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]

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.

So what do you have to say about my own argument? Do you agree? Disagree? Want to continue arguing with folk who use cartoons?

[Masterblaster]

Hello Mae von H

You say to POI - "You really should stop accusing Him of evil one day want Him to contact you the next."

------
I agree with you,MvH. I always thought that prayer plea from POI was a 'wind'up'. Was it?

You have medical experience that I have not got.( except as a patient). In an argument with a Skeptic about evolutionary flaws I was considering ,the Appendix,.....what is your take on that? Is it an organ that evolved to become redundant? Is this a common evolutionary cul-de-sac?

Appendix - a tube-shaped sac attached to and opening into the lower end of the large intestine in humans and some other mammals. In humans the appendix is small and has no known function

Thanks

[POI]

Mae You mentioned the uterus.

POI Where exactly, and in what context exactly? In speaking about UTI's, in which is really the only focus in our discussion right now, my current and focused argument is how "God's" decided placement of a sterile and short urethra, which is embedded within a very unsterile cavity (the vagina), and also very close to another even more unsterile cavity (the keaster); reveals a) inept design, b) deceptive design, or c) no actual design.

Mae And I dare you to describe one pathway out of the body that is sterile?

POI If a urinary catheter is not deemed sterile, is it still wise to place this urinary catheter into the female's urethra? no. Likewise, if I accidentally place an unsterile urinary catheter into the lady's vagina, do I worry about it? Again, no. The vagina is not a sterile cavity, but the female's urethra is. Placing a soiled catheter into her urethra is not wise. Placing a soiled urinary catheter into the vagina, merely means I need to start over, and grab a new sterile urinary catheter and try again for the urethra, which is embedded within a very unsterile area.

Mae Hate to tell you this but 1) single nuns have to practice hygiene.

POI UTI's are caused in many ways, yes. No one disputes this. This does not absolve the reality that many UTI's are related solely to design failure. I've already explained why.

Mae So what design improvement would you suggest?

POI One that does not cause many UTI's.

Mae 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.

POI God could develop any design he wants and chose one which causes countless UTI's in females. And again, I'm not saying UTI's are the #1 or #50th reason for female deaths. I'm stating what I stated above, and before.

Mae It’s a hygiene question.

POI My point here is that it no longer is a hygiene question if unsterile waste, (due to by-products from the vagina and keaster), travels too far up the very short female's urethra.

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

POI More of that pot calling the kettle black

[William]

Hello Mae von H

You say to POI - "You really should stop accusing Him of evil one day want Him to contact you the next."

------
I agree with you,MvH. I always thought that prayer plea from POI was a 'wind'up'. Was it?

You have medical experience that I have not got.( except as a patient). In an argument with a Skeptic about evolutionary flaws I was considering ,the Appendix,.....what is your take on that? Is it an organ that evolved to become redundant? Is this a common evolutionary cul-de-sac?

Appendix - a tube-shaped sac attached to and opening into the lower end of the large intestine in humans and some other mammals. In humans the appendix is small and has no known function

Thanks

Overall I wonder at what a "perfect form" (and world accompanying that) would be like if a "perfect God" would've made it.

I don't know that anyone (including atheists) would be able to answer that one.

It is something to be critiquing what is, (or even wishing for what is not) and wholey something else to be accepting of what is, even if that also includes the idea that we may in fact be existing within a created thing.

I also ask myself " if a creator who was omni-omni wanted to create something which would give it an experience of NOT being omni-omni, would that not explain why the universe is as it is?" and my current answer is "yes" to that question.

"But" (says the "other" voice in my head) "how would the existence of this universe grant the omni-omni creator respite from its omniness?" and the answer is that unless that creator lost itself within that which is created, it could not experience being non-omni - thus it is possible that the creation was designed specifically (and perfectly) for such to be enabled.

[POI]

Mae Ah, again the slam on God’s character. You’ll never hear from Him with this constantly accusing Him of evil.......................

POI It's as if you have read none of my responses to you...

Mae I don’t watch cartoons.

POI Then you cannot possibly get what I am saying.

Mae By definition, the author can’t know much and certainly wants to merely ridicule out of that ignorance

POI All I can do here is laugh.

Mae 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???

POI Apple is the better designer. It is a bug to create a 'system' prone to UTI's. God never moves his design out of beta. Was this unanticipated, deliberate, or not designed at all?

[Mae von H]

Hello Mae von H

You say to POI - "You really should stop accusing Him of evil one day want Him to contact you the next."

------
I agree with you,MvH. I always thought that prayer plea from POI was a 'wind'up'. Was it?

You have medical experience that I have not got.( except as a patient). In an argument with a Skeptic about evolutionary flaws I was considering ,the Appendix,.....what is your take on that? Is it an organ that evolved to become redundant? Is this a common evolutionary cul-de-sac?

The appendix is useful in immunological function. It also houses important bacteria that have been wiped out. This I know but I thought I’d also give a quote so you know it’s not just my view:

“Supporting the immune system
It turns out that the appendix appears to have two related functions. The first function is supporting the immune system. The appendix has a high concentration of immune tissue, so it's acting to help the immune system fight any bad things in the gut. The second function that it serves is what we refer to as the safe house.“

Appendix - a tube-shaped sac attached to and opening into the lower end of the large intestine in humans and some other mammals. In humans the appendix is small and has no known function

There are evolutionists who need there to be vestigial organs for their theory. But truthfully, All body parts have a function. This is a reason I started doubting evolutionary theory. There are no body parts that have no function, used to have a function or one day generations from not will have a function. Living bodies cannot afford to carry around developing organs that one day will serve a vital function. This is absolutely necessary in evolutionary theory with no corresponding evidence in nature.

Thanks

You are very welcome. It’s nice to be asked a question. Thank you very much. Those atheists are now going to jump on me like a dog on a June bug. They’re going to attack me personally with insults.

[TRANSPONDER]

i would not accept any intelligent design argument (though cosmic constants is a bit of a gap for a god). But evolution is a bit of a 'see if this works' effort. Not designed to be perfect or pleasant. Notably humans suffer from back problems because the Simian is not 'designed' to walk upright. And as to childbirth...well, the Bible debunks that argument. It was originally intended to be a doddle, apparently but (the fairy tale goes) it was made a nasty business as a punishment for that blasted apple.

In short, the 'Fall' is intended to explain why nature ought to be perfect and moral and beautiful, but plainly isn't.

Evolution theory says it has done what it it had to do so as to enable survival. Nobody said it has to be nice. It is complex, works, and is rather amazing and ingenious .Take the hexagon, which appears in the honeycomb and the human female in a context our friend Mae can probably explain. It surely has some structural efficiency and resilience and so evolved like that. Some might claim in an intelligent design, but evolutionary design explains that, too, but God's design comes under query when we consider the lifestyle of the Bee, but it works amazingly and even "Beautifully" (when one considers the hat and cane performance a bee gives to an audience of bees to tell them where the flowers are), but it isn't perfect in any moral sense a god supposedly gave us, and the Believers are welcome to make the "Fall" account for that.

Oh yes - Appendix, like 'Junk DNA' has been debated. Like the vestigial tail of course. The Appendix may have some balance of bodily function part to play, Junk DNA may have a function and the 'tail' bone is a muscle attachment. They are not necessarily functionless and redundant. But that doesn't make them 'intelligently designed' and not evolved any more than the hid legs of the whale (1). Evolution - theory (as spectacularly debunking I/C) shows that one organ can have evolved into another while still being a viable part of the critter.

That we still have an appendix at all may be explained by the 'New' function may have, but it does not alter the validity of evolution -theory that it is the devolved stomach we no longer need, since we changed from a fruit - eating primate to Homo Hamburgerensis.

(1) it may bear repeating that Theists think that 'God did it' is the default theory, and all they need to do is debunk (or dismiss) the 'proof' that it is without purpose (Appendix) and God -designed remains the default claim. But logically, all evolution has to do is show that evolution is as good a theory (if not better) and the two hypotheses have equal merit, in principle. That is where probability (not "believe..or not") comes into it. Which explains the evidence better? That lion kills the cubs so the new master of the pride (having disposed of the old lion) can be sure the cubs are his own is not God's plan but a total moral decline of creation because Adam disobeyed God, or that is what evolution does to have the 'fittest' genes dominate?

[Mae von H]

Mae Ah, again the slam on God’s character. You’ll never hear from Him with this constantly accusing Him of evil.......................

POI It's as if you have read none of my responses to you...

Can’t you drop the attacks on God’s character? It stands out and overshadows all other comments.

Mae I don’t watch cartoons.

POI Then you cannot possibly get what I am saying.

Sorry a cartoon expresses what you think.

Mae By definition, the author can’t know much and certainly wants to merely ridicule out of that ignorance

POI All I can do here is laugh.

Mae 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???

POI Apple is the better designer. It is a bug to create a 'system' prone to UTI's. God never moves his design out of beta. Was this unanticipated, deliberate, or not designed at all?

Since God needed no updates and Apple has them frequently, they lose the contest. Apple also refuses to support their products if their customers don’t update. Some updates had bugs so bad the company told customers not to update. How can you think they’re better than God?

The female urethra is separated from the channel to the uterus where unsterile fluid is injected at conception. That is not the reason for UTIs.

The bladder actually is not more “prone to infection” than the throat, but it does require good hygiene. The bladder is fitted under the uterus where it still can function despite a great pressure increasing during pregnancy. It actually is often less able to retain water during pregnancy. The extension of the urethra would require moving the bladder which require moving the uterus. There isn’t any vacant space in that area. Or pushing the bladder up further might impede its already reduced function in pregnancy. You only consider one aspect that is dealt with by excellent hygiene and good hydration.

When a designer changes a design, all functions and aspects must be considered. Changing one aspect can endanger the function of other parts. Any programmer or IT consultant can verify this. Change the program and it must be tested. Why? Because changes here in the software can render other aspects unusable or problematic. You forget that the rest of the female body needs to be able to perform all its functions. I do not see how this can done with pushing the bladder higher up into the abdominal cavity just so the urethra is longer. Being able to bear children is vital to the human race. Your suggestion might endanger that.

[Mae von H]

i would not accept any intelligent design argument (though cosmic constants is a bit of a gap for a god). But evolution is a bit of a 'see if this works' effort. Not designed to be perfect or pleasant. Notably humans suffer from back problems because the Simian is not 'designed' to walk upright. And as to childbirth...well the Bible debunks that argument. It was originally intended to be a doddle apparently but (the fairy tale goes) it was made a nasty business as a punishment for that blasted apple.

In short, the 'Fall' is intended to explain why nature ought to be perfect and moral and beautiful, but plainly isn't.

Evolution theory says it has done what it it had to do so as to enable survival. Nobody said it has to be nice. It is complex, works, and is rather amazing and ingenious .Take the hexagon, which appears in the honeycomb and the human female in a context our friend Mae can probably explain. It surely has some structural efficiency and resilience and so evolved like that. Some might claim in an intelligent design, but evolutionary design explains that, too, but God's design comes under query when we consider the lifestyle of the Bee, but it works amazingly and even "Beautiful" (when one considers the hat and cane performance a bee gives to an audience of bees to tell them where the flowers are), but it isn't perfect in any moral sense a god supposedly gave us, and the Believers are welcome to make the "Fall" account for that.

Oh yes - Appendix.liuke'Junk DNA' has been debated. Like the vestigial tail of course. The Appendix may have some balance of bodily function part to play, Jund DNA may have a function and the 'tail' bone is a muscle attachment. They are not necessarily functionless and redundant. But that doesn't make them'designed and not evolved any more than the hid legs of the whale. Evolution -theory (as spectacularly debunking IC) shows that one organ can evolved into another while still being a viable part of the critter.

That we still have an appendix at all may be explained by the 'New' function may have, but it does not alter the validity of evolution -theory that it is the devolved stomach we no longer need, since we changed from afruit - eating primate to Homo Hamburgerensis.

Organs never develop “new” functions. There’s no historical record of such an event.

[TRANSPONDER]

i would not accept any intelligent design argument (though cosmic constants is a bit of a gap for a god). But evolution is a bit of a 'see if this works' effort. Not designed to be perfect or pleasant. Notably humans suffer from back problems because the Simian is not 'designed' to walk upright. And as to childbirth...well the Bible debunks that argument. It was originally intended to be a doddle apparently but (the fairy tale goes) it was made a nasty business as a punishment for that blasted apple.

In short, the 'Fall' is intended to explain why nature ought to be perfect and moral and beautiful, but plainly isn't.

Evolution theory says it has done what it it had to do so as to enable survival. Nobody said it has to be nice. It is complex, works, and is rather amazing and ingenious .Take the hexagon, which appears in the honeycomb and the human female in a context our friend Mae can probably explain. It surely has some structural efficiency and resilience and so evolved like that. Some might claim in an intelligent design, but evolutionary design explains that, too, but God's design comes under query when we consider the lifestyle of the Bee, but it works amazingly and even "Beautiful" (when one considers the hat and cane performance a bee gives to an audience of bees to tell them where the flowers are), but it isn't perfect in any moral sense a god supposedly gave us, and the Believers are welcome to make the "Fall" account for that.

Oh yes - Appendix.liuke'Junk DNA' has been debated. Like the vestigial tail of course. The Appendix may have some balance of bodily function part to play, Jund DNA may have a function and the 'tail' bone is a muscle attachment. They are not necessarily functionless and redundant. But that doesn't make them'designed and not evolved any more than the hid legs of the whale. Evolution -theory (as spectacularly debunking IC) shows that one organ can evolved into another while still being a viable part of the critter.

That we still have an appendix at all may be explained by the 'New' function may have, but it does not alter the validity of evolution -theory that it is the devolved stomach we no longer need, since we changed from afruit - eating primate to Homo Hamburgerensis.

Organs never develop “new” functions. There’s no historical record of such an event.

But there is palaeontological and morphological record, which frankly, beats some Claim written in a book The flippers of cetans used to be legs. The wings of birds used to be arms. I/C (irreducible complexity) has the burden of proof of showing that evolution is impossible (without God's help I suppose) because one organ cannot evolve into another without the whole organism ceasing to work. All that is needed is a theory (hypothesis) that explains how such can happen (1), and the 'impossible' claim is debunked, even if there is no evidence for it. In fact the early toothed whales in some fossils are found to be evolving Baleen, a transition from prey catching to krill- browsing.

(1)