Battle Royale Rules


Resident Atheist
Sure thing, Knight. Though we weren't really debating, just mudslinging...:D

(Pierre, I think he meant this particular thread. :rolleyes: )


New member
Originally posted by Zakath
Sure thing, Knight. Though we weren't really debating, just mudslinging...:D

(Pierre, I think he meant this particular thread. :rolleyes: )

Mudslinging is fun too... oh, I did want to thank you for actually debating Bob. Most aethiests don't seem to like to debate, so it's good to see at least one at least brave enough to try a real debate.


New member
I have reason to believe "Zakath" is just fine! Yet will most likely not be finishing the Battle due to the fact he simply cannot come up with anymore material that is worth posting.

Really? If you have evidence that Zakath is fine why don't you share? :drum: I'm sure it'd be a relief to a lot of people.

Aussie Thinker

Bobs need to make an acceptance of victory was so pathetic it has prompted me to make a full response to his latest post.

In regard to Higher Biological Functions

I will deal with this issue based on the following:

1. The overall concept of Irreducible Complexity (IC)
2. The specifically mentioned IC issues of vision, flight and echolocation and the giraffes neck as good example so I will deal with how they can come about naturally
3. The reverse of the argument why would a creator makes thing complex anyway ?

1. The overall concept of Irreducible Complexity.

This is the old creationist chestnut of Irreducible complexity. That there are biological functions which are too complex to have formed naturally.

Whenever it is shown that IC things can function without certain parts but with reduced efficiency it is claimed they still need all the other parts.

This highlights the general problem with IC, it is a "God of the Gaps" explanation. Each time we show that a supposedly IC system is not, by removing one part, a supporter can claim that our new system is now "irreducibly complex".

2. The specifically mentioned IC issues of vision, flight and echolocation and the giraffes neck as good example so I will deal with how they can come about naturally

Vision :

I will provide a length reply for vision only (and even then it will be woefully to short).. otherwise I could go to about 10 pages.

In his book Climbing Mount Improbable. Richard Dawkins gives a long and detailed explanation of the advent of vision through quite simple and logical steps. He also list a variety of current creatures which have all the intermediate steps of “eyes” that I am about to discuss.

Fortunately for us many of the steps are still in existence today so it is easy to follow the progression of sight.

The first step to sight was the advent of light sensitive cells. These occur in many creatures still today. Simple cells that can tell the difference between light and shade, etc night and day. They relay a message to the creature about light conditions. How did the cells come about ? It is a complex explanation but I will go into more detail if required. Suffice to say that all cells contain some light sensitivity.. where a creature had heightened light sensitivity in some cells it would be a distinct advantage (to tell the difference between night and day, the shadow of a predator, to find food (be a predator) etc. The cells would be retained and become more sensitive through natural selection.

The cells would be on the surface of creatures as those inside would never be passed on through natural selection (no natural advantage). Those cells that where in a depression on the surface of the creature would also be more advantageous as they would get a more focused amount of light (like a convex lens or mirror). The more focused the more advantageous.

The usefulness of this early “sight” would be significant and any natural advent or mutation that heightened this sense would be immediately taken up and reproduced. The next step would be a focusing mechanism. The more intense the focus the more easily interpreted would be the source. Creatures who had muscles near or around or that could alter the shape of the depression would have the clear advantage of focus. The best form of focus is a small hole that lets light in. Try this yourself with a piece of cardboard with a pinhole in it.

Protection of this sensitive bunch of cells would also be a huge advantage. So if muscles could also close less sensitive skin over the cells it would confer the user a way of retaining vision even after attack or accident. Early creatures (and still many now) have much of their epidermis that is membranous and thin and clear so those that closed clear skin over their eyes would also have a big advantage over other creatures. They could still “see” and protect their eyes.

We now have an effective eye already. While vastly more primitive than a modern human eye it has much of the same function. It can open and close and focus and it can determine all sort of light and dark shade.

The most significant development after this was the interpretation of the light signals. The creatures that better interpreted the light would have a massive advantage over others and this ability would always increase according to evolution theory. The simple fact is out “eyes” are still just a bunch of light sensitive cells.. Evolution of interpretation of what hits those cells provide us with modern vision.


Several Dinosaurs were capable of flight. The Pterodactyl etc. There flight evolved from smaller version ability to glide aided by membranes that spread from arm to body. Natural webbing that many reptiles already have. Those with more and more ability to glide would have been successful.

Suffice to say it is difficult to show evolution of modern flight as the first “birds” would have been forest climbers and jumpers. both of which are guaranteed to leave very bad fossil records (little animal + acidic forest soil = no remains).

But we do have clear fossils like archaeopteryx primitive bird like reptiles which have feathers. Feathers could have evolved as a highly efficient lightweight insulation method. The reduction in weight would also aid any gliders and leapers to maintain their “flight”

Suffice to say the flight itself is a huge advantage and any creature than can leap of into the air (from a tree or a cliff) has a huge survival advantage over others. Squirrels leap from trees and some species of possum in Australia can leap prodigious distance using a membrane like early reptiles may have employed.

I promised to be briefer on this topic.


Many thing came together to for this to work but most of them are simple steps.

Hunting at night would have the advantage of avoiding daytime predation and open up all the creatures that are active at night.

Night hunters with better hearing would have an advantage.

Echolocation is just a matter of super sensitive hearing. Make a noise and have hearing good enough o interpret the return (echo) sound. Like sight evolved from mere light sensitive cells, the interpretation of what is heard becomes important and therefore a selected trait.

Giraffes neck.

A giraffes neck has the same number of vertebrae as all mammals.

Simple human breeding could make longer necked creatures in a few hundred years. It is a small stretch to say evolution could do it in millions of years.

Zakaths Disappearance.

I was disappointed that Zakath retired from the debate. I understand if it was due to the inane way Bob kept asking ridiculous question or claimed they were unanswered.. but the sad thing is it reinforces Bob’s own delusion that he has “won” and proven God’s existence.

Argument against God from materialism

Huesdens/Attention has raised a most cogent argument against God that has not really been ever addressed by Bob.

That is that everything we know is material or stems from material.

Therefore it makes no sense to extrapolate an immaterial thing like God.

Sincerely Steve Ryan

Aussie Thinker

Bob Enyart writes

Atheist Cliché 1: There is no truth!
Theist Rebuttal: Is that true? [1 second]

Don’t lie now Bob and distort what we say.

Atheist : Truth is a concept devised by humans
Theist : Is that true ?
Atheist : Does it suit your concept of truth ?

Etc etc

Atheist Cliché 2: There are no absolutes!
Theist Rebuttal: Absolutely? [1 second]

Atheist : Absolutes are a concept devised by humans
Theist : Absolutely
Atheist : Are you an idiot ?

Atheist Cliché 3: Only your five senses provide real knowledge!
Theist Rebuttal: Says which of the five? [2 seconds]

Theist : and that rebuttal mean ??.. That you ARE an idiot ?

Atheist Cliché 4: Great suffering proves that a loving God cannot exist!
Theist Rebuttal: The unstated assumption is false, that suffering can have no value or purpose. [4.5 seconds]

Please state the purpose of suffering ? So that we can more appreciate non suffering ? That is like a masochist who enjoys being whipped.. not because he like the pain he just likes it when it ends.

Suffering would be a lesson that a malicious tyrannical God would employ.

Atheist Cliché 5: Atheism is scientific, because science does not allow for a supernatural interpretation of an event!
Theist Rebuttal: Such circular reasoning forces science to assume that which atheists claim it supports. [5 seconds]

You better re think that one as it makes no sense. Science MUST assume that the supernatural does not exist. Atheism is just the rejection of supernatural not the ridiculous Theist spin that it is the “belief” in a the non existence of supernatural..

Atheist Cliché 6: Widespread evil proves that a righteous God cannot exist!
Theist Rebuttal: The two unstated assumptions are false: that love can be forced; and that some love is not worth enduring much hate. [6.5 seconds]

Why have the hate in the first place. A normal sensible God would have made things much clearer.

Atheist Cliché 7: If theists claim that the universe could not have always been here, then God couldn’t have always been here either.
Theist Rebuttal: The natural universe is subject to the physical laws, so it would run out of useable energy; a supernatural, spiritual God is not subject to physics. [7.9 seconds]

And God told you this when ?.. The most humorous thing theist do is march out their own attributes of their own little fantasy God to suit their own world view. You are the real creators.. you even create your own God !

If your worldview never made any sense and you constantly have to make stuff up to retain it why do you bother ?