PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Certainly not intelligent.

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
subbie

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
-1

Rate this post:

EXT. THE HEAVENS - DAY (SIX)

[The Grand Old Designer (GOD) is tinkering with his latest creation. Enter the Angel STAN, a close friend.]

STAN: Hey, I got your message. Wassup?

GOD: Oh, hi, Stan. Just finishing a thing…

STAN: Wow, is that Earth down there? It looks great!

GOD: Thanks.

STAN: Beasts and fishes and everything. You’ve really put a lot of work into that. And it shows.

GOD: Aw, it’s just this thing I’ve been doing, you know.

STAN: Well, it’s top-notch. So, what’s the four one one?

GOD: Just the crowning acheivement. They think, they talk, they’re all that and a bag of chips… Stan, behold…. Man.

[With a flourish, GOD displays his Creation.]

STAN: Okayyyy….

GOD: Pretty great, huh?

STAN: Yeah, super. [pause.] But -

GOD: What?

STAN: Well, I don’t know. You’re the omnipotent one, but…

GOD: Come on, what’s on your mind?

STAN: Well, it sort of looks like you copied some of the skeletal stuff from those “monkeys” down there.

GOD: Hey, if it ain’t broke… What’s your point?

STAN: Well, you’ve got these new things standing upright, correct?

GOD: Yes…

STAN: So, from a design standpoint, isn’t that a little wonky? I mean look at the knees. A bipedal posture is going to wear those down painfully over time.

GOD: Sure, but -

STAN: And the spine. It’s just not set up to take the stress of that gait. A lot of these guys are going to have some pretty intense lower back pain.

GOD: Maybe, but -

STAN: And don’t even get me started on the females…

GOD: What’s wrong with Eve!?

STAN: Nothing, nothing - she’s a total cutie. But… look, you pretty much just inflated the monkey skull to twice its normal size, right?

GOD: Er, pretty much.

STAN: Well, look at that girl’s hips. And her… fiddly bits.

GOD: What about ‘em?

STAN: With that skull size and that birth canal, you’re letting her in for a world of pain. Thousands of ‘em are going to die trying to give birth.

GOD: But thousands more will live.

STAN: Sure.

[pause]

GOD: I’ll just tell ‘em that this is their burden. Cosmic justice and whatnot.

STAN: Why do that when you could just design them with a little more headroom down there? I mean, you do want to design this intelligently, right?

GOD: Naturally.

STAN: So, howsabout you throw in a little more padding on the knees, reinforce the lower spine, give the ladies a wider undercarriage and badaboom! I mean, that’d work better than just a hastily-modified monkey, right?

GOD: …

STAN: But hey, what do I know?

GOD: Is there anything else?

STAN: Wha-? No, I don’t think I should say -

GOD: No, come on! What’s on your mind?

STAN: You seem angry.

GOD: I’M NOT ANGRY!

STAN: You sound angry. Maybe I should go…

GOD: THOU SHALT TELL ME YOUR GRIPES!

[Thunderclap.]

STAN: Okay, okay. Uh…

GOD: Go on.

STAN: Okay. Putting the reproductive stuff so close to the waste systems is going to cause a lot of infections, see? And look at this thing, this “appendix’ - you just left that in there from your horses and whatnot and it’s not even going to do anything except occasionally explode and kill its owner, right? And I hate to harp on the upright thing, but couldn’t you have reimagined these “feet” to be a little more durable, or do you actually want their arches to collapse and the whole thing to hurt? And this whole genetic system opens the door for spontaneous and/or hereditary mutations that can cause devastating diseases and defects that can be passed down and physically or mentally cripple some of their offspring right outa the gate.

[Pause.]

STAN: I guess what I’m saying is that with you being all-powerful and all-knowing, why would you use 98% of your chimp design and cut corners on your most important creation?

GOD: Maybe… I just work in mysterious ways. Did you ever think of that, Mr. Smartypants?

STAN: Of course, of course. So… why not fix some of the obvious design flaws and leave out some of the vestigial junk from other creatures down there? It’s one thing to build in an expiration date, but with all your resources, some of this just seems a little bit lazy, don’t you think? Why the appendix? Why the monkey knees?

GOD: …

STAN: What?

GOD: … not telling.

STAN: Aw, come on.

GOD: No.

STAN: You don’t have a reason, do you?

GOD: I do too.

STAN: So why don’t you tell me?

GOD: It’s a secret.

STAN: Bull.

GOD: It’s true.

STAN: Whatever.

GOD: You’re anti-God, aren’t you?

STAN: What? No, I’m your friend.

GOD [pouty]: It sure doesn’t sound like it.

STAN: Well I am. Look, what do you say we go get a pizza, huh? Would that make you feel better?

GOD: …maybe.

STAN: Okay, come on.

[They begin to leave.]

GOD: I really worked hard on that.

STAN: I know. And you did a great job.

GOD: Damn straight I did.

STAN: I’m just a quibbler, I guess.

GOD: I’ll say.

[GOD grabs his fedora, turns out the light. We hear a celestial Chevy starting up, peeling out, and driving away.]


http://www.felbers.net/fa/2005/11/25/designing-women-and-men/



-------
Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
 


Posts: 12 | Posted: 10:51 AM on February 25, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok, obviously somebody's never read Genesis.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 12:24 PM on February 25, 2006 | IP
subbie

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Obviously someone doesn't have a sense of humor.


-------
Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
 


Posts: 12 | Posted: 5:59 PM on February 25, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No, EMyers has one. Generally, jokes mocking the other side on this board don't bring very good reactions.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 6:21 PM on February 25, 2006 | IP
Prototype

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think you may want to read Genesis and consider the views on the physical aspects of Adam and Eve before you make things like this.


-------
I want to know facts for both sides, and I will not take biased words as a valid arguement for whatever reason.
 


Posts: 31 | Posted: 4:32 PM on March 20, 2006 | IP
mythrandir

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

first of all- God did not create man with disease or pain.  that came AFTER the fall.
second- youve got to admit that if someone did create this world, he had to be pretty intelligent.
finally- your post is totally flawed. the only point of "arguments" like that is to offend ID followers and make evolution supporters feel good about themselves and increase the condescending attitude many of them have toward believers in ID
 


Posts: 79 | Posted: 3:23 PM on April 17, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

first of all- God did not create man with disease or pain.  that came AFTER the fall.

Yet we see evidence of disease BEFORE man existed, so the fall must be a myth.

second- youve got to admit that if someone did create this world, he had to be pretty intelligent.

But with all the poor designs and  jury rigged systems in nature, if someone did design the world, they must have been an idiot.  I mean, just look at all the design flaws in humans!  

finally- your post is totally flawed.

I wouldn't say flawed, humorous, and disrespectful to IDists, but the points about poor design of human knees and spine and reproductive organs' location are valid points that are examples of extremely poor design.  And that's the point you don't address, if intelligent design is valid, why did the intelligent designer do such a poor job?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:37 PM on April 17, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

but the points about poor design of human knees and spine and reproductive organs' location are valid points that are examples of extremely poor design.  And that's the point you don't address, if intelligent design is valid, why did the intelligent designer do such a poor job?


This would be a valid point if it weren't already addressed.  After sin, when God decided that man would no longer have access to the tree of life and its sustaining powers, the human body was designed perfectly well.  Our bodies allow us to do everything we need to do.  As with all designs that must exist in nature (think of the designs we've come up with) tradeoffs must be taken into account for any design to function well as a whole.  People always complain about the blind spot or the inverted design of the eye as poor design and yet the eyes are designed to compensate for each other's blind spot and the inverted design is necessary.  I know no one here likes to accept anything ICR posts, but here is an excellent piece on the human eye "problem"...

Research by ophthalmologists has clearly shown why the human retina must employ what is called the "inverted" design. An inverted retina is where the photoreceptors face away from the light, forcing the incoming light to travel through the front of the retina to reach the photoreceptors. The opposite placement (where the photoreceptors face the front of the eye) is called a "verted" design. One of the many reasons for the inverted design is, behind the photoreceptors lies a multifunctional and indispensable structure, the retinal pigment epithelium (Martínez-Morales 2004, p. 766). This monolayered tissue contains the black pigment melanin that absorbs most of the light not captured by the retina. This design has the very beneficial effect of preventing light from being reflected off the back of the eye onto the retina, which would degrade the visual image.

The photoreceptors (rods and cones) must also face away from the front of the eye in order to be in close contact with the pigment epithelium on the choroid, which supplies the photoreceptors with blood. This arrangement allows a "steady stream of the vital molecule retinal" to flow to the rods and cones without which vision would be impossible (Kolb 2003, p. 28). The verted design, claimed by Miller to be superior, would place the photoreceptors away from their source of nutrition, oxygen, and retinal (the choroid). This design would cause major problems because rods and cones require an enormous amount of energy for their very high metabolism required in functioning, maintenance, and repair. In addition, because of phototoxicity damage, the rods and cones must completely replace themselves approximately every seven days or so.

The photoreceptors and retinal epithelium absorb an enormous amount of light on a continuous basis when the eyes are open. Because the light is converted largely into heat, the retina must have a very effective cooling system, again provided by the choroidal blood supply directly behind the pigment epithelium. If the pigment epithelium tissue were placed in front of the retina, sight would be seriously compromised. Reversing the retina so that it faces away from the pigment epithelium would also compromise sight to the degree that sight would be impossible because the photoreceptors must be embedded in the retinal pigment epithelium to obtain the nutrients required to function.

This design is extremely critical because the retina requires a high metabolism level due to the continual replacement of the photoreceptors required for vision. Consequently, the retina uses more oxygen and nutrients than almost every other part of the body, requiring an ample blood supply. The verted design would not allow the rods and cones to function properly because of the blood supply required for their high rate of metabolism. If the photoreceptors were in front of the neurons, the blood supply would have to be either directly in the light path of the receptors, or on their side, which would significantly reduce the number of photoreceptors used for sight.

Importantly, placing the retina neural components in front of the photoreceptors does not produce an optical handicap for several reasons. One reason is the neural elements are separated by less than a wavelength of light. Consequently, very little or no scattering or diffraction occurs, and the light travels through this area as if it was at near-perfect transparency. Secondly, when viewed under the microscope, most cells are largely transparent (and it is for this reason stains, such as Eosin-Y and Hematoxylin 2, are needed to better visualize the various cell parts). Consequently, the thin layer of cells in front of the retina rods and cones have a negligible light blocking effect.

In the retina region which has the highest resolution, the central retina (the fovea and, in particular, the foveola), the neurons in front of the photoreceptors are shifted to the side so that light has a direct pathway to them, resulting in the least distortion where it matters most. The high resolution macula also uses cones that are more tightly packed to achieve high resolution color vision. The peripheral retina has lower resolution and consists of mostly rods for black and white vision.

This design is a highly effective method to accurately transmit enormous amounts of data along the optic nerve in a method analogous to the zipping and unzipping of a computer file to facilitate computer file transmission. To function, the transmission must be very rapid because the image needs to be refreshed continuously like a pixel TV image. The eye's design actually appears to be optimized around the physical limits of the visible light spectrum (Calkins 1986).

The pigment epithelium tissue performs numerous other functions critical for retina viability and activity. One is that it phagocytosises ten percent of the mass of each photoreceptor outer segment on a diurnal schedule, and constantly restores the chromophore to 11-cis-retinal from its all-trans configuration, permitting visual pigment synthesis and regeneration (Dowling 1987, p. 198). It also is part of the outer blood-retinal barrier, helps maintain water and ion flow between the neural retina and the choroid, protects against free radical damage, and regulates retinoid metabolism (Martínez-Morales, et al., 2004, p. 766).


I know that you didn't mention the eye specifically, but since it is often quoted I thought I'd tackle it first.  While anyone part of the human body might be sub-optimal if taken on its own, the body as a whole is an extremely fine-tuned piece of art.  Imagine now, if you had access to the tree of life, that you never had to worry about it wearing down...


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 07:39 AM on April 18, 2006 | IP
mythrandir

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

demon 38- you said that because disease existed before man did, God's intelligent design really isnt very intelligent, which supports the theory that there is no God. thats called circular reasoning.  you're using your presuppositions to try to prove your point.  just think about this for a minute- if there IS a creator, and there WAS a fall, and he DID make man BEFORE the fall, then his creation was not flawed.  and that happens to be what most creationists believe.  God didn't mess up, we did.  its only fair that its our bodies that got messed up as a result.
 


Posts: 79 | Posted: 09:24 AM on April 19, 2006 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

demon 38- you said that because disease existed before man did, God's intelligent design really isnt very intelligent, which supports the theory that there is no God. thats called circular reasoning.
Uhm...I don't think Demon speculated on the existance of God.  Read his post again and I think you will see that he is questioning the INTELLIGENCE of an entity that would incorporate so many fundamental errors in his design of humans.


you're using your presuppositions to try to prove your point.
No actually he is using hard facts.  Here let me elaborate...It is a fact that teams of imperfect, mortal, sexually reproducing, beings (humans) have been able to create designs for flexible, weight-bearing, joints that are stronger, more flexible and more durable than the joint used for connecting the Femur to the Tibia and Fibula in Humans...Before or after the "fall".


just think about this for a minute- if there IS a creator, and there WAS a fall, and he DID make man BEFORE the fall, then his creation was not flawed.
Uhm...Then why did his "creation" commit sin in the first place? If the creation was not flawed it would not have committed sin...Right?


and that happens to be what most creationists believe.  God didn't mess up, we did.  its only fair that its our bodies that got messed up as a result.
If the original humans designed by your God were perfect then please explain how these perfect humans could commit sin in the first place?
As for what is fair...Your God is supposed to be all-knowing and we are all his children right?  What kind of sick-puppy creates children and then punishes them with disease and pestulence for sins that he knew they were going to commit before they commited them?

 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 11:53 AM on April 21, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If the original humans designed by your God were perfect then please explain how these perfect humans could commit sin in the first place?
As for what is fair...Your God is supposed to be all-knowing and we are all his children right?  What kind of sick-puppy creates children and then punishes them with disease and pestulence for sins that he knew they were going to commit before they commited them?



Rather than making us mindless automatons, he gave us the ability to make decisions for ourselves.  What we do with that ability is no fault of the creator.  And who said that God knew we would commit sin?  He certainly knew that it was a possibility and had made plans beforehand to handle it if it occurred, but nowhere can you find that He knew beforehand that humans would disobey Him.  The only other alternative would be to create beings with no free will.  Is that really the type of being that you would wish to be?


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 3:42 PM on April 21, 2006 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Rather than making us mindless automatons, he gave us the ability to make decisions for ourselves.
Ok...I understand.
 
What we do with that ability is no fault of the creator.  And who said that God knew we would commit sin? He certainly knew that it was a possibility and had made plans beforehand to handle it if it occurred, but nowhere can you find that He knew beforehand that humans would disobey Him.
Then we both agree that the God in the Old and New Testaments is not an omniscient or all-knowing God.  Some people I know use scripture to support their claims that the God of the Old and New Testaments is in fact all knowing.

You know when I sit down and when I rise up;
You discern my thoughts from afar.
You search out my path and my lying down,
and You are acquainted with all my ways.

Psalm 139.2-3


For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And before Him no creature is hidden, but all are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.

Hebrews 4.12-13

Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

Acts 15:18

And you, my son Solomon, acknowledge the God of your father, and serve him with wholehearted devotion and with a willing mind, for Yahueh searches every heart and understands every motive behind the thoughts. If you seek him, he will be found by you; but if you forsake him, he will reject you forever.

1 Chronicles 28:9

For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knows all things.

1 John 3:20

The only other alternative would be to create beings with no free will.  Is that really the type of being that you would wish to be?
Some I have met suggest that the physical limitations that God has put on all humans amount to nothing more than severe restrictions on their free will.  They see the freest of humans as having very limited free will due in part to the physical constraints of time and space.  I can't say that I find their reasoning flawed.

 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 5:23 PM on April 21, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Those verses do indeed show that God knows both everything that is going on and everything that has happened.  None of those verses show that he knows everything that will happen.  If he did that, there would be no point in anything.

As for physical constraints, any body that God created would have some constraints upon it.  God has his own self-imposed constraints.  For instance, he promised that he would never again destroy the entire world by a flood.  Now, even if God decided he wanted to do it, he has imposed his own constraints restraining his own free will.  I don't see how physical constraints put any limitations on my free will.  I am still responsible for all of my own decisions.  God is not making me do anything.  He does not hinder those who do not believe in him from posting on this very site.  Nor does he make me post anything.  Only the Calvinists believe in that.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 8:35 PM on April 21, 2006 | IP
mythrandir

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

EMyers, i am a Calvinist, but i dont believe God is making me post this.  what are you?  God didnt like it that we chose to sin.  he loves us, and thats why he provided a way out.  also, if God doesnt know the future, then how did he tell prophets what was going to happen?  do you not believe in prophecies?
 


Posts: 79 | Posted: 02:22 AM on April 23, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ah, but are they prophecies because God knew they were GOING to happen or are they prophecies because God knew he would MAKE them come to pass?  If God knew, in advance, which people would obey the gospl and which people would reject it, what is the point of the whole charade?

As for Calvinism.... "God alone is the initiator at every stage of salvation, including the formation of faith and every decision to follow Christ. This doctrine was definitively formulated and codified during the Synod of Dort (1618-1619), which rejected an alternate system known as Arminianism."

Calvinism, therefore, puts the onus on God and ,if a person does not come to accept Christ, the blame is on God because he did not initiate the process in the lost soul.  How then could God be justified in punishing the lost if it was his (God's) decision on whether or not the person would follow him?  Calvinism defeats itself.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 10:03 AM on April 23, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ah, but are they prophecies because God knew they were GOING to happen or are they prophecies because God knew he would MAKE them come to pass?  If God knew, in advance, which people would obey the gospl and which people would reject it, what is the point of the whole charade?


That's the idea...


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 11:17 AM on April 23, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And outside of the messianic prophecies (which Christ himself fulfilled) and end of the earth prophecies (which God himself will fulfill) how many are there?  Not very many.  


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 1:28 PM on April 23, 2006 | IP
mythrandir

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

if God knows that he will do something for sure, isnt that knowing the future?
 
2 Kings 19:25, "Have you not heard?  Long ago I ordained it.  In days of old I planned it; now I have brought it to pass, that you have turned fortified cities into piles of stone."

Psalm 22:9-10, "Yet you brought me out of the womb; you made me trust in you even at my mother's breast.  From birth I was cast upon you; from my mother's womb you have been my God."

Acts 13:48, "When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed."

Psalm 22:18, "They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing."

Romans 8:28-30, "And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified."

Ephesians 1:3-6, "Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves."
 


Posts: 79 | Posted: 2:46 PM on April 23, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This would be a valid point if it weren't already addressed.  After sin, when God decided that man would no longer have access to the tree of life and its sustaining powers, the human body was designed perfectly well.  Our bodies allow us to do everything we need to do.

In other words, it's not perfect but merely increases our reproductive differential, just as evolution predicts.  This point hasn't been addressed.  The human body contains a myraid of flaws that make sense from an evolutionary perspective but not if an omnipotent, omniscient being designed us.

As with all designs that must exist in nature (think of the designs we've come up with) tradeoffs must be taken into account for any design to function well as a whole.

Why would an all powerful being have to make tradeoffs in design?  This point is never explained by creationists.  Why would God do so many stupid things in designing the human body?  We eat through the same pathway we breath through, making choking an ongoing hazard.  Wouldn't an all powerful being realize this?  Our spine is evolved from a quadruped spine, because of this we have many problems with our backs as we get older.

People always complain about the blind spot or the inverted design of the eye as poor design and yet the eyes are designed to compensate for each other's blind spot and the inverted design is necessary.

Why is it necessary?  Squids and octopi get along just fine without it.  Your article doesn't address this.  Why do some animals have a better designed eye than us?  Hawks have sharper vision, some insects see in the infrared.  If Adam and Eve were 'perfect' then they couldn't have been human, their body plan would have to have been radically different, different internal organization, different spinal column.  So what is it, were they human or perfect?  Evolutionary medecine has been extremely successful in recent years, how could this be so if evolution isn't valid?

I know that you didn't mention the eye specifically, but since it is often quoted I thought I'd tackle it first.  While anyone part of the human body might be sub-optimal if taken on its own, the body as a whole is an extremely fine-tuned piece of art.  Imagine now, if you had access to the tree of life, that you never had to worry about it wearing down...

Your article ignores animals that don't have an inverted design, why would God design some with the inverted design and some without?
And you haven't been able to explain why God would make such fundamental mistakes with the human body...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:02 PM on April 23, 2006 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

if God knows that he will do something for sure, isnt that knowing the future?


Not really. I mean we all know what we are going to do in the future to some degree.  My dog, for instance, knows that when I come home from work, he will be fed and taken out for a walk.

I think that if your God is omniscient then it makes absolutley no sense for him to be disappointed when events unfold exactly the way he knows they will unfold beforehand.  For instance if the passage I pasted below is true, then your God is irrational if he is also omniscient.

5  And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them."

-Genesis 6:5-7


 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 10:39 AM on April 24, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There are a lot of words that people think are in the Bible that aren't...

You can't find omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, trinity, "personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit", Pope, etc.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 12:07 PM on April 24, 2006 | IP
mythrandir

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

but the Bible does say this-

Matthew 28:19, "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"  dont you think thats talking about the trinity?  do you believe in the trinity?  do you believe Jesus is God?  there are many places that talk about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

proof that 1) the Holy Spirit exists and 2) we receive the Holy Spirit when we become Christians.

John 20:22, "And with that he breathed on them and said, 'Receive the Holy Spirit.' "

Acts 2:38, "Peter replied, 'Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.' "

Acts 4:8, "Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: Rulers and elders of the people!"

Acts 4:31, "After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly."

Acts 5:32, "We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him."

Acts 6:5a, "This proposal pleased the whole group. They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit"

Acts 8:15, "When they arrived, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit"

Acts 19:1-6a, "While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples and asked them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"
     They answered, "No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit."

   So Paul asked, "Then what baptism did you receive?"
     "John's baptism," they replied.

   Paul said, "John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus." On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them"

Romans 5:5, "And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us."

1 Corinthians 6:19, "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own"

Ephesians 1:13, "And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit"

and please respond to the passages i posted earlier.

 


Posts: 79 | Posted: 1:22 PM on April 24, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A)  I never said there wasn't a Holy Spirit.  I said there is no such thing as "the Trinity" in the Bible.

B)  fred answered it well enough I thought.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 4:56 PM on April 24, 2006 | IP
mythrandir

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"When we read in verse 6 that, “The Lord was grieved that he had made man” and that “his heart was filled with pain,” we are dealing with clear-cut anthropomorphic figures of speech... We cannot speak of God having regrets, as human beings have, about his own actions.  God is not a man, that he should lie, or the son of man, that he should change his mind.  But Scripture frequently uses expressions that are human in their scope and concept and then ascribes these to God.  This is done in order that the intent may become clear to our limited human understanding.  Here we have a clear instance of the use of such an anthropomorphism.  The intent is to express the serious breach that had taken place in the relationship of God to man as the devastating consequence of man’s sin and rebellion."

also, EMyers, i noticed that you still havent addressed the Bible passages i posted.
 


Posts: 79 | Posted: 4:19 PM on April 27, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

As fred stated (and I alluded to), knowing beforehand what YOU are going to do is not the same as knowing the future.  I can tell you today that tomorrow I'm going to wash my car.  If I was my car tomorrow does that make me clairvoyant?  Hardly.  


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 5:22 PM on April 27, 2006 | IP
mythrandir

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

by that i meant that God at least knows PART of the future.  why?  because God is all powerful, and if he says something will happen, it will.   which means that he at least knows SOME of the future.  but the passages i posted stand alone.  you are beginning to remind me of unworthy servant.  remember how you got mad at him for ignoring the Bible verses you posted?
 


Posts: 79 | Posted: 12:07 AM on April 28, 2006 | IP
zerocool_12790

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Emyers,

I fail to understand why you make a distinction between God "knowing" the future and God "making the future happen." They are one and the same thing. Since everything that happens happens because God either allows it, or God organizes it, the result is the same. There is no appreciable difference. God controls all creation therefore He knows everything that's going to happen whether or not He has actually "seen" the future or will make sure it happens a certain way. On a personal note from my own research on the Bible, God is outside of time since He created it and therefore is fully capable of having seen the future before it has happened since from God's perspective it's all happening at once anyway. But for all practical purposes there would be no difference whether God foresaw the future or whether He made sure it happened a certain way, since both are true. I still don't understand why you draw a distinction?

"There are a lot of words that people think are in the Bible that aren't..."

and your point is...

"You can't find omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, trinity, "personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit", Pope, etc."

Aside from the word pope which is a doctrine foreign to the Bible, all the words you listed are concepts that are derived and fully supported by the Bible. So I ask once more, your point is...

(consequently contrary to what you wrote the Bible does mention God being omnipotent in Revelation 19:6. God is referred to as Almighty or Omnipotent. The same greek word means both. Some translations write Almighty, some Omnipotent, either way the words are interchangeable.)

"If God knew, in advance, which people would obey the gospl and which people would reject it, what is the point of the whole charade?"

Please explain what "charade" you are referring to.




Fredguff,

"No actually he is using hard facts.  Here let me elaborate...It is a fact that teams of imperfect, mortal, sexually reproducing, beings (humans) have been able to create designs for flexible, weight-bearing, joints that are stronger, more flexible and more durable than the joint used for connecting the Femur to the Tibia and Fibula in Humans...Before or after the "fall"."

except for the fact that we haven't yet made these "superior" joints able to be composed of living cells, grow, and repair themselves, silly unintelligent God...

"Uhm...Then why did his "creation" commit sin in the first place? If the creation was not flawed it would not have committed sin...Right?"

Please support your claim that a good creation "cannot" sin.

"As for what is fair...Your God is supposed to be all-knowing and we are all his children right?  What kind of sick-puppy creates children and then punishes them with disease and pestulence for sins that he knew they were going to commit before they commited them?"

Please support your claim that God punishes people for sin before they commit them? Please cite specific examples that undeniably and clearly reveals that God specifically punished people for sins they had yet to commit? When citing examples from the Bible be prepared to defend that the passage means exactly what you believe it means when compared to the rest of what the Bible says on that topic as a whole.

"I think that if your God is omniscient then it makes absolutley no sense for him to be disappointed when events unfold exactly the way he knows they will unfold beforehand.  For instance if the passage I pasted below is true, then your God is irrational if he is also omniscient."

Mother to child: Son why did you do that bad thing. I'm extremely dissapointed in you!

Child: Why are you dissapointed? You knew before I was born, while I was just a thought in your head that I was going to do something bad at least once in my life. You are being completely irrational for being dissapointed knowing that I was going to do something bad eventually!

Mother: have you been taking logic lessons from fredguff again?


-------
---There is a common belief rapidly spreading, which states that scientists are unquestionably ethical and objective. This is a gross myth that must be stopped before scientists claim it’s true.
 


Posts: 37 | Posted: 03:13 AM on April 28, 2006 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

except for the fact that we haven't yet made these "superior" joints able to be composed of living cells, grow, and repair themselves, silly unintelligent God...
Uhm...When a human blows out their ACL or tears up their cartilage, their knee is not going to get better or repair itself unless another human performs surgery.

Please support your claim that a good creation "cannot" sin.
If something is flawless then by definition it is without flaw.
If something acts in a manner that is detrimental to its well-being then it is flawed.
Your God's creation acted in a manner that was detrimental to its well-being.
Ergo...Your God's creation was not flawless.


Please support your claim that God punishes people for sin before they commit them? Please cite specific examples that undeniably and clearly reveals that God specifically punished people for sins they had yet to commit? When citing examples from the Bible be prepared to defend that the passage means exactly what you believe it means when compared to the rest of what the Bible says on that topic as a whole.
Uhm...Please read what I posted again.  If you are going to go to the trouble of lecturing me on how I should respond then at least have the courtesy to paraphrase my claims correctly.  I never claimed that God punishes people before they sinned.


Child: Why are you dissapointed? You knew before I was born, while I was just a thought in your head that I was going to do something bad at least once in my life. You are being completely irrational for being dissapointed knowing that I was going to do something bad eventually!

Mother: have you been taking logic lessons from fredguff again?
Child: Actually the FALSE ANALOGY should be a dead give-away that I was imitating zero cool.

Mother:  Ah...Zero cool...That guy  has some serious reading comprehension problems doesn't he?  

At any rate, if zero's God is omniscient then Zero's God knows exactly when humans will act badly before they act badly. Moreover Zero's God has the power to stop humans from acting badly or program them so they don't act badly.  When you throw in the fact that zero cool's God reacts with anger and disappointment when humans act EXACTLY the way he knows they are going to act, you have a strong case for irrational behavior.

child: Kind of like if I gave the dog a pot of chile to eat and then locked him in the living room for 18 hours and then spanked him for soiling the carpet?

Mom:  Not a perfect analogy but better than zero'cool's.


 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 08:37 AM on April 28, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Drunken father: Get back on the topic of Evolution or move this slapping fest to the Religion board, I say! Yaar!


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 1:35 PM on April 28, 2006 | IP
mythrandir

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i dont see why God couldnt be disappointed and angry when people rebel against him even if he knew about it before hand.
 


Posts: 79 | Posted: 2:36 PM on April 29, 2006 | IP
mythrandir

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 1:35 PM on April 28, 2006 :
Drunken father: Get back on the topic of Evolution or move this slapping fest to the Religion board, I say! Yaar!


this forum is not "Evolution" its "Creationism vs Evolution".



 


Posts: 79 | Posted: 08:21 AM on May 3, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Technically, it should be Creationism vs Evolutionism, but that's another subject.  


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 10:17 AM on May 3, 2006 | IP
mythrandir

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

are you going to respond to the Bible passages i posted or not?
 


Posts: 79 | Posted: 11:38 AM on May 3, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

this forum is not "Evolution" its "Creationism vs Evolution".


You're not discussing Creation nor Evolution. You're discussing philosophy within the Bible that, whether it may be true or false, does not relate to anything in the Evo-Crea debate.

Technically, it should be Creationism vs Evolutionism, but that's another subject.


Strictly scientifically speaking, it should be Creation vs Evolution. "Ism" makes it a movement or ideology, and that's not what the debate is centered on. Creationism is often seen as a movement itself, however, because people often opposose secular scientific ideas for ideological reasons, instead of arguments based on science. I agree with the use of both terms Creation and Creationism, and I can sympathize with people who don't think proponents behind Creation should be labeled as ideologues.




-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 1:40 PM on May 3, 2006 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.