27 Nov 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieDesigning something "better" implies it has a purpose.
bad design, i don't think anything is badly designed, in fact, id like to see you design a blade of grass better.
Then we have the concept of "fitness for purpose".
Which is better designed; the blade of grass or a cactus?
We can certainly look for "fitness for purpose" when considering food and
there is no doubt that the ancestors of the grains we eat to day were poorly
designed. Man improved on that original design - not any god!
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
27 Nov 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou just refuted your own argument.
we are imperfect, who is to say what we shall achieve if we are perfect as the creator originally intended.
If we, and other living organisms are not perfect, and we can easily and trivially see
that they are not perfect, then we could obviously design them better.
And certainly your purported god could.
So you are claiming that your god deliberately introduced bad design as a punishment.
But then argue that the 'perfection' and supreme design in nature implies a designer.
If nature is perfect then you could point to that (erroneously) and claim that that implies a god.
But you can't then claim that that god made nature imperfect.
If nature is imperfect, then you can't point to that and claim that that implies a god.
As nature IS by your own admission imperfect... You can't point to it to claim the existence of your god.
Of course because you have the foresight of a spalax you have hidden my posts from your view,
So I can refute you without you ever even knowing...
I like this, this is going to be fun.
Oh and the easiest example IS the human (mammalian) eye.
The vitreous fluid is filled with gunk.
The retina has the nerves and blood vessels on top of the light detecting cells.
We have colour vision only in the centre of our eye.
We have no low light vision in the high density patch in the centre of our eye severely crippling our night vision
(which is why if you look at stars through a telescope they can vanish if you look directly at them, so you have to
look through the corner of your eye)
We have a blind spot where the nerves and blood vessels pass through the retina, because again, they are on top of
the light detecting cells.
The list goes on and on.
Claiming that this is perfect is idiotic (but hey it's being claimed by an idiot... go figure) and obviously wrong.
You probably have a better light detector in your mobile phone.
And the eye's of every bird of prey vastly outperforms ours.... and is still not perfect.
Originally posted by wolfgang59you are talking of the ancient Greek concept of virtue, in that something is fitted for
Designing something "better" implies it has a purpose.
Then we have the concept of "fitness for purpose".
Which is better designed; the blade of grass or a cactus?
We can certainly look for "fitness for purpose" when considering food and
there is no doubt that the ancestors of the grains we eat to day were poorly
designed. Man improved on that original design - not any god!
a particular purpose. Poorly designed, I don't think so, in fact, all that man has
been able to achieve is a modification on the original and its not always been
beneficial, for example, have you heard of the tragic story of Indian farmers who
have introduced genetically modified crops with devastating human consequences,
Companies like Monsanto promise farmers that these genetically modified (GM)
seeds, which cost significantly more than traditional seeds, require less pesticide and
will potentially produce higher yields than traditional, renewable seeds. However,
farmers are usually not told that GM seeds also require more water, making crops
more susceptible to drought, irrigation and lower water levels. These genetically
modified seeds also do not produce viable seeds of their own to be saved for the
next season's harvest, which means that farmers are forced to buy the patented
seeds and fertilizer again and again every year.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mallika-chopra/the-tragedy-of-farmers-su_b_189843.html
Please tell the forum how these modified grains were better than the original?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieGiven that you said:
whether its the creator that I adhere to or not is irrelevant, the idea that incredibly
complex life forms exists without out the need for intelligence or design is ludicrous,
ever seen a house that built itself, no neither have I, ever seen order out of chaos, no
neither have I. Is everyone perspective the same Agers, no, then why are you
p ...[text shortened]... argument which assumes that it is, 'I and my atheist peers on here see
nothing of the sort'.
"I have not assumed that my God exists, its perfectly clear from an observation of the
natural world that there is intelligence inherent in creation, which testifies to the
creators existence,..."
Then there is no rational way to read this other than you think it is perfectly clear that there exists precisely one god (because of "the" in "...testifies to the creators existence..."), and that this god is the one you hold exists (because of "my" in "I have not assumed that my God exists, its perfectly clear from...")
as such, your statement "whether its the creator that I adhere to or not is irrelevant" is an error - it is very relevant!!!
I am not proposing an argument that everyones perspective should be as mine. I'm merely countering your universal statement that it is perfectly clear intelligence is inherent in creation - namely by providing a set of counter-examples (us atheists) for which it is not perfectly clear
27 Nov 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieVandana Shiva's Stolen Harvest was a wonderful book about cases like Monsanto and their 'Terminator' seeds. It makes me so angry!
you are talking of the ancient Greek concept of virtue, in that something is fitted for
a particular purpose. Poorly designed, I don't think so, in fact, all that man has
been able to achieve is a modification on the original and its not always been
beneficial, for example, have you heard of the tragic story of Indian farmers who
have intro ...[text shortened]... _189843.html
Please tell the forum how these modified grains were better than the original?
27 Nov 12
People aren't born "evil", but because humans are animals, we have a tendacy toward behavior that is considered "bad", just like the rest of the animal kingdom.
I don't believe that children are "blank slates". Children have a tendancy toward disobedience, selfishness, or hitting other children, etc. Left to their own devices, children will pretty much always choose "bad" behavior.
27 Nov 12
Originally posted by bbarrI got to read that bbar, no wonder it makes you angry, it would make anyone with even
Vandana Shiva's Stolen Harvest was a wonderful book about cases like Monsanto and their 'Terminator' seeds. It makes me so angry!
a slither of humanity weep!
27 Nov 12
Originally posted by Agergok
Given that you said:
"[b]I have not assumed that my God exists, its perfectly clear from an observation of the
natural world that there is intelligence inherent in creation, which testifies to the
creators existence,..."
Then there is no rational way to read this other than you think it is perfectly clear that there exists precisely one god ...[text shortened]... oviding a set of counter-examples (us atheists) for which it is not perfectly clear[/b]
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
27 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobiemany improvements grass have already been made. obviously people need different types of grass for different reasons so there is no overall best design for grass. but all you have to do is look at sporting venues, football and golf in particular to see the effects of improved grass.
come up with any improvements on a blade of grass yet?
im not sure what the relevance to this is anyway. what would improving or me being able to improve grass prove to you?
27 Nov 12
Originally posted by stellspalfiehave you never fallen on astro turf, tell me how it compares to real grass?
many improvements grass have already been made. obviously people need different types of grass for different reasons so there is no overall best design for grass. but all you have to do is look at sporting venues, football and golf in particular to see the effects of improved grass.
im not sure what the relevance to this is anyway. what would improving or me being able to improve grass prove to you?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
27 Nov 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobiehttp://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/topics/borlaug/special.html
come up with any improvements on a blade of grass yet?
..... In 1964, India was reeling from the death of Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of independent India. The world watched anxiously to see how the fledgling democracy would handle this crisis of political succession. However, there was an ever greater crisis looming on the horizon--Nehru had tried to fashion India's centralized economy by focusing almost exclusively on heavy industry, while seemingly intractable problems of food shortages and famines had arisen to plague the agriculture sector.
Two consecutive droughts in 1966 and 1967 threatened to bring on famine on a massive scale. The new prime minister, Lal Bahadur Shastri, inherited a country on the brink of a human catastrophe. These developments seemed to confirm the worst fears of biologist Paul Ehrlich, who famously wrote in The Population Bomb, his 1968 bestseller: "The battle to feed all of humanity is over," and "In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now." Ehrlich also said, "I have yet to meet anyone familiar with the situation who thinks India will be self-sufficient in food by 1971." He insisted that "India couldn't possibly feed two hundred million more people by 1980."
Little did Ehrlich know that Borlaug and his team were already engaged in the kind of 'crash program' he had declared would never work. Working in Mexico, they had developed a special breed of dwarf wheat that resisted a wide spectrum of plant pests and diseases and produced two to three times more grain than the traditional varieties. .....
An improvement to a type of grass.
Someone who RC hasn't blocked please ram this down his throat.
27 Nov 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobiethe idea that incredibly complex life forms exists without out the need for intelligence or design is ludicrous.
whether its the creator that I adhere to or not is irrelevant, the idea that incredibly
complex life forms exists without out the need for intelligence or design is ludicrous,
ever seen a house that built itself, no neither have I, ever seen order out of chaos, no
neither have I. Is everyone perspective the same Agers, no, then why are you
p ...[text shortened]... argument which assumes that it is, 'I and my atheist peers on here see
nothing of the sort'.
It's not actually, this is all perfectly explained in numerous science books. It's called 'evolution'.