What about the "babel fish" argument?

Question

The Babel fish also triggered a joke about the existence of God, since the Babel fish was put forth as a fideist example for the non-existence of a deity:

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. Q.E.D."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babel_fish

Put insted of the babel fish anithyng that creation science or intelligent designsay that cannot have evolved like ''the eye'' or even life itself (http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39a778627a97.htm) and might have a problem.

Answer 1

The problem is that ID & so forth cling to the notion that the eye is proof of the existence of a designer/ god, eventhough biologists have provided ample evidence for the evolution of that organ, complete with examples of species for every step of the way.
If you can't convince creationists with evidence, good luck with wit as your weapon.

Answer 2

lol I've always loved the Babel Fish argument, cos ya gotta know it's the kind of thing people would do!

The flaw in the babel fish argument though is the idea that the existence of anything 'so phenomenally useful' as the babel fish proves the existence of a creator-god. The fact that the babel fish exists (yes, I know it doesn't, but gimme a linguistic break here ;o)) proves nothing - it is only given significance because other species FIND it useful to stick them in their ears. Or, at the very most, it might have served the babel fish to evolve in a way that made it useful to other species, perhaps as a defence against being killed and eaten - remember, the babel fish gets a comfortable home and a constant source of food for life when it is inserted in someone's ear.

Either way the existence of 'phenomenally useful' things in no way proves the existence of an intelligent designer. I'd never heard the argument that the eye could not have evolved by chance, but that's surely utterly preposterous too. The eye presumably evolved as a tool to help find nourishment more efficiently, and avoid becoming the prey of things who had these shiny new eyeball things to help them find nourishment more easily...

Answer 3

Babel Fish God

Answer 4

I don't know what you are trying to say here......but you can't prove anything either way using a fish that does not exist. I would also assume that you are one of those people who have spent 5 minutes digging this up to warrant calling it research with an audacity to mock God as well!!

Answer 5

No, online arguments are completely unnecessary. There is no point in having an argument over the internet. Argue face-to-face for god's sake.

Answer 6

What a stupid question! Where is my towel?

Peace and Blessings,

Salim