Obvious Designer?

[POI]

Otseng's statement: "This is the variation of the omnipotent God argument by imagining a hypothetical perfect design. There is no need for God to be a "perfect" designer.

In human designs as well, things are not perfect and have flaws, but they are still designed. Nobody claims since iPhones have flaws in them that Apple engineers are either crappy designers or they don't exist at all."

*****************************

There is just so much to flesh out in this cluster of statements, I do not know where to begin. I guess we can start here and see where this goes.

For Debate: Is it obvious humans were designed, or not? Please explain why or why not. If you believe so, does this design lead more-so towards...

a) an intelligent designer?
b) an unintelligent designer?
c) a deceptive designer?

Like all other topics, let's see where this one goes.... And for funsies, here is a 10-minute video -- optional, but begins to put forth a case for options b) or c), if "designed" at all:

[William]

I think it is obvious, yes.

Why?

It is the intelligence which is the most obvious (giveaway). Some recognise it and some do not. "Why?" that is the case may vary. Why do you think it is not obvious?

[Mae von H]

UTIs are generally deadly only in the very old although the condition shouldn’t be ignored due to possible kidney involvement. Nevertheless before antibiotics other diseases including tuberculosis were deadly. A UTI pales in comparison. Pick a different organ.

All I read here is more Christian apologetics, to rationalize the conformation that this set of organs is either designed by an a) inept creator, b) a deceptive creator, c) or no creator.

IOW, you cannot provide a single physiologically rational counter to the facts I present. There is no real complaint or counter design for the uterus. Your only complaint was about another different organ making up „facts“ that women were dying in mass from UTIs which a simply Google search revealed to be untrue.

So all anyone reads here is more atheist complainer raltionalizing their atheism by pointing out imaginiery flaws in their design. No facts, no improvement suggestions, just more accusing God of being inept (which is different than the moral complaints.) And when that fails, because you have ZERO design flaw points, you simply attack the Christians personally. That is the most used defense for their unbelief….the „Christians are morally bad/stupid/other insulting adjective.“ It seems to be your main point.

I know the other atheists will cheer you on. We, those who walk with God and enjoy that very pleasing fellowship, are outnumbered on this site. It is clear why many believers do not stay. It is being in the arena again.

[Mae von H]

UTIs are generally deadly only in the very old although the condition shouldn’t be ignored due to possible kidney involvement. Nevertheless before antibiotics other diseases including tuberculosis were deadly. A UTI pales in comparison. Pick a different organ.

All I read here is more Christian apologetics, to rationalize the conformation that this set of organs is either designed by an a) inept creator, b) a deceptive creator, c) or no creator.

Even so, that is not all that is to be read here.

There is also this.

When a poster has to use a cartoon to express their views, it is certain that 1) they do not know any real information and 2)they do not take the subject seriously in any case. It is just a lark, an opportunity to ridicule with no real basis for their opinion. IT is just, after all, a cartoon.

[brunumb]

So those who think the design is flawed, generally are uneducated in human anatomy and physiology. Ignorance is bliss for the atheists in this discussion.

Perhaps you should try a little education yourself.
Start here, easy to read:

Using all sorts of examples from the natural and scientific world Robyn Williams takes on the stalking monster of fundamentalist religion and creationism in a short, wicked and witty debunk of the nonsense that is intelligent design - a book to infuriate the religious right and amuse the rest of us.

This is what I mean by atheists feeling more free to belittle and insult since they don’t believe there’s a Moral Law Giver. They’re proud to be “wicked.”

What on earth are you talking about? You make insulting remarks like "Ignorance is bliss for the atheists in this discussion" yet you are unable to acknowledge your own ignorance of the matter. Robyn Williams has excellent scientific credentials and has expertly outlined many of the unintelligent aspects of human design. I also recall a television program many years ago where every aspect of human design was compared with that of animals to reach the conclusion that the human form could be vastly improved just by adopting some of the better features from other animals. You have provided no argument or case other than to denigrate atheists. Ad hominens appear to be the best you have to offer. What a waste of time.

[Mae von H]

So those who think the design is flawed, generally are uneducated in human anatomy and physiology. Ignorance is bliss for the atheists in this discussion.

Perhaps you should try a little education yourself.
Start here, easy to read:

Using all sorts of examples from the natural and scientific world Robyn Williams takes on the stalking monster of fundamentalist religion and creationism in a short, wicked and witty debunk of the nonsense that is intelligent design - a book to infuriate the religious right and amuse the rest of us.

This is what I mean by atheists feeling more free to belittle and insult since they don’t believe there’s a Moral Law Giver. They’re proud to be “wicked.”

What on earth are you talking about?

You are happy to post a link to a “wicked” site. I rest my case.

You make insulting remarks like "Ignorance is bliss for the atheists in this discussion" yet you are unable to acknowledge your own ignorance of the matter.

I can’t acknowledge what isn’t true. I studied anatomy and physiology and work in medicine.

Robyn Williams has excellent scientific credentials and has expertly outlined many of the unintelligent aspects of human design. I also recall a television program many years ago where every aspect of human design was compared with that of animals to reach the conclusion that the human form could be vastly improved just by adopting some of the better features from other animals. You have provided no argument or case other than to denigrate atheists. Ad hominens appear to be the best you have to offer. What a waste of time.

I refuse to read proudly wicked material. Wicked means the author feels quite free to depart from truth as that is what wicked means. There are wicked people in many high places and being highly educated doesn’t equate with morally good. Jordan Peterson tells of very wicked people in the halls of higher learning.

Besides, it’s obviously not a very good presentation since you don’t remember a single detail of his opinions. You can only point me to what someone else says you think. sigh! Just another case of “I myself can’t think or understand these things but read this guy, he’ll tell you what I think.”

[Mae von H]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

Human beings have designed things so poorly, that they don’t survive a year. The list is long. And yet they insist they could better design the human body which has lasted millennia and increased in number such that some cry “we are too many.” We create failed designs one after the other. It’s hard to believe these same people think they could have designed a better man. They can’t even design a mode of transportation that doesn’t damage the environment they live in and still get them whenever they want to go.
The most environmentally friendly mode of transportation was designed by …..God.

[POI]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #42]

Another strawman argument.... The urethra is the pathway for said infection. The urethra is a sterile field. The urethra, in women, is much shorter, than of the men's urethra. When germs are presented within this sterile field, and the pathway is this short, leads to a higher susceptibility to infection. Well, God, in his clever mind, has decided to embed this short sterile pathway within a very unsterile cavity. And to boot, also very close to an even more unsterile cavity, the keaster.

I was under the impression such a design improvement was not necessary to state in actual text. I guess you are still not getting it? Simply separate these pathways, so they remain independent from one-another. Viola, no more, or very few, UTI's. As it stands, some married wives fight with UTI's every year, while merely engaging legal married sex and/or whipping heir bums after defecation.

And yet, it also does not take a rocket scientist to discern that countless people died from UTI's, (due to poor design, deceptive design, or no design), prior to the discovery of treatment.

And no, I'm not 'attacking' you personally. I'm critiquing the obvious design flaws, for which you have absolutely no hand in, but are unsuccessfully and desperately attempting to defend.

And BTW, I was on another site for 4 years, where it was predominantly Christians. I was completely outnumbered. I would still be there now, as I prefer it. But conveniently enough, they opted to remove the Christian apologetics sub-forum, in which I was there regularly for debate.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

Human beings have designed things so poorly, that they don’t survive a year. The list is long. And yet they insist they could better design the human body which has lasted millennia and increased in number such that some cry “we are too many.” We create failed designs one after the other. It’s hard to believe these same people think they could have designed a better man. They can’t even design a mode of transportation that doesn’t damage the environment they live in and still get them whenever they want to go.
The most environmentally friendly mode of transportation was designed by …..God.

Please take note of the OP. Otseng compares God to an Apple engineer. Imagine if Apple decided not to update the original iPhone? You would then, be metaphorically equal, to that of the imperfect creator God, in which Otseng appears to argue for. Maybe this 'imperfect creator' is happy with the fact that women are susceptible to UTI's, based upon a design he opted to create, and also opts not to update.

Take note of the OP video. Maybe the God you worship is very bad at Texas Holdem.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #42]

Another strawman argument.... The urethra is the pathway for said infection. The urethra is a sterile field. The urethra, in women, is much shorter, than of the men's urethra. When germs are presented within this sterile field, and the pathway is this short, leads to a higher susceptibility to infection. Well, God, in his clever mind, has decided to embed this short sterile pathway within a very unsterile cavity. And to boot, also very close to an even more unsterile cavity, the keaster.

You mentioned the uterus. You going to ever get back to that? Women rarely die of UTIs and good hygiene helps prevent infection there same as elsewhere. What strawman argument did I present? The uterus has nothing to do with UTIs. When will you admit this?

And I dare you to describe one pathway out of the body that is sterile? You foolishly complain the pathway out is unsterile but don’t know there no sterile pathway out of the body as out means exposure to the external. The external by definition is not sterile nor can it be outside of a surgical room.

I was under the impression such a design improvement was not necessary to state in actual text. I guess you are still not getting it? Simply separate these pathways, so they remain independent from one-another. Viola, no more, or very few, UTI's. As it stands, some married wives fight with UTI's every year, while merely engaging legal married sex and/or whipping heir bums after defecation.

Hate to tell you this but 1) single nuns have to practice hygiene. So what design improvement would you suggest? The bladder has to be in such a position that pregnancy is able to proceed with the bladder under the growing child. Better you never considered that. UTIs are really not the desmise of females you think they are. And there’s a natural fruit one can eat that trap the few bacteria that might make it unlike tonsillitis which has no such preventative therapy. Are you ever going address your original complaint, the faulty uterus. So far you’ve addressed only the bladder or uretha, which is NOT a part of the uterus. They aren’t the same. Maybe you thought the urethra leads to the uterus. Did you think they were the same?

And yet, it also does not take a rocket scientist to discern that countless people died from UTI's, (due to poor design, deceptive design, or no design), prior to the discovery of treatment.

About 600,000 die annually from cancer…200000 from accidents. UTIs don’t make the top ten and they are counted and so this is not as serious a problem as you’d like it to be…and good hygiene eliminates the problem essentially. It’s a hygiene question.

And no, I'm not 'attacking' you personally. I'm critiquing the obvious design flaws, for which you have absolutely no hand in, but are unsuccessfully and desperately attempting to defend.

I’m not in the least unsuccessful nor desperate. You are unsuccessfully and very desperately trying to make a fairly inconsequential discomfort a whole design failure without considering that the bladder must be able to endure a growing uterus. And the uretha cannot be pinched off by the growing child. None the these things your side considers.

And BTW, I was on another site for 4 years, where it was predominantly Christians. I was completely outnumbered. I would still be there now, as I prefer it. But conveniently enough, they opted to remove the Christian apologetics sub-forum, in which I was there regularly for debate.

I can believe it. All the Christians, at least theoretically, have some concern for what God thinks of their behavior. The atheists have none.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

Human beings have designed things so poorly, that they don’t survive a year. The list is long. And yet they insist they could better design the human body which has lasted millennia and increased in number such that some cry “we are too many.” We create failed designs one after the other. It’s hard to believe these same people think they could have designed a better man. They can’t even design a mode of transportation that doesn’t damage the environment they live in and still get them whenever they want to go.
The most environmentally friendly mode of transportation was designed by …..God.

Please take note of the OP. Otseng compares God to an Apple engineer. Imagine if Apple decided not to update the original iPhone? You would then, be metaphorically equal, to that of the imperfect creator God, in which Otseng appears to argue for. Maybe this 'imperfect creator' is happy with the fact that women are susceptible to UTI's, based upon a design he opted to create, and also opts not to update.

Ah, again the slam on God’s character. You’ll never hear from Him with this constantly accusing Him of evil. The accusers of the heavenly realm never are invited to partake of its pleasures for obvious reasons. You really should stop accusing Him of evil one day and want Him to contact you the next.

I guess you’ve never had a UTI but think they’re akin to pain in childbirth. They are nothing compared to the top ten (or more) killers. (I couldn’t find where UTIs fall…too far down the list.)

Take note of the OP video. Maybe the God you worship is very bad at Texas Holdem.

I don’t watch cartoons. By definition, the author can’t know much and certainly wants to merely ridicule out of that ignorance….which is bless.

Another thought..Apple HAD to keep improving the design because they couldn’t do the best design right out of the gate. What is more, it’s quite common for each “update” to have UNANTICIPATED bugs. Gods needed no update and had no bugs. Who’s the better Designer???