel them.
5. “Is perforated on wrapper.” See #4
6. “Has a bio-degradable wrapper.” Of course it does. It is a plant.
7. “Is shaped for the human mouth.” See #1 only replace ‘Hand’ with ‘Mouth’ where applicable.
8. “Has a point at the top for ease of entry.” I’m pretty sure this is just a repeat of #4.
9. “Is pleasing to the taste buds.” See #4
10. “Is curved towards the face to make the eating process easy.” Because having to eat things that are not curved in that fashion is clearly beyond human capabilities. Also, see #1 again.
“The document continues and states that Charles Darwin stated:
“To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree” Agreed… it does not have the reference recorded so I do not know if this statement is true or false. But let me get to the point at hand.”
This is kind of like trying to take a knock at General relativity by quoting Newton. He was awsome for his time, but physics has moved on since then. Darwin was good for his time, but evolutionary biology was only in its infancy. Quoting him is kind of pointless.
‘Now the document that I am referring from states that the eye has 40,000,000 nerve endings and focuses it’s muscles approximately 100,000 times a day. and that the eye has a retina that contains approximately 137,000,000 light sensitive cells.
“George Gallup; “If I could prove God statistically; take the human body alone; the chance that all the functions of the individual would just happen, is a statistical monstrosity.”’
Again, we are not talking about things ‘Just happening’. We have evidence that these changes did happen and evolutionary biologists are using evolution to explain the mechanisms that would make these sorts of changes possible. This is kind of like how biochemists are looking into protein folding. The odds of a denatured protein folding correctly merely by chance is certainly a statistical monstrosity. It would take longer than the age of the universe for even a medium sized protein to explore all conformational possibilites. Thus, rather than saying that God must be telling the proteins how to fold, biochemists are looking into possible mechanisms behind protein folding that would explain how this folding is possible (and they are making headway in this area). Same with evolutionary biologists. Instead of saying that God must be intervening, they explore the mechanisms that could make these changes possible.
“Everyone who is seriously interested in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe – a spirit vastly superior to man, and one in the face of our modest powers must feel humble.”
Studying string theory and quantum physics made me believe in magic. Science is awe inspiring, the universe is awome, reality is divine. This does not imply that there is a bearded, white, man in the sky who is making cats, dogs, monkeys and people poof into existence in defiance of all those natural laws that so inspired Einstein.
As for test #2, these are further examples along the lines of the coke can. We require designers to explain their appearance because there are no other plausible explanation of mechanisms that might have resulted in their existance. This is not the case with living things as they are subject to forces of natural selection which can drive forward the evolutionary process.
The “Third Analogy” and “Test #3″ again fail because the argument rests upon the assumption that there is no mechanism for evolution just like there is no mechanism that would drive the oranges to fall in straight rows rather than a jumbled mess. Like I said before, evolution describes the mechanism that makes change from one species to another possible. It is NOT purely random chance.
“To declare that there is no God is to make an absolute statement. And for an absolute statement to be true; one must have absolute knowledge. Here is another such statement: “There is no gold in China.” ….In order for the statement to be true, I must know that there is no gold in China.
Likewise; to state that there is no God and to be correct then you are stating that you are omniscient. You must have absolutely certain knowledge that there isn’t one.”
This isn’t exactly relavent to the evolution debate because you do not have to disprove the existence of God in order to posit explanations for the workings of the natural world. So, we can explain how plants and animals got here in terms that do not invoke God (using say, evolution) and we can (and do) do this without attempting to prove the non-existence of God.
The assumption seems to be that if we cannot disprove the existence of God, then we are required to take seriously the possibility that he/she may have had a role to play in the creation of the world as we know it. This is not the case. I cannot prove that the flying spaghetti monster does not exist, I cannot prove that Santa does not exist, nor leprichauns, tooth fairies or invisible pink unicorns. However, I cannot seriously be expected to take seriously any explanations that invoke these creatures as causal factors, especially when there are explanations available that only invoke entities whose existence is generally agreed upon.
“In summary: There are plenty of things that we have faith in that we do not fully understand. Most of us do not have a complete understanding that when you turned your computer on as to why it worked. You took a step of faith that turning it on… that somehow that it would work…..”
Again, here we drift into the philosophical and well out of the realm of science, so this really isn’t relevant to the evolution vrs ID debate, but I’ll try to address it anyway since it is there. To say that one has faith in God is different than saying that one has faith in earthly things that we can see and touch. When it comes to computers, we believe that they will turn on and work and do the things we expect of them beceause they have done so in the past, because other computers do these things, because the people who made them seem to make other things that work. We may not fully understand how it works, however there are folks around that claim to have such knowledge and we see them using this knowledge to bring us better computers, nicer TV’s and so on. Plus, should we ever become curious about how a computer works, we can find out through books or school or even the internet. In other words, we believe that our computer will work because we have tonnes of experience with computers, their makers and not people around assuring us that they know the mechanisms for how computers work, but also ACCESS to that information should we ever wish to check for ourselves. Plus, all the information we do receive about the workings of computers fits in nicely with everything we know about electrical currents, lasers and so on.
In the case of God, our faith is not based on this kind of empirical evidence. It is something we just feel in our hearts. We don’t believe in God because X, Y, and Z. We JUST BELIEVE. That is real faith. It doesn’t demand evidence, it doesn’t require peer review or general acceptance from leading experts, it just is. That is what God asks for when he asks for faith. Even if things are bad on earth, have faith that they will be good in heaven. Even if you feel alone, have faith that God is watching. Even against all evidence to the contrary…have faith that it will be so. This kind of faith is special. This is why I am always so surprised to see Christians compare their faith to the faith of scientists in evolution or of atheists in the non-existence of God or of folks having faith that their computer will work. These are simple different kinds of faith entirely, the former being a spiritual commitment, the latter three being practical assumptions about the world that seem to be consistant with evidence.
*whew*
Cheerio,
Capt. NoBeard Scallywag
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’ll try again.
Hi, you seem to be utilising the old complexity implies design argument here.
So who designed god? Who designed the designer of god? If you say no one
designed god, you either deny your premise that complexity requires design or accept that your god is less complex than a coke can…………
If you can arbitarily assign a cut off point beyond which compexity doesn’t require design so can I. Despite it’s complexity the universe didn’t need a designer.
Sam
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
A can of Coca-Cola is not a living organism. In keeping with your meaning of the analogy, we are not arguing that a can of Coca-Cola (which is a living organism) could be a decedent of another creature. If however, being a Coca-Cola can is advantageous to continued existence in the ecosystem in which the Coca-Cola can exists in then a strain of creatures may evolve into a Coca-Cola can. Note that I do not say that if being a Coca-Cola can was advantageous then a Coca-Cola would become existent. This, of course, brings up the problem that there has to be some original, primitive, likely single celled or single molecule, organism in order for all the organisms that we see now to exist. This is a thorny issue and there are numerous plausible explanations but none have been proven to be correct. The tendency for decedents of an organism to be different from their ancestors in a way which is advantageous for the ecosystem has been proven with extensive research and data taking.
Assuming that bananas are how they are because it is easier for them to be eaten that way, evolution is still very plausible. Fruits of the fruit bearing plants carry the seeds, unless they have been genetically altered so that the fruits have no seeds. Before fruit which animals ate existed, we can assume that plants came in very close compact copses because all seeds would have to fall straight down. It would have been more advantageous for the ecosystem if the trees were spread out so that every tree could get plenty of sunlight and therefore live longer and therefore spread more seeds. What ended up happening is some tree was born with a genetic defect in which its seeds were coated in a sweet, nutritious substance, animals began eating this substance and the seed with it. The animals would then spread across the land; whenever one defecated it would leave seeds in its scat. These seeds grew quickly because of the fertilizer and soon there were trees everywhere which had a nutritious coating on the seeds, otherwise known as fruit.
Having already proved the living Coca-Cola can needs no creator to exist I will ignore your first rhetorical question.
In a world where the organisms live without seeing, looking for prey and running from predators blindly, an eye, even a simple one would be very advantageous to both a predator and a prey. A mutation might create a very simple eye that could sense light or darkness. Then another mutation could make a better eye so that an organism would not run from a predator shaped rock. This would continue until we have our eye today with millions of nerve endings and hundreds of millions of light sensing cells.
When people who are thought of as being incredibly smart or wise say something, we have a tendency to believe them. The fact that someone said they believe something is not proof or even evidence that something is true, unless that person has data proving that which he said.
Your second set of rhetorical questions makes little sense and I do not understand how those questions relate to the topic of evolution.
Because the math of your orange analogy is complicated, I will propose a similarly unlikely situation of my own. Say that 500, fair, six sided dice are being rolled, the probability of every single die landing with a 1 face up is minuscule. In fact, you would have to roll them 8.4*10^390 times in order to get them to all land with a 1 on their top face. If, however, there was some advantage to being a one, and the dice that roll a one are left on the ground and only the dice which did not roll a one are picked up and rolled again, you would need to roll the dice roughly 46 times.
For your third set of rhetorical questions order is a relative scale. Depending on tolerances, the chance of oranges falling into a row of five by ten can be anywhere from one to one divided by infinity, but we are not arguing that that is likely.
We are not arguing there is no god. We are arguing that the fauna and flora of our planet are not the same as they were hundreds, thousands and millions of years ago. We, of course cannot prove that there is no god, but we can prove that the genes of organisms are not static for eternity.
You answered your fourth set of rhetorical questions correctly.
By your definition, everyone is agnostic. Atheism, Agnosticism, Christianity, Pastafarianism, and etc. are similar in that they are beliefs and not inherently based in fact. Atheists do not seek proof of their belief; they seek proof of a god like all other religions. Because they have found no proof or evidence of there being a god, they feel that there is no god. Once definitive proof of a god has been shown and tested over many years beyond all reasonable doubt, most, if not all Atheists will convert to the truth.
Your forth set of rhetorical questions is even farther from the argument than the rest.
Not all knowledge is based on a complete understanding of something, in fact most is not. We know, without a doubt that if we drop an apple it will fall. We do not know this because we understand how gravity works. We know this because every other time in our lives, when we dropped an apple, it fell. When we turn on a computer we know that there is a high likelihood that it will turn on because the vast majority of the previous times we turn on our computer, it turned on. We accept that they work by “unseen electrical waves” because we trust that there is no conspiracy of all the many computer engineers to make us think that they work on that and not some other method because it would not serve them to do so. But really, this is getting so far away from the argument i think i can see China, and it has gold.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Those are some crazy comparisons you’re making there.
We know that coke and the coke can were designed because it happened in recent history and there are records of who created it and when. These are much more accurate and reliable than the “records” of your “Designer” creating the universe, i.e. the bible.
As for the probability of oranges landing in lines, yes… extremely unlikely, but not zero.
I can’t really be bothered going into the rest of your argument, I’m sure many others will.
When you are talking about near infinate space and time, just about anything is possible.
I don’t rule out the possibility of a god, or even multiple gods, but intelligent design is not science.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If I had no life I’d of read the entirety of your arguement…
but to be totally fair we’ve all heard it before.
The problem with using all these inanimate objects like paintings, or building or computers is that
THESE THINGS DO NOT REPRODUCE!!! THEY DO NOT HAVE A GENETIC STRUCTURE! THEY DO NOT UNDERGO THE PROCESS OF NATURAL VARIATION!!!
you are trying to draw examples from things which do not breed and therefore have NO analgoy the concept which evolution is based upon.
so you basically wasted you time with all those analogies…
lets just do this shall we?
The Banana: The Theists lame ass attempt to try and outsmart an atheist…
1. is shaped for the human hand. – can be explained by evolution. Plants produce fruit so that they may increase the likelyhood of their survival. By producing tasty fruit, the seeds within the fruit are consumed by animals and then excreted. Excrement is an ideal fertilsers and increases the chance of the seeds surviving. Not only that but animals move and therefore are likely to spread the seeds across a space. Therefore, there must of been at some point a common ancestor of the current banana tree which produced slightly less well shaped fruit that at the moment. Monkeys, humans or any other animals with hands that were in the vicinity of the trees would therefore be more likely to eat bananas which were more curved because it was easier. This, before you ask, is bevioural. Just as a monkey can learn to pick up a hat and up it on its head it can do the same with curvy bananas being easier to eat. The trees with better shaped bananas were therefore able to spread more seeds due to them being eaten, and natural variation took its course to the current curvey banana we have today.
2. has a non-slip surface. – see above… easy to hold, easy to eat, more eaten etc etc etc
3. Has outward indicators of it’s inward contents. Green – too early, yellow – just right, black – too late. – see point one… animals learn behaviourally. They eat a green one and its nasty, they eat a yellow one its yummy, they eat a black one its nasty. It allows for more successful movement of seeds. Also black is due to rotting of banana tissue.
4. Has a tab for removal of it’s wrapper. – a peel off nasty skin protects the precious fruit inside but allows the fruit to still be accessed. Allows for fruit to last longer (defends point 1) and protects it should the fruit fall from the tree. As for the fact its removable… that kinda comes with the fact that the fruit needs to be eaten. Either way its still an evolved trait which benefits the plant.
5. Is perforated on wrapper. – allows for the process of respiration within the banana fruit, without this the fruit could not be made. Again evolutionary.
6. Has a bio-degradable wrapper. – see point 1
7. Is shaped for the human mouth. – see point 1
8. Has a point at the top for ease of entry. – see points 1 and 4
9. Is pleasing to the taste buds. – see point 1
10. Is curved towards the face to make the eating process easy. – see point 1
Moving on…
Test 1 – Coco cola does not reproduce you idiot
Test 2 – Buildings, paintings and cars do not reproduce… again… idiot
Test 3 – The probablity that we are made in the huge extent of the universe may be small, but if it hadn’t happened we just wouldn’t be here. We HAVENT been here for a very very very very very long time. And we after we’re gone we won’t be here for a very very very very very long time. There are other planets with the potential for life, but right now our low level civilisation isnt able to travel across the universe to check. But unless you can prove point blank that we are the ONLY life in the universe (which you can’t) treating us like we are some sort of special case is just plain narcissitic.
the real odds are that… funnily enough… we’re not alone
Test 4 – if I don’t know everything about the unvierse what the HELL makes you think you do?? My beliefs are based on evidence that can be observed and SEEN!!! get that SEEN!?!?!? makes this that bit more credible if you get me… With your limited knowledge perhaps you should revaluate what YOU know rather than telling me what I DONT okay?
Test 5 – again a building does not reproduce… idiot
So in summary…
When I turn on my computer I know that electrons are passing through it making it work. Why…? because if I so desired I could go and perform an experiement and go through all the labourious work that scientists have done since time began to come to the eventual conclusion that electrons exist and work in my computer.
I don’t expect god to be flesh and blood but i AT LEAST expect some solid and refutable evidence correlating with his existance. RELIGIOUS BOOKS OF ANY SORT ARE NOT EVIDENCE… why? because most of them are littered with moral flaws, factual flaws and incorrect or just plain ridiculous claims which dwell in the realms of science.
Perhaps, rather than keep telling me to “switch on my monitor” you should check the settings on your own!
Thanks
Toffee
xxxxxxxx
ps GO TO MY YOUTUBE CHANNEL PEOPLE!!! :D http://uk.youtube.com/toffee1000
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Note that the banana:
1. Is shaped for human hand
2. Has non-slip surface
3. Has outward indicators of inward content:
Green — too early
Yellow — just right
Black — too late
4. Has a tab for removal of wrapper
5. Is perforated on wrapper
6. Bio-degradable wrapper
7. Is shaped for human mouth
8. Has a point at top for ease of entry
9. Is pleasing to taste buds
10. Is curved towards the face to make eating process easy ”
1. The bananas that we eat today were specifically bred by humans to be a size that we like. Natural bananas are much smaller. This is a bit like Douglas Adams’ analogy of a puddle thinking that the hole it’s in was perfectly designed to contain the puddle.
2. The fact that a banana fits perfectly in our hand says a lot more about the evolution of hands than it does about bananas. The human hand is very versatile, able to change shape enough to hold a tiny pebble or a large basketball. Lots of the things we don’t eat also fit in our hands.
3. The tip of a banana (claimed to be analogous to a tab on a soda can) is actually the strongest part of a banana – not the ideal place to peel it.
4. More animals eat bananas (especially naturally occurring bananas) than just humans. Perhaps God created bananas for monkeys and humans just knew a good thing when they saw it.
5. We eat all kinds of food. The coconut is also enjoyed by humans as food yet, apart from having a non-slip surface (like almost all objects) and being pleasant to eat (like most food), it holds none of the other properties of the banana. A cow, which some might say is far more delicious than a banana, is fairly difficult to hold in the hand when in its natural form. Like many other foods, cows also require some very particular preparation before eating; otherwise some nasty diseases can result. The diseases come from bacteria that theists would also say were created by God.
6. Speaking of bacteria, the number of objects in the universe that are inedible and even dangerous to humans far outweighs the number of objects that are tasty.
7. Far from being proof that the entire world is custom made for our pleasure, this seems to be a case of cherry picking certain features to find one good example. Given the ranges of variation in fruits and vegetables, the enormous number of significantly different possible combinations of attributes, and the fact that humans evolved to be able to eat naturally-occurring foods, it would be extremely improbable that no fruit or vegetable would seem (to some, at least) to be especially well-suited to human consumption.
8. According to the same logic used by the banana argument, the pineapple would disprove God’s existence.
9. Even if the argument proved that bananas were designed, it would not prove that there is only one designer; maybe millions of banana-designers participated. There is nothing in the nature of bananas to point to a singular banana-designer.
10. Even if the argument proved that there once was a banana-designer, it wouldn’t prove that the banana-designer still exists.
11. Even if the argument proved the existence of a banana-designer, it wouldn’t prove that the banana-designer is supernatural.
12. Even if the argument proved the existence of a supernatural banana-designer, it wouldn’t prove the existence of an eternal, omnipotent, omniscient banana-designer who also created the universe (i.e., God). There is nothing about bananas to indicate that only God could design one.
13. The argument provides no good reasons to suppose that a naturalistic, non-design explanation for bananas is even improbable, let alone impossible.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Since you like three possible answers, here’s one just for you.
God is either:
A. Energy
B. Mass
C. Nothing, because the universe is composed of those two things.
RAmen.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hey,
You know what? Banana’s are perfectly designed for a monkey to eat as well. So maybe your diety of choice is a monkey too!
Peace to the noodly master,
Jill
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I understand where you are coming from, but I doubt you have done much research into natural selection and why it is not as improbable as it seems. If you wish to look into the other side of the aurgument as to improve your understanding of the pros and cons of both viewpoints, I recommend reading “Climbing Mount Improbable” by Richard Dawkins. It is pretty hard to convince people that they are wrong if you don’t understand why they think that they are right.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You think you have it all figured out don’t you, you friggin moron. I usually don’t debate this type of thing with Christians, because noting ever sinks in, but I will tell you something right now. NOT EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS HAS A CREATOR! If I was to burn a pile of paper, it would turn to ash. Did someone create the ash. No, a PROCESS did. The burning process in this case. So not everything has a creator, BUT everything has an origin. (If I saw a pile of ash, I would not think to myself, I wonder who created it. That would be downright stupid, but I might wonder about its origin.) Sometimes an object’s origin is a creator, and sometimes it is a process. In fact, most things are created by processes, (geophysical, metaphysical, ect.) All of the things that I can think of that have a “creator” are manmade (like the bible). Man created them.
And I know what your thinking in your little Christian mind… Who created the burning process then. Bet you think you got me there don’t you. Well, if a process can create an object, than I propose that a process can create another process too. This will eventually all boil down to the 4 fundamental forces in the universe. I know you are uneducated in the sciences, so here they are (electromagnetic, gravitational, strong, and weak). The fundamental forces in the universe “created” all further processes. No suprizes, dieties, pixies or garden gnomes here. No, science cannot explain how the 4 fundamental forces created every process at work in the universe, but mabey that is because we have dumbasses spending their entire lives thinking about bullshit, too busy to look for real answers to serious questions.
Oh, and the banana looks the way it does because of millions of years of external forces acting to evolve it. If it looks like it should fit in a human hand, it is because humanoid creatures eat it, shit out the seeds and the tree can reproduce. SO the bananas that are shaped to fit in the hand evolved to fit the tree’s reproduction patterns. It is like that with many fruits. Evolution can answer the other 9 points about bananas in a similar manner. I wont go into all of it, use your head and figure it out yourself.
A true intellect knows it doen’t matter what the opinion of any scientist is, only teh facts they produce. Even Newton, probably the world’s greatest scientist of all time, believed in dumbass shit like god. I don’t give a damn if Einstein or even Darwin believed in god. I only care about the facts they uncovered, not thier personal beliefs… if they have theories that are unproven (god), and science has shown that got is bullshit, even it you do not believe that he is, then I will not believe in those theories, but I wont discount all of the work the scientists did (evolution) just becasue Darwin also had a backward ass friggin idea about something that was false. Discounting eveything someone discovered because they believed something stupid is a fallacy, and you should stop using it to prove your pathetic points about there being a god, becasue you are making yourself look stupid by doing so.
Third analogy: I agree 100%, but it has nothing to do with god. third test: I don’t see how you got from droping oranges to atomic arangement in the universe. atoms are organized the way they are because of electrical forces in thier structure and will always follow the same pattern because of (here it is again) the 4 fundamental forces. under the right conditions, hydrogen and oxygen will always make water. under the conditions in the early universe, atoms will always make a universe that looks similar to the one you see. The differences will be due to quantum uncertainty. That argurment was useless on your part, because you are compairing apples (or should I say atoms) to oranges.
4 th point: I cannot say there is no ultimate “creator” of the universe, but the odds of there being one is far less than the odds of 50 oranges falling into a 5 rows of 10. Why, because early man was looking for answers that were out of his reach when he CREATED god (to answer his questions) it was a good guess to figure that something created everything, but there were other options early man could not have dreamed about that could have also been good guesses – Like evolution and the big bang. Most cultures have a religion, yet none can agree upon the one true religion. Are you honestly going to sit there and tell me that early man got the diety-creation theory correct on his first guess, but got everything else wrong (since there is no agreement on which religion is rigth)? Only a stupid fucking asshole would believe that shit. Early man’s guess is as good as Darwin’s incorrect eyeball theory you wrote about, both were wrong, and I could give a shit about either, I only care about the science, not the theory of a man.
I am not an agnostic, because being so is almost as stupid as being religious (Sorry to any fellow FSM agnostics out there, but it is). Someone dreams up anything, (god, FSM, santa clause, you decide what ) and I should think… I can’t prove it doesn’t exist and I cant prove it does exist. SOMEONE FUCKING MADE IT UP… OF CORSE IT DOESN”T FUCKING EXIST. Thinking about it goes back to my point about thinking about bullshit. It is a waist of time and therefore takes time away from thinking about things that really matter (like answering the questions you are making up bullshit to explain in the first place). SO don’t call me an agnostic, because it offends me deeply.
“Could it be that the “atheist” can’t find God… as a thief can’t find the policeman?” What the fuck does this even mean… why would a thief want to find a policeman?
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’ve got nothing to do for a while.. I might as well.
““The Banana: The Atheist Nightmare””
You keep telling yourself that
“Note that the banana…
1. is shaped for the human hand.”
The Rock, shaped for the human hand.. the Penis, shaped for the human hand. The RattleSnake, shaped for the human hand.. DOH! It’s long and tubular, it isn’t any more designed for the human hand than any other tube shaped thing.
“2. has a non-slip surface.”
You’ve obviously never seen a 1950’s comedy movie. The banana Peel is the most slippery substance known to man!!!
“3. Has outward indicators of it’s inward contents. Green – too early, yellow – just right, black – too late.”
What you don’t know is that Yellow means it’s almost ready and Black means it’s too late. God simply F’d up. Seriously, you think God designed ripening fruit color changes because humans are too stupid to figure out when they should eat it? Your god has an incredibly low opinion of you. Or, of course, it could just be good old natural, predictable, explainable Chemistry that makes it change color. You know the stuff they teach you outside of Bob Jones U.
“4. Has a tab for removal of it’s wrapper.”
I LOVE this one. :-) Bananas are easier to open from the bottom. Yanking on the stem will smash the top as much as not. What I really love though.. monkeys know to open from the bottom but creationists don’t. ;-)
“5. Is perforated on wrapper.”
Actually it’s not but don’t let reality interrupt you, you’re on a tear.
“6. Has a bio-degradable wrapper.”
It has bio-degradable contents. It’s organic, of course it’s bio-degradable. It if WASN’T bio-degradable I’d seriously start to wonder about a higher power.
“7. Is shaped for the human mouth.”
No it isn’t. It’s diameter will fit inside the human mouth. It isn’t particularly shaped for a human mouth. Pop a whole banana into your mouth. By your loose definition, a penis and a rattlesnake are also shaped to fit the human mouth.
Better yet, explain why a Watermelon isn’t shaped for the human mouth, yet it is still a delightful treat? Does god only love Bananas? Will us watermelon eaters all be headed for hell?
“8. Has a point at the top for ease of entry.”
Ahem.. PENIS.. cough cough. Sorry, you made that too damn easy. Would you be unable to eat a banana if the top were blunt? What exactly are you putting your banana where you require a point for easy entry? No seriously.
“9. Is pleasing to the taste buds.”
I find high-Fructose corn syrup has a pleasing taste. Good thing God set forth fields of high-fructose corn syrup for us to feast upon. Although.. splenda is pretty good too. Thank the lord for the fields of Splenda cane.
It’s organic. It’s made of the things we need to survive. The fact that we enjoy the flavor of bananas is a strong argument for evolution. The animals who don’t want to eat nutritious materials will be less likely to survive compared to those that want to eat those things. There’s a reason why my family doesn’t like eating hay and cactus needles.
P.S. Banana seeds migrate in the intestinal tract of animals. Maybe, just maybe, the banana trees that made the sweetest seed pods where the ones most likely to get eaten and therefore crapped out somewhere else and thus through a process of natural selection, the tastier bananas thrived while the ones that tasted like rotting garlic didn’t.
“10. Is curved towards the face to make the eating process easy.”
Oh.. My.. God… I picked up a banana and it was curved AWAY FROM MY FACE!!! IT’S THE WORK OF THE DEVIL!!
Oh wait.. I’m saved again.
Hmn.. maybe it’s curved because it grows in bunches and each banana forms around the other bananas.
“To write that the banana happened by accident is even more unintelligent than to write that no one designed the Coca Cola can.”
No, to claim that God and not man designed the Coca Cola can just points out what a crank you are.
Or maybe you just like to make imaginary comparisons about an imaginary bearded man.
“Test 2:
1. Do you know any building that did not have a builder? Yes? No?”
a cave
“2. Do you know any painting that did not have a painter? Yes? No?”
What is a painting? Have you been to any museum of modern art??
What is a painter? I’ve seen lovely work done by Gorillas and Elephants.
Why do you have to conflate the works of man to the works of God? The real question is, Show me a single painting created by God. Come on, I dare you.
Thought so.
“3. Do you know any car that did not have a maker? Yes? No?”
Once again. Same old sad straw man. This is exactly the same argument as you asking me to identify another person who carved the exact same statue that I carved. That obviously a stupid question.
Please, answer me this.
Do you know of any car that was made by God? Yes? No?
“Could I convince you that I dropped 50 oranges onto the ground and then by chance fell into ten rows of five oranges? Logically, anyone with an intelligent mind might conclude that someone put them there. The odds that ten oranges would fall into a straight line is mind boggling. Let alone ten rows of five.”
Yes you could. Rather easily in fact.
In cosmological scales imagine a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion sets of 50 oranges that fell to the ground over and over again for 500 Billion years. Not only would they fall into a precise grid more times than you could conceive but they’d also fall into many patterns that would be much more interesting.
Given a large enough sample of drops, you could figure out how far the oranges will roll and ever location an orange could ever sit based on the surface irregularities and the orange irregularities and the oranges would fall into each and every one of those patters over and over. Rows of lines (grids), stars, crosses, images of Jesus.
Go take a course on elementary statistics.
“To declare that there is no God is to make an absolute statement. And for an absolute statement to be true; one must have absolute knowledge. Here is another such statement: “There is no gold in China.””
That is the most sensible thing you’ve stated yet. It is impossible to prove a negative unless you can test every possibility.
The problem that rational people have with people like you is that you reject reason for faith and mysticism.
I’ve never met anyone who would claim that You shouldn’t be allowed to believe in God. I’ve seen many people who say that you are foolish to believe in god and even many who would say that you shouldn’t indoctrinate your children into faith (essentially without giving them the option to not believe). That’s as radical as I’ve seen.
Evolution is not an argument about whether or not God exists. Evolution is Not even an argument how the universe was created. Evolution is a biological process that describes the mechanisms of change over time. Evolution is not up for debate in biology, it is the cornerstone upon which all modern biology is built.. from Mendelev to StemCell research. Your grandparents (or parent’s) flu shot wouldn’t exist without an understanding of evolution.
This may shock you but we don’t care if you believe in god, but we’re mad as hell when you try and destroy public science curriculum because of your willful ignorance of modern science. All because your faith is so fragile that you have to outright reject things that you don’t understand.
“Likewise; to state that there is no God and to be correct then you are stating that you are omniscient. You must have absolutely certain knowledge that there isn’t one.
Let’s say that a circle contains all the knowledge of the universe. And let’s say that you have an incredible understanding of one percent of all that knowledge. Is it possible that the knowledge you haven’t yet come across, that there might be ample evidence to prove that God does indeed exist?
If you are reasonable, you would have to admit, “Having the limited knowledge I have at present, I believe that there is no God.” In other words, you don’t know if God exists, so you are not an atheist. You are an “agnostic.” You are like a person that looks at a building and doesn’t seem to know if there is a builder.”
You’re almost being rational here. Let me help you.
Science doesn’t claim to be all encompassing. This is something that creationists (particularly anti-evolutionists) just don’t get. You were reading the bible while you should have been paying attention to the section on the Scientific method in SCIENCE class.
Even the strongest advocates of Evolution will never claim that they understand everything about Evolution.. or even that everything we ‘know’ is accurate.
.. let that sink in. I know you’re going to find this an enormous shock..
..
..
OK, you ready to go on?
Science is an iterative process.
Someone forms a Hypothesis which could be an educated guess or a potential explanation based on observation.
To answer or explain the Hypothesis, a Theory (with a capital T) is formed. No, a Theory isn’t a theory in the common vernacular. This is where anti-evolutionists get really confused and I’ll stop with the sarcasm. I’d really like to explain this to you.
A Theory isn’t just a wild guess. A Theory is a tentative explanation based on known information and observations. Theories, in explaining a system, present models to describe those systems. The best part is they provide models that are not only testable but also predictive.
The great thing about Evolution is not simply that it was a good explanation for Darwin but that it has stood up to centuries of testing and that it’s predictions have come to pass.
This is NOT to say that this Theory or any other Theory hasn’t made predictions where were false. Remember, Science is an iterative process. A failure is potentially better than an affirmation. When you make a prediction that fails you can go back and figure out where you were mistaken.
The reality is, Evolution is so robust that it is considered fact by Biologists. The people who have problems with evolution are not the ones in the field of Biology, they’re the people who are willfully ignorant of Biology. This isn’t to say that Biologists don’t try to knock down these predictions. Science it’s self is survival of the fittest. Good ideas go on to foster better ideas and bad ideas are exposed and discarded. The first Biologist to disprove Evolution would be the biggest name in Biology for 250 years. It’d be an ENORMOUS feather in someone’s cap.
“Test 5 The man who sees a building and doesn’t know if there is a builder is:
A. Intelligent
B. A fool
C. Has an ulterior motive”
Snark re-engaged
This is why I believe in Martians.. It’s completely obvious that there is a face and a pyramid on the face of Mars.
Seriously. You can’t conflate the byproduct of an animal with the existence of God. If you said, ‘look at that beaver dam, tell me that just happened’ I’d happily agree that a beaver made it. In fact, I’d point out that a Beaver, not god, made that Beaver damn.
When you say, ‘look at that painting, tell me that just happened..’ I’d happily point out that a painter created that paining.. but God didn’t.
Now, if you look at the Grand Canyon and say ‘it’s so magnificent, god must have created it’ I’d have to point out that it was just a river with a few hundred Million years to pass that created the Grand Canyon.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Even Flacco’s ID argument was more convincing!
.
“For what are the chances of being born on a planet with just the right amount of gravity? Intelligent design. Your finger fits perfectly into your nose. Intelligent design.”
.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2006/1691907.htm
.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Explain the coconut then.
Huh? WTF?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The reason bananas ‘appear’ designed is simple. they were.
and as everybody here, I’m sure, knows, bananas were invented in 1946 to congratulate the British populace on their plucky holding fast manoeuvre against the dastardly Hitler (+ chums) and the evil forces of facism
unfortunately their efforts were somewhat wasted as 50 years later the yanks voted them in anyhows
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
oh and Jill
“maybe your diety of choice is a monkey”
and I quote (ahem)
“God created man, in the likeness of God made he him”
Genesis 5/1
I look a bit like a monkey and I’m pretty sure you do to, ergo
GOD IS A MONKEY!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
In response to Sam: SWISH!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
…The axe handle is perfectly formed to fit my hand. Ergo, I must hold the axe. God has allowed me to get angry while holding said axe…must mean he intends homicide, ergo, god is a homicidal maniac.
Where does “the devil made me do it” figure into this?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hey random hate mail writer, if you actually did research, you would discover that you, like many like you, purposefully misquoted Darwin, the actual quote was:
“ORGANS OF EXTREME PERFECTION AND COMPLICATION.
To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility.”
From the origin of species.
RAmen
James D the KOP
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Your neck is conveniently shaped to be squeezed with my hands. Therefore, according to your thesis I am intended by your god to kill you. Still religious?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This hate mail is too long. You made your point in the two first analogies and i got bored at the third. Do you know an idiot who does not have a maker?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Oh, I could go on all day thanks to this post. (all day, I now note, being two more minutes XD)
First of all, one analogy that leapt out for me was that of the oranges landing in perfect rows. You know of what I speak. The point is, while it is statistically incredibly unlikely, in an infinite multiverse all things are possible. It is possible that all the molecules in my leg might suddenly decide to leap a foot to the right, which doesn’t mean I expect it to happen or that if you saw it the first thing you’d say would be “hey, a quantum shift”, but theoretically, somewhere in the multiverse, it has happened. (I am fighting the urge to go off on a tangent here. Bear with me.)
Now, apply that analogy to the creation of the universe. Bear in mind that the multiverse is both infinite and eternal. Statistically and in reality, sometime, given everything forever, this combination WILL come up.
Secondly, there is a different point I need to make. Isn’t this a somewhat homocentric view of the world? “It fits our way of life, so it was made for us”? We were born in this world; so were our parents, and their parents, and their parents, all the way back to the first time that fish crawled out of the sea. We are inside the fishbowl. We can’t see why things exist. But because of Man’s natural arrogance, we automatically assume it was made for us. It wasn’t. Nothing was. We’ve adapted to fit them, they’ve adapted to fit us, which is why taking one thing from an ecosystem can cause chaos. We’ve warped some things (like, yes, bananas) but that was US, not some creator.
To make things totally clear, I do not completely deny any possibility of God’s existance. I just don’t feel it necessary or appropriate to work under the assumption that there is (for reasons I won’t go into simply because this post is quite long enough already and if you start me off I’ll be flying on malevelancy inherent in the universe and the impact this has on the existance of God. Just…no.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Wow, the sheer arrogance of this particular piece is breathtaking. I can think of a dozen arguments right off the top of my head but then I also think ‘why bother?’. The problem we’re dealing with here, as is the case with all hate mails, is a singularly stubborn close mindedness. An unwillingness to even consider any other points of view.
Also, after 400 previous replies there really cannot be any arguments left unargued…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
you see… 7000 years ago, when the Earth was young, all fruit was shaped like a banana. In fact the only fruit was a banana. (T-Rex loved to eat bananas in the garden of eden. I learned this in the Creation Museum). Then the snake came along and truned a banana into an apple (you silly folks call this process evolution, but the Devil really does this). God was so mad, he turned most bananas into the other existing fruit seen today. That is why the banana is the Athiest’s nightmare and not any other fruit. T-Rex and the other Dinos starved… god let this happen because Eve had a pet T-Rex that she loved and god wanted to spite her.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The banana was cultivated to make it the way it is. Wild bananas are much more round, and have seeds.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
In the scientific world, it is guilty into proven innocent. Tough luck for God. He ain’t a no been proven yet!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
im confused some people seem to be referring to the FSM as being God. R you saying that the thing that the thing or person that created us is a ball of spaghetti with 2 meatballs?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
OMFG….that’s all i have to say.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I see. So… Everything that exists has to have had a creator?
Don’t you see the problem of infinite regression in your argument?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I cannot help but laugh when something like this happens. The man who wrote this is clearly intelligent in a scientific way, but has no understanding of sarcasm and humor. He uses all sorts of science to try and disprove what he believes is our point, while misinterpreting the point the entire time. Oops, running out of time. First hour starts in 30 minutes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
As I forgot to mention, it was his rhetoric opening, to prove a point he opened with the opposite point of view. I apologize for posting again but I feel this is a very important point, and needs to be said to fully understand as to why he opened like this.
RAmen again
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
People just care too much about the dumbest of things…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Like every fundamentalist who challenges the validity of evolutionary theory, this person is posing the “do you mean to tell me” argument. In its pithiest form, the DYMTTM argument says “Look at how perfect this particular feature of the biosphere serves the needs of this organism, do you mean to tell me someone didn’t consciously design it. eg. “Look how perfect a tool the human hand is for service the human species, DYMTTM it just evolved at random, by chance, with no one designing it-after all look how perfectly it fulfilles its intended purpose!” And therein lies the fallacy, nature has no intended purpose, it just happens that the hand aids in the survival of the human species, because if it did not, some biologically different species which was better able to survive in the same ecological niche occupied by humankind that did not happen to have hands would have survived, then that species, if intelligent, and as intellectually diseased as the author of this passage, would have wriiten or otherwise communicated how, for example, how perfectly designed the stinging mechanism on their tails were, and they would have articulated their own DYMTTM argument.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Here is a very brief lesson in probability. Let’s say you flip a coin once. The odds of getting “tails” is 1 in 2. So if you flip it twice, the odds of getting tails twice are 1 in 4 (2*2). If you flip it 3 times, the odds of getting tails all three times are 1 in 8 (2*2*2).
If you flip it 100 times, the odds of getting tails every time are 1 in 1267650600228229401496703205376 (2^100).
Now let’s say you actually try this, and the first flip gives you tails. Now your odds of getting tails for the other 99 flips is only 1 in 2^99. Since you got tails on the first flip, the probability no longer cares about that flip.
You flip it a second time, and again get tails. Now your odds of getting tails for all the flips is reduced to 1 in 2^98.
As you proceed, and keep getting tails, you might think this is incredible, but each flip has the odds of 1 in 2, and each flip is independent of every other flip. The 57th flip of the coin doesn’t have any knowledge of the previous 56 flips.
So, while the odds of everything evolving by chance the way things are today are astronomically small, the odds of each change individually were probably not that low.
Now my analogy is not exactly accurate, because in evolution, there would also be “heads,” but those would die out. So the odds are even better in evolution than in my coin flipping example.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hello Assfuck Retard,
The Coca Cola can was designed, you are right. But in no way dose that prove ID is correct. No things have to be arranged, but evolution is composed of common genetic variants that can happen during reproduction. So yes many things were created by people, but can you prove that there was a creator. Many ID supporters say that you were wrong here, so that means that we are right! No you have to actually prove it scientifically. Many members of the RR try to make evidence fit their explanation. Irreducible complexity is a falsity, and until you can find a better scientific theory, which means an idea formed on actual evidence, such as the theory of gravitation and others, and prove said theory to the scientific community then it will leave the realm of religion and be science. But you are wrong, of Pandas and People (a creation… i mean ID text book) that had a Typo that had Intelligent Design pasted inside Creationism. This was inside a version of the textbook which was created after a court ruling which made teaching creationism in schools illegal. ID is religion and therefore it is a violation of people’s rights to teach it in public schools ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE! Irreducible complexity is a myth. Your strongest argument is the bacterial phlegellum (sorry I do not know how to spell the word), which is actually very similar to a small hollow spike on a bacteria which spreads disease. Evolution is continually being supported by fossils which provide an evolutionary link between species, there are so many I don’t want to digress. Also because according to you we only know 1% of what there is to know in the universe doesn’t support you claim, religion has been horrendously wrong constantly, and if you don’t know what the knowledge is, how can you claim that it proves your theory? Until you know the knowledge that you claim exists, you will remain wrong. Yes someone designed a building, but how dose an analogy prove your point, a biologist is very different from an architect. Just because PEOPLE designed things doesn’t mean that a false deity designed life. Thank you for your pitiful attempt to destroy the greatest challenge to your religion, but you have no emperical evidence, such as fossils, DNA and other things supporting you claim, and your irreducible complexity is a false hood, you are just like a child who uses logical fallacy to explain their world and blindly follows what they are told. Secluding themselves from truth or outside ideas. FUCK YOU.
J.T.S.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Also the banana has evolved to be eaten, because it’s seeds spread through your feces which makes excellent fertilizer. Though it wouldn’t work because you constantly spew verbal diarrhea, the seed wouldn’t spread at all. So the banana that is eaten the most easily by simians will spread and survive.
-J.T.S.
P.S. Hey I just had a wonderful idea, maybe you could be a living missing link between modern logical humans and our eventually retarded evolved forms!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Wow! Does anybody have more spare time than this loser? What a ridiculously long and stupid post!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0