Evolutionary Mistakes: Richard Dawkins Dissects The Laryngeal Nerve Of The Giraffe

Submitted by: holygod 2 weeks ago in Science


I thought if we were going to pretend to share science regarding evolution we might want to show some actual science.

This is my single favorite example that shows clearly we weren't "intelligently" designed.
There are 147 comments:
Male 10,226
This video doesn't prove we weren't intelligently designed.  For example, consider what God could do.  He could likely take a creature, stretch its neck and legs, breathe life into it, it lived, and today we call it a Giraffe.  Claiming it isn't intelligently designed is only ignoring the sovereignty of the Creator, the most intelligent of all.
0
Reply
Male 586
Based of how "intelligent" humans design computer programs, it just proves that - loosely quoting genesis - men became like god.
-3
Reply
Male 42,583
I was there first.  I posted this video about 2 or 3 years ago.
Still worth watching of course.
0
Reply
Male 12,002
Gerry1of1 are you saying I'm sloppy seconds?

To be honest, this has been one of my favorites for years, but that could have been where I got it from.
1
Reply
Male 7,551
 I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice

Darwin 1860
2
Reply
Male 586
LordJim If you define god as the one creating the world you live in, you are your own god, creating your own share of hell every day.
0
Reply
Male 10,226
LordJim  In my most extreme fluctuations I have                 never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. -- I think                 that generally (and more and more so as I grow older), but not always, -- that an                 agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind.

Darwin 1879
-2
Reply
Male 7,551
monkwarrior Fine, I do not deny that a god is possible,  but I find all the gods so far presented to me to be shabby,  inadequate and clearly constructed with advantage for the proponent as the key point.  The god of Abraham being the most obvious example.  In that sense I suppose I'm an agnostic.  

I have several friends who are deists; which I suppose is to believe that the universe has a purpose and a controlling or  creating power but that we cannot know what it is.  I cannot logically say it's wrong but I find it to be an unnecessary proposition.

Theists,  on the other hand, who claim not only a specific god but one who has granted them knowledge but denied it to me? No.  I have found over a lifetime that these people want something. 
0
Reply
Male 10,226
LordJim So how many 'gods' do you know anyhow?  If you haven't come to know a single 'god' much less God, the creator of all things, how can you have any say?  aren't you taking a faith-based position? Are your blanket statements of 'theists' also faith-based opnions?
-3
Reply
Male 12,002
monkwarrior Do you think you have convinced yourself so completely that there is a god because your life is so sad and pathetic that you desperately need to believe there is an afterlife and that this existence is just a test otherwise you have to face the idea that you are wasting it?
1
Reply
Male 10,226
holygod I've seen the evidence of God's hand in my life, and actual met Him.  The only sad and pathetic thing here is you and your desperation with this knee-jerk video and claims you can't even back up.  Don't worry, you'll see it my way in due time when you too meet God.
-2
Reply
Male 12,002
monkwarrior why do you assume it was jehovah? Maybe it was Odin?
1
Reply
Male 586
holygod Odin is an aspect of God, a shadow in Platon's cave. Everything is.

There are many shadows, shapes without light that you deem to be the only reality. You dare not look into the light. Neither do I.
-1
Reply
Male 10,226
holygod There's only one God.  When you overcome your personal incredulity and pride, learn to humble yourself (for example by admitting your claim was wrong " clearly we weren't "intelligently"), you might be on the road to finding out too.  Until then you'll continue to be clueless.
-1
Reply
Male 12,002
monkwarrior I agree there's only one God. It is odin.  When you overcome your personal incredulity and pride, learn to humble yourself, you might be on the road to finding out too.  Until then you'll continue to be clueless
2
Reply
Male 10,226
holygod so you resort to lying again.  You said it was Zeus not even a month ago.  which you admitted then was  'sarcasm'.  Dishonesty makes you stupid, as you've demonstrated yet again.
0
Reply
Male 12,002
monkwarrior I was being sarcastic about Zeus. I'm being very serious about odin. He is the one true God and one day you will meet him.
0
Reply
Male 10,226
holygod yet you tried to pass it off as serious then, losing all credibility, and becoming a liar.  Remember: no one can believe a liar, even when they tell the truth.
-1
Reply
Male 586
holygod For I will die in a flameware battle in front of my keyboard. I hope I'll get some alcohol-free mead there.
0
Reply
Male 94
monkwarrior What does he look like?

1
Reply
Male 10,226
popsicle01 God is the light, and you'll know when you see Him, '01ers
-1
Reply
Male 94
monkwarrior So he looks like light? How do you distinguish god from your laundry room illumination?
1
Reply
Male 10,226
popsicle01 like i said, you'll know when you see Him, 01.
-1
Reply
Male 94
monkwarrior How did you distinguish god from everyday light that we see all the time from different sources? Are you sure you didn't just see some strange light source and made an *assumption* that it was god? 
2
Reply
Male 586
popsicle01 Everyday light is just a shadow.
1
Reply
Male 10,226
popsicle01  like i said, you'll know when you see Him, 01. 
-1
Reply
Male 12,002
monkwarrior You've met him? Of course you have. You and god go way back. You guys play checkers or something? Do you talk to god often? Does he tell you to do things? They have medication for that.
1
Reply
Male 10,226
holygod Don't worry, you'll realize someday He was there the whole time, if you don't already know.
-1
Reply
Male 12,002
monkwarrior maybe you'll realize some day you are nuts.
1
Reply
Male 10,226
holygod don't worry, i already went through that phase when i was a wee little lad, and it turned out that was just people like you saying i was when i wasn't.  That's the nature of their fear and sin, like yours here
-1
Reply
Male 12,002
monkwarrior based on what? You know crazy people don't think they are crazy right? Why do you think god is talking to you when he isn't talking to anyone else?
1
Reply
Male 586
holygod Why do you believe there is anybody else? It's just an assumption based on sensory input, reconstructed by what you perceive to be your brain, and your brain is satisfied as soon as it can exist, bonus if it tells itself it's not crazy.

How do you know you're not dreaming in an isolation chamber, or like Johnny in "Johnny Got His Gun". The only thing you really know is the existence of your self. Je pense donc je suis.
-1
Reply
Male 10,226
holygod based on your nature exposed here.  Remember that, 'crazy people don't think they are crazy', it reminds me of you quite a bit.
-1
Reply
Male 12,002
monkwarrior Of course it does because "I know you are but what am I?" is the best comeback you have.
1
Reply
Male 10,226
holygod Correction: your nature here shows that you're basing this on a faith-based position of another person.  Despite your claim of " clearly we weren't "intelligently", clearly you nor this video has no clear evidence for this, but your nature is to claim it is.  It's stupid, bordering on crazy, hence 'crazy people don't think they are crazy', like you said.
-1
Reply
Male 5,657
monkwarrior If you at all understand the human mind, you realize it can be tricked, often quite easily.

It's entirely possible that what you perceived as god was merely some neurons in your brain firing off in a particular pattern that you thought was god.

Isn't this true?
3
Reply
Male 586
daegog You're searching for God among the shadows of things. You found Petunias and a Sperm Whale. You're searching for a bearded man, you are stopped by the wall He's painted on.
-1
Reply
Male 10,226
daegog The human mind can be tricked, for example you and hg are displaying it desperately in this thread of a faith-based position with unfounded claims.  So obviously it's true people can be tricked.
-1
Reply
Male 12,002
monkwarrior do you want me to give you some synonyms for "desperate"?
0
Reply
Male 10,226
holygod no need, i have a thesaurus, but it would be nice if you could get over your desperation and avoid overwhelming amounts of this:
-1
Reply
Male 12,002
monkwarrior 

"faith-based position with unfounded claims"

It's all you ever have. It's your entire world view.
1
Reply
Male 10,226
holygod Only from your point of view, which is based on faith-based assumptions (such as your claim " clearly we weren't "intelligently").  However the claims of God are founded, and you can see their validity too when you overcome your rigidness and begin exploring for your creator sincerely.  Either way though you'll find out you were wrong about God.
-1
Reply
Male 1,539
monkwarrior As long as you actually understand that faith based knowledge is bullshit. You'll slip up later on and claim your faith does this or that but you just fucked up and showed that somewhere in that troll factory of a head you know faith based belief is total bullshit, just like the rest of you.
0
Reply
Male 10,226
marsii So you just want to troll, rather than focus on the claim that couldn't be proven " clearly we weren't "intelligently"??? Desperate much?  I'm pointing out the faith in evolution here, in case you were too slow to catch that.

-1
Reply
Male 1,539
monkwarrior It's clear to us. To you it isn't clear that the Earth isn't flat so who gives a fuck what you think? You're a joke.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

Just so people are aware; the same person who questions evolution also thinks the Earth might be flat. Go figure.
1
Reply
Male 10,226
marsii where have i mentioned anything about the earth is or isn't flat in this thread aside from just now?  Because i haven't, and you're breaching The 'Vegas' rule  in your desperation.  All because your poor discussion/comprehension skills were exposed, and now it looks like you're desperate to insult because you're looking more foolish in your desperation.

Bravo!  Hint: sometimes it's better to say nothing.
-1
Reply
Male 1,539
monkwarrior @squrlz4ever Just so people are aware of what people get out of even addressing you: no facts, no reasoning, just insults and attempts to abuse the rules while trolling. 

You are clearly not intelligently designed or operated...
1
Reply
Male 10,226
marsii Thanks for showing you can't back up the claim " clearly we weren't "intelligently" either, and alerting squrlz4ever to your infractions, along with your vilification and rumor spreading, all to continue insults and trolling out of your desperation for not being able to provide evidence for the claim.  As anyone can see though, it was an outlandish claim, and it would have been much better to say nothing.  But knowing your nature, it's no surprise you would act so juvenile.
-1
Reply
Male 127
I don't have to look that far to see the evidence.  Why do men have nipples? They serve no purpose. An intelligent designer wouldn't have put them on men because there isn't a point, nature just takes what it can get and does with it what it can. 
2
Reply
Male 586
geobas1 Why does your computer have Gate A20? It serves no purpose, so the designers - humans - cannot be intelligent.
-2
Reply
Male 7,551
geobas1 Don't forget the prostate. 
2
Reply
Male 10,226
geobas1 that's not evidence, that's simply an assumption.
-5
Reply
Male 5,657
monkwarrior Assumptions based on evidence are not always wrong.

I cannot prove you are a man, i have some evidence pointing that way, but's its still just an assumption.
3
Reply
Male 586
daegog You are using "evidence" in the sense of court yard to prove scientific claims. You need scientific evidence for that.
0
Reply
Male 10,226
daegog assumptions being asserted as fact are to be questioned, especially when the claim is " clearly we weren't "intelligently" designed "  or " An intelligent designer wouldn't have put them (nippeles) on men "   Those assumptions need to be demonstrated, and they have not been.

-4
Reply
Male 1,539
A fine post. Very interesting. Also, koalas eat their own shit.
2
Reply
Male 2,256
marsii   Don't forget dogs and cats, also elephants as a newborn will eat their mothers shit in order to ingest the stomach enzymes (?) or the right bacteria to aid in digesting their food. I belive that if they don't they will die because they can't digest properly.
     I have three dogs and they eat any shit they see (i try to stop them it's just rude)(I live in the country) and I always wonder if that is one of the reasons, a natural desire to ingest the bacteria of any thing that may help them digest their food.
4
Reply
Male 595
marsii koalas too huh. I knew ducks did. 
3
Reply
Male 10,226
Very interesting.  I watched this all the way through, but nothing in there at all pointed to anything like the video description claim: "clearly we weren't 'intelligently' designed". Interesting also that this post looks a lot like an obvious knee-jerk reaction to a post about the faith of evolution just posted.  Not to mention the interestingly veiled insults noted in the video description.  What's even more interesting is the claim to show "actual science" to back up the claim when none was present.  However there's more interesting things, for example people tearing apart an animal which was clearly intelligently designed.  Also that while people understand this is intelligently designed:



Yet for some reason this is not:

Very interesting indeed!

-6
Reply
Male 16,809
monkwarrior it specifically says it's not intelligent design at 2:46
2
Reply
Male 10,226
Draculya it may claim such, but doesn't demonstrate that "clearly we weren't 'intelligently' designed".  Interesting, are you making a faith-based claim and depending on a faith-based claim of another?

-3
Reply
Male 2,256
monkwarrior   Your first example is not intelligent design it is at best a poor attempt to copy another "design" that can be clearly shown to be a evolutionary process. And not a sudden single design that just appeared on the earth. 
4
Reply
Male 586
casaledana If you redefine "intelligent design" to not mean "an applied intelligence was part of the design process",  you can with the same confidence compare numbers after dividing them by zero.

You're taking an easy way out to disprove non-provable properties.
-1
Reply
Male 10,226
casaledana So the robot hand wasn't intelligently designed, it just *poofed* into existence?  Interesting you would think that indeed.
-3
Reply
Male 12,002
monkwarrior yep no science present in anatomy or biology.
7
Reply
Male 10,226
holygod certainly not science that shows "clearly we weren't 'intelligently' designed" as the video description claimed.

-6
Reply
Male 12,002
monkwarrior so something going 15 feet when it could have gone 7 inches sounds like an "intelligent" choice to you?

Sorta like Google maps having you drive through San Francisco to get from San Diego to Los Angeles.
2
Reply
Male 10,226
holygod  so, no science that shows "clearly we weren't 'intelligently' designed", just insults?

-4
Reply
Male 5,106
monkwarrior dude you're stupid, you want nothing to to with an actual conversation. you are just doing your thing to further your own weird ideas to make your sad existance seem important. enter i a b. you claim to not care what others think but we all know thats horseshit. i really wish you would try prozac or booze or weed. or hot pockets or a whore. cause dude you are broken. you are repulsive to everyone you come in contact with, and i think you kinda like that so. great job
6
Reply
Male 94
rumham "or hot pockets or a whore". You win, sir lol
0
Reply
Male 5,106
popsicle01 hot pockets are sinful
0
Reply
Male 10,226
rumham So, just because i ask for the science to back up the claim in the post that "clearly we weren't 'intelligently' designed", you think a) i don't want a conversation b) i should do sinful things, c) etc?

Interesting, very interesting indeed.

-3
Reply
Male 12,002
monkwarrior that was the science. If you don't get it that's fine. We seem to understand it just fine.
1
Reply
Male 10,226
holygod Sorry, the claim that "clearly we weren't 'intelligently' designed", is not backed up in the video.  Its interesting you think it is, and also no surprise, since it exposes how easily swayed you are by opnions that you like to hear, demanding it's 'science' when it's nothing but.  Just because you echo that "clearly we weren't 'intelligently' designed", which was claimed in the video, you're still left to provide the actual evidence part for that claim, which you've refused to do, so your claim can be dismissed.

-1
Reply
Male 12,002
monkwarrior I'm saying it is backed up. The evidence is the video. The evidence is the clearly absurd route that the nerve takes. Evolution can explain why the route makes sense. Intelligent design cannot.

There is literally no evidence that could convince you god doesn't exist or that we weren't intelligently designed. So why have a discussion about it?


0
Reply
Male 586
holygod And that is where you are wrong. You could very well design a giraffe by pulling a deer's neck. It works, so it's not stupid.

OTOH, you only need high trees to get that, too. No evidence in either direction.
-2
Reply
Male 10,226
holygod So you claim  "clearly we weren't 'intelligently' designed" and now you claim " it is backed up. The evidence is the video.".  Sorry, there's no evidence to back up the claim "clearly we weren't 'intelligently' designed"   in that video at all.  It was merely claimed there, and you're echoing the claim.  But there is no evidence for such a claim, except of course in yours or your hero, richard dawkin's.  I'm still waiting for the evidence for the claim   "clearly we weren't 'intelligently' designed" 

-1
Reply
Male 12,002
monkwarrior Just because you don't understand the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
0
Reply
Male 10,226
holygod the claim is still not met i see.
-1
Reply
Male 12,002
monkwarrior I say it is. So do plenty of other people. I don't need your impossible standard of approval.
0
Reply
Male 586
holygod So your opinion is based on faith.
-2
Reply
Male 10,226
holygod It's still a clutch at straws, as plenty of other people can see.  "clearly we weren't 'intelligently' designed"  is a positive claim that was not satisfied. 
0
Reply
Male 12,002
monkwarrior it wasn't satisfied in YOUR opinion. It is the logical conclusion to draw. I know that is tough for you since your brain doesn't process logic.
0
Reply
Male 10,226
holygod So you're back to your 6/2(1+3) logic, demanding it's your way, and your way only.  Still nothing to back up the claim  "clearly we weren't 'intelligently' designed" and continuing to waste time with the flawed claim.
0
Reply
Male 12,002
monkwarrior No I'm just saying, like with the math, you are too stupid to understand what I am saying.
0
Reply
Male 10,226
holygod thanks for proving my point (demanding its your way and only your way).  again, there is no evidence for the claim " clearly we weren't "intelligently" , you're merely echoing the one  making the claim, who hasn't either provided evidence for such a broad assumption.  I get you think it's right, but like the math equation was wrong (since it can be found to equal 9 or 1 by different people), so too is your claim.  I get you don't want to see or admit that, after all it's your desperate nature to do so.
0
Reply
Male 12,002
monkwarrior no, again, it is just that you are stupid. However you are too stupid to realize it. So you'll never change.
0
Reply
Male 1,539
holygod He's the DK king.
1
Reply
Male 94
marsii Thought that was Billy Mitchell?
1
Reply
Male 10,226
holygod Yes, claim i'm the stupid one when you can't even back up your claim " clearly we weren't "intelligently", i'm sure it makes you feel better, but it's still quite stupid.
0
Reply
Male 12,002
monkwarrior I did back it up. However I backed it up with something you are too stupid to understand. That isn't my fault.

I can teach you something, I can't learn it for you too.
0
Reply
Male 10,226
holygod you backed it up with just a claim that wasn't proven. " clearly we weren't "intelligently" is nothing more than a grasp at straws by you and the presenter.

0
Reply
Male 1,539
monkwarrior This is evasion. Answer the question or add to the conversation. This is why people are sick of your shit. It's not what you think its how you engage. It's fine if you think a magic man came down from a cloud and designed a giraffe this way. Just answer why you think an omnipotent and omniscient creator would have done that. If you don't know, well guess what; the theory of evolution does have an answer as well as evidence as to why the giraffe has a poorly designed nerve as shown above.
7
Reply
Male 586
marsii You're shifting the question in order to prove a result. Unsuccessfully, because: "Why not?"

You cannot use binary logic to answer ternary questions.
-3
Reply
Male 10,226
marsii you're appealing to emotion or confused. i'm simply interested about the claim that this video shows "clearly we weren't 'intelligently' designed", when it hasn't really done such thing. 
-7
Reply
Male 12,002
monkwarrior I think it is clear to a lot of us that no intelligent designer would make that decision.

Is it definitive proof that god didn't do that on purpose? Oh course not. That would be literally impossible.

However can you honestly look at that and tell me you think that was a smart design? If so what is smart about it?

I'm trying to have a legitimate conversation about a subject we disagree on but both find important. Can you respond with an actual response?
2
Reply
Male 10,226
holygod So you 'assume' that  "clearly we weren't 'intelligently' designed".  Interesting indeed.  So in other words the description should say:
"clearly i'm assuming we weren't 'intelligently' designed",
or
"clearly we don't know for sure, but i will just blindly claim we weren't 'intelligently' designed",
or
"clearly based on what i think an intelligent designer should do (even though i have no idea what an intelligent designer would do) i can make a blind faith claim that we weren't 'intelligently' designed",

You may be trying to have a conversation, however i'm more interested in seeing where the evidence for the claim that "clearly we weren't 'intelligently' designed" is.  It's a bit disappointing you have nothing at all again, but i fully expected it.  Still if you can present that evidence, perhaps we can have a conversation!
-5
Reply
Male 2,935
monkwarrior 
So, do you think it was a smart design, and if so, why?
0
Reply
Male 586
jaysingrimm Having a deer, stretching it's neck to get a giraffe is smarter than starting from a different fish. An Intelligence would use Evolution to create a giraffe, even if Evolution was not currently about to do it. If it was, the designer would let things run it's course and claim credit (like Wally from Dilbert).
-1
Reply
Male 2,935
7eggert 
Evolution by design? An omniscient, omnipotent creator would know the end results, and be able to affect outcomes in that initial 'snap of the fingers', in order to prevent poor designs from later occurring.
-1
Reply
Male 586
jaysingrimm An omnipotent creator is potent to change His mind. Read Genesis 8,21
0
Reply
Male 2,935
7eggert 
An omniscient one shouldn't need to.

I'm not sure why you're suggesting the nerve meanders so far because of a change of mind. Our supposed creator is showing uncertainty?
0
Reply
Male 10,226
jaysingrimm  The animals with such design live, correct?  Are you able to design an animal the way you think is a 'smart design' that lives hmm?  When you can do that maybe you'll be able to speak with more authority on the subject.

What i think of the design is irrelevant, as for one i can't create a living animal.  Also the description says  "clearly we weren't 'intelligently' designed" but the video provided nothing.
0
Reply
Male 2,935
monkwarrior
You seem to start out arguing that it was smart enough.

Then you say your opinion is irrelevant.

Not exactly a strong argument in favour of an omniscient, omnipotent creator, but thank you for your response.
-1
Reply
Male 10,226
jaysingrimm i'm not arguing, just exposing your question.  i'm still waiting for the evidence of "clearly we weren't 'intelligently' designed" which you too missed.
0
Reply
Male 2,935
monkwarrior
Well, the video does offer evidence that our supposed creator isn't an intelligent one. You're welcome to keep arguing otherwise - it would just be nice if you made more of an effort to explain why you feel that way.
0
Reply
Male 10,226
jaysingrimm the video offers no such evidence at all, in fact it offers just another atheist fallacy that you've seemed to buy.
0
Reply
Male 2,935
monkwarrior 
If that's the substance of your argument, then I confidently take my leave of you.

Feel free to call out to me as I walk away. The bitter miscreants I've tossed from the bar often do too.
0
Reply
Male 10,226
jaysingrimm "clearly we weren't 'intelligently' designed" is a baseless claim not supported by the video, you've ignorantly clung to it, and that's why you're walking away and pretending you're the man.

Did it feel good to imagine you were doing 'bar justice' on me? lol!!  Too bad it wasn't effective, hmm?
0
Reply
Male 12,002
monkwarrior that's about what I expected. Not sure why I wasted my time.
2
Reply
Male 10,226
holygod You're the one who has wasted everyone's time with the claim that  "clearly we weren't 'intelligently' designed", and continuing to provide nothing to support that but fallacies and insults.  Do you even science, bro?  It looks like you're big into making faith-based claims you can't back up.  I get you think it's a valid thing for you to do, but it's really kind of stupid in reality.
-3
Reply
Male 6,179
monkwarrior Just answer the question.
1
Reply
Male 12,002
markust he basically just ruins every thread he touches. I had 17 comments from him when I checked by notifications and not a single one said anything substantive.
0
Reply
Male 10,226
holygod You could have simply provided evidence for your claim  "clearly we weren't 'intelligently' designed". But since there is no evidence for that ridiculous claim, you should have not made such an insecure claim.  
0
Reply
Male 10,226
markust Sure, as soon as HG can provide the evidence for the claim that  "clearly we weren't 'intelligently' designed".
-1
Reply
Male 12,002
monkwarrior you provide the evidence that gods exists first.
1
Reply
Male 10,226
holygod Trying to get out of your duty with insults?  lol!  you were the one who claimed " clearly we weren't "intelligently"  and have yet to demonstrate that.  I'm waiting, and no the video is just another claim, it hasn't demonstrated anything, and neither has the man claiming it.

-1
Reply
Male 12,002
marsii Jesus Christ. Can I upvote this 1,000 times?
4
Reply
Male 5,106
holygod monkwarrior says this he is never wrong. behold
3
Reply
Male 156
monkwarrior Because we can see the evolutionary steps taken to get to our hand in the fossil record. We can also find how other species evolved different uses  for the same bones to fit their needs. 

The other is a robot hand obviously designed by a human being to mimic the function of a human hand. 

Though I'm sure you'll just hand wave the first part away and not actually address it.
3
Reply
Male 586
PosisDas If you watch me writing a program, clearly every step being recorded in the repository for everybody to see, that doesn't prove that I don't exist. Neither do I cease to exist if I abuse one feature of my program to create a giraffe function (whatever that may be), even if a redesign from scratch could avoid a minor misfeature.
TL;DR: Evolution does not disprove a creator, like sawdust does not disprove a carpenter.
0
Reply
Male 10,226
PosisDas Interesting you think "we can see the evolutionary steps taken to get our hand in the fossil record" when it requires assumptions to make that claim.  Can you provide testable, verifiable, repeatable, and observable evidence of evolution taking place rather than assumptions?   Fruit flies and bacteria cultivated over thousands (sometimes 10's of thousands of generations) still  do not create new species, they are still bacteria, still fruit flies.  Sure, i get that you may believe it takes longer, but then you're into blind faith statements, so isn't there something more concrete?

It's also interesting that you think the robot hand is designed but the human hand is not.
-3
Reply
Male 586
monkwarrior Here you're wrong, evolution did not stop, as long as there is life it will continue.

However, you can't draw sharp lines between species, even interbred-ability may be a false sign. Chimps and bonobos still can interbreed, as can grizzly and polar bears. If you could watch the world forever, one day you'd have to say: Yes, now they are different species, but there is no definite moment in time when it actually happened.
0
Reply
Male 10,226
7eggert So can you provide demonstratable, repeatable, and observable evidence of something, say bacteria or fruit flies, evolving into a new being?
0
Reply
Male 595
monkwarrior wondering, what is the thing that if you would find it would make you an atheist?
4
Reply
Male 586
bearbear01 If you're believe in the "there is no" god, if you go out and evangelize for the "there is no" god, are you truly an atheist? Or is it a religion by another name?
0
Reply
Male 595
7eggert there is no belief or disbelief. There is an absence of belief. As there is an absence of many other things, thus can't be enumerated. And so, you can't believe in an absence of belief like you can't drink an absence of liquid. 

And on the evangelization, it's not the correct term. That, is specific. I would rather chose the simplest term, education.
0
Reply
Male 586
bearbear01 How can you educate somebody about something you don't believe in? And why would you?

If it's based on absence of proof, if it's based on faith in knowing you're right, it's nothing but, just bearing another name. A rose, by any other name, is just as thorny.
0
Reply
Male 595
7eggert you don't educate about things that don't exist, but you teach critical thinking. That takes care of all things imaginary. 
Why would you? Other than needing to teach to distinguish fact from fiction, which is always necessary and by its absence how we got into this mess, in normal circumstances, you should leave people figure out on their own time and pace about the validity of their myths. Now, however, it has become a response to the warfare from the fanatics. So the question becomes "why wouldn't you?",
There is no belief in knowing I'm right. I don't believe I'm right and another person is wrong. If I'm forced to say in what I do believe, it would be that I believe that based on experience I should be capable of distinguishing and understanding. That is subjective, of course. And it is the extent to which I believe in anything, in this context. I could also say in what do I have faith in. But like the word believe, I would detach faith from its magical context.
See, the trap is thinking that there are alternatives to religiosity that follow its rules. In that, you are right, such would be yet another religion. But, while I can only speak for myself with certainty, I expect that a sizable number of people have reached the same rational conclusion. This is because it is fundamentally simple. 
0
Reply
Male 586
bearbear01 "teach critical thinking" - That's what I'm trying to do.

If people crossed a street like they are proving the absence of god, you'd define a car to be red, see that there is no red car and know that you're right about the street being empty. You'd prove black to be white and get killed on a zebra crossing - quoting Douglas Adams.

That's stupid, and people seem to be proud of being stupid.

You either have a complete chain of evidence or you have - by definition - faith: Believing without knowing. But there is no chain of evidence beyond "cogito ergo sum". You're just using a theory about what this world should look like, and any theory that allows your continued existence is good enough for your brain. Occam's razor is a tool to select an easy-to-use model, but by the words of Occam, it's not a tool to disprove other models.

Science is never right. It's just less wrong than the previous science, and we're good at it. As soon as you believe to be right, you go from science to religion.

People are proud to be right, and proud to not follow a religion.

"I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know." -- Socrates
0
Reply
Male 595
7eggert I'm going to put it simply.

You can't prove the absence of god. To prove it, you'd have to define god fist. If you do and based on it disprove it, someone will change their definition.

God is a magical entity. You would have to prove magic first. Can't prove magic.

People can't know everything, but understand that this universe follows physics.

Science is not right or wrong. That is reserved for scientists.

Belief and faith do nothing as qualifiers. Science and knowledge don't need to be believed. 
0
Reply
Male 586
bearbear01 Yes: You can't prove god, you can't prove science, you'll just disprove assumptions. That's my message.

As long as a theory is good enough to describe the world, it's valid. As soon as you say your theory is the only one, you turn it into a religion.

Many theories can be "true enough" at the same time - you use Newton for everyday life while knowing Einstein to be more accurate: You need to know where they stop working and chose the one that's easier to use.

I realized that for many people, God is easier to "use" than Immanuel Kant, the later being impossible to grasp.
0
Reply
Male 595
7eggert What's slippery for you is not slippery for a gecko, and while the gecko's gecko may have issues with it, any tech needing slippery surfaces is likely good enough to build on top of. And yet, we can tell slippery from rough. Many times, we can't (or don't need to) wait until we understand all the intricacies of everything before making advances. Same as with asserting the absence of magical entities. Confined ignorance, in a way. 
0
Reply
Male 586
bearbear01 You need to assert the absence of a god, commanding you to be a good man, in order to do what?
0
Reply
Male 10,226
bearbear01 who knows?  What if someone time travelers try make me one, or aliens, or some parasite in the water, or whatever. Otherwise they would have to try very hard to somehow force me to deny the truth of God.  Because unbeknownst to you now, when you see His truth, you can see how great His way is, so great there really isn't anything else to compare.
-3
Reply
Male 94
monkwarrior I'm genuinely curious - what is it that you think heaven will be like? Be specific. No 'eternal bliss in god's love' horseshit. I really want to know what you think will happen to you when you die.

1
Reply
Male 586
popsicle01 That's a question like "please report from the inside of a black hole", or "what was before the Big Bang" in order to discredit science.

Do good on earth, and if there is a god I can accept, the return you receive may be a hint of what heaven will be. But be assured, no mind on earth is capable of grasping the whole truth.

Also: If there is no god, do good anyway, for you truly can create hell.
0
Reply
Male 10,226
popsicle01 who cares what i think when scripture already does a good enough job?  Why not study to show yourself worthy, and find out for yourself?
0
Reply
Male 94
monkwarrior 
"who cares what I think" is funny to hear you say, when all you do is say what you think. If scripture does a good enough job, then your presence here as an advocate of your religion is not needed. 
1
Reply
Male 10,226
popsicle01 I get trolls get very upset over what i think, and they like to do everything to try silence me.  newsflash, 01, the reality is you're desperate and dishonest as you're not 'genuinely curious' at all.  You see, when you replied to my comment, which was set up to determine if you really were sincere, it turned out you chose to insult.  Almost exactly like other 01'ers would do: troll and be dishonest. Your insincerity is exposed.
-1
Reply
Male 94
monkwarrior i couldnt help notice you didnt answer the question.
1
Reply
Male 10,226
popsicle01 because your insincerity was exposed, as often happens with 01'ers
-1
Reply
Male 94
monkwarrior You are the worst.

1
Reply
Male 10,226
popsicle01 actually, most '01'ers on I-A-B are, from my experience
-1
Reply
Male 156
monkwarrior When I was younger, I saw his "truth". I had considered myself very deeply Christian. But I kept an open mind and would keep asking questions. I just inherently knew that truth, no matter how you look at it or how you question it, will always remain the truth. 

The first question I couldn't answer is why would a loving God  allow billions of people not be allowed in heaven and face eternal torment just for being born in the wrong geographical location like China or India as examples. Just for the crime of being not able to hear the word of God.

I've known since a child that slavery is evil. Yet God seems perfectly fine with the practice. Even laying down rules for how they aren't really people but property and the relative slap on the wrist for beating them too much.

The fact that science has hard evidence of how we got here and how the world actually works put the nail in the coffin for my Christianity. Yes, the evidence and facts are there if you actually look. 

There is so much more that went into my becoming an atheist. It would take too much time to write out everything. Suffice it to say, I did not take this path easily or lightly.    
1
Reply
Male 586
PosisDas By knowing good from evil, men became like God. Thus and for he may not live forever, he was denied the fruit of life, and thus he had to earn his food by hard labor.
Genesis 3.

Looking on how animals live, that's not a bad description.
0
Reply
Male 10,226
PosisDas It appears you never saw His 'truth' at all then, as when you do, as mentioned " so great there really isn't anything else to compare. ".  In other words, you would still live by it.  Based on your arguments it seems like you didn't keep an open mind, but closed it like most atheists do.
-2
Reply