J-Mac thinks that parasites are “designs gone wrong” via adaptation, and phoodoo thinks that such things are required so that we can have free will.
These two positions are incompatible. And yet all phoodoo and J-Mac wants to do is pick holes in evolutionary theory rather then resolve these blatant differences in their position. Only one of them can be right, after all. This thread is an opportunity for them to resolve said differences and then they can turn to their righteous work of destroying evolution with a united theistic front.
What was the “original design” of parasites supposed to be then?
Parasites get a bad press. It’s not their fault being trapped by an evolutionary niche they can’t escape.
Can I just drop in to point out that neither option makes any goddamn sense?
Someone had to post it.
I object to anyone telling me what I think, and Omagain certainly isn’t articulate enough to state it correctly (admins, can I lie about what Omagain thinks and put it into a post?)
My position is not that they are necessary for free will, but rather ALL things, good or bad are part of a physical, mortal world. Asking to get rid of one, is asking to get rid of everything.
If there wasn’t a particular parasite, Omagain would complain about another. If there were none he would complain about mosquitoes. If no mosquitoes he would complain about beetles. If no beetles, he would complain about hills. If no hills he would complain about the available flavors of ice cream. Or about not getting the guy with blond hair that he likes. Or about spaghetti not being satisfying enough. EVERY complaint of evil, is really just another complaint that the world doesn’t give me everything exactly as I want it. In other words, Omagain would love to just sit on his ass all day long, and have chocolate brought to him, and bath in whip cream.
Tough shit.
phoodoo,
So if a psycho broke into your house and killed and raped your entire family, you would have no reason to complain. After all you would also complain if he killed all but one member of your family, or just the females, or even just your dog.
I know! Poor little guys!
Leeches get a pass because we use them for medicinal purposes.
Redemption for Leeches !
Oh, wait…. now the creationists will say that all parasites exist because some day they will be useful for medical science.
Argumentum ad Futuris in 3,2,1….
You’d almost think that creationists aren’t interested in explaining biology, aside from the ubiquitous non-explanation “designer did it.”
I’m beginning to think that it’s religion they’re promoting…
Glen Davidson
Congrats on becoming a materialist.
Huh? Only materialists are allowed to believe a physical world exists?
What a crazy thing to say.
Fair Witness,
And some people will say leeches are evil.
Dogs kill 25 thousand people a year. I guess they are really evil. Much much much more evil than the Loa loa filariasis. Why did God invent dogs? Or lions!
Why can’t we have a world without wildlife!
This is not an unreasonable complaint. Perhaps OMagain could have qualified with “apparently” and quoted you and J-mac or at least linked to the comments from which he drew his inferences. And of course you are free to correct the misunderstanding in these comments, as you are doing.
I was surprised by that but I see 20,000 of those deaths are attributed to rabies infection in India, where rabies is endemic in the large stray population.
Alan Fox,
Yes, but I believe there are also around 4 million dog bites a year in the US alone!
Evil vermin!
J-Mac thinks that parasites are “designs gone wrong” via adaptation…
Can someone provide the quote where I said that parasites are designs gone wrong”?
I guess this blog is going to be about misrepresenting others statements, which I was accused of doing yesterday about Dawkins…I guess this is a payback???
I have written a post about (the accusation of misrepresentation) that I was about to submit for review (Alan can confirm that it has been there since yesterday)…but I guess there is no need for that anymore…
Omagain,
If you want your beliefs to be vindicated, provide some science rather then putting words into someone’s mouth… I guess if you had evidence, I would be choking on it … until then… ciao!
For what is worth; Even a bad design still constitutes a design…If you think bad design is proof for your beliefs, you may as well get a wake up call now, because this nonsense only the blind materialists can buy…
If you think parasites are a bad design, you design it better and then you will prove it is a bad design… Since you can’t, we will have to continue to wait for you to show that evolution can produce even bad but functional designs…
Until that happens, ciao!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdghRwWfaOQ
vs
bonus:
Seems to me you don’t know what your own position is.
Sure
Seems to me the bold line is just another way of saying what you are claiming you did not say.
And you then proceed to put words in my mouth. You still don’t get it do you? I don’t care about “vindicating my beliefs”. We’ve already won!
So none of this is about that.
This is about your position.
So, please correct me if I’m wrong but you believe that complex things cannot evolve.
And malaria’s adaptation where it gains resistance to treatment is too complex to have evolved.
So the question to you, the only question, is this: is your deity designing the resistance into maleria?
If the resistance cannot evolve (can it?) it must have been designed. And that’s all I’m asking you. Was that complex biological component designed by your deity or did it evolve without your deity’s direction?
Of course, you won’t answer. But that’s OK.
Could we have a world without rabies is the question or is rabies undesigned?
Alan Fox,
Alan,
How do I send you a message the way you sent it to me???
Anyway, my Mystery of Evolution #2 out of 29 for now is ready…
Who holds the record of the most posts? Maybe I can beat it…lol
Or cancer which kills 8 million a year.
This is basically the question. If we eradicate rabies will phoodoo’s designer create something similar in order to keep up the level of pain in the world? As a world without pain is no world at all, according to phoodoo. That’s all I’m interested in – is his designer activity interfering with maleria to keep it able to infect us or not?
They don’t believe evolution can evolve anything, so what’s left?
What’s the point? Did your god design parasites or not? Are parasites that blind us operating as designed by your god? If not, does that mean they evolved?
I believe Mung holds the record for least number of posts on average per OP. But I feel we have a new contender in town for that title….
Here’s phoodoo “quoting” words I did not say.
The question is does phoodoo’s god keep malaria infectious? That’s all. Nothing more, nothing less.
Given his refusal to acknowledge the question, one can only assume a mechanism other the direct interference is in play. Given that the only mechanism identified that can make such changes is evolution, it’s obvious why for the sake of his worldview phoodoo cannot even acknowledge the question as he knows whatever answer he gives he loses.
And I’m not asking to “get rid” of everything bad in the world. I’m asking is it even worth trying?
If phoodoo’s deity is going to ensure that there is a constant level of “evil” in the world, what’s the point of trying to eradicate malaria? His deity will just fiddle with something else and weaponise it.
I’m actually asking a genuine question to phoodoo, one that only he can answer. I mean, we can imagine a world where everyone has everything they need and disease etc is a thing of the past. Will phoodoo’s deity be happy with the “evil” of me not getting the blond I want, or the flavour of ice cream I want? Or will it decide that more evil is required to keep our “free will”?
I can understand the conceptual difficulty you may be experiencing phoodoo, but try to focus. Does your deity interfere with malaria to keep it infectious or not?
J-Mac,
If something has a designed purpose and does not act out that designed purpose but instead acts out another purpose, why? What prompts them to do that? Is that not a poor design?
I’m not saying it’s a “bad design”. I’m saying that your designer is a evil fucker for deliberately designing things that blind children as part of their lifecycle.
Here, let me educate you a little J-Mac. There’s a bloke called Michael Behe who did a bit of research into this whole “ID” thing some time ago. Here’s what he had to say about what I’m poking you about:
https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2012/04/behes-malevolen.html
Agree/Disagree? Why?
OMagain,
“Please oh please God, let people die, but just not from malaria. I want to soak in whip cream and die from obesity. Please God, why not??”
Once again phoodoo fakes a “quotation” from me. It’s almost as if he’s avoiding answering the question and will do anything to misdirect.
It’s not that I do or don’t want people to die from malaria. I’m simply asking if, in your opinion phoodoo, the exquisitely purposeful arrangement of parts that is malaria’s resistance to treatment evolved?
If not, where did it come from?
Guests who are new here are no doubt wondering why you just don’t answer the question, what is he afraid of?
It’s funny how little they can tell us about what they actually believe.
Perhaps phoodoo might say that he thinks god does not interfere moment to moment, it was all done prior to the big bang. Or that his god does interfere with biology, weaponizing it as required in real time depending on the current level of evil in the world.
But I guess phodoo only looks outward, not inwards, on his journey through life. Only hate and ridicule are allowed.
It doesn’t have anything to do with us you disgusting piece of shit. Literally a million people die every year from the disease. These people beg, besiege, and pray to their gods hoping for alleviation from their children’s suffering. And here you are pretending it’s somehow too much to ask for that someone purported to be in a position to help do that.
I’m sure you can tell the parents of this child about the wonderful design plan and how they’re just mad they don’t get to die drowning in whip cream.
Rumraket,
How would you prefer people die? Can you articulate it Rumraket? Omagain can’t, but its something to do with being fat and lazy and satisfied.
I generally don’t like it when people die. Yet they do and it’s a sad fact of life. Nevertheless, I prefer they die with more dignity, a greater sense of fulfilment, and less pain, fear, sorrow, and suffering, than they do when children die from malaria.
I think we can say without reservation, that some deaths are better deaths than others. Dying of age at 108 years old, having watched three to four generations of children and grandchildren be born, grow up and flourish, having had a long life of love, of lovers, exciting travels and fulfilling work and experiences of all sorts, is a much, much preferable death than dying of starvation at age 20, two years after you watched your child tortured to death by malaria disease. If death is unavoidable, I’d much rather they died the former rather than the latter way. And I think you do too.
Rumraket,
We are mortal Rumraket. So you what you are saying is, you want us to be immortal until we get to an age that is satisfying to you. So do whatever you want for 100 years, its doesn’t matter, because you can’t die anyway, then after 100 years you can go. Don’t eat, don’t work, don’t think, don’t be kind, don’t take care of babies, because what does it matter anyway, nothing bad could happen if you don’t. Don’t do anything.
Is that it Rumraket?
Nobody said we have to be immortal or that people’s choices don’t matter. What I’m saying is that some deaths are for lack of a better term, cruel. And anyone in a position to prevent them or alleviate the suffering, have a moral obligation to do so. In fact, the idea of moral responsibility for our actions rests on the premise that people’s suffering and pain matter. That life is finite and too much pain and suffering can basically ruin it. They say you never really recover from losing your child.
Try to think outside your box for a moment. You could erect your above excuse in response to a world consisting almost entirely of unimaginable suffering. If one out of every twenty trillion people had a decent life, and everyone else died in unimaginable torture, you could still erect your excuse to anyone who dared to point out that perhaps too many people die in needless pain.
I’m not saying there isn’t some place for hardships in life. Or that it should never happen that someone dies prematurely. I have some sympathy for the argument that some of the pain and misery we go through is what serves to make the good stuff be good in comparison. That these terms like suffering and happiness make the most sense when they’re defined relative to each other.
What I’m against is needless (degree of) suffering. Pain and suffering that doesn’t seem to lead to any comparatively positive effect. I’ve never suffered from malaria and I’m glad I have not. But me being glad that I haven’t watched my child die from Malaria isn’t a good enough reason to justifiy letting children die to Malaria. And if I had designed a living organism that caused unimaginable suffering, it would not be a sufficient excuse for me to just declare that pain is a fact of life.
The problem is you can’t explain what that means. You haven’t a clue what you even mean.
How can you be mortal and be assured you won’t die before 100? if no suffering, why do anything? You can’t explain that. You mean if you don’t feed a baby, you will feel slightly annoyed, but nothing worse than that would happen?
What would being good in your world mean-keeping people from being slightly annoyed?
I literally did what you now say I can’t. LOL
Here let me quote the post you are responding to:
“What I’m against is needless (degree of) suffering. Pain and suffering that doesn’t seem to lead to any comparatively positive effect.”
I’m not saying you can, or should, be assured of that. That isn’t necessary for my argument at all.
Here let me quote the post you are responding to:
“I’m not saying there isn’t some place for hardships in life. Or that it should never happen that someone dies prematurely. I have some sympathy for the argument that some of the pain and misery we go through is what serves to make the good stuff be good in comparison. That these terms like suffering and happiness make the most sense when they’re defined relative to each other.”
Tide goes in, tide goes out… phoodoo is applying for a vacant position on Fox News.
Here let me quote myself, again:
“I’m not saying there isn’t some place for hardships in life. Or that it should never happen that someone dies prematurely. I have some sympathy for the argument that some of the pain and misery we go through is what serves to make the good stuff be good in comparison. That these terms like suffering and happiness make the most sense when they’re defined relative to each other.
What I’m against is needless (degree of) suffering. Pain and suffering that doesn’t seem to lead to any comparatively positive effect.”
Rumraket,
But the problem is, you can’t describe what is needed suffering and what is needless suffering! Its that simple Rumraket.
Get rid of a full HALF of all the suffering in the world. Now you are satisfied? 70%, is that what you want-only 30% of life is suffering? How does that work?
Maybe God has already eliminated 96.4 percent of the possible suffering, and this is all that is left. Its still not enough? Maybe he has eliminated 98.975 percent. And you are still complaining its not enough.
Not sure this is relevant, but my email provider assures me that their filters reduce the spam of their customers by 95%. I’m doubtful.
You know, I hear materialists all the time saying, if there is a God, why isn’t there less suffering? Then if you ask them, well, what do you mean by less, then can only say, “Well, just less. there can be some, but less.”
So you say, well, how much less? Well would less look like? And of course you will never get an answer to this-just a repetition of, well, less. No “needless” suffering.
They can never describe their answer, and they just run from attempting to answer, because it is not really a position anyone can articulate.
Less spam, much less spam! But still some spam.
Unless your position is all suffering is necessary it is also a problem for you.
newton,
Why?
Do you believe all suffering is necessary?
newton,
You haven’t explained why its a problem.
I don’t have an opinion about what suffering is necessary and what isn’t. That is someone else’s distinction.