-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Do you think/believe that your body was designed/created?
- Thread starter Godobeyer
- Start date
Shad
Veteran Member
Yes as a watch, like a road, is a created thing rather than something that develops naturally. However in later comments I pointed out that we can use existing landscape feature for our own purposes for transportation like riverbeds. Just as we can use a tree in the sunlight as a primitive shadow clock. We can use objects in nature for our own purposes.
Etritonakin
Well-Known Member
Just thinking....
Random mutations haphazardly causing a variety of changes which might happen to survive is not "intelligent design" (in and of itself -though it does produce "designs") -but anything resembling an input-output system which would change the design of a species to be better suited for its environment would indeed be "intelligent design" (though not necessarily, in and of itself, "self-aware intelligent design").
Random mutations haphazardly causing a variety of changes which might happen to survive is not "intelligent design" (in and of itself -though it does produce "designs") -but anything resembling an input-output system which would change the design of a species to be better suited for its environment would indeed be "intelligent design" (though not necessarily, in and of itself, "self-aware intelligent design").
That's exactly my point, nothing formed it self.
Let me extend bit,
There is nothing created it self in our world.
Last edited:
But things were formed by natural, unguided, unintentional processes.
But things were formed by natural selection.
Not all things,run by that method.
species are required some intelligence.
especially separated two things (male/female).
as human mades.
I don't buy this to refer to origin of life.
btw
natural is neutral.
unguided/unitnetional processes: these two elements by logic lead to errors and nothing.
If you want to made/design a car or plane,you will be idiot if you will used them.
No. You make an assertion but offer no evidence of the magic you claim.
Why do you say species require intelligent design, when everyone can see, with their own eyes, how the changes happen naturally?
See by eyes !
so,mind vision missing.
I know that you can't see,that you body can't creat it self, others species.
I do believe it's about lack of imagination between atheists and theists in this point.
How "changes" suppose to deny that it's required intelligent design?
Thanks for hint
I think there is, there is no "baseless assertions" , there is basic different view (atheist vs theist) about origin of life/creation.
Thanks for hint
I think there is, there is no "baseless assertions" , there is basic different view (atheist vs theist) about origin of life/creation.
I'm a theist. I accept evolution and abiogenesis.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
So, what would an undesigned body look like, just so I can make a comparison?Hello everybody .
EDITED to add:
I am in discuss with some members , they deny that their body is desinged , and all species,plants...are designed or created,maybe to skip the question "who designed us,and all this life?"
I do believe that it's fact to me and to many people,it's maybe sounds crazy to deny this clear fact, which we are see it and living in it,through it !
Please vote,then explain your opinion
Thanks in advance
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
Thanks for hint
I think there is, there is no "baseless assertions" , there is basic different view (atheist vs theist) about origin of life/creation.
What he is saying is that your assertion that the body is designed by a supernatural being is baseless because you have no evidence to support the claim. It is just that you wish it to be so.
We don't know origin of life.
We did not form/design our selfs,something esle did.
We are the evidences,living in evidences,how suppose to be to prove it to you?
Both had nothing to do with origin of life,how all species come to exist.
@Kirran abiogenesis. don't give solution/clear answser,it's gave suggestion.
Abiogenesis is the idea of life originating from non-living material (non-life). This concept has expanded a great deal as mankind’s understanding of science has grown, but all forms of abiogenesis have one thing in common: they are all scientifically unsupportable. There have been no experiments demonstrating abiogenesis in action. It has never been observed in a natural or artificial environment. Conditions believed to have existed on earth are either incapable of producing the building blocks needed, or self-contradictory. No evidence has been found suggesting where or when such life might have generated. In fact, everything we know of science today seems to indicate that abiogenesis could not have happened under any naturally possible conditions.
Abiogenesis is the idea of life originating from non-living material (non-life). This concept has expanded a great deal as mankind’s understanding of science has grown, but all forms of abiogenesis have one thing in common: they are all scientifically unsupportable. There have been no experiments demonstrating abiogenesis in action. It has never been observed in a natural or artificial environment. Conditions believed to have existed on earth are either incapable of producing the building blocks needed, or self-contradictory. No evidence has been found suggesting where or when such life might have generated. In fact, everything we know of science today seems to indicate that abiogenesis could not have happened under any naturally possible conditions.