Happy Atheist Forum

So (for those who remember) it turned out well for me. I'm happily at the university of my choice, and making a lot of new friends. We've formed an Atheist and Agnostic Alliance, and will be having our first meeting on the 29th of October (after reading week.)

But that's besides the point. A while back I came across a video, in which a Christian brought up the idea that Laminin was proof of god, because it's cross shaped.

Here's the video (http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=_e4zgJXPpI4) that first made this argument known to me.

There's the obvious refutation, that "if things that looked designed must have a designer. Then things that don't look designed, therefore don't have a designer. And if the designer designed everything, everything must look designed, but if they don't looked designed there is therefore no designer,"

But I'm looking for other arguments, hopefully ones with more scientific grounding then mine.

If this topic has already been brought up, please forgive me. I did a forum search for laminin and nothing came up.

I wasn't able to find much at my usual sites but I found this here which might help:

http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5192

From the look of it it is actually only a diagramatic representation of the molecule that is cross-like, as is usual (?) in nature the real situation is rather more complex.

Hope that helps a bit

Kyu

Oh so just because it's cross-shaped it has to be a symbol of god? Turn an X sideways and its cross-shaped. Man made the ties between a cross and "god" when christianity came to its rise after the fall of the Roman Empire. Post-fall, the romans used the cross to kill people. It didn't just start with Jesus. They often tied criminals to a cross in the amphitheaters to be ripped apart by other gladiators or wild animals like bears, lions, et cetera. All for the sake of brutality and amusement. So to those people, the cross was something to be greatly feared.

The only reason they think its proof of god is because Jesus died on a cross.

The only reason we think that something has "order" is because we are structured beings. Diamond has a very ordered atomic structure, that's why its so indestructible. The line you wait in to get your lunch is structured and orderly. Why haven't they gone to the cafeteria and praise god and say "this is proof!"

The reason i don't believe in God is because its insulting to humanity. We lower ourselves so greatly by depending on a higher being for our intelligence. The only reason they believe in "god" is because they can't believe in themselves.

It's amazing what they will come up with, isn't it?  That molecule predates Christianity for gawd's sake.  

And Snopes covered this in May (http://www.snopes.com/glurge/laminin.asp).  Gotta love 'em!

I watched most of that video... gagging throughout most of it.  And the gasps when he put up the graphic... which he had to turn on its side to show as a cross.  And they don't understand that the molecule doesn't actually LOOK like that, right?  I mean, when they illustrate molecules, they make them look like whatever they want!  That doesn't mean the molecule looks exactly like that!  GEEBUS!    

Hey... can we find out who did that illustration and have them make a statement that he just chose that shape just because?  Of course, "they" would say that god inspired him to use that shape because it's accurate.  Ugh.

Argggh.  My favorite thing to hate, the injection of Christian or other cultural symbolism into nature.  I wish these circular logic fuckwads would leave everything the hell alone.  This is my first time around, and I'm not doing it again because I've already changed the default settings on my Flash player from loop.  See Buddha, it wasn't that fucking hard.  Well, okay maybe it was when you did it, but you might as well be as imaginary as Jesus.

Ahem.  Anyway, I digress.  If any of these guys wants to see Jesus Christ, I have him crucified in my garden on a telephone cord that's tied between two fence posts.  He's apparently dead, but I'm waiting until Easter to see if he resurrects himself next year.

For those of you who prefer reality to metaphors, "Jesus Christ" is what I named the grape vine that I planted in my garden last spring.  It's a seedless table variety, but I'm sure we can still manage the water into wine process if the thing ever bears fruit.  And I can prove it's Virgin birth, too, as it's a cloned variety taken from a known cultivar.  Unfortunately, it's a total misfit, human manufactured to be grown with pesticides and fungicides, and since I garden organically, everything ate the damn thing and it's pretty much near dead.  I think Jesus was a fitting name for it.

Quote from: "Stoicheion"Oh so just because it's cross-shaped it has to be a symbol of god? Turn an X sideways and its cross-shaped.

Actually, it seems the universe favors the X-files:

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimgsrc.hubblesite.org%2Fhu%2Fdb%2F1992%2F17%2Fimages%2Fa%2Fformats%2Fweb.jpg&hash=22c124f480dcf6c8baf19b77cb075c384ae4fe6f)

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cgl.ucsf.edu%2Fhome%2Fglasfeld%2Ftutorial%2Ftrna%2Ftrna.gif&hash=30968516e4886ac761e67665f11a453b033b08e7)
That looks more like the satanic cross, no?  :|

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm4.static.flickr.com%2F3257%2F2381428418_abc2efbd42.jpg&hash=6e6d53fc804759d592826b6942b392ffd4ae15f4)

Depending on the orientation, it could be a satanic cross, a sword, or caduceus.

What about the correlation of round cells to halos?

I remember this talk, Laminin is more of a illustration for Christianity and Christ as the purpose of Laminin correlates so amazingly well with who Christ is from an evangelical perspective.

I read the Snopes article (not all the way through) but the picture they show at the end is confusing simply because it appears that the Laminin protein is folded on top of itself.

I'm not saying that Laminin proves Christianity, I'm simply saying that some of the stuff is taken out of context.

QuoteAhem. Anyway, I digress. If any of these guys wants to see Jesus Christ, I have him crucified in my garden on a telephone cord that's tied between two fence posts. He's apparently dead, but I'm waiting until Easter to see if he resurrects himself next year.

What on earth are you talking about?

Quote from: "Titan"I'm not saying that Laminin proves Christianity, I'm simply saying that some of the stuff is taken out of context.

Good!

Looking at the photos (presumably some from of electron microscopy) Laminin is not a cross, far from it and in fact (if you've done any organic chemistry) you'll know there are other cross shaped molecules in existence, indeed it doesn't even take organic chemistry, what about C03, wouldn't that on paper be a cross? And what about the oxonium ion h3o+? At best Laminin being cross shaped is mere conicidence and those that claim it has religious significance are reaching every bit as much as those who said a couple of girders shaped like a cross in the wreckage of the WTC towers was a message from god (it was actually a message to unscrupulous shysters to make "graven images" of the thing to exploit believers stupid enough to part with the huge sums of money they demanded.

Kyu

QuoteAt best Laminin being cross shaped is mere conicidence

You were completely right up until this point. Hypothetically, if there WAS a God and he created everything then wouldn't it be within his power to create a specific protein with a specific function in order to illustrate a higher truth? HYPOTHETICALLY, the answer should be yes (NOTE: SAYING YES TO THAT DOESN'T MEAN YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE IN A GOD, IT DOESN'T EVEN SUGGEST THAT THERE IS A GOD).

Whether or not Jesus was crucified on a cross is something to seriously question. Crucifixion comes from crux, Latin meaning cross. However, the New Testament Greek word is stauros, which means any sort of pole or wooden stake with or without a cross beam. Acts and 1 Peter go so far as to call the implement xulon, meaning tree. Assuming he was not simply affixed to a vertical wooden pole, the item Jesus supposedly carried with him through the streets was not a cross: it would have been merely the cross beam that fit on top of another, pre-placed wooden stake or pole. It would have looked like T much more than †.

Considering that it was the Roman's form of punishment there is a good chance it was indeed a cross (though this is kind of irrelevant, I don't know why we're arguing the subject as a whole).
Seneca the Younger stated: "I see crosses there, not just of one kind but made in many different ways: some have their victims with head down to the ground; some impale their private parts; others stretch out their arms on the gibbet."

Still, there is a good chance that it was in a shape similar to a T (after the Greek letter Tau) but there would have been a spot just above the top post with a small extension. Making it some sort of hybrid cross.

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteAt best Laminin being cross shaped is mere conicidence

You were completely right up until this point. Hypothetically, if there WAS a God and he created everything then wouldn't it be within his power to create a specific protein with a specific function in order to illustrate a higher truth? HYPOTHETICALLY, the answer should be yes (NOTE: SAYING YES TO THAT DOESN'T MEAN YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE IN A GOD, IT DOESN'T EVEN SUGGEST THAT THERE IS A GOD).

If, if, if ... seems to me that every point you are trying to make rests on an assumption. I could as easily argue that if there's a flying spaghetti monster then some molecule with lots of branches it was proof of the validity of Pastafarianism, or molecules with a single chain proof of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Being brutal the whole Laminin proves the existence of god (or even supports it in some way) is total garbage.

Kyu

QuoteIf, if, if ... seems to me that every point you are trying to make rests on an assumption. I could as easily argue that if there's a flying spaghetti monster then some molecule with lots of branches it was proof of the validity of Pastafarianism, or molecules with a single chain proof of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Being brutal the whole Laminin proves the existence of god (or even supports it in some way) is total garbage.

I KNOW!!!!!! I have said that REPEATEDLY!!!! Please try to listen to me! Laminin DOESN'T EVEN COUNT AS EVIDENCE FOR GOD! BUT, hypothetical situations let us explore people's ideologies as they come across actual or theoretical events. I was merely saying that it was wrong to say that Laminin was absolutely, positively a coincidence in its shape. If you were certain about that you would have to be certain about there being no God, if you were certain about there being no God you would have to be omniscient, thus...you would be God.

Please please PLEASE read this carefully:

When arguing for internal cohesion within a doctrine one must first assume that the doctrine is true MERELY to be able to address the problem. This will not inevitably prove the doctrine, it merely allows intellectual discourse to be furthered. Look, if you find a blatant contradiction in the Bible that cannot be resolved then the Bible is false based on the law of non-contradiction, but if you are unwilling to accept this premise I have stated you would never be able to find out because you would never allow the person to address the issue.

Alphabet Argument

The Alphabet is a religious doctrine. Let us say that A is akin to a question about the reality of what we observe (such as "I think therefore I am" as it extends into reality as a whole). B is a question about whether there is a higher power or not. C concerns the nature of the deity or deities (monotheistic or polytheistic). D concerns the nature of the deities or deity (kind, genial, fearsome, judgmental, fair, evil, etc). This trend continues until the letters around N and O are questions about questions of morality and/or doctrinal contradictions within the specific religion.

Now, in this argument A is necessary for B, B is necessary for C, C is necessary for D and so on, but NOT the other way around. What we observe must be a reality for us to make a judgment on whether there is a God or not, but whether there is a God or not does not mean that what we observe is real. Do you follow?

Furthermore, let us say that you have found a perceived problem with religious concept N, which has an internal contradiction. In order to address N you must assume A - M just to be able to address it fairly. If you establish that N is not a contradiction then you provide concrete evidence that the religious orientation does not self-destruct at point N. However, if point N is false then the concept as a whole must be false. So in the interest of DISPROVING the religion you actually must allow assumptions to be made for a brief moment.

What you get, in this hypothetical situation then is that: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P .... is the alphabet where the bold letters are not self-contradictory but still based on the previous ones. Now, doing this has only allowed us to show that the religious idea doesn't fall apart at N, we STILL must prove that A - M are true. Do you understand?

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteIf, if, if ... seems to me that every point you are trying to make rests on an assumption. I could as easily argue that if there's a flying spaghetti monster then some molecule with lots of branches it was proof of the validity of Pastafarianism, or molecules with a single chain proof of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Being brutal the whole Laminin proves the existence of god (or even supports it in some way) is total garbage.

I KNOW!!!!!! I have said that REPEATEDLY!!!! Please try to listen to me! Laminin DOESN'T EVEN COUNT AS EVIDENCE FOR GOD! BUT, hypothetical situations let us explore people's ideologies as they come across actual or theoretical events. I was merely saying that it was wrong to say that Laminin was absolutely, positively a coincidence in its shape. If you were certain about that you would have to be certain about there being no God, if you were certain about there being no God you would have to be omniscient, thus...you would be God.

Who argued that Laminin was the shape it is by coincidence? I'm just saying it bears no relevance to any religious claims.

I am not certain there is no god, I am pretty sure that none of the current claims to deity have any validity.

Kyu

Excellent, I think I can leave this discussion now. I just wanted to point out those things. I appreciate you saying that you are "pretty sure" because I've met atheists and theists who say they are absolutely certain of "X" and that just bugs me.

Quote from: "Titan"Excellent, I think I can leave this discussion now. I just wanted to point out those things. I appreciate you saying that you are "pretty sure" because I've met atheists and theists who say they are absolutely certain of "X" and that just bugs me.

Now you know how a lot of atheists feel about the proclamations of a large number of theists.  They know god exists.  Why?  "Because he does."  If you objectively look at the situation, I think you will find more 1's on Dawkins' scale of agnosticism than 7's.  Why is this?  Because most atheists need proof of god's existence and absolute proof that he does not exist.  Therefore, being of scientific thought, it is likely that god cannot be 100% disproved.  As far as religions go, time takes care of them for us.

Yeah, I get just as pissed with Christians who are that close minded. I actually have a Bible class with all Christians and everyonce in a while I'll just throw out an objection to Christianity just so they start thinking. Where everyone agrees, ignorance breeds.

You are right, God cannot be absolutely disproved, which is why he shouldn't be introduced into science classrooms (much to my sides chagrin), nor can you prove him. But like many things we have to go with evidence.

What do you mean by time takes care of religions?

Quote from: "Titan"You are right, God cannot be absolutely disproved, which is why he shouldn't be introduced into science classrooms (much to my sides chagrin), nor can you prove him. But like many things we have to go with evidence.

More interestingly. although your god or any other can't be disproved (and nor can the flying spaghetti monster, the invisible pink unicorn or an invisible flying purple people eater) a lot of evidence strongly implies that gods and such do not exist (the jury rigged nature of many things in nature is a good example), no scientific explanation in the last 50 years requests or requires the action of deity and indeed if "god dun it" were allowed into science as a valid explanation it would represent far more problems for science than it would solve (and would likely end up destroying science as a valid methodology).

Quote from: "Titan"What do you mean by time takes care of religions?

I would assume he means that all religions have a time, a cycle, they rise and fall, are replaced by others. There is nothing to indicate that Christianity, Islam or Judaism are anythign more than any previously existing cyclical religion, that they are based on any thing more substantial than those dead religions were, that their claims are in any way more realistic, that they are any less mythical.

Look at it this way ... if you were born 1000 years ago in America you'd likely believe in the happy hunting ground, if you were born in Iran you'd likely believe in Allah and if you were born in that area 3000 years ago you'd likely believe in Osiris or Mithras, if you were born in South America 1500 years ago you'd likely believe in Quetzalcoatl. Religious belief, the belief you happen to subscribe to has (as Dawkins says) more in common with epidemiology than anything else ... you happen to have been born in the US (?) today or (presumably) Christian parents so the chances were good that you caught the disease of Christianity.

Kyu

Kyu,

Better said than I. Thanks.

QuoteMore interestingly. although your god or any other can't be disproved (and nor can the flying spaghetti monster, the invisible pink unicorn or an invisible flying purple people eater) a lot of evidence strongly implies that gods and such do not exist (the jury rigged nature of many things in nature is a good example), no scientific explanation in the last 50 years requests or requires the action of deity and indeed if "god dun it" were allowed into science as a valid explanation it would represent far more problems for science than it would solve (and would likely end up destroying science as a valid methodology).

Quick question:
I'm not familiar with the term jury rigged but I want to know what you mean. Do you mind explaining that in layman's terms for me?
Hypothetically:
If atheism never did have the answer because it simply wasn't true, again hypothetically, would you ever come to the "truth" from this vantage point? Doesn't the position that "the truth will eventually come to us" rule out the possibility of atheists realizing that they are wrong?

QuoteI would assume he means that all religions have a time, a cycle, they rise and fall, are replaced by others. There is nothing to indicate that Christianity, Islam or Judaism are anythign more than any previously existing cyclical religion, that they are based on any thing more substantial than those dead religions were, that their claims are in any way more realistic, that they are any less mythical.

Considering that Hinduism and Judaism have been around for a VERY VERY long time how can you prove that they are part of the cycle?

Quote from: "Titan"Quick question:
I'm not familiar with the term jury rigged but I want to know what you mean. Do you mind explaining that in layman's terms for me?

It's actually a reference to an old racist term, "Nigger rig," meaning work done shoddily by African Americans.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=jerry-rig

I've never heard "jury rig" before, though. It's a good idea to, if it's a common phrase in usage, avoid it if possible.  

Quote from: "Titan"Quick question: I'm not familiar with the term jury rigged but I want to know what you mean. Do you mind explaining that in layman's terms for me?

OK ... jury-rigged means something of temporary design implying makeshift or improvisation. Jerry-built means to build cheaply, shoddily or flimsily.

The origins of the two terms are obscure and many people get the two confused referring to Jerry-rigged which is, in essence, wrong (all citations of this phrase are from 20th century, whereas the other two are seen much earlier) but has become part of the language.

What I was referring to was the jury-rigged design of organisms, organs and other things in nature ... many things in nature show appallingly bad design because evolution does not construct things from scratch but from what was already there; in other words new design features are virtually always modifications of existing ones. Apparently this is referred to as "historical constraint".

Kyu

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"It's actually a reference to an old racist term, "Nigger rig," meaning work done shoddily by African Americans.

I'm not convinced this is true, certainly the searches I did on the internet don't say that and I've always thought it referred to Jerry (German), even the link you gave only put the other reason at position number 6 in their explanations.

Kyu

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"It's actually a reference to an old racist term, "Nigger rig," meaning work done shoddily by African Americans.

I'm not convinced this is true, certainly the searches I did on the internet don't say that and I've always thought it referred to Jerry (German), even the link you gave only put the other reason at position number 6 in their explanations.

Kyu

Hah, how about that. "Jury rig (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_rig)" came first as a sailing term. I learned something today.   Shows you what growing up in America will do to ya.

QuoteOK ... jury-rigged means something of temporary design implying makeshift or improvisation. Jerry-built means to build cheaply, shoddily or flimsily.

The origins of the two terms are obscure and many people get the two confused referring to Jerry-rigged which is, in essence, wrong (all citations of this phrase are from 20th century, whereas the other two are seen much earlier) but has become part of the language.

What I was referring to was the jury-rigged design of organisms, organs and other things in nature ... many things in nature show appallingly bad design because evolution does not construct things from scratch but from what was already there; in other words new design features are virtually always modifications of existing ones. Apparently this is referred to as "historical constraint".

Thank you for bearing with me. What kind of organism or organ appears jury-rigged?

Quote from: "Titan"What kind of organism or organ appears jury-rigged?

* Whale flippers are evolved hands.
* Some snakes still have rudimentary legs.
* Whales have a rudimentary pelvic girdle and thigh bones that are hidden in their flesh, unattached to their spinal column (indeed 1 in 400 Minke whales examined have complete sets of hind legs not mere femurs but also tibias and fibulas).
* Rabbits (and other animals) eat their own faeces (coprophagy).
* Largely aquatic animals like sea turtles, Galapagos iguanas, sea snakes, crocodilians, water birds including penguins, phocids (seals, sea lions, and walruses), and cetaceans (dolphins and whales) that have to come up to the surface for air.

Those are just a few but finally a humorous (though very pointed) quote:
"When looking at human anatomy, would an intelligent engineer create a situation where a sewer line runs right through the middle of a recreation area?" Skeptical Inquirer

Kyu

Quote* Whale flippers are evolved hands.
* Some snakes still have rudimentary legs.
* Whales have a rudimentary pelvic girdle and thigh bones that are hidden in their flesh, unattached to their spinal column (indeed 1 in 400 Minke whales examined have complete sets of hind legs not mere femurs but also tibias and fibulas).
* Rabbits (and other animals) eat their own faeces (coprophagy).
* Largely aquatic animals like sea turtles, Galapagos iguanas, sea snakes, crocodilians, water birds including penguins, phocids (seals, sea lions, and walruses), and cetaceans (dolphins and whales) that have to come up to the surface for air.

Why are whale flippers having hand anatomy a jury rigged example?
Don't rabbits only eat their faeces if there is little or no food around and isn't that because there are still some nutritional remnants and/or the food simply helps stave off hunger pains?
What about the belief held by many evangelicals that evolution was a part of God's creation plan and that these are an end result?

Quote from: "Titan"Why are whale flippers having hand anatomy a jury rigged example?

Are you being deliberately dense?

Quote from: "Titan"Don't rabbits only eat their faeces if there is little or no food around and isn't that because there are still some nutritional remnants and/or the food simply helps stave off hunger pains?

Nope, it's an essential part of their diet ... they digest the food twice and get greater nutrients second time round (IIRC it's cellulose that gets broken down second time round)

Quote from: "Titan"What about the belief held by many evangelicals that evolution was a part of God's creation plan and that these are an end result?

Obviously I can't agree but fine, if they want to believe that is so then they can do so ... it's one helluva big step up from those creationist wingnuts.

Kyu

QuoteAre you being deliberately dense?

The last biology class I took was 5 years ago...I don't remember it all. Please help me out.

QuoteNope, it's an essential part of their diet ... they digest the food twice and get greater nutrients second time round (IIRC it's cellulose that gets broken down second time round)

So how is that jury rigged since the function is purposeful?

QuoteObviously I can't agree but fine, if they want to believe that is so then they can do so ... it's one helluva big step up from those creationist wingnuts.

Absolutely, fundamentalism runs into far more problems than just that though.

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteAre you being deliberately dense?

The last biology class I took was 5 years ago...I don't remember it all. Please help me out.

Oh come on man ... if a whale's flipper shows clear signs of being evolved from a hand then it demonstrates that nature (evolution) reused components to make something else. IOW jury-rigged design.

I'm not intentionally imbuing nature with purpose or character but this really isn't rocket science.

FYI the last biology class I took was nearly 30 years ago.

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteNope, it's an essential part of their diet ... they digest the food twice and get greater nutrients second time round (IIRC it's cellulose that gets broken down second time round)

So how is that jury rigged since the function is purposeful?

Because a designer wouldn't make an animal have to digest food (let alone it's sh**) twice ... a designer would make it a straight forward one-pass process. Again it is clear evidence of nature using existing components to achieve a new function.

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteObviously I can't agree but fine, if they want to believe that is so then they can do so ... it's one helluva big step up from those creationist wingnuts.

Absolutely, fundamentalism runs into far more problems than just that though.

I trust you're aware that your arguments are not much more sophisticated or indeed greatly different than the ones the fundamentalists use?

Kyu

QuoteOh come on man ... if a whale's flipper shows clear signs of being evolved from a hand then it demonstrates that nature (evolution) reused components to make something else. IOW jury-rigged design.

I'm not intentionally imbuing nature with purpose or character but this really isn't rocket science.

FYI the last biology class I took was nearly 30 years ago.

If God created via evolution is this still a problem?

Quote

Quote

QuoteNope, it's an essential part of their diet ... they digest the food twice and get greater nutrients second time round (IIRC it's cellulose that gets broken down second time round)

So how is that jury rigged since the function is purposeful?

Because a designer wouldn't make an animal have to digest food (let alone it's sh**) twice ... a designer would make it a straight forward one-pass process. Again it is clear evidence of nature using existing components to achieve a new function.

You are absolutely certain of how a designer would design? I am not arguing against your point....YET....merely the perspective you are taking on it.

Quote

Quote

QuoteObviously I can't agree but fine, if they want to believe that is so then they can do so ... it's one helluva big step up from those creationist wingnuts.

Absolutely, fundamentalism runs into far more problems than just that though.

I trust you're aware that your arguments are not much more sophisticated or indeed greatly different than the ones the fundamentalists use?

Oh come on! Ad hominem again! I could say "Your arguments are as sophisticated as my dogs" but I don't believe that and further more it accomplishes NOTHING! You have failed to out reason any of my points.

Quote from: "Titan"If God created via evolution is this still a problem?

It's not something I'd agree with but no, the theory of evolution is a biogenetic (life from existing life) theory so yes, there is nothing in evolution that dictates that a god could not have started it all. I'll go further and will say that a god who did it that way is self-evidently more powerful than a god that has to attend to every little detail along the way or the fundamentalist's 6000 year old Earth creating god.

Quote from: "Titan"Because a designer wouldn't make an animal have to digest food (let alone it's sh**) twice ... a designer would make it a straight forward one-pass process. Again it is clear evidence of nature using existing components to achieve a new function.

You are absolutely certain of how a designer would design? I am not arguing against your point....YET....merely the perspective you are taking on it.[/quote]

Ah, now we're back to the god being ineffable bit again aren't we?

Yes I'm sure because your god is supposedly perfect and all-powerful and if I (l'il ol' me) can think of better ways, even if only in principle, to design something then you can be absolutely, 100% sure that such a god could not only conceive of it but could do it.

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteI trust you're aware that your arguments are not much more sophisticated or indeed greatly different than the ones the fundamentalists use?

Oh come on! Ad hominem again! I could say "Your arguments are as sophisticated as my dogs" but I don't believe that and further more it accomplishes NOTHING! You have failed to out reason any of my points.

No, not Ad Hominen ... fact! How do you think I am able to post such sophisticated replies up to some points you've made? Where exactly do you think I honed my replies and built those answers? Trust me when I tell you it didn't have a whole lot to do with the more moderate theists especially as most of those tended to be either silent or on our side.

Kyu

QuoteYes I'm sure because your god is supposedly perfect and all-powerful and if I (l'il ol' me) can think of better ways, even if only in principle, to design something then you can be absolutely, 100% sure that such a god could not only conceive of it but could do it.

The statement disregards Christianities interpretation of the fall. All living organisms on earth were affected, animals were no exception. Obviously this is in just the Judeo-Christian interpretation but it does answer the accusation.

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteYes I'm sure because your god is supposedly perfect and all-powerful and if I (l'il ol' me) can think of better ways, even if only in principle, to design something then you can be absolutely, 100% sure that such a god could not only conceive of it but could do it.

The statement disregards Christianities interpretation of the fall. All living organisms on earth were affected, animals were no exception. Obviously this is in just the Judeo-Christian interpretation but it does answer the accusation.

No it doesn't ... it doesn't deal in the slightest with why your supposedly all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect God can't create something even a simple human engineer can't improve on.

Kyu

Well I suppose it would be more likely to be in the shape of a cross than the star of david.


Give me a break.

QuoteNo it doesn't ... it doesn't deal in the slightest with why your supposedly all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect God can't create something even a simple human engineer can't improve on.

You mean to say that there is no way for God to be real if He creates things that people can understand? You are also still claiming that those things were flawed prior to the fall. A claim Christians reject.

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteNo it doesn't ... it doesn't deal in the slightest with why your supposedly all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect God can't create something even a simple human engineer can't improve on.

You mean to say that there is no way for God to be real if He creates things that people can understand? You are also still claiming that those things were flawed prior to the fall. A claim Christians reject.

Actually, you're the only Christian I've ever met online or in person to claim that everything was physically altered by the fall.  But at least that fits a whole lot better with the evidence, if not with the book.  I don't know the book well enough to state that with certainty, but I do know the evidence.   :unsure:

Some Christians would disagree with my interpretation, absolutely. But I try to find the interpretation with the least assumptions that explains the most facts in the best manner. I really do recommend even looking at the summary of two books by C.S. Lewis (you don't have to read them, I'm not going to be that demanding) but he has an interesting interpretation of existence and the fall in Out of the Silent Planet and Perelandra.

Quote from: "Titan"Some Christians would disagree with my interpretation, absolutely. But I try to find the interpretation with the least assumptions that explains the most facts in the best manner. I really do recommend even looking at the summary of two books by C.S. Lewis (you don't have to read them, I'm not going to be that demanding) but he has an interesting interpretation of existence and the fall in Out of the Silent Planet and Perelandra.

Well, seeing as how I just downloaded 100+ MB of televangelist stuff on recommendation of a friend, and it is almost certainly going to be a waste of time, I suppose I can set aside the time to look over some of this CS Lewis stuff.  I thought I read an argument somewhere about him being bogus, but I trust myself to recognize if this is the case, and I've only heard it once which is a lot less than all the other stuff.  Warrants looking at.  Like I said, I'm watching a televangelist.  CS Lewis has to be better.    

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE DON'T LISTEN TO THE TELEVANGELIST! You don't have to listen to C.S. Lewis as an alternative it is just that there are SOOO many televangelists I have listened to who have corrupted Christianity, turning it into a profit thing. If he asks the viewer to send in money please erase the file from your hard drive.

C.S. Lewis most popular work is Mere Christianity but I don't want to force you to read something you think will be a waste of time.

Quote from: "Titan"PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE DON'T LISTEN TO THE TELEVANGELIST!

Thanks for saying it.  And the moment he shows himself to be fraudulent, you bet I'm getting him off my PC.  But my friend tells me he's different.

As to wasting time, don't worry about it, I waste all my time by choice, you'd not be forcing me.  And I waste a lot of time as it is.  I read a lot of internet science articles where I already better understand the information than the article explains it, but then there's a lot of other stuff that I try to read and is indecipherable to me, and both cases represent a waste of time as I gain nothing from the experience.   I play a lot of videogames, too, and those don't do anything to better mankind.  Wasting time is a human hobby.  What counts is having fun and doing it because you want to.  Though I will at least read some excepts before committing to any books.  I don't blindly charge into every mode for wasting time.  

QuoteI play a lot of videogames, too, and those don't do anything to better mankind.

BLASPHEMY!

But it sounds like you waste your time with things that are more noble...I wish I was the same.

Quote from: "Titan"BLASPHEMY!

I agree.

Quote from: "Titan"But it sounds like you waste your time with things that are more noble...I wish I was the same.

The nobility of knowledge and its acquirement, I would argue, centers largely on its use.  I haven't written any papers or developed any new technologies, but I will try to explain various things to anyone standing too close to me in a room for too great a duration, provided I don't think they'll hit me.   :lol:

But hey, if you want be more like me, awesome.  

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteNo it doesn't ... it doesn't deal in the slightest with why your supposedly all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect God can't create something even a simple human engineer can't improve on.

You mean to say that there is no way for God to be real if He creates things that people can understand? You are also still claiming that those things were flawed prior to the fall. A claim Christians reject.

If you're taking the theistic evolution perspective then I won;t argue though its not a view I support but if you're suggesting that your God had a direct hand in designing some aspects of nature such as the obviously flawed "design" of the excretory/reproductive system in humans then my point stands. It really depends on where you stand (more what perspective you're coming from) on this.

Kyu

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteNo it doesn't ... it doesn't deal in the slightest with why your supposedly all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect God can't create something even a simple human engineer can't improve on.

You mean to say that there is no way for God to be real if He creates things that people can understand? You are also still claiming that those things were flawed prior to the fall. A claim Christians reject.

If you're taking the theistic evolution perspective then I won;t argue though its not a view I support but if you're suggesting that your God had a direct hand in designing some aspects of nature such as the obviously flawed "design" of the excretory/reproductive system in humans then my point stands. It really depends on where you stand (more what perspective you're coming from) on this.

Kyu

What is inherently wrong with the excretory system being unified with the reproductive system? You aren't using both all the time and I don't think you are upset that you can't do both simultaneously...sounds like a pretty efficient use of space to me.

Quote from: "Titan"What is inherently wrong with the excretory system being unified with the reproductive system? You aren't using both all the time and I don't think you are upset that you can't do both simultaneously...sounds like a pretty efficient use of space to me.

From a jury-rigged design perspective (naturalistic) yes indeed it is very "clever" (and I include in that the theistic evolution perspective) but it you're talking intelligent design then no it makes no sense at all quite simply from the perspective that a human engineer can envisage better.

Kyu

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"

Quote from: "Titan"What is inherently wrong with the excretory system being unified with the reproductive system? You aren't using both all the time and I don't think you are upset that you can't do both simultaneously...sounds like a pretty efficient use of space to me.

From a jury-rigged design perspective (naturalistic) yes indeed it is very "clever" (and I include in that the theistic evolution perspective) but it you're talking intelligent design then no it makes no sense at all quite simply from the perspective that a human engineer can envisage better.

You didn't answer why it was not a great use of space and why it was bad?