How exactly is challenging Intelligent Design by pointing out a flaw in human biology deserving of a violation?
Posted by James on December 27, 2010 · 16 Comments
Question by Nero T. Pickle: How exactly is challenging Intelligent Design by pointing out a flaw in human biology deserving of a violation?
I recently received a violation for asking why the human body cannot produce its own vitamin C if Intelligent Design is true.
This site would honestly be in far better shape if it just suspended all these worthless, stupid *** report monkeys, and a pineapple would honestly make a better moderator than what we have now.
Best answer:
Answer by SANTA! In Your Pants.
Creationist report monkeys at work, it’s sad that they feel so threatened they have to prevent free speech.
Give your answer to this question below!
I had another account suspended–a Level 4 account–after ONE (1) VIOLATION NOTICE. I’ve appealed five times, so far.
The violation/report/appeal process on yahoo is a joke. We just have to deal.
Well I receive violation notices from my atheist-directed questions all the time (and they are polite Qs), so the report monkeys are on both sides of the spectrum, mmmkay?
Honestly, you will get a violation for every single thing that someone doesn’t agree with.
You can’t expect anything else.
You did not deserve a violation.
To be fair, we pretty much all deserve one at one point or another. For some questions, the asker and every single answerer deserves one. And then, you make a mild joke, or you answer like you did, and bam, you get a violation.
Because Intelligent Design doesn’t need to be challenged. It’s mythology.
But I must agree. It shouldn’t constitute a violation.
I know it’s annoying, but take it as a compliment. Obviously that person couldn’t answer your question, so they chose to delete you instead. Just tell yourself that you clearly won that round.
Proof that Yahoo R/S is conservative biased.
Not to mention the design error in the vertebrate (and that includes the human) eye:
The vertebrate retina is wired “backwards”. That is the photoreceptors point to back of the retina, away from incoming light, and the nerves and blood vessels are on the side of the incoming light, this means that any image formed on the vertebrate retina has to pass though layers of blood vessels and ganglion cells, absorbing and distorting the image.
If there is a designer he should be fired for that one alone!
And why did he get it right in the squid?
UNFAIR and FAIL.
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/11/denton-vs-squid.html
yeah I know the feeling. Challenging anything about god seems to get you a violation and ultimately an account suspension. I had a level 4 account suspended yesterday, (actually became a level 5 account after I got the suspension notice!!!)
No animal species can produce any vitamin. So what? You are asking why animals have to ingest nourishment? Why they can’t generate their own food like plants?? That’s your challenge to intelligent design???
Consider it a blessing in disguise, so to speak. Did you really want to read all those answers that shrieked things like “Sin, that’s why!!! WHARGARBLE!!11!eleventy!!” in the first place?
I’m getting the impression that *some* of the ID crowd thinks that any flaw in the design is the fault of the designee, not the designer.
Its not… people hate it when it challenges their faith.
I’ve received several violation notices for telling people to do their own homework. It’s like people who lean on their horns in traffic, it’s just a way to try and push other people around.
Report monkeys CAN NOT and WILL NOT STOP the unstoppable force of reason clawing its way through brambles of religious doctrine and stupidity.
I agree. I’m happy to hear from all sides, and usually only hear about evolutionist nazis trying to suppress creation believers. Of course, you know that bad design does not mean something was not designed. Many bad things were designed, but that doesn’t mean they evolved.
Of course, you could ask why would God design something with a flaw, but that’s not what ID is about. It’s a science that attempts to identify design, not name the designer.