Really? Do you have any idea what “optimal design” even means? Evidently, NOT. I can Imagine an optimal design. However, an objective design does not exist. So far, I have had to reread this damned brain diarrhea six, seven, eight or more times just weeding out your psionic dribble. Most of what you say comes across like Charlie Brown: Wah-wah. Wah-wah-wah. It is flabbergasting to me to see any human lie to them self so badly. It also saddens me. To think Neanders still exists in such numbers and gullibility.
Author’s Note: still working on rereading… Too much supercircularity… Leaves me brain spinning…
— By Frank Turek
The following is an excerpt from I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (page 160-161).
Darwinists have long argued that if a designer existed, he would have designed his creatures better. Stephen Jay Gould pointed this out in his book The Panda’s Thumb, where he cited the apparent sub-optimal design of a bony extrusion pandas have for a thumb. The problem for the Evolutionary Scientists is that this actually turns out to be an argument for a designer rather than an argument against one.
There are so many things that utterly debunks design, AND intelligent design, within life. I just cannot believe you are that unknowledgeable. You know absolutely nothing about anything except how to lie beLIEvably to those who are already beLIEvers. This philosophical Brain Diarrhea does not prove anything. Philosophy only proves two things: #1: You know how to tell the truth; #2: You know how to fabricate a lie. Those are the only two things philosophy proves. Truly Think about that.
Thus, Reiteration, Any claim not backed by objective hard empirical facts and evidence is nothing more than a LIE. If you cannot back your philosophy with proof, OHEFE, your philosophy is False. Also, Remember, religion is a philosophy. NEVER science. NEVER fact.
First, the fact that Gould can identify something as sub-optimal design implies that he knows what optimal design is. You can’t know something is imperfect unless you know what perfect is. So Gould’s observation of even sub-optimal design implies an admission that design is detectable in the panda’s thumb. (By the way, this is another reason the Evolutionary Scientists are wrong when they assert that Intelligent Design is not science. When they claim something isn’t designed correctly, they are implying they could tell if it were designed correctly. This proves what ID scientists have been saying all along, ID is science because design is empirically detectable.)
One does need to know “optimal design” to know what “unoptimal design” is. Even using a hexagonal tire for instance is one such “unoptimal design” one needs not know “optimal design”. As long as one knows the purpose of the IT, I can also automatically hypothesis an optimal design for IT. Whatever IT may be. Design something. Let me look it over, and I guarantee I shall find improvements for a more optimal design. Of course I do not mean designing a round tire. I mean anything you ain’t seen before. Invent something. O! forgot. Religitards lost their ability to invent.
Second, sub-optimal design doesn’t mean there’s no design. In other words, even if you grant that something is not designed optimally, that doesn’t mean it’s not designed at all. Your car isn’t designed optimally, yet it’s still designed, it certainly wasn’t put together by natural laws.
Krickey. The only design is the fact that it works. Evolution has no purpose. Evolution tries ANY solution. The only other critieria for that solution is that it survives to procreate. To spread those alleles through the population through successive generations. The same exact thing you did to create your children. Any allele change you possess has now been spread into the next successive generation within a population. T…H…I…N…K…
Third, in order to say that something is sub-optimal, you must know what the objectives or purpose of the designer are. If Gould doesn’t know what the designer intended, then he can’t say the design falls short of those intentions. How does Gould know the panda’s thumb isn’t exactly what the designer had in mind? Gould assumes the panda should have opposable thumbs like those of humans. But maybe the designer wanted the panda’s thumbs to be just like they are. After all, the panda’s thumb works just fine in allowing him to strip bamboo down to its edible interior. Maybe pandas don’t need opposable thumbs because they don’t need to write books like Gould; they simply need to strip bamboo. Gould can’t fault the designer of that thumb if it wasn’t intended to do more than strip bamboo.
As shown with the square tire, I do not need to know objectives and/or purpose of any design to see there may be some design issues such as “unoptimization”. As said, the square tire thing immediately tells me it is as unoptimal a design for its intended purpose.
Finally, in a world constrained by physical reality, all design requires trade-offs. Laptop computers must strike a balance between size, weight, and performance. Larger cars may be more safe and comfortable, but they also are more difficult to maneuver and consume more fuel. High ceilings make rooms more dramatic, but they also consume more energy. Because trade-offs cannot be avoided in this world, engineers must look for a compromise position that best achieves intended objectives.
How do you come up with such stupid, idiotic, and retarded analogs?
For example, you can’t fault the design in a compact car because it doesn’t carry fifteen passengers. The objective is to carry four not fifteen passengers. The car maker traded size for fuel economy and achieved the intended objective. Likewise, it could be that the design of the panda’s thumb is a trade-off that still achieves intended objectives. The thumb is just right for stripping bamboo. Perhaps, if the thumb had been designed any other way, it would have hindered the panda in some other area. We simply don’t know without knowing the objectives of the designer. What we do know is that Gould’s criticisms cannot succeed without knowing those objectives.
Oi vay! Your examples are also just as stupid, idiotic, and retarded. Damn! Injured me hand in that facepalm. Thankfully I have face guard.
I had to reread this one a few times. I had to be sure you actually published such garbage. Even I would never have been that stupid. Sure enough you did. Again: Are you truly that stupid? Or are you acting that stupid?
I may return and comment more…
Evolutionary Biologists have long argued that if a designer existed, he would have designed his creatures better. And I can make our “design” a 7734 of a lot more effecient than your bumbling idiotic retard of a God-Thing. 7734, even a retarded person could make our design a 7734 of a lot better. Let us look at a list of just some of the problems of life’s most unoptimized design.
In no particular order:
There are many, many, …many more unoptimized designs I would change and make humans more optimal. Can you not imagine ways to make humans more optimal? Better? If you can with that sick perverted Religitard imagination, then so can a scientist. I am far from being an Evolutionary Biologist, but even a Volcanologist can study Evolutionary Biology and SEE the “unoptimized engineering”. These screw-ups are simply evolution taking “short-cuts”. Remember, evolution never truly designs for a purpose. Instead, evolution tries ANY possible solution. Then the only criteria is it survives long enough to procreate. To spread that allele change throughout a population. I have also studied Engineering. These are two sciences you know nothing about Frank. This Begs the Question: What even gives you the right to misinform the public about these sciences? Just because it disproves your fantasies? Thus, you still utilize beguiling semantics and prestidigitative dialect with Empathic Predation. Emotions prove nothing, except the FACT that we have them. Emotional Thought is already fallacious and irrational before such thoughts are even completed. A faith that cannot stand up against reality is not a faith much worth losing. Is it?
Always remember this people. Religitards MUST lie beLIEvably in order to abuse your intellect. Only beLIEvable lies can create the strong emotional self-reinforcement in order to cause you to use your emotions for that instant A-HA moment. If they used True FACTs, they would only disprove their fantasies. As mentioned, I have created a whole feasibly possible world called Etherlond. It is populated by many species of creatures, including Us Human Three (UHT). Three distinct and separate species of humans. They are called the Alnara (human) genus. Species, they are the Altais, Anur, Avari. Also know as Common, Noble, and Giants.
However, Etherlond presents another huge mystery. Easiest in a list.
Much easier in a list. Quad-limbed means we have two arms and two legs. Penta-digital means we have five digits on each limb. Hexi means six legs, or four legs and two arms, or two legs and four arms. Octo means they have eight digits on each limb. Of those eight, two are opposable thumbs on either side. Two thumbs, each with three fingers, grasping as if with two hands with just one. As for the red and blue bloods, well figure it out. What would a hemoglobin-like molecule need to turn blood blue? You should already figure out it ain’t iron. Ferric-oxide is what gives our blood its red color. OK… What would create blue?
You know how our arteries and veins take on a reddish and bluish color? Well, for Etherlond life, their arteries are a brilliant blue (provided you can see them), and the veins are almost black. More clues as to what causes blue blood? Our veins only appear blue due to the way light refracts through your flesh. Arteries are usually not visible. Since they are carrying needed material, they are better protected by being lower within the flesh. However, contrary to urban myth, our blood in the veins is still red, just a deeper, darker red. When exposed to air, it brightens due to oxygen in the air solublizing into the blood. How is that for a new word for you look up? Solublizing.
Basically, I do not need advanced knowledge in “optimal engineering” to know whether something is designed optimally or not. And yes, I can take any design and make it better. It is called “Southern Ingenuity”. Where I grew up as a wee lad, we had a saying: It may take Yankee Smarts to invent something new. But it takes Southern Ingenuity to invent it better.
When you are growing up as a farmer/rancher, many miles from civilization, you MUST learn INGENUITY. Invention and imagination using the prefrontal cortex to solve problems. As a scientist, I was always fascinated with the engineering me dad utilized to fix problems. Thus, I studied some of his engineering college textbooks. And bought more modern ones later. We did have a university nearby me dad would take once a week to its library. I also visited its bookstore and bought science textbooks. As me mom once said, “You do not read books. You consume them.” Great compliment. However, since I was the Firstborn, she wanted me to be religious like her. Me brain did not work that way. More like a robot than human. Yes, I had those burdonsome emotions and still do, but I also naturally thought logically, rationally from birth. Although Firstborn, I was the last to speak. And the greatest compliment I received came from me dad. “You watched Star Trek. You know what a computer is. Your mind thinks like a computer. If it is not logical or rational, it does not compute.” That simple. I was born with a scientific mind and just did not know until later. I always thought of me self as being normal. However, much later, I found I was an “outlier”. One of those points of data that gets thrown away. A shock to find I was abnormal. One of those extremes.
— The Unknown Atheist
Copyright © 2024 by RMFR. Licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 International. All Other Rights Reserved