Challenges to Creationism

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Would you believe in a designer then if there were no appendix ?

I would believe in a designer if we were better designed and if the evidence supported the designer. The existence of an appendix, which we survive just fine without but where its existence provides a continuing threat, is one of many flaws that call to question an "intelligent designer".

Do you hate that you're living by now and wish to die because of that many bad designs ?

You are trying to infuse much more into this debate than what is actually there. This is an appeal to emotion and an obvious attempt for proselytizing.

Do you fear losing someone you love ? do you fear the future ?

Fear of the unknown is a very basic fear experienced by all mankind. Interesting as this subject is, it has no bearing on ToE and is another appeal to emotion.

 

[Tumah]

I quickly went through the thread to find some more questions.
Most of these questions seem to me as a creationist to be based on two faulty premises:
1. G-d was aiming to build the most self-sufficient machine possible.
2. G-d does not intend for their to be negative aspects of the creation.
I'll explain them as I go through the questions.

6) Why would there exist leeches, mosquitoes, tapeworms, eye worms and other parasites that seem to serve no other purpose other than spreading disease and feeding off those whom "God" created to have a relationship with "him"?

These animals represent some of the mediums through which G-d spreads disease and suffering to those who deserve diseases and sufferings.

Another one for Guy...

Please explain the recurrent laryngeal nerve in giraffes.

The body is not necessarily meant to be an example efficiency. Rather the body is a reflection of its spiritual reality. If, in that spiritual existence, the brain, heart and voice are connected, we may find that parallel in the physical structure of the body where spacial dimensions require alterations to efficient structures in order to more accurately represent the reality they reflect.

The appendix.

Although I can't give a specific reason for a given organ as I am not so learned in this area, I can apply the same reasoning as in the above question here.

And also... if you can live without it, then why even have it? And yet another thing, I still have my appendix, but I get stomach bugs now and then and it doesn't help me. Most of us have to replenish the micro/pro-biotic culture regardless. Also, sometimes the wrong culture will end up in the appendix and replenish the intestines with the wrong one! So it's a very poor design for this supposed purpose.

-AND-

I imagine it can just as well serve as a reservoir for facultative pathogens as commensal flora.

For that matter, why do we have microflora? They're a disaster waiting to happen, when we could have had all their functions designed into us. Why would God make the whole thing so unstable? Why would God create a world where E. coli can become pathogenic? Or where Helicobacter pylori was symbiotic in some cases and pathogenic in others?

-AND-

OK. But why did God a) make it so prone to going wrong and b) make it such that it was mildly helpful at best, when this function could have been included within the remainder of the digestive system?

As a creationist, these three questions all point to one thing: G-d intends for us to realize that our lives are fragile and completely in His hands. With the same organ that gives us life, He can give us death. And so we should always turn to Him for help, because He is in control of everything.

Or why do we have to eat fruit with c-vitamins? Basically, all animal species except 5 produce their own c-vitamins. We have the genes, but it's damaged. And we share the exact same damage as the chimps. But the other 3 species have different damage on that gene. Why was it designed that way? (One of the ERVs for anyone wondering)

And also, why do we need this microflora as you say? We have a need of some microbiotics to help us retrieve vitamin K. The genes exist to do it... in the biota. The microbiotics contain about 10 times more genes than our own. But there's no reason why we couldn't have those genes ourselves so we could break down and work the nutritions that we need. It's a very unstable process.

It all points to a natural process of evolution. I'm sorry to say, but a sane and reasonable person can actually see this.

I understand that the reason we need to rely on certain foods is because those are the foods that G-d wants us to elevate for various reasons, through our consumption.

I was born by C section. But that does make sense.

My disease resistance is absolutely wonderful, because I lived more or less without hygiene as a child. I ate sheep dung etc.

Why did God have us not be able to see UV and infra red?

Because it did not serve the purpose He created us for.

Also, why did God have the tube we take in food by cross over the tube we breathe through?


Why did God make us need oxygen at all? Don't see why you'd engineer that.

As above.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

Thanks for the detailed responses, I'm only kidding they are of course all tough questions!


As many atheists bring up, modification can be the most efficient, elegant way to design anything- somebody cited an improved antenna being designed by a computer using a process of random modification, natural selection etc.- In all cases, cars, life, I would argue that the process requires predetermined selection criteria, an intended result, a purpose, & purpose can only exist in consciousness.

earthquakes, volcanoes, meteors were once arguments for 'bad design' until we learned of their crucial integral role in life on Earth. Certainly there will always be similar evidence of 'bad design' who's purpose we don't yet know- but wouldn't that be an argument from the gaps?
But in my opinion- the age of dinosaurs delayed mammals, while vast reserves of energy- crucial to human civilization, technology, exploration of the universe was accumulated.. until they were surgically removed by a perfectly aimed, weighted meteor - yet another amazing coincidence? perhaps, perhaps not

That's a good question too, and again I don't pretend to know all the answers, but I'd think a dynamic changing world is part of the plan, nothing stays the same, and this is what makes it Earth -

I know you weren't talking to me, exactly, but I appreciate this thoughtful response.

Does God, in your opinion, continue to alter the dynamics of this world?

Has be made changes to physical laws since creation began?

Has be made changes to the dynamics of chemical reactions since creation began?

Has he made changes to the outcomes of biological processes since creation began?

Does he continue to make changes to the world we currently accept as behaving according to specific physical processes?

Thanks in advance!

 

[Kuzcotopia]

These animals represent some of the mediums through which G-d spreads disease and suffering to those who deserve diseases and sufferings.

Do we defy god by looking for cures? We've eradicated smallpox, for example. We've come close to eliminating the dangerous mortality of many other diseases.

Does God want us to do that, if this is indeed his intended purpose in creating them in the first place?

 

[Kuzcotopia]

I'd like to quote just a couple of phrases, thanks!

I

G-d was aiming to

G-d does not intend

G-d intends for us

G-d wants us

the purpose He created us for

We're taking about a being that is necessarily all powerful and all knowing.

How are you aware of his intentions and wants for us? Is it your personal revelation as a prophet, or are you getting this from a specific text?

 

[Ouroboros]

As a creationist, these three questions all point to one thing: G-d intends for us to realize that our lives are fragile and completely in His hands. With the same organ that gives us life, He can give us death. And so we should always turn to Him for help, because He is in control of everything.

I don't know why he would have such a low character to need that. What you're describing is a narcissistic control-freak, or even a psychopath. Someone who wants to show his power and control even if it hurts people. But that's not up for discussion here. I just wanted to let you know that what you're describing is perhaps a designer God, but not a good God, in my opinion. And of course I respect your belief regardless of our difference of opinion here. Also, many animals suffer the same flaws in their bodies, which make them just as much target for this force from God.

I understand that the reason we need to rely on certain foods is because those are the foods that G-d wants us to elevate for various reasons, through our consumption.

Do you have any examples? And why do chimps need to elevate those certain foods too, since they have the same genetic defects as us?

Because it did not serve the purpose He created us for.

Which is? If he simply skimped out on spending a few more minutes on a better design because he was in a hurry to create us to fulfill his great plan, then I'm not sure he's so powerful after all. He sounds more like a self-centered scientist who created us for experiments only.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I know you weren't talking to me, exactly, but I appreciate this thoughtful response.

Does God, in your opinion, continue to alter the dynamics of this world?

Has be made changes to physical laws since creation began?

Has be made changes to the dynamics of chemical reactions since creation began?

Has he made changes to the outcomes of biological processes since creation began?

Does he continue to make changes to the world we currently accept as behaving according to specific physical processes?

Thanks in advance!

God and time are tricky, since time itself was part of the creation of the universe right?, so he would not be bound by the laws of his own creation..

i.e. if he created the universe, he created all time. that we can only occupy one space at a time, doesn't mean the others don't exist. So too with time from this larger perspective

So the best I can answer is yes and no!

I believe he is intimately, personally involved with all sorts of outcomes, individually and on a grand scale, daily and across eons, but in the larger sense, each action has already been taken.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

God and time are tricky, since time itself was part of the creation of the universe right?, so he would not be bound by the laws of his own creation..

i.e. if he created the universe, he created all time. that we can only occupy one space at a time, doesn't mean the others don't exist. So too with time from this larger perspective

So the best I can answer is yes and no!

I believe he is intimately, personally involved with all sorts of outcomes, individually and on a grand scale, daily and across eons, but in the larger sense, each action has already been taken.

Thank you for your repsonse. Based in this, are you more of a Deist?

 

[outhouse]

, since time itself was part of the creation of the universe right?,

No.

Question is posited as, Assumption only.

God and time are tricky

I see time as more tricky.

I think deities are rather easy to study and define.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Thank you for your repsonse. Based in this, are you more of a Deist?

There seems to be some gray area in definitions but I'd say no, I believe in a loving God, who takes an interest in his creation, in humanity, communicates with us- that ultimately the universe requires purpose to exist, and that love is the ultimate purpose.

 

[Skwim]

These animals represent some of the mediums through which G-d spreads disease and suffering to those who deserve diseases and sufferings.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Skwim, I caught on to that too. Totally repugnant to believe that an all-loving, merciful God would create a disease or parasite that is indiscriminate in whom it attacks, causes to suffer and often kills -- then call that an instrument of "divine justice".

Totally repugnant.

 

[Skwim]

Skwim, I caught on to that too. Totally repugnant to believe that an all-loving, merciful God would create a disease or parasite that is indiscriminate in whom it attacks, causes to suffer and often kills -- then call that an instrument of "divine justice".

Totally repugnant.

And stupid.

 

[Tumah]

Do we defy god by looking for cures? We've eradicated smallpox, for example. We've come close to eliminating the dangerous mortality of many other diseases.

Does God want us to do that, if this is indeed his intended purpose in creating them in the first place?

Not at all. Suffering is always meant to be a temporary measure. The people who cure individuals/find cures are the mediums through which G-d ends that specific suffering.

I'd like to quote just a couple of phrases, thanks!

We're taking about a being that is necessarily all powerful and all knowing.

How are you aware of his intentions and wants for us? Is it your personal revelation as a prophet, or are you getting this from a specific text?

I'm basing my assumptions off of various Jewish texts, yes.

 

[Ouroboros]

And stupid.

Imagine if a dad would teach their kids lessons by beating them up, injecting them with diseases, cutting them, breaking their bones, and so on? We wouldn't consider that parent to be a piece of crap.

Parents who are secure about themselves, who they are, what they can do, strengths and weakness, don't need approval or admiration from a sycophant clan of children. It's one thing to raise kids and teach them about life without harming them (i.e. building them up, not breaking them down), another to torture them because the parent wants to be worshipped.

 

[Tumah]

I don't know why he would have such a low character to need that. What you're describing is a narcissistic control-freak, or even a psychopath. Someone who wants to show his power and control even if it hurts people. But that's not up for discussion here. I just wanted to let you know that what you're describing is perhaps a designer God, but not a good God, in my opinion. And of course I respect your belief regardless of our difference of opinion here. Also, many animals suffer the same flaws in their bodies, which make them just as much target for this force from God.

I think as you say, whether G-d is good or what constitutes G-d's goodness (or the under-the-table jabs) are beyond the scope of this thread.
Your question regarding animals though, doesn't bother me very much because humans can be reincarnated as animals as well.

Do you have any examples? And why do chimps need to elevate those certain foods too, since they have the same genetic defects as us?

The example is in the answer:
A soul may only need a certain level of elevation before achieving its final rectification. So it may be reincarnated in a banana (plant level) and then be elevated to the animal level through the monkey and may complete its rectification at that stage. Alternatively, the banana may be eaten by a goat which is then eaten by a human granting the soul a higher level of rectification.
For you it is a genetic defect. I see it as an intended occurrence in order to achieve its purpose.

Which is? If he simply skimped out on spending a few more minutes on a better design because he was in a hurry to create us to fulfill his great plan, then I'm not sure he's so powerful after all. He sounds more like a self-centered scientist who created us for experiments only.

Which is something that doesn't require us to see IR and UV. I can't point to each specific thing and give an exact reason. I'm not nearly smart enough or learned enough for that. What I can do is present the principles that answer the questions in general.

Also, if you have difficulty moderating yourself to the same level of respect that I'm showing you, I don't think I'll be able to respond again. I'm sure you're capable of presenting your argument without snide remarks.

 

[Tumah]

Yes, and?

 

[Skwim]

Not at all. Suffering is always meant to be a temporary measure.

"Temporary"? Tell that to those in body bags.

 

[Tumah]

"Temporary"? Tell that to those in body bags.

I'm sure their eternal souls already know.

I see you just like appeals to emotion. I'm not sure if that's a valid argument.

 

[Skwim]

So you believe young children deserve diseases and sufferings.

Okay, now that we know how your moral compass is set we won't be surprised by any further statements you make. Thanks for the heads-up

I see you just like appeals to emotion. I'm not sure if that's a valid argument.

Not an argument at all, just an observation.