benjaburns Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Every time I hear someone say something like "If God had intended for man to fly, he would've given him wings" I roll my eyes. However, that phrase just begs for a witty comeback: "If God had intended for man to walk upright... ...he would've given him ankles that were able to properly support his weight." ...he would've given him ribs designed to support weight vertically instead of horizontally." "If God had intended for whales to live in water, he would've given them gills." "If God had intended for ostriches to spend their whole lives on land, he wouldn't've given them wings." "If God had intended for man to have wisdom teeth, he would've made the jaw large enough to accommodate them." Of course, a lot of these "witty comebacks" are going to be pretty long-winded, but I'd like to see the ones you guys come up with. They don't all need to be about instances of bad design, but just general dumbassery on God's part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 "If God had intended for man to walk upright... ...he would've given him ankles that were able to properly support his weight." ...he would've given him ribs designed to support weight vertically instead of horizontally." The problem here is that although you are quite correct, the creationist will simply say that ankles do support weight and that spines do support a verticle body. They will never concede that the human body is inefficient. As long as man can walk with his back straight, God's design is perfect. They'll run away from you every time. Don't get me wrong. You make some damn good points. However, my experience with creationists is that they're pretty slippery. Tightening your grip on creationists will only cause them to slip through your fingers. You have to use their slipperiness to your advantage. Let them trap themselves with their own slipperiness, and that's where I think your ostrich argument works beautifully! Let me demonstrate for you... "If God had intended for ostriches to spend their whole lives on land, he wouldn't've given them wings."Now, the most likely way that a creationist will come back at you would be to correctly point out that ostrich wings do have a funtion. Should the animal lose its balance and fall, the wings help keep the animal upright. This is a self-defeating argument, of course. Even though it is the correct answer the the dilemma you've described, it creates a bigger problem for the creationists! By advancing this argument, they're forced to acknowledge that wings can have more than one function. So in an ironic twist, if a creationist were to attempt a rebuttal of your ostrich sample, they would unwittingly (and inevitably) refute Behe's mousetrap analogy, which is an analogy they need in order to infer most of the alleged "problems" with evolution. So if you think a few moves ahead, you can actually get the creationists to pie themselves in the face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leftofpunk Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 I like the whale one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurisaz Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 How about taking "man" literally? If gawd had intented man to live his life unarmored he wouldn't have given him testicles in an external and easy-to-damage location! (Sorry couldn't resist ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuaiDan Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 This is a self-defeating argument, of course. Even though it is the correct answer the the dilemma you've described, it creates a bigger problem for the creationists! By advancing this argument, they're forced to acknowledge that wings can have more than one function. So in an ironic twist, if a creationist were to attempt a rebuttal of your ostrich sample, they would unwittingly (and inevitably) refute Behe's mousetrap analogy, which is an analogy they need in order to infer most of the alleged "problems" with evolution. *The mousetrap analogy illustrates irreducible complexity* Yeah, but then Mr. Slippery creationist would just argue that ostrich wings have only one function, to provide balance while running, and bird wings were designed for flight, and of course they were created separately, so you're back to square one. Mr. Neil, there's gotta be an all purpose tool that cracks the nut of IC arguments that use analogies of inanimate objects, that takes into account the facts that mousetraps don't self-replicate over generations, and that watches don't contain codes for their own structure. Offhand know of any? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Yeah, but then Mr. Slippery creationist would just argue that ostrich wings have only one function, to provide balance while running, and bird wings were designed for flight, and of course they were created separately, so you're back to square one.Oh, I totally expect them to do something like that. I don't expect them to concede anything, but don't think for one second that they aren't aware that they're copping out. All you need to do is use my counter argument in person, and you can see their expressions as the light comes on, and they immediately do an about-face to hand-wave all of the obvious blunders of their assertions. Even if they assert that the ostrich wing was designed separately, they've still refuted irreducible complexity, because they've identified that some features in the animal kingdom, such as the wing, can have more than one function. They don't need to concede to evolution for this refutation to stand, and all you need to do is point this out to them. Watch them grind their teeth! They know they're wrong. Mr. Neil, there's gotta be an all purpose tool that cracks the nut of IC arguments that use analogies of inanimate objects, that takes into account the facts that mousetraps don't self-replicate over generations, and that watches don't contain codes for their own structure. Offhand know of any?Oh, I'm sure there are better examples. After all, creationists believe that Noah's Flood occurred, and that animals were divided up into "kinds". Creationists believe that these "kinds" have diversified into the plethora of animal species that exist today, but that the kinds are still distinct. For example, horses, donkeys, and zebras are obviously all of one "kind". Now, what I'm kinda looking around for is a particular group of species within a "kind" that displays vestiges with differing functions. That would be a slightly more inescapable problem for the creationist than the ostrich wing, because they'd be stuck within the compartmentalization of their own assertions. I may just ask Zachary Moore if he knows of any such phenomena. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Of course, a lot of these "witty comebacks" are going to be pretty long-winded, but I'd like to see the ones you guys come up with. They don't all need to be about instances of bad design, but just general dumbassery on God's part. If God had intended for man to remain ignorant, He would have created religion! Oh wait... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedPillAddict Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Of course, a lot of these "witty comebacks" are going to be pretty long-winded, but I'd like to see the ones you guys come up with. They don't all need to be about instances of bad design, but just general dumbassery on God's part. If God had intended for man to remain ignorant, He would have created religion! Oh wait... To those who claim to talk to God: If God wanted to talk to an asshole, he would have farted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KT45 Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 If God wanted us to not make mistakes, he would have made us in his image....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts