Design flaws in organisms indicate evolution, not intelligent design

[Compassionist]

The existence of design flaws in living organisms is often cited as evidence for evolution by natural selection rather than intelligent design by an all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful deity. If such a being existed and created life intentionally, we might expect optimal design yet what we see instead are structures and processes that are inefficient, prone to failure, or even harmful.
Here are some significant biological design flaws that point to evolution rather than perfect design:
________________________________________
1. Human Birth Canal vs. Big Brain
Flaw: Human babies have large heads due to our large brains, but the human pelvis is narrow for bipedal walking.
Result: Childbirth is extremely painful and dangerous a leading cause of death historically.
Evolutionary Explanation: Our ancestors evolved larger brains and upright walking separately, leading to a dangerous compromise.
________________________________________
2. Wisdom Teeth
Flaw: Most people don't have room for third molars, causing impaction, infections, and pain.
Result: Many need surgery to remove them.
Evolutionary Explanation: Our ancestors had larger jaws due to diet, but modern humans' jaws shrank faster than tooth evolution could keep up.
________________________________________
3. Human Retina Is Backward
Flaw: The photoreceptor cells in the human eye are behind layers of neurons and blood vessels.
Result: Creates a blind spot and reduces image quality.
Evolutionary Explanation: The eye evolved incrementally, not from a clean-slate design.
________________________________________
4. Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve (Giraffe Example)
Flaw: This nerve travels from the brain to the larynx, but loops around the aorta.
Result: In giraffes, it travels over 15 feet instead of a direct path of a few inches.
Evolutionary Explanation: It's a leftover from fish ancestors, where this path made sense. Evolution modified existing structures rather than redesigning from scratch.
________________________________________
5. Human Menstrual Cycle
Flaw: Humans shed the uterine lining even if not pregnant, wasting resources and causing pain.
Result: Menstrual cramps, anemia, mood changes.
Evolutionary Explanation: Other mammals reabsorb the lining. Our approach may have evolved due to pathogen risks in internal fertilization.
________________________________________
6. Shared Path for Food and Air
Flaw: The esophagus (food) and trachea (air) share an entrance.
Result: Risk of choking a leading accidental cause of death.
Evolutionary Explanation: The throat evolved in stages, without foresight.
________________________________________
7. Human Spine and Back Pain
Flaw: Our spine is an S-curve not ideally suited for upright walking.
Result: Many people suffer chronic back pain, herniated discs, etc.
Evolutionary Explanation: Our ancestors were quadrupeds. The upright posture evolved later, leading to inefficient structure.
________________________________________
8. Brain Vulnerability and Mental Illness
Flaw: The brain is highly energy-consuming and prone to many dysfunctions.
Result: High rates of depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, etc.
Evolutionary Explanation: Natural selection favored reproductive success, not mental wellness or long-term wellbeing.
________________________________________
9. Knee Joint Design
Flaw: Knees bear immense strain, especially the ACL (anterior cruciate ligament), which often tears.
Result: Common injuries in sports and aging.
Evolutionary Explanation: Knees evolved from quadruped ancestors, not optimally engineered for bipedal running and jumping.
________________________________________
10. Genetic "Junk" and Mutations
Flaw: The genome is full of non-coding or redundant DNA and is prone to harmful mutations.
Result: Genetic diseases, cancer, and congenital defects.
Evolutionary Explanation: DNA accumulates "baggage" over time. There's no intelligent editing or streamlining process.
________________________________________
11. Susceptibility to Cancer
Flaw: Cells divide for life but are prone to mutations that cause cancer.
Result: One of the top global causes of death.
Evolutionary Explanation: Cell division is essential for life, but natural selection can't eliminate all cancer risk especially after reproductive age.
________________________________________
12. Human Psychology Biases
Flaw: We are prone to cognitive biases (e.g., confirmation bias, tribalism, overconfidence).
Result: Misjudgments, discrimination, and conflict.
Evolutionary Explanation: These evolved to enhance survival in specific environments, not to produce truth-seeking rationality.
________________________________________
If we were designed by an omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent being, such flaws are impossible to justify. Evolution by natural selection, on the other hand, explains these quirks and imperfections as the result of a messy, blind, trial-and-error process where old parts are tweaked, not replaced, and survival/reproduction, not perfection, is the end goal.

[The Barbarian]

"Fine-tuning" is observed to evolve. For example, the evolution of a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system. Either the universe just happened to become in a way that made such things possible, or God created it to do so. Makes no difference to evolution.

If God created it to do so, it makes a difference to atheism

Doesn't matter. Evolution is the observed cause of fine-tuning.

Things that would falsify evolution:
A rabbit fossil in undisturbed Cambrian deposits.
Evolution of a trait in a population for the exclusive benefit of a different species.
And all that other stuff you've been shown. [/quote]

I've been in backyards, farms, and zoos.

Good for you.

And all I've been shown is; dogs produce dogs, cats cats, etc etc.

Just a bit different than the parents. And over time, new species evolve. Even most YE creationists now admit the fact. They just try to argue that it's "not real evolution."

Huxley, over a hundred years ago, predicted transitionals between birds and other dinosaurs, based on the anatomy of living archosaurs. Today, we have many, many observations of such transitionals.

There are similarities between a bicycle and a motorcycle...

Because over time people kept changing bicycles a bit. And eventually, the transitions let to today's motorcycles.
https://www.visitiom.co.uk/images/evolution-bicycle
But human artifacts only simulate evolutionary processes. Since you've declined to show us even one feature of birds not found in other dinosaurs, how about showing us one step from a primitve dinosaur to a bird that couldn't evolve? If you can't answer the first question, maybe you can answer the second one. What do you have?

Anatomy is open to interpretation...

But analogous organs are not. Would you like me to show you why?

Having found dinosaur bone with a bit of heme surviving in it, the heme turned out to be more like that of birds than that of other reptiles. Can you name even one feature of birds not found in other dinosaurs? I'd like to know what that is.

What do you have?

Similarities doesn't prove ancestry.

Homologies and biochemistry does. We can check it on organisms of known descent. You've got two questions on the table to answer. If you can't even answer these basic questions, what makes you think you're qualified to tell us anything about the subject?

[alexxcJRO]

Similarities doesn't prove ancestry.

Endogenous Retroviruses settles the debate alone between separate ancestry and common ancestry. There is no reason to talk about anything else.
Retroviruses (HERVs) insert their RNA genome into the DNA of a host germ cell that it invades which later is transmitted to descendants.
In time we have a huge pile of accumulations of ERVs which act as record of common descent.

There can't be talk of independent insertions of the same virus in the same locations. The probability is astronomically, unfathomably small in favor of that happening.
There can't be talk of God(Yahweh-Jesus) making it all look like Evolution happened(by placing the ERV segments) if it didn't. It would make God deceitful, not to be trusted. But he is supposedly a perfect being(omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent-perfectly good). Ergo by his nature alone that would not happen.

The only conclusion viable is that Evolution happened.

[William]

Post #1: Compassionist argues that numerous biological flaws (e.g., narrow birth canal, backward retina, recurrent laryngeal nerve) are evidence for evolution by natural selection rather than design by an all-powerful, all-loving deity.

Post #73: William questions why science would even have a definition for "perfection" if perfection is not something living systems can achieve or that scientists are genuinely seeking.

Post #74: William challenges Compassionist’s assumption that a perfect deity would create optimal design, suggesting instead that perceived “flaws” provide necessary contrast for questioning and learning, and he ties this to a mythological narrative of a “war in heaven” as a debate about perfection versus a created simulation for exploration.

Post #75: Compassionist clarifies that science defines "perfection" (like "perfect vacuum" or "perfect crystal") only as a theoretical benchmark or boundary case, not as something scientists expect to find or actively seek in nature.

Post #76: Compassionist rejects William’s simulation/mythology framework as untestable, arguing that evolution makes specific, testable predictions (vestigial structures, trade-offs, imperfect adaptations) that align with observable reality, whereas a perfect divine creation would predict a world without suffering, disease, or error—which is not our world.

Post #77: William counters that evolution describes what we observe but doesn't explain ultimate origins, that Compassionist's expectations of a perfect deity are themselves a form of mythology, and that a truly perfect being would have no need to create any environment or simulation at all.

Post #78: Compassionist distinguishes between scientific explanation, metaphysical speculation, and mythic narrative, arguing that evolution explains functional imperfections and that quantum cosmology offers a natural, testable model for universal origins without requiring a designer, while divine-simulation models remain unfalsifiable and lack predictive power.

Post #79: William asserts that he is not conflating different reasoning types but rather "joining the dots" from his Agnostic Gnostic position, argues that mythology need not be supernatural (heaven could be a prior universe), and concludes that a truly perfect being would create no environment and no others at all—so even our existence contradicts the premise of a perfect creator.

Post #80: William presents personal, subjective evidence for his "Divined Simulation-creation model," including a "Name to Number" notebook where phrases yield matching numerical values (e.g., 313, 305), which he interprets as revealing hidden order and meaningful connections beyond ordinary mathematics.

Post #81: Compassionist acknowledges the internal coherence of William's model but argues it lacks predictive power and empirical testability, noting that a truly perfect being would have no motive to create at all, and that no detectable signatures of intentional design have been found despite centuries of searching.

Post #82: William argues that design flaws do not rule out intelligent design, that his "Agnostic Gnosis" position allows him to integrate myth, intuition, and imagination in ways that strict empiricism cannot, and he contends that demanding "signatures of intentional design beyond physical law" unfairly denaturalizes any possible creator.

Post #83: Compassionist agrees that imagination is valuable but insists that predictive power and empirical testing distinguish science from art or mythology, arguing that evolution repeatedly passes those tests while the "Divined Simulation-Creation" model makes no discriminating predictions and therefore explains nothing concretely.

Post #84: William argues that since both agree a perfect deity would create nothing, Compassionist's original framing is based on faulty data; he asserts that design flaws do not rule out a created universe, that his "agnostic gnosis" approach opens doors materialist skepticism closes, and that he is not denying evolution but integrating it into a larger theistic framework.

Post #85: Compassionist clarifies his independent use of AI as a reasoning tool, reaffirms that evolution's predictive power distinguishes it from mythic interpretations, and poses a direct challenge to William regarding the killing of infants and children—asking how non-existent souls can grow if suffering is meant as a catalyst for spiritual development.

Post #86: William argues that calling design flaws evidence against intelligence is conjecture based on incomplete data, and he offers an alternative mythic framework in which a "Mother" being uses fragile "flesh-pups" (humans) to develop more robust containers for exploring the cosmos, with flaws part of a developmental "Game" rather than evidence of incompetence.

Post #87: Compassionist acknowledges William's "Mother Being" narrative as poetic and meaningful for questions of meaning, but reiterates that evolution better predicts biological patterns (vestigial organs, genetic errors) with testable consequences, whereas myth lacks distinguishing measurable predictions and operates in a different explanatory register.

Post #88: William provides an AI-generated synthesis of his worldview, presenting the "Natural Neutral" stance, the "Mother" entity as an immanent planetary consciousness experiencing reality through humans, and "Agnostic Gnosis" as an open-ended exploration of unfolding data without dogmatic certainty.

Post #89: Compassionist finds William's "Natural Neutral" cosmology beautiful but ethically weightless, arguing that if predation and suffering are simply part of the Mother's nature, then moral terms become merely descriptive and goodness dissolves into amoral necessity.

Post #90: William responds that compassion is fueled by the lack of judgment, not tension with neutrality, and that understanding without taking sides allows for genuine care while recognizing that flaws in a creation indicate the creator still has progress to make.

Post #91: Compassionist argues that understanding alone is ethically insufficient, that compassion requires refined judgment rather than the absence of judgment, and that neutrality must be porous enough to let the pain of others move one toward ethical commitment—adding that he is vegan because of his compassion for all sentient beings.

Post #92: William clarifies that his rejection of judgment refers to casting moral condemnation on those who are different, and he questions whether Compassionist's declaration of veganism implies a judgment that meat-eaters lack compassion for sentient beings.

Post #93: Compassionist distinguishes between moral discernment (asking what causes unnecessary harm) and moral condemnation (judging people as bad), stating that while veganism reflects his own ethical alignment, he does not judge meat-eaters as lacking compassion but sees their behavior as shaped by causal factors.

[SiNcE_1985]

Doesn't matter. Evolution is the observed cause of fine-tuning.

This is false. Evolution is the product of fine-tuning.

Evolution depends on fine-tuning, so you can't logically say that the product of X, is also the cause of X.

That is circular reasoning, thus, fallacious.

Things that would falsify evolution:
A rabbit fossil in undisturbed Cambrian deposits.
Evolution of a trait in a population for the exclusive benefit of a different species.
And all that other stuff you've been shown.

Your argument is lost, everytime fossils is mentioned.

Good for you.

It is good for you, too...considering we can go to the backyard, zoo, or barn and observe the same thing.

Just a bit different than the parents. And over time, new species evolve. Even most YE creationists now admit the fact. They just try to argue that it's "not real evolution."

Sure, but the new species is still within the same "kind" (which from what I can tell, kind = genus).

A dog, wolf, and coyote are different species of canine, but they are still the same kind of animal.

Huxley, over a hundred years ago, predicted transitionals between birds and other dinosaurs, based on the anatomy of living archosaurs. Today, we have many, many observations of such transitionals.

I aint never observe it.

Because over time people kept changing bicycles a bit. And eventually, the transitions let to today's motorcycles.
https://www.visitiom.co.uk/images/evolution-bicycle
But human artifacts only simulate evolutionary processes. Since you've declined to show us even one feature of birds not found in other dinosaurs, how about showing us one step from a primitve dinosaur to a bird that couldn't evolve? If you can't answer the first question, maybe you can answer the second one. What do you have?

Did the T-Rex have wings or a beak? Did it have feathers?

No.

You asked for one, I gave you three.

But analogous organs are not. Would you like me to show you why?

Having found dinosaur bone with a bit of heme surviving in it, the heme turned out to be more like that of birds than that of other reptiles. Can you name even one feature of birds not found in other dinosaurs? I'd like to know what that is.

What do you have?

This is getting the observation to fit your presupposition.

You already presuppose evolution to be true, so anything you find/observe will be morphed to corroborate this presup.

Homologies and biochemistry does. We can check it on organisms of known descent. You've got two questions on the table to answer. If you can't even answer these basic questions, what makes you think you're qualified to tell us anything about the subject?

Listen man, dogs produce dogs.

The biobabble is for the birds, no pun intended.

[SiNcE_1985]

Endogenous Retroviruses settles the debate alone between separate ancestry and common ancestry. There is no reason to talk about anything else.
Retroviruses (HERVs) insert their RNA genome into the DNA of a host germ cell that it invades which later is transmitted to descendants.
In time we have a huge pile of accumulations of ERVs which act as record of common descent.

There can't be talk of independent insertions of the same virus in the same locations. The probability is astronomically, unfathomably small in favor of that happening.
There can't be talk of God(Yahweh-Jesus) making it all look like Evolution happened(by placing the ERV segments) if it didn't. It would make God deceitful, not to be trusted. But he is supposedly a perfect being(omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent-perfectly good). Ergo by his nature alone that would not happen.

The only conclusion viable is that Evolution happened.

Not so fast.

In my research of ERV's, people are calling into question implications of ERV's, and it isn't as conclusive as you think (if at all).

But lets hypothetically say that ERV's prove that evolution is true (which i dont for one second believe), but it still wouldn't follow that therefore, God doesn't exist.

1. A universe from nothing still needs to be explained.
2. Fine-tuning still needs to be explained.
3. The origin of consciousness still needs to be explained.

And ERV's aint touching either one of those 3...and thats even if I grant evolution to be true, which I don't.

Its tough, man.

Its tough for you guys.

[RBD]

The existence of design flaws in living organisms is often cited as evidence for evolution by natural selection rather than intelligent design by an all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful deity. If such a being existed and created life intentionally, we might expect optimal design yet what we see instead are structures and processes that are inefficient, prone to failure, or even harmful.

And who informed you of this intelligence? Intelligently created man, not any natural brute beast.

Even stupid people denying reality, are proof that people are created in the image of the intelligent God, and not no-intelligence brute beasts.

Stupidly wanting to be a brute beast still proves you're not. Brute beasts have no intelligence to even think of such stupid things.

The natural man denying his own creation in the image of God, will indeed have natural intelligence, but still only intelligence created man can be so stupid, as to try and prove he's a no-intelligence brute beast. Which, hello people, takes the intelligence that brute beasts don't have...

When brute beasts can intelligently prove they debate being intelligent people or not, then we have proof that people are not the only creatures on earth created in the image of the intelligent God.

Conclusion: Intelligently made people can also be the dumbest creatures on earth, using their God created intelligence to say they are just stupid brute beasts. Which is not true, since brute beasts are not stupid, which itself takes denying one's own intelligence to be so stupid.

I.e. people denying their own God created intelligence, should stop insulting natural brute beasts, by arguing they are as stupid as brute beasts, who are not so stupid at all.

If you don't believe me, O ye intelligently created natural man, then just ask them. None of them will stupidly deny it.

[RBD]

Here are some significant biological design flaws that point to evolution rather than perfect design:

Now for two specifically self-designed flaws of intelligent people created with intelligence, denying their own intelligence is not also created in brute beasts.

If we were designed by an omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent being, such flaws are impossible to justify.

Who intelligently knows these flaws? Intelligent people, not no-intelligent beasts.

Being intelligently created in the image of the intelligent Creator, is the intelligence of people, that no brute beast has.

Not the naturally aging and mortal body, that all naturally made flesh on earth has in common:

Isa 40:6
The voice said, Cry. And he said, What shall I cry? All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field:

12. Human Psychology Biases
Flaw: We are prone to cognitive biases (e.g., confirmation bias, tribalism, overconfidence).
Result: Misjudgments, discrimination, and conflict.
Evolutionary Explanation: These evolved to enhance survival in specific environments, not to produce truth-seeking rationality.

I.e. only intelligently made people seek truth, not no truth-seeking brute beasts. And only an intelligently created person has the stupidity to argue they are not truth-seekers, when arguing that the truth is, that intelligently created people are not truth-seekers.

Hello people: Having intelligence or stupidity, and arguing intelligently or stupidly, that no brute beast has nor does, is proof of being intelligently created by the intelligent God, with power to become stupid in denying Him.

Rom 1:21
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Conclusion: Denying one's own intelligence, proves by the stupidity that no natural brute beast has, that people are created with intelligence, that no non-intelligent brute beast has.

As Maxwell Smart might say: You're arguments are intelligently made, but stupid.

[RBD]

The existence of design flaws in living organisms is often cited as evidence for evolution by natural selection rather than intelligent design by an all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful deity. If such a being existed and created life intentionally, we might expect optimal design yet what we see instead are structures and processes that are inefficient, prone to failure, or even harmful.

1. Atheists cannot have any judgment on a Creator, since anything that does not exist cannot be judged: There isn't anything to judge. Judging the Creator's manner of creation is only by belief in the Creator.

And any made thing, that does not create itself, likewise cannot presume to judge the Maker and manner of their making, especially not as by flawed creatures.

And so, you are either an atheist with no opinion about any nonexisting 'Creator', and you conclusion is flawed based upon a nonexistent premise. Or, you believe in a Creator, and being a flawed creation, any conclusion once against is based upon a flawed premise. I.e. no flawed person can judge the Creator, especially not conclude anything about His creating manner:

Rom 9:20
Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

And, once again, only a believer in the Creator, would ask and judge such a thing about their creation. No atheist can intelligently judge the manner of the Maker.

2. Hence, a 'poor design argument' against an intelligent, loving, perfect Creator, is an unproven conclusion based upon a flawed judgment of the Creator. It's not only flawed in conception, but also in practice: There is no natural law nor intelligent proof, that says the intelligent good Creator cannot make naturally flawed creatures, that mortally deteriorate by nature.

Rev 4:11
Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

No mortally made creature can rightly conclude, that their Creator is not pleased to make them thus, based solely upon their inherently flawed judgment of how a Maker ought to make all things. An intelligent and wise Creator can design all natural things with flawed mortality.

Rom 9:20
Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

2. 'Unintelligent design' by chance is also not proven by naturally flawed corruptible creatures. However, the premise that unintelligent chance design is disproven by complexity and orderliness of creation, is false.

Complexity in fact proves chance design, since chance by design cannot be noncomplex, nor with only one manner of design: Unintelligent chance design cannot limit it's own chances of design. By chance alone, design types must be limitlessly complex. The order of chance design is it's own limitless complexity. Therefore, only a single-ordered noncomplex natural design, would disprove unintelligent chance design. Only intelligent design can order all natural things the same way, without any chance of exceptions. Which in fact is the case of the presently designed natural universe:

Gen 3:19
In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Isa 40:6
The voice said, Cry. And he said, What shall I cry? All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field:

The simple question: Why are all natural things only flawed and deteriorate with mortality? Where's the chance design of a natural thing being flawlessly incorruptible and immortal? What are the chances in an unintelligent chance designed natural universe, of there being no chance of naturally immortal and incorruptible things by design?

It's not possible in a natural world of chance design alone, to only have naturally flawed and corruptible things, without any chance of having naturally flawless and incorruptible things. Unintelligent chance design cannot be limited to flawed natural things alone. Only intelligent design can order all natural things to be flawed, corruptible, and mortal.

Therefore, it's not complexity and orderliness of design that discounts unintelligent natural design, but rather the single-ordered noncomplex design of all things only being naturally flawed and deteriorating, without any chance of natural things being flawlessly immortal by design.

Your argument of flawed design therefore, which does apply to all natural things in the universe, disproves unintelligent chance design. Until you can show or prove any natural thing being flawlessly designed, then the single noncomplex order of all natural things must be by intelligent design alone:

1Co 15:50
Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

The declaration proves itself: God must be the intelligent Creator of all natural flawed and mortal things, since there is no natural thing ever designed, that is not flawed, and has no chance of being immortally incorrupt by inherent design.

[Difflugia]

1. Atheists cannot have any judgment on a Creator, since anything that does not exist cannot be judged: There isn't anything to judge. Judging the Creator's manner of creation is only by belief in the Creator.

We're not judging any supernatural creator, because as you rightly point out, no such thing exists. We're judging your hamhanded attempt to shoehorn a creator into a process that is so obviously lacks one.

And any made thing, that does not create itself, likewise cannot presume to judge the Maker and manner of their making, especially not as by flawed creatures.

We just agreed that the maker's not real, remember? We're not judging something that doesn't exist, we're judging something that does exist: a flawed creature that sees supernatural agency where there is none.

And so, you are either an atheist with no opinion about any nonexisting 'Creator', and you conclusion is flawed based upon a nonexistent premise.

... picked a peck of pickled peppers.

Or, you believe in a Creator, and being a flawed creation, any conclusion once against is based upon a flawed premise. I.e. no flawed person can judge the Creator, especially not conclude anything about His creating manner:

Those of us that take the time to learn a little math, though, can judge your flawed heuristic reasoning.

[RBD]

[

1. Atheists cannot have any judgment on a Creator, since anything that does not exist cannot be judged: There isn't anything to judge. Judging the Creator's manner of creation is only by belief in the Creator.

We're not judging any supernatural creator, because as you rightly point out, no such thing exists.

I rightly point out you're not an atheist, but only another doubting skeptic, that argues about something not made, based upon things that are made.

We're judging your hamhanded attempt to shoehorn a creator into a process that is so obviously lacks one.

You're a touchy skeptic, that fails at playing an atheist.

Reasonable people don't get whiny about things people say exist, that do not exist.

And any made thing, that does not create itself, likewise cannot presume to judge the Maker and manner of their making, especially not as by flawed creatures.

We're not judging something that doesn't exist, we're judging something that does exist: a flawed creature that sees supernatural agency where there is none.[/quote]

An atheist would only argue about flawed creatures and things. Not about unmade things that do not exist.

This is why most Bible antagonists are not honest with what's wriiten in the Bible. How can they be, when they're not even honest about themselves with God.