August 05, 2014

Don't Have a Cow, Guys! These creationists have us in a tight spot.

I'm going to be honest: I stole all of the puns. #NoRegrets

But onward and forward. On a site called Creation Moments, the following picture was posted:


Apparently, this cow puts us in a tight spot, if we believe in evolution.

I know what you are hoping for: That this creationist website has accepted that the above cow is real, and that God put the design there. Alas, you are not giving them enough credit. They know that it is photoshopped. That's the crux of their argument, actually:
Obviously, this cow's spots were put there by a designer. But our question for evolutionists is this: If you agree that the cow's spots are designed, why won't you agree that the actual cow – which is so much more complex than the arrangement of its spots – was designed as well?
The simple answer to that is: I have evidence that the cow was photoshopped that goes far beyond the realm of "that design could not have naturally generated".

In a world of infinite possibilities, there's always the chance--however improbable--that a cow would actually be born  with that pattern. So the pattern itself isn't what proves the photoshop. The design isn't what makes me say there is a designer. Instead, it's an initial hint--the more impossible something seems, the stronger the evidence required to believe in it.


So what evidence do I have that this amazing cow is photoshopped?

Well, I highly doubt it is flat.

If you look at the curves over the hip, at the flank, at the shoulder, the design isn't distorted at all--it's a perfect representation of the map. However, a real cow's spots would bend. There would also be differentiations in how the light hits it.

The map is also a much sharper image than the other spots on the cow--see the ones on the forequarters? They blur. But the map is in quite sharp relief.

So I don't assume that there is a designer. I look at the phenomenon, and I look for evidence of whether it is real or not. Based on my evidence, I determine there is a designer. If there's additional evidence that I miss, I can revise that and decide that there is no designer and the cow just spontaneously generated the spots.

It all hinges on evidence.

It's not the complexity of the design, as put forth in the quote above, that proves the designer. It's the evidence for the designer that does it. And unfortunately for creationists, they lack that evidence.

Of course, they assert that all of this is a blind spot in *my* thinking:
Evolutionists and atheists will agree that the pattern of the cow's spots was designed, but they will not agree that the cow itself was designed. That's because they are committed to their faith – yes, faith! – built on the premise that there is no Designer. Though they can see the complexities of nature all around them, they say that everything was the result of mindless, natural processes. 
And that's why Darwinists have a cow whenever they hear a Bible-believing Christian say that things which appear to be designed actually are designed! If they weren't so biased against God, they'd know that the cow's spots reveals the incredibly huge blind spot in their own minds.
Darwinists...evolutionists...scientists...all the same thing right?

 My dear, dear, dear creationists...it's not my bias against God that makes me believe there is no designer. It's your lack of evidence for him.

No comments:

Post a Comment