| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Budikka666" |
| Date: |
02 Jan 2006 03:06:42 PM |
| Object: |
If God is great, why is he such a bad designer? |
Again by way of www.pharyngula.org:
David Smillie has a few pungent comments in the Toronto Star. It's
nice to see the press giving ID the swift kick in the ***** that it so
sorely needs for a change:
http://tinyurl.com/8eamd
Budikka
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: If God is great, why is he such a bad designer? |
03 Jan 2006 03:35:26 PM |
|
|
On 2 Jan 2006 13:06:42 -0800, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote
in alt.atheism
Again by way of www.pharyngula.org:
David Smillie has a few pungent comments in the Toronto Star. It's
nice to see the press giving ID the swift kick in the ***** that it so
sorely needs for a change:
http://tinyurl.com/8eamd
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1136069409330
If God is great, why is he such a bad designer?
Jan. 1, 2006. 01:00 AM
DAVID SMILLIE
SPECIAL TO THE STAR
With the arrival of the new year, biology teachers across the United
States can put one item on their list of resolutions: stop teaching
Intelligent Design. Two weeks ago, after a lengthy, acrimonious (and
sometimes hilarious) court case, a judge in Pennyslvania ruled it was
unconstitutional to teach Intelligent Design in U.S. public schools
because it violated the separation of church and state.
Unless you have been fortunate enough to have been living in a cave (on
Mars) for the past few years, you know that ID (as it's referred to) is
an underhanded move to teach a religion-based alternative to evolution
in high-school biology classes. Scientifically speaking, it makes about
as much sense as teaching an alternative to gravity in high-school
physics classes, but that hasn't stopped its proponents from trying to
force it onto curricula.
At its heart, ID is a simple idea: life is far too intricate and
marvellous to have arisen by chance, so it must have been designed by an
outside intelligence. ID advocates are (usually) careful not to mention
God; they always refer to a "Designer." Which, to paraphrase The Daily
Show with Jon Stewart, is basically someone who isn't God but who has
all of God's powers. And his job description.
I don't know whether Judge John Jones of Pennsylvania is a fan of Jon
Stewart, but he certainly agreed with that take on ID. In a scathing
ruling, Jones said the idea was clearly the "progeny of creationism."
Jones said he wrote the lengthy critique in his ruling to keep ID
advocates from targeting other schools. But, within hours, ID advocates
were putting out press releases attacking Jones as an "activist judge"
and vowing to continue the fight.
Far be it from me to kick an idea when it's down, but I do wonder
whether proponents of ID have really thought this through. It seems to
me that teaching ID in schools could end up hurting belief far more than
helping it. Because if we were designed by God, it wasn't on one of His
better days.
ID proponents often point to the human eye as the epitome of intelligent
design. After all, nothing so magnificent could possibly have arisen by
evolution, right?
Well, let's say you were designing a camera. You'd put a lens out front,
right? And you'd put the light sensor or film at the back, so the image
from the lens was focused on it. And then you'd run all the wires and
stuff away out the back so they didn't block the light from hitting the
sensor. I mean, that's just common sense.
But that's not how the eye works. Take that intelligent design you just
came up with, and reverse it. Flip the light sensor so it's backwards,
bury it under the wires (which now block some of the light) and set it
up so all the visual outputs have to be flipped around (because the
picture is now inverted).
And don't forget the blind spot, a region where you simply can't see
anything because you poked a hole in the middle of the sensor to run the
wires through. That is the "miracle" of the human eye.
The miracle is that the damn thing works at all. If we were designing an
eye, surely we could do better than what we've got. And if you or I
could do better, what does that say about the Designer?
Our bodies are filled with similar examples of poor design. Why would an
intelligent designer equip each of us with an appendix — an organ whose
sole purpose is to become infected and periodically explode? If this was
Intelligent Design, then it implies the designer hates us the way many
interior designers hate the people who actually live in their creations.
Consider the elderly. As people age, their balance tends to go, so
they're more likely to fall. An Intelligent Design would take that
tendency into account and make our bones stronger as we get older, to
prevent broken hips. Instead, we have the opposite situation: your bones
get more brittle as you age, increasing your odds of dying after a fall.
This may be a Design, but I don't see much Intelligence.
The list goes on. Until quite recently, women stood an astonishing
chance of dying while giving birth, and they still do in many parts of
the world. Women have to go through hours of incredible pain to force a
very large baby through a very small space. Were I a pregnant woman, I'd
lose my faith in ID the first time I looked at a bird or a marsupial.
What about Alzheimer's? Did someone design brains to gradually and
inevitably lose touch with those we love? Would you design a computer
that randomly deleted files from its hard drive? And if you did, would
that make you much of a designer?
Remember, if we are the products of an Intelligent Design, there's no
excuse for such design flaws. It would be like buying a new car and
finding out someone had forgotten to include brakes. I wouldn't call
that Intelligent Design. Which is why I think pushing ID in schools
could end up hurting religion. Because if we're forced to learn that
we're all the product of an Intelligent Designer, and we're the best he
came up with, this raises several theologically intriguing
possibilities.
First, ID could stand for Incompetent Design. Like the cousin you hired
to build an addition to your house, this Designer simply wasn't up to
the job. Which means the Designer can't be all-knowing (we wouldn't have
had any flaws) or all-powerful (the flaws would have been fixed by now).
But what would it do to mainstream religion to teach students their
creator was someone who just didn't do a very good job? A nice enough
deity maybe, but not the sharpest knife in the drawer? I can't see
hundreds of millions lining up to worship a second-rate creator.
Second, ID could stand for Infernal Design. Not to get needlessly
Zoroastrian, but a lot of our design flaws make more sense if we assume
we were created by someone who doesn't much like us and wants us dead.
Which means that by worshipping the Designer, we're actually worshipping
the bad guy.
There is a third possibility that comes to mind. ID could stand for
Incomplete Design. What if the Designer is just beta-testing us to
identify the bugs before rolling out Homo sapiens 2.0? Sure, we have
lives that are nasty, brutish and short, but the designer doesn't really
care and we have to muddle through so He can come up with something
better for the next roll-out. And we're powerless to complain, because
the Designer has a monopoly. I call this the "God as Microsoft" option.
If this last option is true, I'd like to put in some suggestions for the
pending upgrade. I'd like to be immortal, healthy and never have to
worry about disease. I (and everyone else) should be way better-looking.
My hair should stay thick and not turn grey. Men and women should have
similar sex drives. I should be able to run faster, jump higher and hit
a curveball. Gills would be handy. So would wings. So would retractable
claws. If I had wings and retractable claws, I can pretty much guarantee
I'd never question ID again.
Failing all that, how about a cup holder?
David Smillie teaches journalism at Conestoga College in Kitchener. He's
currently working on his own set of retractable claws.
Copyright Toronto Star Newspapers Limited
--
Fundies and trolls are urged to shove
a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: If God is great, why is he such a bad designer? |
02 Jan 2006 03:30:59 PM |
|
|
On 2 Jan 2006 13:06:42 -0800, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
Again by way of www.pharyngula.org:
David Smillie has a few pungent comments in the Toronto Star. It's
nice to see the press giving ID the swift kick in the ***** that it so
sorely needs for a change:
That's been explained to do a dozen times, dudley. God chose man for his
creation, and man is what he got.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: If God is great, why is he such a bad designer? |
02 Jan 2006 07:24:06 PM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:rq6jr1hik2g63u9viqls04ehuk24un7o2c@4ax.com...
On 2 Jan 2006 13:06:42 -0800, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
Again by way of www.pharyngula.org:
David Smillie has a few pungent comments in the Toronto Star. It's
nice to see the press giving ID the swift kick in the ***** that it so
sorely needs for a change:
That's been explained to do a dozen times, dudley. God chose man for his
creation, and man is what he got.
duke
He sure was a lousy creator, wasn't he Duke!!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: If God is great, why is he such a bad designer? |
03 Jan 2006 01:04:01 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 2 Jan 2006 20:24:06 -0500, "Bill" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote:
He sure was a lousy creator, wasn't he Duke!!!
If not for his design, you'd still be using two stones to strike together to
start a fire.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "LP" |
|
| Title: Re: If God is great, why is he such a bad designer? |
02 Jan 2006 04:18:04 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 15:30:59 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On 2 Jan 2006 13:06:42 -0800, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
Again by way of www.pharyngula.org:
David Smillie has a few pungent comments in the Toronto Star. It's
nice to see the press giving ID the swift kick in the ***** that it so
sorely needs for a change:
That's been explained to do a dozen times, dudley. God chose man for his
creation, and man is what he got.
If a poorly contrived explanation makes absolutely no sense
whatsoever, it doesn't matter how many times it is repeated.
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: If God is great, why is he such a bad designer? |
03 Jan 2006 01:01:01 PM |
|
|
On 2 Jan 2006 16:18:04 -0600, LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
That's been explained to do a dozen times, dudley. God chose man for his
creation, and man is what he got.
If a poorly contrived explanation makes absolutely no sense
whatsoever, it doesn't matter how many times it is repeated.
Yet that IS the answer. Man could have spent the time curing disease and doing
wonderful things. Instead, we spent our time first doing for ourselves.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: If God is great, why is he such a bad designer? |
02 Jan 2006 04:52:07 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 15:30:59 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On 2 Jan 2006 13:06:42 -0800, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
Again by way of www.pharyngula.org:
David Smillie has a few pungent comments in the Toronto Star. It's
nice to see the press giving ID the swift kick in the ***** that it so
sorely needs for a change:
That's been explained to do a dozen times, dudley. God chose man for his
creation, and man is what he got.
A tautology is never an explanation, just an excuse.
---
I bought a Venus Fly Trap today. I was going to name it
‘Republican’, but the fly trap is beneficial to the
environment. I’ll save that name - someday I might find
a plant that eats poor people and minorities.
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: If God is great, why is he such a bad designer? |
03 Jan 2006 01:01:32 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 17:52:07 -0500, Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote:
That's been explained to do a dozen times, dudley. God chose man for his
creation, and man is what he got.
A tautology is never an explanation, just an excuse.
It's not a taut. It's a fact.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Conspiracy of Doves" |
|
| Title: Re: If God is great, why is he such a bad designer? |
02 Jan 2006 06:06:33 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On 2 Jan 2006 13:06:42 -0800, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
Again by way of www.pharyngula.org:
David Smillie has a few pungent comments in the Toronto Star. It's
nice to see the press giving ID the swift kick in the ***** that it so
sorely needs for a change:
That's been explained to do a dozen times, dudley. God chose man for his
creation, and man is what he got.
From the article
--------------------------------------
ID proponents often point to the human eye as the epitome of
intelligent design. After all, nothing so magnificent could possibly
have arisen by evolution, right?
Well, let's say you were designing a camera. You'd put a lens out
front, right? And you'd put the light sensor or film at the back, so
the image from the lens was focused on it. And then you'd run all the
wires and stuff away out the back so they didn't block the light from
hitting the sensor. I mean, that's just common sense.
But that's not how the eye works. Take that intelligent design you just
came up with, and reverse it. Flip the light sensor so it's backwards,
bury it under the wires (which now block some of the light) and set it
up so all the visual outputs have to be flipped around (because the
picture is now inverted).
And don't forget the blind spot, a region where you simply can't see
anything because you poked a hole in the middle of the sensor to run
the wires through. That is the "miracle" of the human eye.
The miracle is that the damn thing works at all. If we were designing
an eye, surely we could do better than what we've got. And if you or I
could do better, what does that say about the Designer?
--------------------------------------
Remind me again exactly how that was explained?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: If God is great, why is he such a bad designer? |
02 Jan 2006 07:31:52 PM |
|
|
And who or what designed and created that fantastic creator? If god always
was and always will be, why can't the Universe always was and always will
be?
At least there is solid objective verifiable evidence for the existence of
the Universe. There is NO - NADA solid objective verifiable evidence for the
existence of any god.
The objective evidence is that no god created man but quite the opposite;
that man created gods!
"Conspiracy of Doves" <mark_dp73@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1136246793.911830.158150@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
duke wrote:
On 2 Jan 2006 13:06:42 -0800, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
Again by way of www.pharyngula.org:
David Smillie has a few pungent comments in the Toronto Star. It's
nice to see the press giving ID the swift kick in the ***** that it so
sorely needs for a change:
That's been explained to do a dozen times, dudley. God chose man for his
creation, and man is what he got.
From the article
--------------------------------------
ID proponents often point to the human eye as the epitome of
intelligent design. After all, nothing so magnificent could possibly
have arisen by evolution, right?
Well, let's say you were designing a camera. You'd put a lens out
front, right? And you'd put the light sensor or film at the back, so
the image from the lens was focused on it. And then you'd run all the
wires and stuff away out the back so they didn't block the light from
hitting the sensor. I mean, that's just common sense.
But that's not how the eye works. Take that intelligent design you just
came up with, and reverse it. Flip the light sensor so it's backwards,
bury it under the wires (which now block some of the light) and set it
up so all the visual outputs have to be flipped around (because the
picture is now inverted).
And don't forget the blind spot, a region where you simply can't see
anything because you poked a hole in the middle of the sensor to run
the wires through. That is the "miracle" of the human eye.
The miracle is that the damn thing works at all. If we were designing
an eye, surely we could do better than what we've got. And if you or I
could do better, what does that say about the Designer?
--------------------------------------
Remind me again exactly how that was explained?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: If God is great, why is he such a bad designer? |
03 Jan 2006 01:03:06 PM |
|
|
On 2 Jan 2006 16:06:33 -0800, "Conspiracy of Doves" <mark_dp73@yahoo.com> wrote:
ID proponents often point to the human eye as the epitome of
intelligent design. After all, nothing so magnificent could possibly
have arisen by evolution, right?
Let me rephrase. Every thing man has invented has used God's design of the
human body as the blueprint.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Conspiracy of Doves" |
|
| Title: Re: If God is great, why is he such a bad designer? |
03 Jan 2006 01:05:53 PM |
|
|
And you have yet to show that the human body, or anything else for that
matter, was designed by god.
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: If God is great, why is he such a bad designer? |
03 Jan 2006 04:23:34 PM |
|
|
On 3 Jan 2006 11:05:53 -0800, "Conspiracy of Doves" <mark_dp73@yahoo.com> wrote:
And you have yet to show that the human body, or anything else for that
matter, was designed by god.
then you're the only one that doesn't know what I said.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Conspiracy of Doves" |
|
| Title: Re: If God is great, why is he such a bad designer? |
03 Jan 2006 05:07:24 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On 3 Jan 2006 11:05:53 -0800, "Conspiracy of Doves" <mark_dp73@yahoo.com> wrote:
And you have yet to show that the human body, or anything else for that
matter, was designed by god.
then you're the only one that doesn't know what I said.
I know what you said. None of it constitutes evidence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: If God is great, why is he such a bad designer? |
03 Jan 2006 08:00:30 PM |
|
|
On 3 Jan 2006 15:07:24 -0800, "Conspiracy of Doves" <mark_dp73@yahoo.com> wrote:
duke wrote:
On 3 Jan 2006 11:05:53 -0800, "Conspiracy of Doves" <mark_dp73@yahoo.com> wrote:
And you have yet to show that the human body, or anything else for that
matter, was designed by god.
then you're the only one that doesn't know what I said.
I know what you said. None of it constitutes evidence.
Then you don't understand the definition of evidence.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: If God is great, why is he such a bad designer? |
03 Jan 2006 08:27:44 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 20:00:30 -0600, in alt.atheism
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in
<a1bmr1luh5g111ol2rvf9u3tqj2fptbm9s@4ax.com>:
On 3 Jan 2006 15:07:24 -0800, "Conspiracy of Doves" <mark_dp73@yahoo.com> wrote:
duke wrote:
On 3 Jan 2006 11:05:53 -0800, "Conspiracy of Doves" <mark_dp73@yahoo.com> wrote:
And you have yet to show that the human body, or anything else for that
matter, was designed by god.
then you're the only one that doesn't know what I said.
I know what you said. None of it constitutes evidence.
Then you don't understand the definition of evidence.
Please, Humpty Dumpty, tell us _your_ definition.
--
"... There's glory for you."
"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,'" Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiles contemptuously. "Of course you don't--till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"
"But glory doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument," Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master--that's all."
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: If God is great, why is he such a bad designer? |
04 Jan 2006 08:37:22 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 20:27:44 -0600, David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com>
wrote:
Then you don't understand the definition of evidence.
Please, Humpty Dumpty, tell us _your_ definition.
I figured you had no idea.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: If God is great, why is he such a bad designer? |
03 Jan 2006 03:21:06 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 13:03:06 -0600, in alt.atheism
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in
<kgilr1t8q3l1bmnj52jitculterp5qjmvi@4ax.com>:
On 2 Jan 2006 16:06:33 -0800, "Conspiracy of Doves" <mark_dp73@yahoo.com> wrote:
ID proponents often point to the human eye as the epitome of
intelligent design. After all, nothing so magnificent could possibly
have arisen by evolution, right?
Let me rephrase. Every thing man has invented has used God's design of the
human body as the blueprint.
What fascinating nonsense.
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: If God is great, why is he such a bad designer? |
03 Jan 2006 04:24:26 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 15:21:06 -0600, David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com>
wrote:
Let me rephrase. Every thing man has invented has used God's design of the
human body as the blueprint.
What fascinating nonsense.
So name something that isn't fashioned after the body.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: If God is great, why is he such a bad designer? |
03 Jan 2006 04:57:23 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 16:24:26 -0600, in alt.atheism
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in
<bbulr15qbg6jgge6dgmqs5bh05rtt1rq06@4ax.com>:
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 15:21:06 -0600, David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com>
wrote:
Let me rephrase. Every thing man has invented has used God's design of the
human body as the blueprint.
What fascinating nonsense.
So name something that isn't fashioned after the body.
Semi-conductors.
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: If God is great, why is he such a bad designer? |
03 Jan 2006 08:01:42 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 16:57:23 -0600, David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 16:24:26 -0600, in alt.atheism
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in
<bbulr15qbg6jgge6dgmqs5bh05rtt1rq06@4ax.com>:
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 15:21:06 -0600, David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com>
wrote:
Let me rephrase. Every thing man has invented has used God's design of the
human body as the blueprint.
What fascinating nonsense.
So name something that isn't fashioned after the body.
Semi-conductors.
Minute electrical signals transmitted throughout the body for sensory
information.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: If God is great, why is he such a bad designer? |
03 Jan 2006 08:29:11 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 20:01:42 -0600, in alt.atheism
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in
<52bmr1dhsijcvt13ojjkqhholc71a94jbe@4ax.com>:
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 16:57:23 -0600, David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 16:24:26 -0600, in alt.atheism
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in
<bbulr15qbg6jgge6dgmqs5bh05rtt1rq06@4ax.com>:
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 15:21:06 -0600, David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com>
wrote:
Let me rephrase. Every thing man has invented has used God's design of the
human body as the blueprint.
What fascinating nonsense.
So name something that isn't fashioned after the body.
Semi-conductors.
Minute electrical signals transmitted throughout the body for sensory
information.
Electro-chemical actions aren't semiconductors and semiconductors aren't
fashioned after them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: If God is great, why is he such a bad designer? |
04 Jan 2006 08:41:46 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 20:29:11 -0600, David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com>
wrote:
So name something that isn't fashioned after the body.
Semi-conductors.
Minute electrical signals transmitted throughout the body for sensory
information.
Electro-chemical actions aren't semiconductors and semiconductors aren't
fashioned after them.
Both are directly germane with said transmission of electro-chemical actions.
My, how the tiny details screw up your mind.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Barry OGrady" |
|
| Title: Re: If God is great, why is he such a bad designer? |
04 Jan 2006 09:07:30 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 08:41:46 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 20:29:11 -0600, David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com>
wrote:
So name something that isn't fashioned after the body.
Semi-conductors.
Minute electrical signals transmitted throughout the body for sensory
information.
Electro-chemical actions aren't semiconductors and semiconductors aren't
fashioned after them.
Both are directly germane with said transmission of electro-chemical actions.
My, how the tiny details screw up your mind.
God really messed up when he designed our mind.
duke
*****
Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: If God is great, why is he such a bad designer? |
04 Jan 2006 09:11:41 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 08:41:46 -0600, in alt.atheism
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in
<fennr1lom5a6gvkovej6f0qnircccjvtel@4ax.com>:
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 20:29:11 -0600, David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com>
wrote:
So name something that isn't fashioned after the body.
Semi-conductors.
Minute electrical signals transmitted throughout the body for sensory
information.
Electro-chemical actions aren't semiconductors and semiconductors aren't
fashioned after them.
Both are directly germane with said transmission of electro-chemical actions.
My, how the tiny details screw up your mind.
Your refusal to deal with reality is boring.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AZ Nomad" |
|
| Title: Re: If God is great, why is he such a bad designer? |
03 Jan 2006 05:16:24 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 16:57:23 -0600, David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 16:24:26 -0600, in alt.atheism
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in
<bbulr15qbg6jgge6dgmqs5bh05rtt1rq06@4ax.com>:
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 15:21:06 -0600, David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com>
wrote:
Let me rephrase. Every thing man has invented has used God's design of the
human body as the blueprint.
What fascinating nonsense.
So name something that isn't fashioned after the body.
Semi-conductors.
anything based on the wheel, or incline
Actually, almost nothing is fashioned after the human body.
I bet duke thinks airplanes flap their wings to move.
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: If God is great, why is he such a bad designer? |
03 Jan 2006 08:03:55 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 23:16:24 GMT, AZ Nomad <aznomad@PmunOgeBOX.com> wrote:
What fascinating nonsense.
So name something that isn't fashioned after the body.
Semi-conductors.
anything based on the wheel, or incline
Ball joint such as hips or shoulders. An incline is a nonfunctioning flat
surface.
Actually, almost nothing is fashioned after the human body.
I bet duke thinks airplanes flap their wings to move.
No, but stick your hand out the window in a moving car and notice the
aerodynamic effect.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: If God is great, why is he such a bad designer? |
03 Jan 2006 06:55:51 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 23:16:24 GMT, in alt.atheism
AZ Nomad <aznomad@PmunOgeBOX.com> wrote in
<slrndrm1gn.9k4.aznomad@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net>:
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 16:57:23 -0600, David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 16:24:26 -0600, in alt.atheism
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in
<bbulr15qbg6jgge6dgmqs5bh05rtt1rq06@4ax.com>:
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 15:21:06 -0600, David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com>
wrote:
Let me rephrase. Every thing man has invented has used God's design of the
human body as the blueprint.
What fascinating nonsense.
So name something that isn't fashioned after the body.
Semi-conductors.
anything based on the wheel, or incline
Actually, almost nothing is fashioned after the human body.
I bet duke thinks airplanes flap their wings to move.
Just like humans.
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: If God is great, why is he such a bad designer? |
03 Jan 2006 08:04:56 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 18:55:51 -0600, David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com>
wrote:
I bet duke thinks airplanes flap their wings to move.
Just like humans.
Mankind didn't invent aerodynamics.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Barry OGrady" |
|
| Title: Re: If God is great, why is he such a bad designer? |
04 Jan 2006 09:06:16 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 20:04:56 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 18:55:51 -0600, David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com>
wrote:
I bet duke thinks airplanes flap their wings to move.
Just like humans.
Mankind didn't invent aerodynamics.
Of course. It was ants, right?
duke
*****
Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Re: why is the christian god such a fucking coward?
Re: God Signed with Noah on Ararat on 27.02.601 the Eternal Covenant to inherit Earth, His Kingdom, and enforce His Law of Love for Him and Neighbor by His Ministers, Colored Hamito-Semites as Criminals for denying, and to deny them, such State, but
''Under God'' is absurd, since there is no such thing to be under
There is no such thing as atheists! My God is Bigger than Your God!
Re: God Signed with Noah on Ararat on 27.02.601 the Eternal Covenant to inherit Earth, His Kingdom, and enforce His Law of Love for Him and Neighbor by His Ministers, Colored Hamito-Semites as Criminals for denying, and to deny them, such State, but
Re: God Signed with Noah on Ararat on 27.02.601 the Eternal Covenant to inherit Earth, His Kingdom, and enforce His Law of Love for Him and Neighbor by His Ministers, Colored Hamito-Semites as Criminals for denying, and to deny them, such State, but
** Baptist Pastor charged with 11 counts of sexual exploitation of children <= why is Kent Wills' god such a Pedophile ? **
Evidence of God . . . such as it is.
| Re: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GOD [ OK ... WELL I WANT YOU TO PROVE IT]
Re: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GOD [ OK ... WELL I WANT YOU TO PROVE IT]
For those who may be curious, I'll digress a moment. The Third Commandment does not say: "Thou shall not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain." Not only is it beneath Yahweh to write such a trivial thing in stone, his name isn't "the Lord." A na
Re: If evolution was such a fact, why do scientist disagree? comments by W.R.Thompson
Another GI Killed By Bush's Big Lie. Why Are Rightwing Chickenhawks Such Cowards?
There is no such thing as palestine
There is no such thing as soul and no afterlife
|
|
|
