Here we go again. First off, he spelled atheists wrong in the title ... just saying. This guy just doesnt stop being wrong about science. Lets start with his problem with atheism, If you werent intelligently created .. you cant be intelligent. That reads better as the logically equivalent contrapositive, If youre intelligent, then you must have been intelligently created. I consider myself intelligent, so (by assumption) I must have been intelligently created, but since Im intelligent, I ask who intelligently created me? I dont know, but it seems reasonable to conclude that my creator must be intelligent and thus must have been intelligently created. So, I can then ask: Who is my creators creator? And: Who is my creators creators creator? And: Who is my creators creators creators creator? ... This either goes off to infinity or theres a first creator. We can ignore the case of infinite creation because I dont know of any religion that actually believes that and its a bit too trippy and confusing for a Facebook post. Finally getting to the kicker of this paragraph, if there is a first creator, then there is an intelligent being that wasnt intelligently created, contradicting the assumption used to ascertain its own existence. So, either the infinite case is true or this guys problem with atheism is false; either way, his religion doesnt hold up here. Furthermore, this is actually a problem with evolution, seeing as atheism is simply not believing that theres a magical man in the sky that controls everything. Talking about his car: ... maybe this was the result of some cosmic accident, like atheism believes that I was - Atheism says, Theres probably no gawd. And thats about it. In fact, evolution doesnt say that either; evolution says that beneficial traits arose randomly and were naturally selected because they were in some way beneficial as me calling them beneficial traits would suggest. Also, just because something is random, doesnt mean that it is accidental ... lottery numbers are drawn at random, are each of them accidents? Still about the car after talking about how things are positioned in a practical way: ... maybe it was designed that way. Then, I started thinking about me. - Your car isnt organic and you are. This analogy doesnt work, organic an inorganic things behave differently. Theres an entire field in chemistry called organic chemistry that studies organic compounds. The types of chemical bonds common in organic and inorganic compounds arent even the same; the ionic and metallic bonds of inorganic compounds tend to create relatively simple lattice structures, whereas the mostly covalent bonds of organic compounds allow for much more complexity, plus they get inter-molecular forces like LDL, polar, and hydrogen-bonds that add even more to the complexity of organic compounds. He then goes on to say how everything is properly positioned on the human body, as if it were designed by gawd. - Well, it kinda was designed ... by evolution. It makes sense that the eyes are near the mouth because it is beneficial to have the seeing organ near the food intake area, especially when you dont have arms yet and use your mouth as a primary limb, kind of like a dog, but more ancient and less bilateral. Then, the ears and nose grew nearby most likely out of convenience and bilateral-ness was selected probably because it was convenient and effective. He poses a mildly interesting philosophical question: How can I claim that I have intelligence? My answer to this is a bit trivial ... I can ponder the question. Everything shows intelligent design - Nope; physics, chemistry, and biology dictate the natural world by speaking in math. ... to claim that you werent intelligently designed only means youre stupid by your own definition - See first long paragraph. Gotta say, the best part about seeing this in my timeline is that it was right in between a post about Taylor Swift supporting gay rights and a post from JaclynG.
Posted on: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 05:43:42 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015