Forums → WEPR → Intelligent Design VS Evolution/Big Bang
| 65 | 28034 |
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
He gave man free will,
No it* didn't. Well, at least not from God's own perspective. Omniscient as it is, God would have been able to see the exact outcome of creating the universe in the way that it did, as everything has a cause that can be traced back to the first matter at the beginning of time. God could have created a universe where everyone had "free will" and been good and happy, but didn't. God is a jerk.
*Intangible cosmic forces are genderless.
Could you show me your source please. I would like to do further investigation.
With pleasure. Here are the links to the original publications:
- Schweitzer et al. 2005. Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex.
- Asara et al. 2007. Protein Sequences from Mastodon and Tyrannosaurus Rex Revealed by Mass Spectrometry.
- Schweitzer et al. 2013. A role for iron and oxygen chemistry in preserving soft tissues, cells and molecules from deep time.
Here are links to press releases from livescience.com from 2007 and 2013:
- http://www.livescience.com/1410-rex-related-chickens.html
- http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html
Here's a question for you liquidvenom13. What makes your creation story any more valid than anyone elses? Why not the Native American creation story? Or the Aztec creation story? Or the Greek creation story? Or the Hindu creation story? I could go on but you get the point.
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?
So an perfect God created imperfection, then got angry when his imperfect beings used the free agency that he gave them to do something he didn't want them to do?
One more thing, where do you get that we were made with all these flaws in place? I don't recall that being stated in the Bible.
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.
They couldn't possibly have known it was wrong since they lacked any such knowledge of right and wrong prior to eating the fruit. All they could have known was that this guy here told them not to because they would die and this reptile over there say they could and wouldn't die.
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.
Well this would demonstrate what I mean about creationist sites quote mining and being dishonest.
I wanted to address yet another issue, this time it doesn't have anything to do with evolution. Rather, it is somewhat linked to the chances of there being life on a planet.
One thing I have been reading a bit about recently is the abundance of molecules in space, more specifically organic molecules. It has been known that comets often contain such molecules. Also there is this big gas cloud close to the centre of the Milky Way, called Sagittarius B2, that is basically a humongous cloud of interstellar molecules; some discovered molecules lead to funny articles claiming that the centre of the Galaxy smells like raspberries and rum...
Recently astronomers have discovered a new and very interesting molecule in SgrB2: isopropyl cyanide.
Here's the story: http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2014/09/new-molecule-found-space-connotes-life-origins
It is interesting because it is more complex (branched, not only linear) and also occurs in molecules important for life, like amino acids. What this means, to me, is that if we consider the 'chances' of life occuring somewhere, the abundance of organic molecules is definitely not a problem.
You must be logged in to post a reply!