This is extremely misleading. Atheism does not say that the hand developed by coincidence. Evolution is an extremely slow self correcting process. But even evolution cannot create something that is perfect. Take the male genitals for example. Placing testicles between your legs is incredibly stupid design. They are at major risk for injury. So why are they there? It would make more sense if your testicles were protected by your ribs like the heart is. The reason they are located there is because it would be too hot for the sperm cells to survive in your body and evolution can only make do with what it has available to it. Fish don’t have this problem because they’re cold blooded bodies so their reproductive organs are protected inside their bodies. Humans and animals are clearly not designed intelligently. There are plenty of examples: blind mole rats have eye balls, animals with wings that can’t fly (e.g. ostriches, penguins). You eat and breathe with the mouth which is a choking hazard. By far the greatest evidence against “intelligent design” is the laryngeal nerve. It runs down from the brain to your chest and loops around the heart and goes back up to the larynx. The giraffe has the same thing except their nerve runs down 5 meters. That’s horribly inefficient design.
Discussion
I'm not aware of any ways an object can form beyond coincidence or intelligent action. Seems like you're just attempting to redefine evolution as something other than coincidence, without any factual basis for doing so. If evolution is not coincidence, what is the mechanism it allegedly uses? How does the data in the DNA arise?
If having testicles between your legs is so stupid, why doesn't evolution create sperm to be resilient to higher temperature? How does it decide to put testicles stupidly outside the body to protect them from heat, instead of in the rib cage but with more hardy and resilient sperm? Are you claiming it just happened that way? Like it was just a coincidence? 🤔
Blind mole rats with eyes and flightless birds with wings show a loss of function, not a gain. Strange choice of an example to support the theory of evolution since it seems to be going the wrong direction. Or are we supposed to believe they're in the process of evolving eyes and wings but aren't quite there yet? If so, I'd love to know the mechanism that selects for genes to make an eye that can't see and wings that can't fly within the process of "evolving" functional organs.
Hopefully the laryngeal nerve doesn't end up like the appendix or the 100 other alleged "vestigial organs" we later discovered the function of. Would be awkward if "by far the greatest evidence" turned out to be yet another complex creation whose function we don't even understand.
Simple question. What is the mechanism upon which “God” came into existence? Coincidence?
"Came into existence" implies time and the physical universe we can observe. God exists outside both of those parameters, so it's a nonsensical question. Trying to insinuate that it's crazy to believe in eternal God while you believe in eternal matter isn't very convincing.
But good effort at deflection instead of addressing any of my responses to your own claims.
Do you have evidence that God exists outside of these parameters?
Yes
Please share
I'm not the one making crazy impossible claims. You share your evidence first. You just threw a bunch of stuff at the wall, then completely avoided acknowledging when I pointed out it's nonsense.
So why did "evolution" put the testicles between the legs instead of inside the rib cage, if that would be so much better? You made the claim that evolution is not coincidence, so what's the mechanism? You can't simultaneously claim that "evolution" can somehow create incredible functional complexity, yet somehow fail to correct what you claim to be obvious flaws, but also not function through the mechanism of random coincidence.
Anyone with common sense can look at the incredibly complex design of life and see it took intelligence to create that. And the more scientists study and learn, the more that's confirmed. If you're making a claim to the contrary, the burden of proof is on you to show how all the scientific principles and observable evidence are invalid in the origin of life.
I didn’t respond to the things you said initially because I made the mistake of throwing too many bits of information at you at once and that made it complicated to keep track of everything. So here are my responses:
Evolution put the testicles between the legs to separate it from the heat of the internal organs that would’ve been damaging to the sperm. No evolutionist claims that this is perfect design. Testicles between the legs is stupid design. If you disagree with that then you’ve probably never been hit in the nuts or gotten into a fight and learned how vulnerable you are. Men in sports wear athletic cups for this reason.
Now if you’re wondering why evolution didn’t put the testicles in the rib cage and create more hardy sperm, that is something natural selection answers. It’s likely that, as the testicles of some animals descended toward the legs, their ability to reproduce and/or survive improved. My best guess is that the amount of energy it would take to produce hardy sperm that are resistant to the heat of the internal organs lowers chances of survival and reproduction. Think about a woman’s menstruation cycle and the amount of energy they spend each month: the period cramps and moodiness. Are women as efficient during that time of the month? No. However, if it didn’t take more energy to produce, then the hardy sperm likely would take longer to make which is also a disadvantage. The animal with the testicles between its legs could have sperm readily available whenever the opportunity to reproduce came (e.g. female is in heat). Female’s eggs are not in the rib cage but they are still created internally. They create more hardy eggs but they’re not always ready to reproduce like men are. All animal reproduction is dependent on the readiness of those eggs. The amount of time it takes to produce the eggs was determined by natural selection for survival. A female that produced eggs faster would have created offspring that were less likely to survive. But a female that produced eggs slower would have not found a partner that would stick around to protect her during pregnancy. The male with testicles between its legs that is ready to provide sperm when it comes across a ready female is the one that is going to pass down its genes more often than the one whose testicles are in his lower abdomen. So over thousands of years, the animals with testicles that slowly traveled down to a cooler region, had a slight advantage over the ones that did not. This continued until eventually the testicles ended up between the legs. So the testicles being in that stupid spot is because of efficiency and availability in sperm production. But that is not intelligent design. Evolution can only make do with what it has and it doesn’t mean that it’ll lead to something perfect. Natural selection just means that the traits that improve the ability to survive will be gradually passed down while the traits that harm ability to survive gradually disappear. If male testicles started to venture back toward the adbomen, their ability to reproduce will be hindered and natural selection would eliminate it.
Regarding the flightless birds, the answer is simple. For ostriches, the environment that they ended up living in provided little to no benefits for flight. So as the birds genetics slowly changed, the birds with slightly more powerful legs and heavier bodies had an advantage in survival over other birds that could fly. After thousands of years, the birds with stronger legs that cannot fly are what remains. Flight requires a lot of energy and producing capable wings also requires a lot of energy so natural selection eliminated the inefficiency.
With the blind mole rats, they had use for eyes at some point but natural selection provided survival advantages to the animals that did not waste energy producing efficient eye sight.
Evolution does not create something new out of nothing. It can only gradually adapt what it already has to something that can improve survival.
Now can you provide your evidence of gods existence outside of this reality?