Forums → WEPR → Intelligent Design VS Evolution/Big Bang
| 65 | 28030 |
I personally do not believe that we all came from a "big bang" or an amoeba floating around in some primordial soup.
It was suggested in the move "Intelligence Expelled" that we were not created by some random course of events, but rather by a being with a higher status than that of ourselves. Call this being whatever you like: God, Aliens, etc.
If you really think about it isn't it easier to believe that we were intentional, rather than a complete coincidence?
In the movie stated above people were proposing intelligent design through their professions and they were getting blacklisted. There is something that is being hidden here if their bosses do not want them to be spreading this around.
What do you all think about this?
I highly recommend this movie.
- 65 Replies
Ok then, but how does sin even lead to hemorrhoids?
Yahweh was butthurt, so he decided to spread the joy.
How did an act of sin fundamentally alter our genetic make-up? Let alone the genetic make-up of countless other species and alter the environment itself which had nothing to do with us?
It was already part of our genetic make up. Because we sinned God allowed these things to be possible. It is a punishment.
It was already part of our genetic make up. Because we sinned God allowed these things to be possible. It is a punishment.
So God already built in the predisposition for growing useless tailbones and poison sacks in the event that we eat the conveniently placed fruit from the tree of knowledge. Then by eating the fruit our genetics forever were modified, as were every other living things. Does that make sense to you?
Yahweh was butthurt, so he decided to spread the joy.
Let's debate, not insult.
So God already built in the predisposition for growing useless tailbones and poison sacks in the event that we eat the conveniently placed fruit from the tree of knowledge. Then by eating the fruit our genetics forever were modified, as were every other living things. Does that make sense to you?
I'm not sure you understand. The capability for our ailments was already there. We would not have sickness, death, etc. in the world if Adam and Eve had never eaten the fruit off of the tree. God was stopping all of the horrible things from happening to man. After they disobeyed God it changed the course of the world forever.
[quote] And saying, we don't know where matter came from, but it definitely came from nothing without breaking any laws of physics because they were conveniently changed is totally different.
The major differences are as follows.
1) The Theory of Evolution does no depend upon the Big Bang.
2) We have quite a lot more evidence for Evolution than the Big Bang due to the more recent and closer nature of it.
3) "God did it" is not an answer to a question. Even if we one day find that a supernatural being or power was the cause, the goal of science is to explore how that being or power acts in the universe. [/quote]
4) We do have a pretty good idea where matter came from.
5) No one is saying it came from nothing.
6) Matter =/= the universe.
7) a universe from nothing is a statement about balance of energy within the universe equaling zero. (more on it here) Not in the sense of "there was nothing, then there was something".
I'm not sure you understand. The capability for our ailments was already there. We would not have sickness, death, etc. in the world if Adam and Eve had never eaten the fruit off of the tree. God was stopping all of the horrible things from happening to man. After they disobeyed God it changed the course of the world forever.
Having built in flaws and useless features that had to be stopped hardly sounds like a perfect design.
Let's debate, not insult.
It was a joke, Ivan. And beside, these aren't debates. They're polemic arguments.
Having built in flaws and useless features that had to be stopped hardly sounds like a perfect design.
While I do prefer to cry ****-up before conspiracy and Hanlon tells us not to attribute to malice what can be first explained by stupidity, I feel like the big guy upstairs would have been both well aware and well within his means to stop it if he was capable of creation in the first place.
Having built in flaws and useless features that had to be stopped hardly sounds like a perfect design
No man is perfect. God did not make humans perfect, the only perfect one is God. He gave man free will, thus the mistake in the garden of Eden. Where does it state that we are a perfect design?
The capability for our ailments was already there.
In other words, we were designed to fail? Guess that explains why God put the key to that failure within arms reach, pointed it out, made it look tasty, didn't give man the knowledge of right and wrong in the first place (including lies) and created the creature that convinced Eve to eat the apple in the first place. If we take that story literally, the only conclusion I can draw is that God intended for us to disobey him.
God was stopping all of the horrible things from happening to man.
All of the horrible things he had designed to happen to man before man had even sinned, apparently. Not to mention every other creature on the planet who had no part in eating the apple.
Guess that explains why God put the key to that failure within arms reach, pointed it out, made it look tasty, didn't give man the knowledge of right and wrong in the first place (including lies) and created the creature that convinced Eve to eat the apple in the first place. If we take that story literally, the only conclusion I can draw is that God intended for us to disobey him.
Humans had free will. They knew what they were doing, after the serpent persuaded them they knew that they had sinned. That is why they tried to hide from God.
Humans had free will.
Yeah. Sort of. Kinda. Well...
God created Adam and Eve and gave them the "option" of obeying him. By that I mean, their options were obey God or suffer the consequences. There was never really a choice in the same way that a hostage doesn't have much of a choice when a criminal has a gun pointed to their head says, "you can do whatever you want except what I say you can't."
They knew what they were doing,
How could they? Adam and Eve were necessarily ignorant of good and evil. The fruit of the Tree of Knowledge contained that. Lies are seen as evils, yes? Therefore Adam and Eve wouldn't have known what lies were. The serpent (whom God by definition knew was trying to trick innocent Eve) was able to convince them because they were essentially three year olds being told by sadistic older brother to pick up that gun and shoot themselves in the head because it'd be funny.
That is why they tried to hide from God.
Yes, after. When they realized that what they had done was "wrong" (didn't have the capacity to understand that beforehand) and panicked.
Not that this is anything more than arguing about interpreting ambiguous text. We have no reason to take it literally or assume that its right.
How could they? Adam and Eve were necessarily ignorant of good and evil. The fruit of the Tree of Knowledge contained that. Lies are seen as evils, yes?
They knew God's commandment to never eat from the tree.
They knew that they were not supposed to eat from it, they ate from it anyways. They disobeyed. They knew it was wrong to disobey God.
Do you have something against God?
This is at least the second time you've skipped over providing the link between man eating the fruit and all other creatures being harmed through this act.
Do you have something against God?
That's like asking "Do you have something against Odin/Zeus/Dumbledore?" To us, it's a character in a largely fictional narrative. The burden is on you to reasonably demonstrate that such a character actually exists. The thread for that discussion is here.
No man is perfect. God did not make humans perfect, the only perfect one is God. He gave man free will, thus the mistake in the garden of Eden. Where does it state that we are a perfect design?
You have said before that you do not think we evolved because we would look designed, not evolved. Now you say we are definitely not perfectly designed (on the contrary, we have built-in flaws etc.). These imperfections can be explained in an evolutionary light, and if we are evolved we would expect that we are not perfect. Which, against your own words in the beginning, makes evolution at least as easy to imagine than imperfect design. The argument "it looks designed, hence I believe" is likely not true; I suspect it is rather "I believe, hence it looks designed to me". There is no objective feature about any organism that points more strongly to design than to evolution. If there is, please share it with us.
There is a contradiction you still didn't address. You talked about soft tissue found in dinosaur bone, based on Schweitzer's work. Disregarding the later work I found where she gave an explanation for how it could preserve so long, there's still a logical problem with your argument. Schweitzer compared the proteins she found to recent bird proteins in order to confirm that it is genuine dinosaur proteins. This however is based on the fact that birds evolved from dinosaurs. So if you use her results, you indirectly agree that birds and dinosaurs are related; since you do not agree with the theory of evolution, you cannot use her results as an argument.
Disregarding the later work I found where she gave an explanation for how it could preserve so long, there's still a logical problem with your argument. Schweitzer compared the proteins she found to recent bird proteins in order to confirm that it is genuine dinosaur proteins. This however is based on the fact that birds evolved from dinosaurs. So if you use her results, you indirectly agree that birds and dinosaurs are related; since you do not agree with the theory of evolution, you cannot use her results as an argument.
Could you show me your source please. I would like to do further investigation.
You must be logged in to post a reply!