Should we make the "how do you explain the complexity of the eye" question a *drink* question?

Question

I for one vote yes. That from now on, any such idiotic question be treated like the other *drink* questions.
All agreed?

Answer 1

I expect even Darwin would have made it a drinking question after he got bored of saying 'Umm, didn't I say that in my book?'

I must admit alcohol might be the answer when you're talking to people so ignorant they just can't get it - they refuse to get it!

I watched a documentary about intelligent design recently, the guy had an american accent so I was a little surprised when he said all life was created by Allah. They kept mentioning Darwin's chapter 'on difficulties with the theory' and saying even Darwin knew it was flawed - hell, they used the evolution of the eye as an example, without noting that the answer lay within that very chapter written over 140 years old. Such intellectual dishonesty is sickening.

They even talked about DNA, information encoded in genes and such and then went straight on to say that evolution had to be wrong because there was no mechanism of inheritance!

It's early but I think I might need a drink...

**Superatheist is right. We should share links that have the information, that way when they get dozens of the same links with all the answers on they might decide to keep their mouths shut. Maybe I need a standard answer to it...**

Answer 2

understanding enamel? ok, while early guy grew to become into out and approximately, eating on some animal carcass, OUCH! He bites down slightly too puzzling on a chew of bone. Out flys a enamel. Oh no, precise? nicely, no. thankfully, he learns from his mistake and would not chew down too puzzling back. yet now he has this huge hollow in his mouth, what to do? Evolve! We improve our understanding enamel so massive that they could push our different enamel nearer at the same time, hence, last the hollow. yet now present day guy exists. regrettably, we take good care of OUR enamel. yet regrettably, understanding enamel nonetheless improve in, and because there are actually not any enamel that want changing, they improve all funky and sideways. Woo! An atheist purely defined the complexity of our understanding enamel!

Answer 3

Yeah, damn right. Anyone who asks this is missing so much fundamental information about the basic mechanism of evo that there's no way to get the answer across in a forum like this - and they're not after an answer anyway.

Maybe the fix for these drink questions is a set of specific pages that answer them, to which the questioner can be directed: a Drink FAQ.

CD

Answer 4

The best part is that he ANSWERS HIS OWN DAMN QUESTION. People quoting Darwin's bit about the eye often seem wholly unaware that he suggests an answer to his own question in the next four or so sentences.

Answer 5

Despite the huge increase in my liquor bill because of all the other drinking questions, I vote yes!

Answer 6

I've been thinking the same about the current hot favourite, the assumption that because you can't prove god doesn't exist any more than you can prove he does exist, the two positions are equivalent. It's only the fact that I'm on my second liver already that makes me hesitate.

Answer 7

I think it qualifies if they include the Darwin quote mine. If they use the argument from complexity alone, that doesn't show up every day.

Answer 8

The human eye, blood clotting and the immune system, all drink to that!

Answer 9

Agreed.



Oh, it's too early for that...

Answer 10

It is idiotic. Who can look at the eye, auto-focusing, massive color depth, clear nerves and UV filter in front, and blood vessels for nutrients and cooling and not say God made it?

Isaac Newton and John Wray felt so too.