Come on Atheist's Evolution is a lie. Haven't had 1 Atheist refute this!

SarahA
Theist
Posts: 2
Joined: 2007-09-26
User is offlineOffline
Come on Atheist's Evolution is a lie. Haven't had 1 Atheist refute this!

I wasn't going to bring this subject up, but since I am writing anyway, I will. I heard an Atheist say that if we were "intelligently designed" then how come we have such a poor circulatory system and such a poorly made heart. Well....

 

In the first days of computers, the programming was done by punch cards once they got a little sophisticated.  These computers may have been less powerful than my Casio programmable calculator I have on my table. (I am not even going to check)

Still bits are bits, and bytes are bytes, and computer CPU's according to each generation have different words, instruction words that they execute.  Once you get down into assembler language tailored to a particular machine these words show up.  The instructions consist then of the number of bytes required to target the word and the data it consumes.  Any bit change of the instructions would cause a crash or cause a different word's execution meaningless to the program probably.

The fact that the DNA operates on four letters and that any change in the sequence of these four letters may cause the operation to become faulty surely is the mark of computer programming.  That one byte in the DNA consist of 4 bits, letters, while computers use 8 bits up to nowadays perhaps 128 bits per byte is neither here nor there.  In fact, that just reinforces the similarity.

When you say that the problems found prove that God couldn't be the author, that is a proof of poor quality if of any quality at all.

The point is, the eco-systems work beautifully when not ruined by man.  In human technology the concept of engineering things to only last a certain number of years is fully employed.  Businesses would go bankrupt if they made socks that lasted 10 or 20 years which some did at first, or made a computer that never needed replacement -- never = 10, 20 years.

What would you say about a rich Saudi / Arab that bought a Boing 747-200 or better with all the whistles and bells -- he now becomes mad at the makers because they are American and refuses to buy genuine spare parts from the maker.  All the parts he needs he gets made by local flunkies. 

How well will that airplane operate in 20 years?

Humans told God to go take a walk and don't come back. He said Ok and Bye.  He however is the one that maintains our bodies and promised to do so if we obeyed at first.

Thus when we left him, we also left the one that promised to do the upkeep on our bodies.  It has been a long time since upkeep was done.  The errors some are born with and that are not caused by alcohol or chemicals are then not because of his incompetence, but because he is estranged. We can not expect his help with our physical bodies until 1. we become reconciled with him, 2. we enter his kingdom.

It isn't the intelligent designer that is flawed it is the choice of the design to become flawed.
 


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:

I wasn't going to bring this subject up, but since I am writing anyway, I will. I heard an Atheist say that if we were "intelligently designed" then how come we have such a poor circulatory system and such a poorly made heart. Well....

This is not an argument unto itslef. There is nothing for atheists to "refute", because anyone who actually makes this argument is an idiot who does not understand how the VEGF Hox genes work!

The rest of your argument, then was refuting a strawman.

Also, this has nothing to do with the OP, which says "evolution is a lie".

Seeing as you are obviously very ignorant of the subject of evolution, you are in luck! I am a molecular biologist who has studied evolution for years. I have written the following on the subject which may help you understand it, since you obviously do not:

Blood Clotting and Evolution- A Critique of one of Behe's Four Arguments of Irreducible Complexity

And by the way, I've never had anyone refute this either. Welcome to my world. The only difference is, I've made a real argument

Quote:

The errors some are born with and that are not caused by alcohol or chemicals are then not because of his incompetence, but because he is estranged.

Err...no. Deleterious errors and any disease classed under Mendelian Inheritance in Man or MIiH series is caused by

-in utero deleterious polymorphism due to recombinative error or failure of ribosomal transcription mechanism

-Termination of the diploid due to the lack of proper recombination of the allelles

-Any drug that causes retardation of developmental embryology ie alcohol or marijuina when shared from the mother to the placenta of the baby, which may retard vasculogenesis, angiogenesis, neurogenesis etc.

-Any inhaled toxin that causes rapid alteration of DNA during mitosis of the diploid 

-Age (ie the Mother is too old when having a child, which may lead to increased genetic accumulation of error, which may slip past ribosomal transcription and checking mechanisms, which also may refuse to recombine with the other allele (failure of horizontal transfer))

-Any deleterious in utero mutation causing a major alteration to any Hox gene. 

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Ad hoc. I could leave it at

Ad hoc.
I could leave it at that, but I'll explain what's wrong here. The whole thing is a false analogy based on presupposition of "Yahweh" and inane speculation about "his" intent, topping it off with an argument from ignorance about biology. You may as well have argued about angels dancing on heads of pins, or how reality is really a metaphor for Christ's suffering.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15904
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
SarahA wrote: I wasn't

SarahA wrote:
I wasn't going to bring this subject up, but since I am writing anyway, I will. I heard an Atheist say that if we were "intelligently designed" then how come we have such a poor circulatory system and such a poorly made heart. Well....

 

In the first days of computers, the programming was done by punch cards once they got a little sophisticated. These computers may have been less powerful than my Casio programmable calculator I have on my table. (I am not even going to check)

Still bits are bits, and bytes are bytes, and computer CPU's according to each generation have different words, instruction words that they execute. Once you get down into assembler language tailored to a particular machine these words show up. The instructions consist then of the number of bytes required to target the word and the data it consumes. Any bit change of the instructions would cause a crash or cause a different word's execution meaningless to the program probably.

The fact that the DNA operates on four letters and that any change in the sequence of these four letters may cause the operation to become faulty surely is the mark of computer programming. That one byte in the DNA consist of 4 bits, letters, while computers use 8 bits up to nowadays perhaps 128 bits per byte is neither here nor there. In fact, that just reinforces the similarity.

When you say that the problems found prove that God couldn't be the author, that is a proof of poor quality if of any quality at all.

The point is, the eco-systems work beautifully when not ruined by man. In human technology the concept of engineering things to only last a certain number of years is fully employed. Businesses would go bankrupt if they made socks that lasted 10 or 20 years which some did at first, or made a computer that never needed replacement -- never = 10, 20 years.

What would you say about a rich Saudi / Arab that bought a Boing 747-200 or better with all the whistles and bells -- he now becomes mad at the makers because they are American and refuses to buy genuine spare parts from the maker. All the parts he needs he gets made by local flunkies.

How well will that airplane operate in 20 years?

Humans told God to go take a walk and don't come back. He said Ok and Bye. He however is the one that maintains our bodies and promised to do so if we obeyed at first.

Thus when we left him, we also left the one that promised to do the upkeep on our bodies. It has been a long time since upkeep was done. The errors some are born with and that are not caused by alcohol or chemicals are then not because of his incompetence, but because he is estranged. We can not expect his help with our physical bodies until 1. we become reconciled with him, 2. we enter his kingdom.

It isn't the intelligent designer that is flawed it is the choice of the design to become flawed.

First of all, metaphorical stories are not emperical, demonstrable  fasifiable tests born out of scientific method.

Secondly, even if we were to ASSUME for arguments sake that this drivil made sense, all it would do is debunk evolution, it would not default to your god, or any god of any lable for that matter existing.

It also shows a lack of understanding of basic science. You assume that a designer is needed for complexity. The reality is that an atom IS NOT complex. Atoms bond from a simple positive and negitive electrons. A mixture of limitless atoms of a variety leads to random complexity independant of magical hands.

There is a false assumption on theists part that assumes that scientists claim that evolution seeks perfection, WRONG.

Evolution is not survival of the fittest. It is about the ability to adapt combined with evironmental and genetic changes over long periods of time.

Again, you say God is needed? Muslims would say Allah is needed. Jews would say Yahwey is needed. I say all of you assume a god is needed with absolutly no proof that a god exists at all.

Your problem, allong with all deity believers is that you assume that a  cognative "who" is required without considering that a "what" uncognitive ongoing even has developed into what we see today.

Again, for arguments sake lets say a "who" did do it all.

If everything needs a designer, then who designed the designer,a nd who designed that designer. Infinate regress becomes the problem.

If "god" is unemaginably complex, then it would require somethying even more extreem than god to create that god.

The other problem that I already hinted at is one were to assume your position.....

Which god would it be if we were to assume your position that a god does exist? You say one thing, other people who believe in other omni-gods say it is their god, and not yours. 

Quote:
Humans told God to go take a walk and don't come back.

According to who? 95% of the world's population has some sort of superstitious belief in an all powerfull deity. You just dont like the fact that there are people who dont buy your superstition. Just like some Muslims dont like the fact that you dont buy their superstitious fictional being.

Intelectually honest people will not hold onto fiction just because it makes them feel good. You should tell people who sell stories of magical bearded men in the sky "go take a walk and dont come back".

If someone tried to sell you Zues as being real you'd rightfully tell them to go take a walk. The only differance between you and me is that I reject one more god than you do. When you understand why you reject all other gods besides yours, you will understand why I reject yours as well. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


evil religion
evil religion's picture
Posts: 232
Joined: 2006-10-20
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote: Ad hoc. I

magilum wrote:
Ad hoc.
I could leave it at that, but I'll explain what's wrong here. The whole thing is a false analogy based on presupposition of "Yahweh" and inane speculation about "his" intent, topping it off with an argument from ignorance about biology. You may as well have argued about angels dancing on heads of pins, or how reality is really a metaphor for Christ's suffering.

So let me get this right. God allows babies to be born with horrible painful abnormalities because their parents or grandparents didn't grovel enough to him. Nice guy!

Also there is no difference in the number of occurances in these abnormalities or in health in general between those that are deeply religious and those that are raving atheists. So what gives here? Is he in a hissy fit with the whole of the human race and will neglect even those that do kiss his ass enough. 

 


Conn_in_Brooklyn
Conn_in_Brooklyn's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2006-12-04
User is offlineOffline
" ... it is the choice of

" ... it is the choice of the design to be flawed"?

This seems, on its face, both monstrous and ill-informed ... but would you mind unpacking this?  Are you talking about Adam & Eve's choice?  My parents choice to leave the church?  A choice I made before I was born?  Are we operating as individuals here?  As a collective?  Are you suggesting that Adam & Eve actually had an informed choice? 

Your metaphor-example is rather shallow and has a flawed narrative flow ... do you maybe want to re-write, have some of us look at it, point out thosee (narrative and grammatical) flaws, maybe proof-read it a bit so you can say what you mean?  I put in a lot of hours at the writing workshop when I was at university ... I was even a writing fellow; I'd be more than happy to beef this up and help you flesh it out sometime ...

I'm off myspace.com so you can only find me here: http://geoffreymgolia.blogspot.com


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
So science is argued

So science is argued through analogy?  Well it is if you are a creationist and clueless about science.  The argument is that god is perfect and created a perfect creation, and  yet this perfect creation has flaws.

If you want to use analogy then perhaps you should try to make a better case.  Computers, planes (it's Boeing) are designed and have flaws.  It is the fault of the designer that these materials were built with flaws.  Therefore, using your analogy it's your god's fault that humans have flaws.  Why do computers and planes have flaws?  Because their designers and builders are flawed, therefore, using your logic, your god is flawed.

 Wait, but your god can't be flawed because it's supposed to be omniscient.  Of course it's impossible for you to determine omniscience since you'd have to be more knowing that the one claiming to be omniscient so it's a pointless claim.  However, using your analogy omniscience is not a trait of your god therefore you have disproven your own notion of your god.

I don't think this is a matter of an Atheist not being able to refute your  claim, it's more about you being unable to comprehend the response.


shikko
Posts: 448
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
SarahA wrote: I wasn't

SarahA wrote:
I wasn't going to bring this subject up, but since I am writing anyway, I will. I heard an Atheist say that if we were "intelligently designed" then how come we have such a poor circulatory system and such a poorly made heart. Well....

 

In the first days of computers, the programming was done by punch cards once they got a little sophisticated. These computers may have been less powerful than my Casio programmable calculator I have on my table. (I am not even going to check)

Finally, a bad argument suited to my area of expertise! Yay!

If you want to get technical, in the "first days" of computers, the "computers" were people. They used "difference engines" to perform calculations. But let's go on...

Quote:

Still bits are bits, and bytes are bytes, and computer CPU's according to each generation have different words, instruction words that they execute. Once you get down into assembler language tailored to a particular machine these words show up. The instructions consist then of the number of bytes required to target the word and the data it consumes. Any bit change of the instructions would cause a crash or cause a different word's execution meaningless to the program probably.

A "word" is a group of bytes on which a processor can operate. It is possible for a bit to be changed in a word that will not cause a crash, but in all likelihood, the processor will do something not intended by the programmer.

Actually, I don't know if the above is a response to your position, since I can't actually figure out what the position IS.

Quote:

The fact that the DNA operates on four letters and that any change in the sequence of these four letters may cause the operation to become faulty surely is the mark of computer programming. That one byte in the DNA consist of 4 bits, letters, while computers use 8 bits up to nowadays perhaps 128 bits per byte is neither here nor there. In fact, that just reinforces the similarity.

Err, no. "Bit" is a contraction of "binary digit", so you have 0 and 1 as the only symbols to work with. DNA uses 4 symbols. You could represent each base in DNA with two bits, not four (I may be misunderstanding what is being said here, due to a fair amount of unclarity).

However, no computer has 128-bit bytes. Previously, bit length may have been architecture dependent (I think I heard of a nine-bit byte on one machine, but no one really uses that much anymore). For the vast majority of the world, one byte equals eight bits, period. Your "similarity" breaks down at this point.

Also, what about those changes that have absolutely no effect on you (e.g., SNPs)? Or the rare advantageous mutation?

As an aside, has anyone else noticed that it seems to be a hallmark of much theistic thinking that all change is automatically bad?

Quote:

When you say that the problems found prove that God couldn't be the author, that is a proof of poor quality if of any quality at all.

I think the point is more that if we are to assume that human life was designed by an all-knowing creator, surely a better job could have been done in designing the knee (terrible joint), or heck, our chromosomes. Poor quality is evidence of poor production, materials or design. Take your pick.

Quote:

The point is, the eco-systems work beautifully when not ruined by man. In human technology the concept of engineering things to only last a certain number of years is fully employed.

Right, like with nuclear reactors.

Quote:

Businesses would go bankrupt if they made socks that lasted 10 or 20 years which some did at first, or made a computer that never needed replacement -- never = 10, 20 years.

What would you say about a rich Saudi / Arab that bought a Boing 747-200 or better with all the whistles and bells -- he now becomes mad at the makers because they are American and refuses to buy genuine spare parts from the maker. All the parts he needs he gets made by local flunkies.

How well will that airplane operate in 20 years?

I guess that depends on the quality of the replacement parts and the skill of the engineers.

As an aside, anyone notice the ethnic dig in the above supporting argument? Nice touch.

Quote:

Humans told God to go take a walk and don't come back. He said Ok and Bye. He however is the one that maintains our bodies and promised to do so if we obeyed at first.

Thus when we left him, we also left the one that promised to do the upkeep on our bodies. It has been a long time since upkeep was done. The errors some are born with and that are not caused by alcohol or chemicals are then not because of his incompetence, but because he is estranged. We can not expect his help with our physical bodies until 1. we become reconciled with him, 2. we enter his kingdom.

Uhh, so the faithful have perfect corporeal bodies? Do tell.

Quote:

It isn't the intelligent designer that is flawed it is the choice of the design to become flawed.

Hmm.

No.

Wait, yeah! Blame the plate for breaking, the house for burning, the tool for rusting and the clothes for becoming threadbare! This is a godsend for manufacturers! Down with warranties and product liability suits!

So where did you get this argument, and who have you been talking to that has "never" been able to refute it?

--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 905
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
What is atheist

What is atheist evolution?

 

??? 


Master Jedi Dan
Master Jedi Dan's picture
Posts: 289
Joined: 2007-05-30
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:

We can not expect his help with our physical bodies until 1. we become reconciled with him, 2. we enter his kingdom.

Then why don't Christians have perfect bodies if they are indeed reconciled with him?

Quote:

Humans told God to go take a walk and don't come back. He said Ok and Bye.  He however is the one that maintains our bodies and promised to do so if we obeyed at first.

How does he maintain Adam and Eve's bodies?  I don't recall reading that in the Bible. 

Atheism is a non-prophet organization.


CrimsonEdge
CrimsonEdge's picture
Posts: 499
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Ophios wrote: What is

Ophios wrote:

What is atheist evolution?

 

???

It's what people say when they have no idea what they are talking about. Sort of like people who go here: http://downloadmoreram.net/ to download ram.


shelley
ModeratorRRS local affiliate
shelley's picture
Posts: 1859
Joined: 2006-12-26
User is offlineOffline
SarahA wrote: Any bit

SarahA wrote:

Any bit change of the instructions would cause a crash or cause a different word's execution meaningless to the program probably.

Huh? The computer does not change a 0 to a 1.  The computer does exactly what it is 'programmed' to do - everytime, all the time.

If a 0 is changed to a one or vice versa then either:

- there was noise involved (I'm trying to make this simple and easy to understand but I can expand on this technically if necessary)

-OR-

- the programmer screwed up to begin with

-OR-

- someone else (a human - even if they did it with a machine a human did it) intentionally screwed things up

You said you've never had an atheist refute this argument but  8 people have come before me in the past 20 minutes and voiced concern with your understanding of evolution.  I have to also question your understanding of this man-made system (computing) because all you're doing is showing that man is not perfect and therefore the computer is not perfect.  The computer did not evolve or change when man left the room.  That's a little to sci-fi-ish even for a Theist.

P.S. What is assembler language?  "Assembly" language is not just strings of zeros and ones. It may be low-level but an assembler (yep, that's where the assembler comes in) is still needed to do the one-to-one mapping.  This one-to-one mapping has not changed.  At least, not in my lifetime.  Besides, even the programmer developed multiple algorithms from error detection and correction.  What's God's method for error detection and correction?  All the abortions (miscarriages) that happen more times than we can count?  Some correction!


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 905
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
CrimsonEdge wrote: Ophios

CrimsonEdge wrote:
Ophios wrote:

What is atheist evolution?

 

???

It's what people say when they have no idea what they are talking about. Sort of like people who go here: http://downloadmoreram.net/ to download ram.

Hahaha! 

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
It's not scriptually

It's not scriptually supported. It's just an ad hoc explanation that tries to dovetail empty mythology to our modern understanding of biology. The same reasoning is used to "explain" why Adam and Eve's family's presumable incest wasn't the disastrous genetic dead end we know it would be. Believing scripture while knowing even a scant amount about modern science saddles the adherent with the responsibility of reconciling evidence with claims that are demonstrably wrong. To do this, they resort to ad hocs: pulling explanations out of their bums that rely entirely on the momentary suspension of natural principles.


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: And by

deludedgod wrote:
And by the way, I've never had anyone refute this either. Welcome to my world. The only difference is, I've made a real argument

LOL. Classic!

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Seriously, I equate someone

Seriously, I equate someone who says there no evidence of evolution with someone who says there is no evidence that 1+1=2

I feel sorry for you saraha 

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
First:   1+1=2 is a

First:

 

1+1=2 is a prostulate. You're not suppose to prove it.

 

Next

Sarah, read this topic 

 You may find it enlightening.


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
CrimsonEdge wrote: It's

CrimsonEdge wrote:

It's what people say when they have no idea what they are talking about. Sort of like people who go here: http://downloadmoreram.net/ to download ram.

 

Haha! That's awesome! But also terrible! 

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

First:

 

1+1=2 is a prostulate. You're not suppose to prove it.

 

prostulate?

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote: Cpt_pineapple

aiia wrote:
Cpt_pineapple wrote:

First:

 

1+1=2 is a prostulate. You're not suppose to prove it.

prostulate?

 

 typo, I meant 'postulate'.

 

It's an equation that you cannot prove or derive. It's true by defenition.

 

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
None of my smartass comments

None of my smartass comments have been working lately.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline

Wink


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Speaking of smartass:

Speaking of smartass:

"prostulate' is dangerously close to 'prostitute'

 and hence people missed an golden chance of smartass remark at my expense.  


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Speaking of smartass:

"prostulate' is dangerously close to 'prostitute'

and hence people missed an golden chance of smartass remark at my expense.

 

It's also dangerously close to "prostate", and the suffix suggests some sort of a process... I don't like where this is going.

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 905
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
Archeopteryx

Archeopteryx wrote:
Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Speaking of smartass:

"prostulate' is dangerously close to 'prostitute'

and hence people missed an golden chance of smartass remark at my expense.

 

It's also dangerously close to "prostate", and the suffix suggests some sort of a process... I don't like where this is going.

Darn you beat me to the punch. 

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


evil religion
evil religion's picture
Posts: 232
Joined: 2006-10-20
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: aiia

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
aiia wrote:
Cpt_pineapple wrote:

First:

 

1+1=2 is a prostulate. You're not suppose to prove it.

prostulate?

 

typo, I meant 'postulate'.

 

It's an equation that you cannot prove or derive. It's true by defenition.

 

Actually you can prove it

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/51551.html 

1+1=2 is not a base axiom of mathematics.