The Theist Test, Part I of VII

Have you taken a look at The Atheist Test which you can purchase for $12.00 to give to your atheist friends to convert them to theists (there are no arguments for Christianity)? I printed it out and took it and, I must say, I was spectacularly underwhelmed and must have passed the test as I am still an atheist (since it is a test for atheism).

In response to this, I thought I would create a new series of posts entitled The Theist Test. This will be a direct response to The Atheist Test and will use the same logic against theistic beliefs. A commenter on that page wrote that:

Thank you very much. It is logically laid out from The Word, identifying characteristic denials of fact to explain the world within which we live.

I wonder if others will find this series as "logically laid out" as it will use the same fallacious arguments and approaches. Do note that these are not necessarily arguments against God or creationism; these are arguments against Ray's faulty logic and false analogies.

I will cut this series into 7 parts, stopping after each "test."

The "theory" of creation of me, a human being.

Six to ten thousand years ago there opened a human being factory. The skin and internal meaty parts, including the organs, were made in a laboratory in the back where giant vats were filled to the brim with dust. On the first part of the manufacturing line, a plastic torso mold was lined with skin and filled with the meaty parts for the abdomen and torso. Once that solidified, it passed down to where the legs were bolted to my torso as well as the arms. The head was then fastened to the neck and the head meaty parts were filled in. Once it all solidified, my personality software was loaded in and out I came.

Of course, my "theory" is an insult to your intellect, because you know that if I were biologically produced, there must have been an biological process. If it is evolved, there must be an evolutionary process. The alternative, that it happened by magic, is to move into an intellectual free zone.

The coconut -- the theist's nightmare.

Note (7-18-08): I have had it pointed out to me that the pineapple is actually a worse nightmare for theists than the coconut. To test this statement, I conducted an experiment wherein I found that the pineapple truly is the theist's worst nightmare. In that entry there is a scoring of both the pineapple and the coconut under these ten points where the pineapple clearly prevails.

Although the meat and water is pleasing to our taste buds, note that the coconut:

1. Is not shaped for human hand
2. When it has ripened, it doesn't detach for a few months, at which point the coconut water has become bitter. If you want coconut water, you have to get it while it's still unripened.
3. When it detaches, it falls from tall palms, injuring people.
4. Has no tab for removal of wrapper
5. Has no perforation on wrapper.
6. You have to whack it many times about its circumference with a tool.
7. It is not shaped for human mouth
8. Has no point at top for ease of entry
9. Removing the meat from the shell is a laborious process, even with a tool.
10. Is not curved towards the face to make eating process easy

To say that the coconut was intelligently designed is even more unintelligent than to say that I was manufactured.

TEST ONE
The person who thinks that I was not produced through a biological process is:
___ A. Intelligent
___ B. A fool
___ C. Has an ulterior motive for denying the obvious

COMMENTARY -- COKE CAN

The problems with the Coca-Cola analogy are numerous, but the ones I focused on were:

1) It is a caricature of evolution.
2) The Coca-Cola can is an inanimate, manufactured product. It is a false analogy to use that in conjunction with animate, biological organisms.

The can is a manufactured item that is the result of a manufacturing process. Only a fool would try to make an analogy to it by applying a biological process, as Ray has done.

Similarly, the human is a biological organism that is the result of a biological process (sexual reproduction). Only a fool would try to make an analogy to it by applying a manufacturing process, as I have done.

What biological aspect is Ray going to attack next? Sexual reproduction with Pepsi cans? I can see it now:

The Pepsi Can -- The Embryologist's Worst Nightmare

Decades ago, two Pepsi cans were in close proximity to one another. One's tab grew erect, perpendicular to its can, and penetrated the perforated opening to the second can. In the process, some of the first can's liquid shot through the small opening at the base of the tab into the opening of the second can. Nine months later a miniature Pepsi can was produced. Over time, it grew into a regular sized can and arrived in your hand.

Of course, my theory is an insult to your intelligence. Only a fool would believe in sexual reproduction if sexual reproduction doesn't work for Pepsi cans!

COMMENTARY -- BANANA ARGUMENT

I thought Ray had conceded this argument, yet he persists on using it. Why? Because he not only doesn't care about the truth, he also doesn't believe his followers will check his facts or the soundness of his arguments.

Firstly, the banana he describes is man made -- or at least those attractive features are. Take a moment and Google for the cultivation of the banana. To the right is a wild-type banana.

You can read more on the flaws of this argument in my entry "No, The Banana *Is* Proof."