Scientists Create Life - God Not Required

An elegant experiment has quashed a major objection to the theory that life on Earth originated with molecules of RNA.

John Sutherland and his colleagues from the University of Manchester, UK, created a ribonucleotide, a building block of RNA, from simple chemicals under conditions that might have existed on the early Earth.

The feat, never performed before, bolsters the 'RNA world' hypothesis, which suggests that life began when RNA, a polymer related to DNA that can duplicate itself and catalyse reactions, emerged from a prebiotic soup of chemicals.

"This is extremely strong evidence for the RNA world. We don't know if these chemical steps reflect what actually happened, but before this work there were large doubts that it could happen at all," says Donna Blackmond, a chemist at Imperial College London.

Now of course this doesn't necessarily mean this is exactly how it happened, but it does prove one thing; It proves that for a self replicating molecule - life - to form a magical man in the sky is not required. You just need the right chemicals, the right conditions and they can do it all by themselves.

So i wonder what dark corner the peddlers of the god of the gaps fallacy will relegate their god to now?

[ SOURCE ]

Top 10 Arguments Against Evolution (and why they are wrong)

Irreducibly complex system exist which could not have evolved - This one was actually proven in a court of law to be false. Systems termed "irreducibly complex" are only irreducibly complex in their present form. But as long as at all stages it proved to be beneficial, Even slightly, Then the mechanisms would be retained, even if along the way, at different stages, it didn't resemble, or even perform the same function, as it presently does.

Ken miller explained this using the mousetrap. Behe said the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly because, like a mouse trap, if one part was removed it failed to perform it's function. ken miller shot this argument to pieces by wearing a mouse trap with only 3 parts as a tie clip to court. Does it's perform the function of a mousetrap? No. Does it perform a function which could be selected for and considered "beneficial"? yes.

Evolution is not testable - Every new fossil dug up, every genome sequenced, every new species discovered, every new simulation run is a test of evolutionary theory. If what we discover doesn't fit in with what evolution predicts then evolution is wrong. In the 150 years it has been around not a single new discovery, Including DNA and genomes which weren't even known of in Darwin's time, Has told us anything other than what we would expect to find if evolution were a fact. They all end up telling us the exact thing which we would expect to be true if evolution was a fact. The EXACT thing we would expect.

To prove it wrong just discover something which should not be true if evolution is right. I'll help you: The gene for feathers in humans or a chicken in the Precambrian.

There is evidence against evolution - No there isn't. There are poorly understood, fallacious arguments which are parroted, But not a single discovery which should not be true if evolution is a fact. Like i said, Find something which invalidates evolution, like the gene for feathers in humans of a Precambrian chicken; something beyond the flawed probability arguments and baseless assumptions. Find us something real, something tangible, Which should not exist if evolution were true.

Evolution has not been observed - At all levels evolution has been physically observed. Everything from new bio-synthetic pathways and speciation to variations of features in a population due to natural selection.

Even in the short time humans have been here we have changed, through selection, wolves into dogs and teosinte in to corn and we have caused the emergence of pesticide resistant insects and even the formation of a bacteria which eats nylon, something which has only existed for 50 years. Even the humble banana which ray comfort claimed was the "atheists nightmare" only exists because we cultivated it. Humans invented the banana through selection. This is what a wild banana, ya know, the one your god made, looks like.


All mutations are bad - Most mutations actually have no effect and sit happily in the genome not causing any problems. Every person is born with around 200 mutations. We all have 200 genes not found anywhere in our lineage. Some are bad, granted, But those organisms generally die off and so the mutation isn't propagated. The good ones, like a mutation that causes thicker hair growth in cold climates, rapidly propagate throughout the species. Examples of good mutations can be seen in antibiotic resistant bacteria, pesticide resistant insects of drug resistant HIV. Sure they suck for us, But for the organism concerned, they are beneficial mutations.

The probability of cells spontaneously forming is too low - Cells, like all life, Slowly evolved. The first cell was nothing at all like the cells we find in modern day organisms. The first cell would have been nothing but a self replicating molecule, And we have created those in a lab.

No transitional fossils have ever been found - This argument is so weak and out of date even the mouthpiece of young earth creationism, AIG, warns it's follows not to use it. The fact is we have enough transitional fossils to tie together all the species in the class of eumetazoa. We even have transitional forms alive today. Cut open a snake and you'll find a pelvis, a whale and you'll find vestigial legs. Even humans have a vestigial flaps in their eyes which are remnants from reptiles (if you want to see it it's right near your tear duct) and smaller mammals (the tiny lump on your outer ear). we even have about half a dozen pre-human hominid fossils depicting our own evolution since we departed from the branch which lead to chimps, gorillas and baboons.

Speciation has never been observed - Another which AIG advises it's followers don't use. Speciation has been observed in everything from flies to plants. Search "observed speciation" for countless of documented examples.

Evolution violates the 1st law of thermodynamics - Evolution does not operate within a closed system and as such is not subject to the laws of thermodynamics.

Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics - Same as above, plus; The increase of complexity gained by evolution comes at the cost of the decrease of order of the sun. As the sun "dies" the energy expended comes to earth and is used by organisms to grow.

A denial of evolution - however motivated - is a denial of evidence, a retreat from reason into ignorance; Dr Tim D White

inspired by cdk007

Alternative Expelled Movie Poster

This, while being a parody, accurately describes the theme and motives of the recently forgotten and critically shit upon creationist propaganda movie Expelled: no intelligence required allowed, Which in turn is a perfect demonstration of the dishonesty, quote mining and fabrications of the "ID" movement.

I don't know who made this (if you know tell me and ill link to them) but i got it from defence of reason who in turn got it from PZ's blog.

Probably The Dumbest Creationist Argument Ever

On a forum i frequent they have a "politics and religion" section and it is brimming with creationist fundies, muslim fanatics and born again assholes. yeah, great fun.

Though most of the fundies have learned their lesson and don't try to debate evolution any more, we sometimes get the odd cretin who doesn't know the score come in and start parroting the creationist bullshit he has heard on a Kent Hovind (convicted fraudster) creationist propaganda video.

On the odd occasion, when one of these idiots ventures into unfamiliar water and tries to conjure an original thought, we get something quite spectacular. Spectacular in the sense of; wow, that is the stupidest thing i have ever heard.

Yesterday one such moron made this argument against evolution.

Despite your evolution approach, its still yet a theory.

If Evolution happens, how come we don't see humans coming out of chimps and chimps coming out of humans?

If Evolution happens, what do fish evolve into?

Evolution is Pokemon's thing.

Stupid, eh? You haven't heard anything yet.

When i asked him if he was serious (you never know if these types of comments are atheists making fun of creationist argument), he said.

Try living in the arctic and see if you grow fur.
Try living in the desert and see if your body adapts to it.
Try living in a volcano and see if you can withstand being boiled alive.

With your dumb theory I would grow fur, I would be able to withstand heat and withstand being boiled alive.

Besides being a ridiculously stupid argument the thing that really angers me with these people is how they expect to hold an opinion regarding the validity of a science when don't even understand what the science is claiming.

It wouldn't be too bad if they admit that their beliefs are based on bronze age dogma and creation myths and stop pretending they have come to an informed conclusion after studying all the evidence.

Why Would They Call Evolution A "Religion"?

It always puzzles me when the creationists think they are criticising evolution by calling it a "religion". Because, Surely, If being a "religion" makes evolution, According to their argument, Unsupported, facile, Not grounded in reality and false, it must be a bigger criticism of their own belief, A belief which actually is a "religion".

I mean, An evolutionist would never try to criticise creation by saying "well, creation is just another science based on factual evidence, Supported by practically every scientific discovery, rational and logical".

See, What they are trying to do with this type of approach is instead of defending their own position, They try to make ours seem as untenable as theirs. When in reality all they are doing is proving that even they think "religions" are inherently wrong, unsupported by evidence and, well, made up bullshit.

Make sure you pull them up on this next time they try it.

Top 25 Creationist Fallacies

ExtantDodo, YouTube atheist and evolutionary educator, Has a great video exposing the top 25 fallacious arguments used by cretinists along with examples and an explanation why they are fallacious. You will probably recognise most of these from any unfortunate encounters you have had with cretinists, But the video will definitely help you spot more in the future.

My advice is to never debate someone when the basis of their argument is fallacious, Simply point out the fallacy, explain why it's a flawed argument and request that they make a different, More logical and coherent point.

Isn't it ironic that the same people who try to convince us that our morality comes from their religion are also the most deceitful, devious and dishonest.

Breaking News: Imbecile Disproves Evolution

If you are a regular reader of my blog you will know i am an advocate of Evolutionary theory to explain the diversity of life (as most people with functioning brains are). I find it a fascinating subject, And once you start to understand the simple mechanisms involved, it makes a lot of sense.

anyway, Since i put my email address on the right hand side of this blog i have gotten a steady stream of hate-mail mostly from loving christians who take great joy in telling me that i am going to hell for not believing in their particular invisible friend.

Last week though i got an email from someone who, While not even having even a basic grasp of evolutionary theory, Felt qualified to refute it. This wasn't an ordinary refutation though, It was one of the most cretinous outpourings of ignorance i have ever read. I actually got dumber from reading it. The email was from someone called Kevin and was entitled: Proof evolution is wrong

i saw on your blog that you like to talk about the religion of evolution and trick people by using big words and pretending that science actually proves evolution. I dont know any science or anything and even i know evolution isnt real. for one it isnt in the bible the bible said god made everything in 6 days, not millions of years. second, when we go to the zoo we cant talk to monkies, if we used to be monkies why cant we talk to them? three, how could a monkey become a person over billions of years when they dont live that long? AND why are there still monkies if they turned into people? five, even darwin said he was wrong. on his death bed he converted to christianity and said evolution was a hoax. If there is any science that makes it look like evolution is real then it has to be either a hoax by EVILutionists or put there by god to find out who believes in him.

I hope that after reading my questions you will see that evolution cant be true and people dont come from monkies. i will pray to god asking him to make you think like me.

A Reply From Kevin

Creationist Teacher Brands Children With A Cross

As if teaching creationism in a science class and claiming carbon dating is flawed wasn't bad enough, Christian science teacher John Freshwater though it appropriate to burn the image of a cross onto his students arm in some kind of sick ritualistic branding.The Mount Vernon school board voted 5-0 to pass a resolution of intent to terminate the contract of middle school teacher John Freshwater.

Freshwater used a high-frequency generator to burn the religious symbols on to his students arms. In a quote to end all quotes, Dave Daubenmire, a friend of John Freshwater said; "With the exception of the cross-burning episode ... I believe John Freshwater is teaching the values of the parents"

While some of the students questioned by investigators said Freshwater was "a great guy", Lynda Weston, the district's director of teaching and learning, told investigators that she has dealt with complaints about Freshwater for much of her 11-year term at the district.

A report by independent investigators found that Freshwater taught creationism in his science class and was insubordinate in failing to remove a Bible and other religious materials from his classroom.

How Did The Eye Evolve?

A common argument from creationists comes in the form of an argument from design; "it looks like it was designed, So it must have been".

This type of argument usually takes an organ that appears (and is) complex such as the eye, And then this organ is pointed at by the creationists while they scratch their head and proclaim "man, that looks hard as shit to make". They then make the case that because they can't imagine how natural selection could have produce it that their particular god must have.

The truth is, No matter complex an organ is, Natural selection is perfectly equipped to produce it so long as this organ can be built in gradual steps with each step being beneficial. And the eye is an organ which can be produced like this (just like all organs in every organism).

The evolution of the eye is fairly simple once we understand how evolution works. It can even be seen in the development of a human fetus.

Proof Evolution Is Wrong

HA atheists, You think you are so smart with your "science" and "evidence" that proves evolution. You think you are clever with your ERV's and chimpanzee chromosomes! Well how do you like having the tables turned? How do you like having rock solid science and unshakable evidence used against you to prove evolution is wrong?

"Dave" and his amazing glass of water finally puts the last nail in your neo-Darwinian dogma of "evolution". If evolution is right then Dave's glass of water should have animals in it after 8 days right? Well it doesn't, We know it doesn't because he looked, And that disproves evolution! HA suck on that evolutionists!


I would love to think the video is a joke, But i don't think it is. If only Dave done this experiment sooner, It could have featured as evidence in expelled.

Of course, what Dave doesn't recognise is that it disproves creationism in a far more compelling way than it disproves evolution. The bible said god created the earth in 6 days, And yet in 8 days he couldn't even put a new species of animal in Dave's glass.

PS. I nearly pissed myself when i read Daves comment under his video; "what is a microscope?"

Sexpelled - No Intercourse Allowed

Of course, This video is very funny and illustrates how moronic the ID position is. But really, If we are to take their advice and "teach the other side" and to teach kids that "there are two opinions" and that there is "an alternative theory" should we not teach stork theory in biology class as a possible explanation for where babies come from? If we are to have academic freedom in schools, Which apparently means letting cretinous imbeciles lie to children, Shouldn't there be the academic freedom to teach stork theory? Stork theory has as much evidence supporting it as intelligent design, None what so ever, So surely it should have as equal importance as creationists insist intelligent design should have.

Or should we, As I and the vast majority of people think, Only teach them the truth and only teach them stuff that is supported by evidence and is actual science?

So creationists, Give me one good reason why ID should be taught as a valid theory and stork theory shouldn't? And don't forget, If you are going to claim ID has evidence to support it, Remember to bring that evidence with you.

Help Expose Expelled

Expelled the movie, As you probably know, Is an upcoming movie featuring Ben Stein in which he tries to present a case for intelligent design while pretending that the scientific community is an elitist old boys club where scientists sit around sweeping evidence under the carpet if it doesn't conform with "neo-darwinism" (whatever that is).

The flaws in this movie are evident from it's premise alone. But their dishonesty doesn't stop at misrepresenting science and the scientific method while asking for a free pass straight into text books. These dishonest, intellectual cowards are even bribing schools to force kids to watch it and lying to respected scientists to get them to agree to an interview, An interview which will be edited in order to misrepresent what is being said.

So i urge anyone with a website or blog to help expose expelled. Link to the expelled exposed website using the words "expelled the movie", "Ben stein" and "intelligent design". If enough people do this and don't make it too obvious we can get expelledexposed.com on the front page of google for those search terms and stop these filthy liars in their tracks.

Normally i don't agree with underhand tactics, But when confronted with people who have the finances to get a film made that is based entirely on lies we need to do whatever it takes to expose them.

Idiot Creationists Victims Of Their Own Ignorance

The idiot creationists of Florida recently scored what can only be described as an own goal when the board of education agreed to precede the word "evolution" with "the theory of..." in text books.

Both sides are excited about this decision. On one side we have the lesser moronic creationists pointing out that this isn't any different to calling it "evolution" and the evolutionists are happy because now students will be educated on the difference between a scientific theory and a common theory.

One of the tactics used by creationists over the years has been to call evolution "just a theory", Even though we have explained to them what a scientific theory is many times. So now the definition of "scientific theory" will be explained to students and they will see what a powerful too the "theory of evolution" is.

Well done idiots! LOL

The Next Dishonest Tactic To Be Used By Filthy Creationists

Ever since science started putting doubt in to peoples minds regarding the validity of religious dogma the corporations in charge of the dogma, The religions themselves, Have been intent on destroying peoples ability to learn, To keep them primitive and to keep them subservient.

Christians in particular have a long history of trying to deny people knowledge because they believe an educated mind is less likely to buy in to their primitive bronze age myths and, More importantly, Less likely to hand over money to such a scam.

In quite recent history, When Charles Darwin wrote his book detailing the process that caused the species to arise, The christians went absolutely nuts. They aren't concerned with the validity of evolution, They are simply concerned with preventing anyone learning about anything that contradicts their unfounded beliefs.

In 1982 a book was written called "of pandas and people" which was intended to be used as a text book in a science class teaching children that god an "intelligent designer" made us. It's basically creationism. But because America, Thanks to it's unbelieving christian-hating founding fathers, Has a law preventing religious filth being taught in schools they decided that they would, Like typical christians, Try to deceitfully get these lies taught via a back door. "intelligent design" was born.

Intelligent design, Unlike biblical creation, States that humans and animals couldn't have arose via natural selection and that a "designer" has to be responsible for at least some aspects of some organisms. Obviously this is just a re-branding of biblical creation, As was pointed out by Judge John Jones in the Dova trial.

So since there is now a president where christian filth biblical creation "intelligent design" was found, In a court, By a judge, To be nothing more than a deceitful way of getting religion taught as science the creationists have had to out do themselves and excel in both dishonesty and stupidity and take a new rout to get this nonsense taught in schools.

"Teach the controversy" is born. The newest tactic the disgusting creationists are using to get filthy lies taught as science is to pretend that there is an academic "controversy" regarding evolution and that a lot of respectable scientists, Scientists who were found to be complete morons at the Dova trial, Doubt evolution.

The solution to this, According to them, It to at least teach the controversy to children and "let them decide". Now, I have two problems with this;

Firstly; There isn't a controversy. it's all in their head. Compared to the vast body of scientists who fully support evolution the ones questioning it are comparable to the amount of astronomers who believe in astrology. ie, Not many at all.

Secondly; If there is a "controversy" regarding the theory of evolution it has to be settled in the academic arena using peer reviewed research and evidence. it's not to be settled in a classroom full of children who don't even have a basic grasp of the subject. This presents a problem for creationists is they don't actually produce any data, Any experiments or any academic papers.

When this issue goes to court, And it will, The case is easily won by evolutionists simply by saying that "teaching the controversy" is tantamount to teaching the controversy between alchemy in chemistry and Astrology in astrophysics.

Creationist Liars Come To Europe

Thanks to Max for emailing this one in.

After the Sunday service in Westminster Chapel, where worshippers were exhorted to wage "the culture war" in the World War II spirit of Sir Winston Churchill, cabbie James McLean delivered his verdict on Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

"Evolution is a lie, and it's being taught in schools as fact, and it's leading our kids in the wrong direction," said McLean, chatting outside the chapel. "But now people like Ken Ham are tearing evolution to pieces."

Europeans have long viewed the conflict between evolutionists and creationists as primarily an American phenomenon, but it has recently jumped the Atlantic Ocean with skirmishes in Italy, Germany, Poland and, notably, Britain, where Darwin was born and where he published his 1859 classic.

Luckily for Europeans we have far less fundamentalist evangelicals than America willing to make utter fools out of themselves, So i don't expect this lie based movement to make much ground over here. It is something Europeans need to keep an eye on though, Especially since the UK creation theme park was announced.

Christopher Hitchens To Debate Creationists

Christopher Hitchens, Atheist, and Jay Wesley Richards, Co-author of the privileged planet and anti-evolution charlatan, Are to debate at Standford in the Dinkelspiel Auditorium on 27th of January on the subject of "Atheism vs. Theism and the Scientific Evidence of Intelligent Design".

The creationists have certainly stacked the cards against Hitchens by making him the only Atheist and Evolution supporter to be involved. His opponent, Jay Richards, Is a creationist, Obviously, But the debate is also hosted by a creationist, Ben Stein, and moderated by yet another creationist and evangelical christian, Michael Cromartie.

I know Richard Dawkins doesn't do these kinds of debates as a rule but i think he would have been a better choice, For us at least. As much as i like and admire hitch, He isn't a biologist and won't be as adept at exposing the scientific dishonesty and deception that these liars will inevitably vomit in the form of an "argument".

Part of the subject is the evidence for intelligent design. So as long as Christopher Hitchens keeps pressing them on this he should be fine, Because there simply is no evidence for intelligent design once you remove the disproven arguments like irreducible complexity or the logical fallacies such as their argument from design (it looks like it's designed, So it must be). Once the shit is shoveled off of their opinion, And that's all it is, And opinion, You are left with nothing. No evidence, No experiments, No peer review. Just a bunch of christians sitting around, Lying, Not understanding science and then agreeing with each other.

I also hope Christoper watches the NOVA show about the dova trial. If these people can lose their case in a court, Get their "theory" torn to shreds and, at one point, Even be proven to be guilty of lying in their deposition, Which is a criminal offence, They are certainly no match for The Hitch.

Why Do People Laugh At Creationists?

Thunderf00t has been making a great series of videos and putting them on youtube highlighting some of the more idiotic statements creationists make and the lies they tell and then proceeding to rip them to shreds using science, Evidence and most importantly, Common sense.

The [GBG] blog (me) have been in the process of collecting these videos in a channel titled "Why Do People Laugh At Creationists?" so they are easy to find. I have also been collecting other videos in channels about atheism, Evolution, Science and conferences that you may enjoy watching. these channels get updated as i come across more videos, So keep checking back.

If you like watching creationists get destroyed though their own ignorance by people a lot smarter than themselves i suggest you subscribe to Thunderf00t, potholer54 and cdk007

Deafening Science

We have come to a point in our understanding of the universe, Our understanding of how stars and planets are formed and our understanding of how species emerge that it makes it very hard for anyone to persist in the notion that all are a result of a supernatural, conscious entity clicking his fingers and willing them in to existence 6000 years ago without looking like an ignorant fool.

The overwhelming evidence supporting sciences and the difficulty of denying the scientific explanation hasn't stopped some people continuing with their delusion though.

I have noticed a lot of times when having debates with creationists, Especially on forums, That they churn out the same facile analogies (some crap about a watch), Say that evolution doesn't explain how life it's self emerged (even though evolution wasn't intended to explain that) and regurgitate every counter argument that they have previously heard someone else regurgitate. I think creationists have one brain which they share, And it's only the person who is in possession of that brain who can muster the imagination to create such illogical arguments, The rest can only muster the intellect to repeat what they have heard.

Of course, The good thing about debating with someone who doesn't actually understand the argument they are refuting and can only regurgitate counter points they have previously heard is that all you have to do to beat them is raise a point that not only do they not understand, But also have never come across a counter argument to. The one i like to use the the evidence supporting evolution that we find when we look at Endogenous Retrovirus DNA in primates. This argument tends to stop them dead in their tracks. On the first hand they could read up on it and understand it, But if they do that they would have proven evolution to be true, To themselves at least, Or they can refute it without knowing the first thing about it, and even the most idiotic creationist isn't prepared for that level of intellectual martyrdom.

I'm sure there will always be people claiming the supernatural cause, Just like there will always be people claiming the world is ending tomorrow. But just like how the nutters on the street have to change their sign every time the world doesn't end the young earth creationists are going to look dumber and dumber each time new evidence is discovered that could falsify the old earth and evolutionary theory but end up supporting them fully.

Fossilized Darwin Fish Discovered

Tiktaalik roseae -- a 375-million-year-old fossilized "fishapod" discovered on Ellesmere Island in 2004 -- has been hailed as an "evolutionary icon" because it represents the crucial transition from sea to land for some of the Earth's most primitive creatures.The discovery was announced amid global fanfare in 2006, and Tiktaalik is now the showcase species in a report released last week by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences to promote the study of evolution and counter calls for U.S. schools to teach creationism.

Now Neil Shubin, the University of Chicago biologist who discovered the High Arctic fossil, is poised to release a populist recounting of his Canadian find -- Your Inner Fish -- in which he traces the primordial origins of the human race to such lowly creatures.

"It is far worse for Huckabee. Before apes, his ancestors were fish, worms, and other creatures," Mr. Shubin told Canwest News Service yesterday. "With jaw bones that correspond to gill bones in fish and sharks, a body plan shared with headless worms, and with parts of a DNA recipe shared with relatives of jellyfish, Huckabee's ties to some of the most humble forms of life on our planet run deep indeed."

The planned launch of Your Inner Fish next Tuesday has already prompted a prediction from the leading U.S. evolutionary scientist Don Johanson -- co-discoverer of Lucy, the "missing-link" ape -- that "creationists will want this book banned" because it so convincingly discredits their world view.

Evidence For An Incompetent Designer

Arguments from design are moronic and yet ever so popular. The religious always enjoy arguing that god exists using what, To them, Appears to be phenomena that can only have occurred through the conscious, purposeful actions of a designer. If you see a watch.... Blah, blah, blah.

In this post i am going to take a leaf out of their book and present an "argument from incompetent design". If they can argue that god exists by listing things that they think were designed, I can argue against gods existence by listing things that could not have had a designer, And if they were designed, The designer was an incompetent imbecile.

99% of all planets are incapable of producing or sustaining life. What were they? do-overs? practice goes? I can hear god now; "no, that doesn't count.. I was just practicing. The next one is the real earth.... Good job i made the universe enormous!".

Our eyes can only detect a small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. There are a lot of things that would be handy to be able to see, Gamma radiation and x-rays for example, You know, Shit that can kill us.

99% of all species that have ever lived became extinct before humans even arrived. What was the point of that? What kind of "designer" would create a planet for us to live on but do most of his work and creating before we even get here. It would be like setting off the fireworks before the guests of honor arrived.

We sleep for one third of our life. I don't see the point. If we are designed why design us to waste so much time?

CO,CO2 and CH4. Three gasses that we can't see, Can't smell which can kill us. Thanks for that!

Our mouth is too small. If i, As a human working for a design company, designed the human jaw knowing full well how many teeth is has to accommodate i would get fired. Most adults have to have wisdom teeth pulled out at some point simply because their jaw is too small. One of two corrections should have been made to the original design. Either leave some teeth out or make room for them.

Carrying on with the theme of the mouth. How hard would it be to give us separate holes for drinking, breathing, eating and speaking? We have one hole on the front of our face that is expected to do four jobs? Even dolphins have separate holes for breathing and eating so it's not like he hadn't thought of the idea.

What's up with that genitalia? It's like putting a theme park next to a sewage works. I can't think of two less appropriate functions to give one organ than expelling waste fluid and making babies.

Did we have to look so much like bald monkeys?

From this list you should be able to see that the human body was not designed. And if it was designed it was designed by a cretinous imbecile who i wouldn't trust to flip burgers at McDonald's. Is this the best your perfect god could do? He's a fucking embarrassment. Don't just look at the pretty stuff when you are looking for evidence of a designer, Make sure you check out the monumental fuck-ups as well.