Creation Moments #fundie

Creation Moments #fundie creationmoments.com

COW'S UNUSUAL SPOTS ARE PUTTING EVOLUTIONISTS IN A TIGHT SPOT
While doing some research on the Internet recently, we came across this photo of a cow bearing a detailed map of the world on its hide. Was the cow born with these markings or are the spots the handiwork of a skilled Photoshop artist?

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?

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.

63 comments

old comment by Anon-e-moose

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/08/01/creationists-photoshopped-cow-proves-creationism.html

You know that the Cre(a)ti(o)nists have run out of credibility - as per 'I.D'. being exposed as the 'Religion by Stealth' snake-oil it was via Kitzmiller vs. Dover, and 'Teach the Controversy' has blown up in their own faces; when, by their own logic, the 'OT-III Incident Document' of $cientology & the FSM's Pastafarianism (to say nothing of the Mayan 'Popol Vuh' & Aboriginal 'Dreamtime'), must also be True by definition - when they're reduced to bovine scatology like this: literally.

Because there's just one simple answer to the 'question' posited by Cretin Morons here, which completely annihilates their entire 'argument': at least the one who did that shooping - so obvious that Stevie Wonder can see it - actually exists.

Even the 'Watchmaker' had to have a mother & father. Ergo that fallacy (or even phallus-y, as those who are reduced to using such are just talking a load of Cock). All sentient beings have an origin. No Exceptions.

The pattern of Earth's landmasses wasn't designed*, but happened naturally via tectonic shifts/coastal erosion etc. Why is it that Mount Everest - despite being the highest point on Earth - is geologically young, when compared with far older landmasses? Certain islands are growing: volcanic expansion. No 'design' there, but is very random, is it not...?! [/Hawaii]

*- Otherwise you're admitting that Douglas Adams' "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" is more factual than the so-called 'Truth' of the Bible; Magrathea & it's workers/designers/staff are superior to 'God', and that Slartibartfast is better than Jesus; guess who won the award for Norway, via the use of the very Barocque look of Fjords included in such...?! [/hyper-sarcasm] X3

old comment by David B.

We can say that the spots on the cow pictured were designed (by someone with photoshop) precisely because they are clearly distinguishable from the natural patterns of cow hides.

If someone were then to assert that surely the equally or more detailed natural patterns of cows must also have been designed, then that undermines the original argument, that the world-map cow must have been, since a cow with world-map markings is no longer distinguishable from a natural pattern.

This argument, and its rebuttal, goes right back to William Paley. If one came across a pocketwatch lying in a grassy field, one would not immediately conculde that so precise and finely wrought a mechanism developed there by chance, so why assume that the vastly more intricate mechanisms of life had? But if every blade of grass growing naturally in that field is a mechanism vastly more intricate than a pocket watch, then the lesser complexity of the watch cannot be reason enough to reject the idea that it simply 'grew' there.

That we can distinguish manufactured items like pocketwatches from natural ones like glass, or realise that Mount Rushmore's shape is artificial and Mount Everest's isn't, or tell a real cowhide from a photoshopped one, indicate that these things are distinct from their natural homologs.

old comment by Adrian

This cow's spots were put there in this image by some human "designer" armed with some basic Photoshop skills. The basic color patterns of a specific cow breed have usually been "designed" by the humans who created that breed by selective breeding, though robe patterns tend to be a much lesser concern with cows than with for example cats breeding. The spots of a random cow? No specific design or intention whatsoever...

And if you want to argue that life in general has been designed, well... The collection of defects we can observe in just humans, without even bothering with other species, would force you to admit that your "designer" certainly can't be called intelligent, or even minimally competent. Are you sure that this is what you want?

old comment by alfa8my

Photoshop was designed, yes.

Apart from that, have these guys ever read Kant's "Critique of judgement"? In there Kant makes a point that completely exposes creationism as a fallacy: you have to distinguish the things you know and the way you know them. Living beings look designed to us because we can only understand them through an analogy with technical artifacts (hence, the "watchmaker" babble). But again, we have to stay aware that this is only the way we know things, not the way they really are. We cannot know the way things really are, and it doesn't really matter. F. Monod called this characteristic of biology the "teleonomy": we cannot help but use a artisan analogy to understand what an organ or a living being is.

old comment by carbonfox

This is the same ol' same ol'. See the "argument from amount Rushmore" from years prior ("if you don't believe Mt. Rushmore could naturally after many many millennia, then evolution is false!").

Yes, a human designer placed the spots on the cow (or carved faces in a mountain). There would be absolutely no evolutionary incentive for such patterns to ever develop in nature. That is why "evolutionists" can accept that some complex things were designed, while other complex things came into existence via evolution. Only those things which can and would be naturally selected for are subject to evolution, and sometimes the results of millions of years of selection are astoundingly complex. Evolving eyes conferred an advantage in surviving and producing surviving offspring. Compare this to the cow's map or Rushmore's faces, which do not.