PDA

View Full Version : Cockroaches versus ****: a question of design


jmcvann
17th December 2008, 10:08 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_mOMeiMGBI

I suppose few here at the JREF forum need to be convinced that Elisabeth Hasselbeck lacks a few critical thinking skills. Her reasoning for why there must be a designer in the above clip is clearly laughable. Her brain trust partner Joy Behar cleverly (ugh) asks: "What about cockroaches? Who designed those?" Oh, that witty, witty Joy. But it got me thinking.

About ****.

No, really. If we were designed, we were designed to ****, right? We didn't have to ****. An all-powerful designer could have made us non-******** creatures. We **** to rid ourselves of toxins, but only because we were "designed" that way. The world could have been designed without toxins, but it wasn't. Our bodies could have been designed to absorb toxins, but they weren't. Thus, we ****. As the book says, everybody *****.

(Slight aside: Does every creature ****** Seriously. I don't know. The case that comes to mind is coral. Does coral ****** Coral doesn't get to move around, so it would have to sit in its own ****. I could see how, scientifically speaking, a creature would supress the need to **** if it had to sit in it all day. Or does coral **** pretty colors, and that's what makes it so beautiful. What a twist that would be, eh?)

Anyway....back to god designing ****. "Hmmm," it says. "I want them to ****, but what shalt the **** be like?" Apparently, a lot of thought was put into this. **** isn't always the same. This god apparently decided that sometimes it would be dark and hard and hurt like a bitch when it comes out. (OK...I may only be speaking for myself here. But my **** was designed, too.) Sometimes it would be softer and a lighter color and ease out nicely. But because god is quite the comedian, he also decided that sometimes it would barely stick together and would shoot out like water. And in that third case, we wouldn't always get the same warning signs about the upcoming ****. Oh, that funny, funny god.

It really seems to me that designing **** could have been a much simpler undertaking.

Additionally, and for no apparent reason, god decided to make **** smell bad. Why? It could have smelled like roses. But no, **** smells like, well, ****. OK, so we have to ****. Why did the process have to be so ungainly? I suppose it works out nicely that we sit to ****. There is a comfort factor in that. But there's the leaning forward, the awkward twist of the arm, the wiping of a place you can't see. It's just bad design! And pre-toilet and pre-toilet paper, and specifically, say, in the Garden of Eden, finding that right leaf to wipe a place you can't see seems even more awkward. Couldn't **** have come out of a place we can see and be more sure we've cleaned up? I suppose there's an argument to made that we don't really want to see that. But god could have designed **** to be pretty and smell nice. That didn't happen.

Don't even get me started on the corn thing. Why does the whole **** process work for everything but corn. I wish there was more variety in this situation. I want to see peas in my **** once in a while. Or Cheerios. Or pepperoni. Or how about M&Ms! That would be colorful! But no, we're stuck with corn.

So explain that, Elisabeth Hasselbeck! The world awaits your thoughts on the issue of designed ****.

jmcvann
17th December 2008, 10:16 AM
OK...I don't know why I didn't see that coming. But it's clear, upon reading, what the **** stands for. I guess I'm just a crude @#$%^&!!

Thabiguy
17th December 2008, 11:44 AM
(Slight aside: Does every creature ****** Seriously. I don't know. The case that comes to mind is coral. Does coral ****** Coral doesn't get to move around, so it would have to sit in its own ****. I could see how, scientifically speaking, a creature would supress the need to **** if it had to sit in it all day. Or does coral **** pretty colors, and that's what makes it so beautiful. What a twist that would be, eh?)

Wikipedia is your friend in this case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cnidaria#Feeding_and_excretion), too.

As for the rest, well, what can I say? The issues you mention are of course quite easily answered from the scientific viewpoint... but you inquire about the creationist viewpoint, and I can't offer that. Should I venture a guess, the creationists would probably point out the evolutionary advantages of the process and try to sell them as design considerations.