Intelligent Design Isn't So Intelligent

[Subduction Zone]

In a biblical view death entered the world through the sin of man

But we know that is not the case. Life has existed on Earth billions of years before man arrived, and death has been present since the start.

 

[Skwim]

Yes, everything in the universe was intelligently designed

In light of A&E's goof in the garden, not so much "everything" at all.

Yes, all sin, suffering and death goes back to the fall

But you said,

"First, God made a good world now broken due to sin. Some of the problems you mention are consequence of the fall
True in both biology and geology"​

Implying that some of the problems I mention are not a consequence of the fall.

Now, some of the problems I mentioned that cause suffering are etopic pregnancies and prenatal macrocephaly. Are these some of the ones you have in mind that are not a consequence of the fall? If not which ones are they?

.

 

[whirlingmerc]

You've not even started on the bad designs in nature.
Why do humans have a blind spot?
What is the laryngeal nerve in a giraffe doing?

There are thousands of these 'anomalies' that are explained by evolution but make a mockery of an intelligent designer
.

Oh?

Dawkins says the human eye is an example 'because it's stuck backwards'
but we would go blind if it faced outward as eagles are same direction as ours. Now octopus are facing out but they are underwater and would not burn out with UV exposure.

Romans 18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

 

[whirlingmerc]

But we know that is not the case. Life has existed on Earth billions of years before man arrived, and death has been present since the start.

Or at least thousands of years as the helium from radioactive zircons is there in amounts that suggest thousands not millions or billions

 

[whirlingmerc]

In light of A&E's goof in the garden, not so much "everything" at all.


But you said,

"First, God made a good world now broken due to sin. Some of the problems you mention are consequence of the fall
True in both biology and geology"​

Implying that some of the problems I mention are not a consequence of the fall.

Now, some of the problems I mentioned that cause suffering are etopic pregnancies and prenatal macrocephaly. Are these some of the ones you have in mind that are not a consequence of the fall? If not which ones are they?

.

A&E's goof in the garden led to a display of God's mercy and love in reception and so overall more good than bad as far as the highest good. The world was made for God''s glory and specifically by through from to and for Jesus

In Adam all (mankind ) die, in Christ all (who believe in Him) shall be made alive

 

[Subduction Zone]

Or at least thousands of years as the helium from radioactive zircons is there in amounts that suggest thousands not millions or billions

Nope, that claim was refuted a long time ago. The RATE Project, which was the bogus study that you referred to, never went through peer review. Instead they published through an organization that requires its workers to promise not to use the scientific method. It is worthless and full of errors.

 

[Altfish]

Oh?

Dawkins says the human eye is an example 'because it's stuck backwards'
but we would go blind if it faced outward as eagles are same direction as ours. Now octopus are facing out but they are underwater and would not burn out with UV exposure.

That is either a quote mine or false; Dawkins said nothing of the sort

Romans 18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

I missed that science book; what has it got about evolution in it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh?

Dawkins says the human eye is an example 'because it's stuck backwards'
but we would go blind if it faced outward as eagles are same direction as ours. Now octopus are facing out but they are underwater and would not burn out with UV exposure.

Romans 18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

I have heard this claim, but never have I seen it substantiated. You do realize that we also have the same eye as the fish, you know our very distant relatives? Why do fish have the eyes that they have if they are never exposed to UV?

 

[Skwim]

A&E's goof in the garden led to a display of God's mercy and love in reception and so overall more good than bad as far as the highest good.

Sorry, but this is just so much double talk. Gotta do a lot better.

The world was made for God''s glory and specifically by through from to and for Jesus
In Adam all (mankind ) die, in Christ all (who believe in Him) shall be made alive

And your dramatics here doesn't impress either.

Rather than coming out with such self-comforting glorification you would have been better off not saying anything at all---this is stuff for the choir, not those with objective minds who have no emotional stake in your beliefs.

.

 

[BilliardsBall]

There is a big difference between theists and atheists in this aspect. Time after time that belief has been justified. The "I don't know, therefore God" belief has never been justified. Actually atheists merely withhold belief until a concept is supported by evidence. They are not afraid to say "I don't know". I have seen far too many theists that are not honest enough to admit that.

I might respond that time after time, belief in God has been justified. And I likewise suspend belief until a concept is supported by evidence. I've also said "I don't know," even when preaching to a crowd of 100 persons or more.

By the way, however, "atheists are more honest than believers" is not a justification for atheism or an indictment that Christianity is somehow untrue.

 

[BilliardsBall]

To everyone. And you are making the error of conflating morals and evolution. Why do you do that? Gravity is amoral too. If you fall off of a cliff you will most likely die. That does not make it immoral. It is pointless to bring up gravity in a discussion on morals and it is pointless to bring up evolution in a discussion on morals.

Gravity is amoral, however, it's objective effects may not be nullified by subjective moralizing.

Evolution--what lives, wins, has been used to justify genocide and abortion. Science is amoral--except of course, where it contradicts holy writ, which makes it de facto immoral.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No it wouldn't. It is a representation of physical observed and measured data.

Please post your curve if you feel it discredits the chaotic filaments and randomness of suns, gas clouds ect observed througout the visible universe. Of course, if it doesn't then don't bother!

Why? Because it does not exist and i am not one to delude myself on the basis of bronze age woo.

What you see is beauty on chaos but are so enamoured by said woo that you are unable to face the evidence.

Edit : of course the individual pixels of the image are ordered however the view they are programmed to represent is not

I guess I still don't understand why accepting universal order and/or beauty are threatening concepts. Clearly, then, you seem to believe they imply a divine order, a divine beauty.

 

[ChristineM]

I guess I still don't understand why accepting universal order and/or beauty are threatening concepts. Clearly, then, you seem to believe they imply a divine order, a divine beauty.

Who said they are threatening? Oh you did.

Nope, i don't accept delusion because its a figment of your imagination that defies the facts

And of course when some one qualifies a statement with clearly, it shows they cannot validate their claim, it's simply belief without fact to back it up.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I might respond that time after time, belief in God has been justified. And I likewise suspend belief until a concept is supported by evidence. I've also said "I don't know," even when preaching to a crowd of 100 persons or more.

By the way, however, "atheists are more honest than believers" is not a justification for atheism or an indictment that Christianity is somehow untrue.

The problem is that in regards to the present topic the beliefs of creationists has never been justified. Nor is there any evidence of Christian beliefs ever having been justified. And I sincerely doubt your claims of suspending belief until valid evidence is in. If that was the case you could properly defend your Christian beliefs.

And you are right that the fact that atheists tend to be more honest than Christians is not evidence for atheism, but it does make a difference in analyzing the claims of either side.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Gravity is amoral, however, it's objective effects may not be nullified by subjective moralizing.

Evolution--what lives, wins, has been used to justify genocide and abortion. Science is amoral--except of course, where it contradicts holy writ, which makes it de facto immoral.

Then by your standards Christianity is far worse. It has been used to justify genocide many times over, Christianity by your strange standards is immoral. And no, contradicting "holy writ" does not make it de facto immoral. Your logic skills need some work. You need to prove that the God of the Bible is moral to come even close to making that claim. And since if one reads the Bible literally the God of the Bible is one of the most wretched immoral characters ever you are creating a huge problem for yourself.

Misapplication of the sciences may end up with an immoral result. But the sciences themselves are still merely a tool and amoral. Just as gravity is amoral. An amoral force is neither good nor bad, moral nor immoral. It simply is

 

[BilliardsBall]

Who said they are threatening? Oh you did.

Nope, i don't accept delusion because its a figment of your imagination that defies the facts

And of course when some one qualifies a statement with clearly, it shows they cannot validate their claim, it's simply belief without fact to back it up.

If it is delusional to suggest that order and/or beauty underlie the created universe, I suggest you:

* Don't look for beauty in mates

* Don't insist on order in science, math or any precepts that affect your life, such as separating white laundry from colors or vegetables from proteins at meals...

You are clearly one of those who is enjoying what God has made but ignoring the maker.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The problem is that in regards to the present topic the beliefs of creationists has never been justified. Nor is there any evidence of Christian beliefs ever having been justified. And I sincerely doubt your claims of suspending belief until valid evidence is in. If that was the case you could properly defend your Christian beliefs.

And you are right that the fact that atheists tend to be more honest than Christians is not evidence for atheism, but it does make a difference in analyzing the claims of either side.

You may want to see my nearby post where I explain the evidence we have for the existence of Jesus and His claims of Messiahship. We should start there.

Although I don't understand how claimants 2,000 years after Jesus ALL being liars and ALL atheists being completely honest decides what actually happened 2,000 years ago.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Then by your standards Christianity is far worse. It has been used to justify genocide many times over, Christianity by your strange standards is immoral. And no, contradicting "holy writ" does not make it de facto immoral. Your logic skills need some work. You need to prove that the God of the Bible is moral to come even close to making that claim. And since if one reads the Bible literally the God of the Bible is one of the most wretched immoral characters ever you are creating a huge problem for yourself.

Misapplication of the sciences may end up with an immoral result. But the sciences themselves are still merely a tool and amoral. Just as gravity is amoral. An amoral force is neither good nor bad, moral nor immoral. It simply is

You are correct, once we first prove that the scriptures are moral, anti-scriptural attitudes are shown to be immoral. Yes.

Now, should I understand genocide to be immoral because you say it is? I think you might say, "harm to others is immoral," but we would need to prove morality exists first, and if you claim our present morality existed 2,000 or 3,000 years prior to now, it sounds like are further claiming moral objectivity personally along with morals themselves being absolutes.

 

[ChristineM]

If it is delusional to suggest that order and/or beauty underlie the created universe, I suggest you:

* Don't look for beauty in mates

* Don't insist on order in science, math or any precepts that affect your life, such as separating white laundry from colors or vegetables from proteins at meals...

You are clearly one of those who is enjoying what God has made but ignoring the maker.

Why do you keep keep bringing beauty into it, i have never said the universe is not beutiful.

The universe is chaotic as i suggested to you and provided an Impression made from real data.

* And then start your ad hominem, keep personal attacks about my husband out of this or i will be reporting you.

* Maths is not the universe, although maths can attempt (only attempt) to describe the universe. I insist on observation and accurate measurement in science, if that results in a chaotic result than that shows the observed and measured was chaotic

Ahh 'clearly' again, it's surprising how often creationist use it when they have not got a clue of what they speak but have a belief without evidence. I enjoy the benefits of science, as do you. As for maker? They recieve considerable profit from selling the fruits of science. Meaning both of they and their customers are content.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You may want to see my nearby post where I explain the evidence we have for the existence of Jesus and His claims of Messiahship. We should start there.

Although I don't understand how claimants 2,000 years after Jesus ALL being liars and ALL atheists being completely honest decides what actually happened 2,000 years ago.

I cannot find such a post. And please, do not misrepresent what others have posted. That is breaking the Ninth Commandment.