Comments on: PZ lays the smack down on the Disco ‘tute http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/01/pz-lays-the-smack-down-on-the-disco-tute/ I am an astronomer, writer, and skeptic. I likes reality the way it is, and I aims to keep it that way. My real name is Phil Plait, and I run the Bad Astronomy blog. Mon, 09 Nov 2009 04:52:03 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Barton Paul Levenson http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/01/pz-lays-the-smack-down-on-the-disco-tute/comment-page-2/#comment-67945 Barton Paul Levenson Fri, 08 Feb 2008 18:51:57 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/01/pz-lays-the-smack-down-on-the-disco-tute/#comment-67945 Yes, the eye thing is a poor design. I still have no problem seeing God behind the scenes, though. I believe in special providence; I don't have to believe in continuous miracles, which is what accepting ID would require. God created a nature which can bring about results by itself, without continuous tinkering from outside. Yes, the eye thing is a poor design. I still have no problem seeing God behind the scenes, though. I believe in special providence; I don’t have to believe in continuous miracles, which is what accepting ID would require. God created a nature which can bring about results by itself, without continuous tinkering from outside.

]]> By: Tom Marking http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/01/pz-lays-the-smack-down-on-the-disco-tute/comment-page-2/#comment-67942 Tom Marking Thu, 07 Feb 2008 20:56:22 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/01/pz-lays-the-smack-down-on-the-disco-tute/#comment-67942 O.K. So maybe you've got me on the appendix. But here's one that's incontrovertible. The optic nerve from the right eye connects to the left hemisphere. The optic nerve from the left eye connects to the right hemisphere. The cable lengths are maximized which is the opposite of optimal (is pessimal a word?). More nerve tissue is needed for no obvious benefit. Why would an Intelligent Designer do it this way unless he/she was a DD (Dumbass Designer)? And don't get me started on the human spine. It's such a pain in the neck. :) Oh Holy Dumbass Designer! To You we pray! Amen!!!!! O.K. So maybe you’ve got me on the appendix. But here’s one that’s incontrovertible. The optic nerve from the right eye connects to the left hemisphere. The optic nerve from the left eye connects to the right hemisphere. The cable lengths are maximized which is the opposite of optimal (is pessimal a word?). More nerve tissue is needed for no obvious benefit. Why would an Intelligent Designer do it this way unless he/she was a DD (Dumbass Designer)? And don’t get me started on the human spine. It’s such a pain in the neck. :)

Oh Holy Dumbass Designer!
To You we pray!
Amen!!!!!

]]> By: Barton Paul Levenson http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/01/pz-lays-the-smack-down-on-the-disco-tute/comment-page-2/#comment-67943 Barton Paul Levenson Thu, 07 Feb 2008 20:40:52 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/01/pz-lays-the-smack-down-on-the-disco-tute/#comment-67943 Tom Marking writes: [[<i>Isn’t one of the best arguments against ID the many, many examples of crappy design in the biological world? It’s a pity that we don’t see this argument a lot from the people debating against ID. For example, the human appendix. It has absolutely no biological function whatsoever and yet, if it gets infected, it can kill you. Now what kind of moronic Intelligent Designer (a.k.a God, a.k.a. Yahweh, a.k.a Allah) would design an organ like that? He wouldn’t unless he was a complete moron.</i>]] As it turns out, the appendix holds materials that can reboot your digestive system after an infection kills all your standard intestinal symbiotes. It's vulnerable to infection itself, which is why so many appendices have to be removed, but apparently it does have a physiological use. Tom Marking writes:

[[Isn’t one of the best arguments against ID the many, many examples of crappy design in the biological world? It’s a pity that we don’t see this argument a lot from the people debating against ID. For example, the human appendix. It has absolutely no biological function whatsoever and yet, if it gets infected, it can kill you. Now what kind of moronic Intelligent Designer (a.k.a God, a.k.a. Yahweh, a.k.a Allah) would design an organ like that? He wouldn’t unless he was a complete moron.]]

As it turns out, the appendix holds materials that can reboot your digestive system after an infection kills all your standard intestinal symbiotes. It’s vulnerable to infection itself, which is why so many appendices have to be removed, but apparently it does have a physiological use.

]]> By: Tom Marking http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/01/pz-lays-the-smack-down-on-the-disco-tute/comment-page-2/#comment-67944 Tom Marking Thu, 07 Feb 2008 20:37:42 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/01/pz-lays-the-smack-down-on-the-disco-tute/#comment-67944 Isn't one of the best arguments against ID the many, many examples of crappy design in the biological world? It's a pity that we don't see this argument a lot from the people debating against ID. For example, the human appendix. It has absolutely no biological function whatsoever and yet, if it gets infected, it can kill you. Now what kind of moronic Intelligent Designer (a.k.a God, a.k.a. Yahweh, a.k.a Allah) would design an organ like that? He wouldn't unless he was a complete moron. I am reminded of this every time I go to the chiropractor to get my piss-poor designed lower spine adjusted. Isn’t one of the best arguments against ID the many, many examples of crappy design in the biological world? It’s a pity that we don’t see this argument a lot from the people debating against ID. For example, the human appendix. It has absolutely no biological function whatsoever and yet, if it gets infected, it can kill you. Now what kind of moronic Intelligent Designer (a.k.a God, a.k.a. Yahweh, a.k.a Allah) would design an organ like that? He wouldn’t unless he was a complete moron.

I am reminded of this every time I go to the chiropractor to get my piss-poor designed lower spine adjusted.

]]> By: UriShare - PWND http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/01/pz-lays-the-smack-down-on-the-disco-tute/comment-page-2/#comment-67941 UriShare - PWND Wed, 06 Feb 2008 14:55:52 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/01/pz-lays-the-smack-down-on-the-disco-tute/#comment-67941 [...] PWNDDugg for later listening... Submitted: 3 days ago Category: Science Submitter: RssFeed Website: www.badastronomy.com Report this link: Click here to report Comments: 0 [...] [...] PWNDDugg for later listening… Submitted: 3 days ago Category: Science Submitter: RssFeed Website: http://www.badastronomy.com Report this link: Click here to report Comments: 0 [...]

]]> By: TheBlackCat http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/01/pz-lays-the-smack-down-on-the-disco-tute/comment-page-2/#comment-67940 TheBlackCat Tue, 05 Feb 2008 04:46:33 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/01/pz-lays-the-smack-down-on-the-disco-tute/#comment-67940 Something about the speed of light changing really really fast for a short period of time and then stabilizing right when we develop the technology necessary to detect the change. Something about the speed of light changing really really fast for a short period of time and then stabilizing right when we develop the technology necessary to detect the change.

]]> By: DexX http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/01/pz-lays-the-smack-down-on-the-disco-tute/comment-page-2/#comment-67939 DexX Tue, 05 Feb 2008 00:56:52 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/01/pz-lays-the-smack-down-on-the-disco-tute/#comment-67939 What's the standard GodZombie response these days to the old classic "Why can we see a six thousand year old star that is 100,000 light years away?" question? That one always seemed to be a clincher for me - they'd either have to argue that the heliocentric model is false or that God backdated the light from stars, presumably because it would be a terrible waste for him the create them when we'd never see them. What’s the standard GodZombie response these days to the old classic “Why can we see a six thousand year old star that is 100,000 light years away?” question? That one always seemed to be a clincher for me – they’d either have to argue that the heliocentric model is false or that God backdated the light from stars, presumably because it would be a terrible waste for him the create them when we’d never see them.

]]>