The theory of evolution of the Coca Cola can:
Billions of years ago, a big bang produced a large rock. As the rock cooled, sweet brown liquid formed on its surface. As time passed, aluminium formed itself into a can, a lid, and a tab. Millions of years later, red and white paint fell from the sky, and formed itself into the words "Coca Cola...12 fluid ounces."
Of course, my theory is an insult to your intellect, because you know that if the Coca Cola can is made, there must be a maker. If it is designed, there must be a designer. The alternative, that it happened by chance or accident, is to move into an intellectual free zone.

The banana - the atheist's nightmare:
The banana:
1. Is shaped for the human hand.
2. Has non-slip surface.
3. Has outward indicators of inward contents: Green - too early, yellow - just right, black - too late.
4. Has a tab for removal of wrapper.
5. Is perforated on wrapper.
6. Bio-degradable wrapper.
7. Is shaped for human mouth.
8. Has a point at the top for ease of entry.
9. Is pleasing to taste buds.
10. Is curved towards the face to make eating process easy.
To say that the banana happened by accident is even more unintelligent than to say that no one designed the Coca Cola can.

The Eye:
Did you know that the eye has 40 000 000 nerve endings, the focusing muscles move an estimated 100 000 times a day, and the retina contains 137 000 000 light sensitive cells?
Charles Darwin said: "To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
If man cannot begin to make a human eye, how could anyone in his right mind think that eyes formed by mere chance? In fact, man cannot make anything from nothing. We don't know how to do it. We can re-create, reform, develop... but we cannot create even one grain of sand from nothing. Yet, the eye is only a small part of the most sophisticated part of creation - the human body.
George Gallup, the famous statistician said, "I could prove God statistically; take the human body alone; the chance that all the functions of the individual would just happen, is a statistical monstrosity."
Albert Einstein said, "Everyone who is seriously interested in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe - a spirit vastly superior to man, and one in the face of which our modest powers must feel humble."

"There is no God":
The declaration, "There is no God," is what is known as an absolute statement. For an absolute statement to be true, I must have absolute knowledge. Here is another absolute statement: "There is no gold in China." For this statement to be true, I must know that there is no gold in China, or the statement is incorrect. To say, "There is no God," and to be correct in the statement I must be omniscient. I must know how many hairs are upon every head, every thought of every human heart, every detail if history, every atom within every rock... nothing is hidden from my eyes... I know the intimate details of the secret love-life of the fleas on the back of the black cat of Napoleon's great grandmother. To make the absolute statement, "There is no God," I must have absolute knowledge that there isn't one.
If you are reasonable, you will have to say, "Having the limited knowledge I have at present, I believe that there is no God." In other words, you don't know if God exists, so you are not an "atheist," you are what is commonly known as an "agnostic." You are like a man who looks at a building, and doesn't know if there was a builder.

Questions?:
Perhaps you have questions that hold you back from faith. First, almost every question you have about suffering humanity etc., can be adequately answered.
Second, we have faith in plenty of things we don't understand. Did you understand the mechanics of a television before you turned it on? Probably not. You took a step of faith, turned it on, and after it worked, understanding how it worked wasn't that important. We accept that there are unseen television waves right in front of our eyes. We can't see them because they are invisible. For them to manifest, we need a receiver, then we can enjoy the experience of television.
God is not flesh and blood. He is an eternal spirit - immortal and invisible. Like television waves, He cannot be experienced until the "receiver" is switched on. Here is something you will probably find hard to believe: Jesus said, "He who has My commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him." (John 14:21)
Either that is true or it isn't. Jesus Christ says that He will manifest Himself to anyone who obeys Him. Approach the subject the same way you approached your first television set. Just take a small step of faith. If it works, enjoy it. If it doesn't, forget it.

okay, where to begin...

1. The "Big Bang" theory applies to the creation of our galaxy, not anything that was created on our planet since our existence. Comparing that theory to the theory that the "Coca Cola" can was created by chance is INSANE. The planet was created by chance, the first life on the planet was created by chance, life evolved from there. THAT is the theory.

2. All (male reproductive organ) jokes aside, the banana argument is just silly. Produce has been monitored and altered by us since we first learned how to farm. We find convenient produce(preferably delicious, but that's a matter of opinion) and we mass produce it. Unpopular and inconvenient produce often don't get planted and disappear into the depths of time; unless there's nothing else available.
Call it natural selection or supply and demand, whatever. The point is, YOU'RE WRONG.

3. The eye is a tricky subject, but I'll tackle it anyway. Charles Darwin is from a time in which there was very little information about genetics and medicine, so it's pretty understandable for him to point at religion when the problems get too tough. The eye is complex, but that doesn't mean it was designed. I must, for a second time, refer to the theory of natural selection. Obviously, a creature with good eyes would have a higher chance of surviving than a creature with bad eyes. Therefore, good eyes get passed down from generation to generation; bad eyes do not. It is IGNORANT to not take these factors into account.

4. "There is no God"...
Okay, I understand where you're coming from on this one. That is a pretty bold(and somewhat arrogant) statement to make. In order to know for sure, you would have to know everything. However, the same goes for you. How could you know there is a god without knowing everything there is to know about the universe? The answer is simple, you cannot. To say EITHER "There is no God" OR "There is a God" IS IGNORANT(unless you say "I believe that..." or "In my opinion..." beforehand.

Overall, your argument is unintelligent, one-sided, and ignorant. Please do some more thinking before making such bold statements.

Look, I believe in God. But this argument is silly. The bananas you know about are domesticated.
What does that mean? Well it's like cows, or domesticated dogs. Certain traits kept getting selected for until eventually it became what we have today.
Same thing with cows. You could argue cows would never evolve like they are today in the wild, which is completely true. They appear to be designed because they were designed by man. (Maize is the same way, it can't survive unless mankind gets involved. It's a big point in Maya theology but that's another story.)

Like I said, I believe in God but not due to poorly reasoned logic like this.

this is what is discussed in the video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4 <-that's the video.

-Banana and hand are made perfectly for each other
-when you pull the tab the contents don't squirt out at you
-notice how gracefully it sits over the human hand
-it has a point at the top for ease of entry
-just the right shape for the human mouth
-its even curved to the face to make the process so much easier

Pretty homoerotic....

But if you really want to 'discuss' this, I am sure myself and others will be happy to oblige.

quote:

Basically the quality of discourse generally mirrors the quality of the original post, so, yeah. We didn't have a whole lot to work with here.

not neccesarily true if so wolfie's post would be full of crude remarks curses and swears.

Everyone has a free will if you let something like that decide how you talk you must not have a very strong willpower.

? what about bannanas?

quote:

Originally posted by Romashu:
some of the first few comments are really crude in itself.

If you people cant understand the point without makeing ur pervy remarks then why post at all all your doing is showing everyonr your lack of intellegnece and your pervy crude set minds.

Rule 34: No Exceptions. Not even bananas.

crude like oil

crazy like a fox

(adjective) like (noun)

See, the thing is, we all understood the point of the thread. The point of the thread was to spread hollow fundamentalist talking points that, like Brehon demonstrated, have been debunked time and time again. Lacking anything meaningful to discuss, it's only natural that the conversation would drift towards ~*homoeroticbananadongz*~

Basically the quality of discourse generally mirrors the quality of the original post, so, yeah. We didn't have a whole lot to work with here.

some of the first few comments are really crude in itself.

If you people cant understand the point without makeing ur pervy remarks then why post at all all your doing is showing everyonr your lack of intellegnece and your pervy crude set minds.

quote:

Originally posted by Kharybdis:
Phallic produce: the true proof of intelligent design?

"Bananas are living proof that God loves us and wants my mistress to be happy." - Ben Franklin

Indeed. Obviously there's an intelligent designer out there who's obsessed with penises. Just look at the Stinkhorn.

And I had no idea Ben Franklin was so nasty. Lawl.

Phallic produce: the true proof of intelligent design?

"Bananas are living proof that God loves us and wants my mistress to be happy." - Ben Franklin

I would like to point out that the banana fits perfectly up your anus/vagina. It's nature's dildo. God must be really kinky.

Lol, that banana video on youtube was sooooo homo-erotic.
I laughed. That banana is only 'the atheist's nightmare' because it's a nightmare to know how slow people are. Plus the banana is one fruit out of thousands. What about coconuts? What the eff was God thinking with that? Or pineapples? So what if one fruit is perfect for primates.

lol, coca cola. The problem with this is that we already know it's man-made so obviously someone made it. Trees, animals, life... not so much...

Well, if there is an intelligent designer why isn't everything perfectly adapted to their environment? Why are some animals designed like crap? Why did God make insects that have to survive on shit and get hatched from shit? Oh yeah, very intelligent.

The whole 'there is no god' argument is a load of waffle. You could say that there is gold in china and you wouldn't know. So basically you're saying you need absolute knowledge to know if God exists or doesn't.

I dislike faith. I just don't understand it, I never have and I don't think I ever will. To me, faith is blindly believing in something while ignoring all evidence to the contrary. Faith, while nice for some, is a form of ignorance.

oh kharybdis. i heart you and you too brehon.

god is television television is god long live the new flesh

you are like kirk cameron only without the sole redeeming value of having been on hit television show growing pains

consider that for a moment

you are literally worse than than kirk cameron

kirk.

cameron.

also nice original content do you have any other thrilling evangelistic copy+pastes for us

perhaps something about a judge and april fool's day


or maybe ~*jesus footsteps*~ on a beach bein all "o heh i carried u *puts on sunglasses* YEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAGHHHHHHHH"

please do tell what other gems you have in store

quote:

Billions of years ago, a big bang produced a large rock.

Well, first off, the Big Bang theory is of a separate nature to the theory of evolution, and is not even really involved with the rest of the process. And to further consider the evolution of the Coke can argument, you're thinking too fixedly. Instead of 'As time passed, aluminium formed itself into a can, a lid, and a tab', what you would actually see under evolution by natural selection (in coca cola world) is a bottle evolving, which comes close to extinction when cans become easier to produce, only for the can to almost go extinct when a new species of plastic bottle arises to dominate the worlds surface.

But that's beside the point. The point is that most of the examples you have given prove nothing and simply raise questions. Creationist logic normally goes something like: Look at the eye. How could that have evolved? Look at the banana. How could that have evolved? Look at the duck-billed platypus. How could that have evolved? This is simply rhetoric, and if you took a moment to pause between asking these quesions, then a passing scientist would surely explain how these creatures probably came to resemble the ones we see today.

But to focus on the arguments you actually gave.

All the arguments that you have given for the banana being designed are interesting, but do not support the conclusion that you suggest. Aside from the fact that many of the qualities that you suggest might be useful to a plant (in that attractive fruit get eaten more often, and animal seed dispersal is a common phenomena - viz. the tomato or the strawberry), the banana has been undergoing artificial selection for several hundred years, cultivated bananas are sterile and need to be propagated by human intervention. Without human intervention, the type of bananas that your example considers would go extinct within the natural lifespan of a banana tree of that type, which might be about 25 years.

quote:

If man cannot begin to make a human eye, how could anyone in his right mind think that eyes formed by mere chance?

Well that is simply fallacious. Evolution by natural selection is not a chance of force, it is simply a process of biological streamlining, that acts like the laws of thermodynamics. We are not talking about inventing an eye spontaneously, but one built up over millions and millions of years.

More significantly, however, your claim that it is designed is undercut by an actual examination of the eye. If a human being designed an eye, we would do it so that it operated at maximum efficienchy - that is, we would ensure that the retina got the largest possible exposure to light without interference. What we actually find is that all the blood capillaries, nerves and so on are in front of the retina, requiring the creation of a blind spot to allow the nerves to travel to the brain. This, as a design, is hideously inefficient, and if a designer had come up with this system, I would fully expect him to be fired as soon as possible. The key point here is, that while the human eye does its job well, it does not display the hallmark features of design that you claim it does.

quote:

To say, "There is no God," and to be correct in the statement I must be omniscient.

Actually, this doesn't require omniscience; it only requires all the knowledge in the universe that could be pertinent to the existence of god, which is not everything.

Besides, this argument is spectacularly unhelpful. It requires that people who say that 'there is a god' follow the same line of argument, which ends up with the believer taking a similarly agnostic position - you can no more have definitive proof of the existence of god without the qualified omniscience that we have already discussed than I have. If you are reasonable, you will have to say, "Having the limited knowledge I have at present, I believe that there is no God."

However, this isn't how logic works. When someone says 'Unicorns exist', any reasonable person requires evidence that they exist. If this evidence is not provided, then we are quite content to say that 'unicorns do not exist', and this is largely because we cannot know all the knowledge required to disprove the existence of unicorns. For the same reason that I do not believe in unicorns, namely that there is no solid evidence for them, I do not believe in the philosophers stone, mummies, ghosts, goblins and finally in god. I am a unicorn-atheist (as I hope you are) and I am a god-atheist, because it is not reasonable to assume the existence of something when there is no good evidence for doing so.

This may seem similar to your argument, except that you have misrepresented agnosticism, which is the position of uncertainty about the existence of god. The agnostic simply claims that it is impossible to know if god exists or not. They do not claim, as you suggest "Having the limited knowledge I have at present, I believe that there is no God."

quote:

First, almost every question you have about suffering humanity etc., can be adequately answered.

That's a big claim. And one I suspect to be unjustifiable.

quote:

We accept that there are unseen television waves right in front of our eyes. We can't see them because they are invisible. For them to manifest, we need a receiver, then we can enjoy the experience of television.

But we can demonstrate thier existence to a reasonable degree of certainty, and perhaps the best test of this is actually turning on your television. 'Television waves' are demonstrable (if erroneously labled) whereas the existence of 'god waves' are not demonstrable in the same rigerously testable way.