Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Options
Comments
-
-
I bet used car sales men love you JC ... :rolleyes:J C wrote:Christianity is therefore a DIVINELY ENDORSED saving faith.
And yet it isn't a perfect design, ruling out a perfect designer ... funny that ... unless you want to claim God wasn't actually perfect.J C wrote:The fact is that the Human Brain, alone, is the most complex functioning arrangement of matter in the Universe – and it contains billions of cells organised in a tightly specified manner!!!
Only if evolution states that such a structure forms by totally random unstructured methods. Which it doesn't.J C wrote:The odds of producing the biochemical sequences for single celled Amoeba are 10E+40,000 while the chance of getting the DNA sequence for a Human Being correct is of the order of 10E + 1,800,000.
Another Creationist lie. :rolleyes:
Its nice to see that through all the lies and missinformation Creationists still have a sense of humourJ C wrote:Yet ANOTHER example of a (former??) Evolutionist thinking like a Creationist!!!:D
0 -
-
J C wrote:Bonkey
Fascinating.
A Brief History of Time has almost exactly the same story, only to do with turtles.
So, we have a choice.
We can believe that an awesome and sovereign God created the Universe and all life therein exactly as He said He did –
.......or we can believe that the Earth is supported by ‘Turtles all the way down’
Tough call!!!:D
No. Thats not the choice we have. Its not the choice I suggested we have either.
Your "I'll take your point and say the same thing applies to evolution" logic is old and tired. I don't know about anyone else here, but I've had enough of this tripe.
It can be clearly shown that you've resorted to using the very "get of out jail free" reasoning that you said at the outset was not a part of your so-called science. Your Creationist Science was claimed to be a science because it could genuinely explain things, and not just rely on a capricious god to have made it so.
After some questions, however, it turns out that "God made it so" is at the root of pretty-much all your explanations. Your entire argument against evolution is that its a guided process - that we are how we are because we were made to be that way following some blueprint. How much more of a "It was God, in the Kitchen, with the Rolling Pin" answer could one actually have, I ask?
Yes yes. I know. I've done it now. I've ased you a question. I expect that the result of this will be that you will either ignore it or respond using the exact same criticisms I've used only turning them around so science is capricious and silly and all the rst of it, and you'll add a liberal dose of smilies and exclamation marks to show just how clever and witty you are.
Thing is, though, that your response doesn't matter any more. You can level any criticism you like at evolutionary theory and it isn't worth jack to you.
You know why not? Because even if you could successfully argue that evolutionary theory is wrong, it still doens't make your self-contradictory stance correct. This isn't a binary equation. Its possible for evolutionary theory to be wrong without creationism being correct. Only idiots and the gillible would believe that it has to be one or the other and that no other possibilty exists.
You said your explanation doesn't rely on "God made it so", only it turns out that it does. Whether evolutionary theory is wrong or not doesn't change the fact that you misrepresented your beliefs.
So where does that leave us? You claim your belief is a science and doesn't rely on "God made it so" capriciousness. Only thats not true. You have relied on "God made it so" when you can't offer a better explanation as to why certain things happen.
So keep attacking evolutionary theory, because it doesn't matter what you do. Until and unless you admit that creationism isn't a science and that you misrepresented it, your arguments have no credibility.
You've shown yourself willing to use falsehoods in order to bolster your case. What you say after that is irrelevant.
You could definitively convince every scientist in the world the evolutionary theory is wrong....but it still wouldn't change the fact that you misrepresented (and continue to misrepresent) your so-called alternative so your alternative has no credibility to begin with.
The most you could do is argue that evolutionary theory is scientifically as bogus as your creationist creed.
I couldn't be bothered trying to defend evolutionary theory from someone who clearly indicates that they find misrepresentation to be an acceptable tactic. I don't need to, because you've already discredited whatever fantasy you're pushing as an alternative far better than I ever could.
So I'm done. I expect you to claim this as a victory over science, but thats entirely in keeping with my opinion of the rest of your argumentative tactics.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Originally posted by J C
I must remember that next time that I ask a Slime Mould to fly me to New York or when I request an Amoeba to perform Differential Calculus!!!!!
Son Goku
It must be brilliant to write scientific papers, which consists of nothing but stupid jokes.
Jokes, yes.
Stupid, I think not.
Jesus Christ effectively used many parables to illustrate critical points of theology.
Although not comparing myself, in any way to Jesus Christ, I think that my 'Parable of the Slime Mould Pilot and the Amoeba Mathematician' DOES make a valid point about the relative difficulty of producing a Human from a single celled creature!!!
Son Goku
Once you have cells, life like man isn't as difficult as when you originally have only chemicals and must make a cell.
The flight (piloted by a Slime Mould descendant) leaves for N. Y. in a billion, billion,………billion…….10E+1,760,000 years – and (as Luke Skywalker might say) ‘may the force of the 10E+82 electrons in the ‘Big Bang Universe’ be with you’ on this one!!!:D
Originally Posted by J C
The fact is that the Human Brain, alone, is the most complex functioning arrangement of matter in the Universe – and it contains billions of cells organised in a tightly specified manner!!!
Son Goku
Yes. It is still easier to generate it once you have cells, than the original cell would have been to generate.
Yes, the Amoeba MIGHT produce the Nucleic Acid SEQUENCE for the Human Brain in a billion, billion,………billion…….10E+1,760,000 years while harnessing ALL of the matter and energy in the ‘Big Bang Universe’!!!:eek:
Scofflaw
I see JC has again upgraded the freshness of the dinosaur remains. Only another hundred posts and it will be alive.
IF Evolution were true, it probably WOULD ‘come alive’.:D
Unfortunately, for both Evolution and the Dinosaur, the Biological Law of Biogenesis rules out such a possibility!!!:D
Son Goku
we have an assertion orgy, followed by some jokes
One of the best descriptions of macro-Evolution I have ever seen!!!:D
Originally Posted by J C
The fact is that the Human Brain, alone, is the most complex functioning arrangement of matter in the Universe – and it contains billions of cells organised in a tightly specified manner!!!
Wicknight
And yet it isn't a perfect design, ruling out a perfect designer ... funny that ... unless you want to claim God wasn't actually perfect.
The fact that the Human Brain is the most complex and PERFECT functioning arrangement of matter in the Universe doesn’t even satisfy you????
Could I also point out that any SLIGHT imperfections in the Human Brain are the result of The Fall!!!:cool:
Wicknight
Its nice to see that through all the lies and missinformation Creationists still have a sense of humour
Yes, indeed one does one’s best to be ‘up-beat’, while wading through all of the ‘Evolutionary Lore' that one comes across!!!:eek:
A little ‘light relief’ is always useful – and Evolution (of the macro variety) provides an endless supply of ‘one liners’ and ‘punch lines’!!:D
bonkey
I couldn't be bothered trying to defend evolutionary theory
Fair enough!!!!!:D
bonkey
So I'm done. I expect you to claim this as a victory over science
No, just a victory for common sense.:eek:
Quote:
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged"
5uspect
Well thats all science asks really, doesn't it?
Correct.
Creation Science and ID have scientifically proven that neo-Darwinian Evolution CANNOT happen – and yes science CAN prove a negative - it happens all the time.
Forensic science routinely proves that certain suspects CANNOT have committed specific crimes and conventional science has proven that a body whose cells have died CANNOT become alive again (barring a Divine miracle).
5uspect
I'm skeptical that Neo-Darwinan evolution explains the complexity of life and I'm sure everyone else here is too.
Progress at last!!!
Is this a paradigm shift I see before me????:D
Robin
I don't believe that the Sumerians were nomadic -- they lived in fairly well-developed cities and maintained an an active religious industry which developed many of the early versions of the myths at the start of the bible: Genesis, 900-year old men, the flood etc.
Could also be that they were describing the same events that Genesis describes!!!:cool:0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Perhaps some willing chap or chapín could go through the whole thread and compile a list of points that they don't think the religious among us have addressed properly, or answered satisfactorily, and then post the list, and let them refute the points!
Bring us back up to scratch, so to speak!
Any volunteers?
0 -
-
-
Something is either perfect or it isn't perfect JC ... being very complex and very specified does not make something perfect, and the design of life on Earth is far from perfect.J C wrote:The fact that the Human Brain is the most complex and PERFECT functioning arrangement of matter in the Universe doesn’t even satisfy you????
Just because it is a lot more complex than anything else we have seen doesn't mean it is perfect. My Intel Core 2 Duo CPU is very complex, more complex than any other Intel CPU in the past. But it is not perfect, and I'm sure Intel haven't just put themselves out of business.
I write software programs for a living JC. Some of the code I have worked on is very very very complex, and so is the design of computer chips that they run on. Myself, who designs the software, and the boys at Intel that make the CPUs, are certainly intelligent. In fact I would be so bold to state that we are very very intelligent. Our software (and Intels chips) are clearly the work of very intelligent .. er.. intelligence. But they are far from "perfect"
If you saw a computer chip you would no doubt suppose than some intelligence designed it. But if you saw how it was designed you would know that the intelligent that designed it was far from perfect. There is still large room for improvement, for fixing things that don't quite work, for weeding out inefficences etc. Otherwise everyone would just use one perfect CPU and Intel would be out of business.
The same holds with life on Earth. It is certainly very very complex, very very highly designed. I contend that natural selection over the space of 4 billion years designed life through mutation and elimenation (ie unintelligent design), where as you contend that that it would not be enough time for such systems to develop this way, so intelligence must have designed life.
But life on Earth is far from perfect. Very well designed? Yes. Very impressively designed? Yes. Perfect? Nope, far from it.
Just as my software code and computer chips are far from perfect. There are a long list of systems found in life today that could have been designed better even by just a human looking at the problem. Ask any biologiest and he can name you a long list of things that could be more efficent, better working, less flaws.
So just as the imperfections in my sofware code show me up to not be a "perfect" software designer, the vast number of imperfections in the way life was designed, the vast number of systems that work very well but could work even better, show up the designer of life as not being perfect.
This rules out God
Unless you want to claim God is not prefect, or would on purpose design as system to a lower standard that He could, which I think would contradict a large number of your religous dogma, such as God doesn't lie.
And this is even before we get to the systems that demonstrate that any designer could clearly not see into the future, and as such had to design systems around this restriction. As God can see the future, this also rules God out as a possible designer of life.
You could but you would be contradicting the Bible (not that this seems to trouble you much, you do it so often :rolleyes:)J C wrote:Could I also point out that any SLIGHT imperfections in the Human Brain are the result of The Fall!!!:cool:
The Fall concerns only man, woman, and for some reason snakes.
Nothing else was effected by the "Fall", and the Bible does not even say that it cause any imperfections in life, or in humans, only that humans will now have to work the soil, be ashamed of being naked, have "increased" pains at child birth, and will eventually die. It doesn't even mention diease or sickness in the Bible
What the Bible actually says God did at the Fall -
And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.
He made snakes and humans not like each other. Humans will bash snakes on the head, and snakes will bite humans on the heel
"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."
He "increased" (not created, but increase pain, PAIN ALREADY EXISTED) the pain of a woman at child birth, and make the woman desire her husband (the invention of sex?) and decreed that the husband should rule over the wife.
"Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field.
The ground will no longer just give up its food, man kind must now work the land to produce the food it needs to eat. Oh and thorns and thistles are invented to be annoying.
By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.
Man must now work, and he will then eventually die.
Thats it. Men must work, women have more painful child birth. Both will die, snakes and humans will hate each other. Thats it
The "Fall" deals only with the eventual death in humans. It has nothing to do with all the other animals on Earth, nor does it have anything to do with the systems found in life that don't lead to death. The Bible states that pain already existed for humans.
Your digestive system is far from perfect, as it does not convert all the engery found in your food into stored energy. These means you need to eat more found that a "perfect" system would need. This has nothing to do with the Fall, it has no great impact on humans. The digestive system is "good enough" for most humans. But it is not a perfect deisgn
Same to with our lungs. Our lungs could be more efficent, as other animals are. It makes living high above sea level more of a struggle for humans than certain other animals. This has nothing to do with the Fall, it is just the way our lungs developed. Its fine for the vast majority of people. But it is not a perfect design
If humans were redesigning either the lungs or the digestive system, knowing what we know about how they were now, we would design them a bit better. Not much, and certainly not perfect either, but a bit better. They are fine as they are, but they are not prefect designs. If we could come up with minor improvements to the design it is ridiculous to suppose that a god could not also have forseen these improvements.
Thats great JC, but you yourself have also logically proven that God did not design life on Earth.J C wrote:Creation Science and ID have scientifically proven that neo-Darwinian Evolution CANNOT happen – and yes science CAN prove a negative - it happens all the time.
So by all means continue to try and disprove Evolution. Believe in intelligent design all you like. Find evidence that all modern science is wrong.
But you cannot escape the fact the even a simple study of life on Earth, by either a scientist or a Creation Scientist, brings up these 2 inescapeable facts
1 - Life is very complex, and very specifically designed, but it is still far from prefect in its design.
2 - Any designer of life clearly could not forsee the future.
These facts are not disputable. The evidence is right in front of us. You don't have to guess about what life was life 4 billion years ago, you don't have to ponder macro-evolution, or how natural selection might work. Any study of life today by someone with even a limited grasp of biology (thats you JC) can clearly see evidence of those 2 facts.
This rules out God as a possible designer of life.
You can believe the Earth is 10,000 years old, you can believe life was intelligently designed. But you can't escape that fact. God did not design life on Earth. That is a logical impossibility, because those 2 points are true.
God was not the designer of life on Earth. It is a logical impossibility. You cannot escape that fact, no matter how much you try to disprove Evolution.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Original Posting:
Bonkey
I couldn't be bothered trying to defend evolutionary theory
J C
Fair enough!!!!!
bonkey
So I'm done. I expect you to claim this as a victory over science
J C
No, just a victory for common sense.
bonkey
I'd love to know what the selective quoting of my post is, if not intellectual dishonesty and charlatanry. No-one with any integrity or intelligence would be fooled by your selective quoting.
Could I point out that all quotations are, by definition, selective.
However, your charge of intellectual dishonesty, on my part, does not ‘stack up’.
My selection of your two quotes above fairly reflects your position (as enunciated in the rest of your posting) - that you are ‘fed up’ with the debate and that you wish to cease contributing to the thread.
One can only speculate on your reasons for being ‘fed up’ and wishing to ‘bow out’ – but I would suggest that it is because I have roundly defeated the concept of macro-Evolution scientifically, logically, philosophically and theologically on the thread.
If I were an Evolutionist, I would probably be ‘fed up’ with the thread – and want to ‘bow out’ too!!!:eek:
Lazare
I first learned about the theory of Evolution by natural selection by reading
Dawkins 'The blind watchmaker'.
I was immediately taken in by how beautiful and magical the theory is. How prey are in a constant arms race with predators, how the bat isn't blind at all, but actually 'sees' through its ears. The book demonstrates so elegantly how species adapt and evolve to suit their ever changing environments.
I first studied the theory of Evolution by natural selection by reading Darwin’s ‘Origin of Species’ when I was about 10 years old.
The book demonstrates how natural selection maintains suitability to various environments as well as accounting for ‘genetic drift’ in changing environments – but always using pre-existing genetic diversity.
Darwin’s theory explains the scientifically valid phenomenon of Natural Selection (or micro-Evolution).
However, it DOESN’T account for the origins of Created Kinds (or macro-Evolution).
I am also fascinated by the theory of NS – and the fact that nature balances being ‘red in tooth and claw’ with being ‘caring and nurturing’.
For example, a Lioness survives genetically by successfully killing prey AND by being caring and nurturing towards it’s cubs or those of her close relatives.
Successful prey capture AND nurturing of genetically close young are BOTH essential to genetic survival via NS.
Lazare
To think of the trillions and trillions of tiny steps and decisions that had to happen in order for you to be born at all is mind blowing and fascinating.
The odds of it are probably akin to winning the National Lottery every night for a hundred years.
Do you realise that the odds of THE SAME PERSON winning the National Lottery twice a week for one hundred years are 10E+72,800 to one – it is therefore a statistical and mathematical IMPOSSIBILITY.
To put this number into perspective, there are only 10E+82 electrons in the postulated ‘Big Bang Universe’.
…..and before somebody says that the Lottery is won nearly every week by SOMEBODY – could I point out that the odds of 10E+72,800 are as a result of YOUR imposition of the SPECIFIC condition that it must be ONE SPECIFIC PERSON who wins the Lottery EVERY NIGHT for 100 years.
Lazare
I think people like J C are a lost cause, they will never accept the opposite of what they were brought up to believe. It stems from a deep rooted fear of denouncing God, hammered into the impressionable minds of young children by mainstream religions. It's sad really.
Nobody hammered any fear of denouncing God into me.
My RESPECT for God is driven, not by fear, but by LOVE for Jesus Christ who suffered and died in perfect atonement for my many sins.
I also respect Him for His awesome Act of Creation and for allowing me the privilege of being with Him in heaven for eternity.
Lazare
I'm just glad I've 'seen the light' (ironic pun intended).
Evolution by natural selection is magical, beautiful, and above all absolutely tenable.
There is nothing ‘magical’ about Natural Selection – it is but a ‘blind’ force of nature, and an often-cruel one at that.
The positive aspects (such as nurturing and caring) are a dim reflection of the goodness of God’s original Creation – while the ‘red in tooth and claw’ aspects are a direct result of The Fall.:cool: :cool:0 -
-
Scofflaw said:
I've 'opted out' primarily because JC was best qualified to do to as he is doing, spanking evolutionist ass and pointing them in the right direction.Wolfsbane and BrianCalgary appear to have largely opted out - their comments are confined to the adverse moral effects of the "evolutionist worldview". Unfortunately, while an evolutionist worldview may have moral consequences, they do not invalidate the scientific basis for the viewpoint - it is up to the Christian to work with, rather than against, what has been found to be true.
You have also the various Creationist sites I referred you to for technical answers.
As you say, it is up to the Christian to work with, rather than against, what has been found to be true. It is just that found to be true does not apply to evolutionary theory. We are glad to work with real science.0 -
-
Lazare said:
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I know what you mean. Evolution is a remarkable tale - the ascent of matter from mere molecules to near god-like intelligence, while at the same time the universe heads in the opposite direction, on the slope of entropy towards its heat-death.I was immediatlely taken in by how beautiful and magical the theory is.
Amazing, incredible, ... Unbelievable 0 -
Wicknight said:
JC's reasoning about the Fall is correct.You could but you would be contradicting the Bible (not that this seems to trouble you much, you do it so often )
Romans 8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.The Fall concerns only man, woman, and for some reason snakes.
Nothing else was effected by the "Fall", and the Bible does not even say that it cause any imperfections in life, or in humans, only that humans will now have to work the soil, be ashamed of being naked, have "increased" pains at child birth, and will eventually die. It doesn't even mention diease or sickness in the Bible
This describes the condition all creation suffered due to man's fall. When man is fully restored, then so too will there be a new heavens and a new earth. This will be where there is no sickness, sorrow or death:
2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up. 11 Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.
Revelation 21:1 Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away....4 And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.”
That is true physically, but it had a typical/symbolic meaning as its main concern; a descendant of the woman (Christ) would destroy Satan.What the Bible actually says God did at the Fall -
And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.
He made snakes and humans not like each other. Humans will bash snakes on the head, and snakes will bite humans on the heel
The Hebrew means no more than 'make great'; the concept of increasing an already existing condition is not there.He "increased" (not created, but increase pain, PAIN ALREADY EXISTED) the pain of a woman at child birth,
No, for God had already commanded them to 'be fruitful and multiply'. The association of sex with sin is not biblical in origin.and make the woman desire her husband (the invention of sex?)
Agreed.and decreed that the husband should rule over the wife.
Just as man had become perverted in his behaviour, so he would meet plants that had been altered from their original purpose: a what you sow is what you reap punishment.The ground will no longer just give up its food, man kind must now work the land to produce the food it needs to eat. Oh and thorns and thistles are invented to be annoying.
Yes.Man must now work, and he will then eventually die.
As I've shown above, quite the opposite.Thats it. Men must work, women have more painful child birth. Both will die, snakes and humans will hate each other. Thats it
The "Fall" deals only with the eventual death in humans. It has nothing to do with all the other animals on Earth, nor does it have anything to do with the systems found in life that don't lead to death. The Bible states that pain already existed for humans.
Due to your faulty grasp of theology, your logic failed, and so this conclusion also bites the dust - a suitable end for all that opposes God's rule in creation.God was not the designer of life on Earth. It is a logical impossibility. You cannot escape that fact, no matter how much you try to disprove Evolution. 0 -
Wicknight
Something is either perfect or it isn't perfect JC ... being very complex and very specified does not make something perfect, and the design of life on Earth is far from perfect.
I agree that something is either perfect or it isn’t perfect.
However, the more complex and specified something is, the more perfect it must be to function.
As life is highly complex and very tightly specified it’s systems must therefore be perfect or almost perfect for it to function (i.e. to stay alive).
I therefore disagree that life is “far from perfect” – because it is alive, it is either perfect or almost perfect.
Wicknight
Just because it is a lot more complex than anything else we have seen doesn't mean it is perfect.
I agree.
Wicknight
My Intel Core 2 Duo CPU is very complex, more complex than any other Intel CPU in the past. But it is not perfect, and I'm sure Intel haven't just put themselves out of business.
I accept your expert opinion on this matter
Wicknight
I write software programs for a living JC. Some of the code I have worked on is very very very complex, and so is the design of computer chips that they run on. Myself, who designs the software, and the boys at Intel that make the CPUs, are certainly intelligent. In fact I would be so bold to state that we are very very intelligent. Our software (and Intels chips) are clearly the work of very intelligent .. er.. intelligence. But they are far from "perfect"
I accept your expert opinion on this matter
Wicknight
If you saw a computer chip you would no doubt suppose than some intelligence designed it. But if you saw how it was designed you would know that the intelligent that designed it was far from perfect. There is still large room for improvement, for fixing things that don't quite work, for weeding out inefficences etc. Otherwise everyone would just use one perfect CPU and Intel would be out of business.
Yes indeed, imperfect humans can improve on their initial designs of just about everything – BY APPLYING THEIR INTELLIGENCE to produce the improvements!!!
Wicknight
The same holds with life on Earth. It is certainly very very complex, very very highly designed.
If something is “very very complex AND very very highly designed” then it must have equally very very high levels of perfection in order for it to function.
Wicknight
I contend that natural selection over the space of 4 billion years designed life through mutation and elimenation (ie unintelligent design), where as you contend that that it would not be enough time for such systems to develop this way, so intelligence must have designed life.
A fair representation of our respective positions.
However, a belief that life arose via undirected processes is analogous to believing that super-computers could spontaneously assemble and programme themselves using only the basic Laws of Physics and Chemistry (i.e. without any intelligent input).
YES, the gradual evolution of life via an intelligent agent or agents is a POSSIBILITY.
However, there is no evidence that such agent(s) did gradually evolve life – and living systems are so irreducibly complex that it is impossible to even imagine what any intermediate functional structures or bio molecules would even look like.
Therefore, the ONLY logical conclusion is that an Intelligent Agent or Agents CREATED life within a very rapid timeframe.
Wicknight
But life on Earth is far from perfect. Very well designed? Yes. Very impressively designed? Yes. Perfect? Nope, far from it.
The more complex and tightly specified something is, the more perfect it must be to function. As life is highly complex and very tightly specified it must be perfect or almost perfect for it to function (i.e. to stay alive).
I therefore disagree that life is “far from perfect” – it is either perfect or almost perfect.
Wicknight
Just as my software code and computer chips are far from perfect. There are a long list of systems found in life today that could have been designed better even by just a human looking at the problem. Ask any biologiest and he can name you a long list of things that could be more efficent, better working, less flaws.
ALL functional living systems are perfect or almost perfect. ALL living systems that “are far from perfect” are DEAD!!!
The reason that some systems are less than perfect is due to the deleterious effects of The Fall (largely through the impact of mutations).
Wicknight
So just as the imperfections in my sofware code show me up to not be a "perfect" software designer, the vast number of imperfections in the way life was designed, the vast number of systems that work very well but could work even better, show up the designer of life as not being perfect.
As I have already said, living systems are ALL perfect or almost perfect.
The fact that ALL mutations reduce genetic information, proves that living systems were originally Created perfect – as one would expect from a perfect Creator God.
Wicknight
This rules out God
This rules God IN !!!!
pH
So basically, yes it's fine that a perfect being, with supreme (dare I say it 'Godlike' powers) can pop into existence, but the Big Bang certainly couldn't have just 'happened', that needs to be caused,
What we are both looking for is the Ultimate Cause.
The logical requirement is for a PRE-EXISTING, INTELLIGENT AND ALL-POWERFUL agent as the Ultimate Cause of Creation or indeed any postulated Big Bang.
Only God can ‘fit this bill’!!!!:D 0 -
For men (and women, and maybe snakes).wolfsbane wrote:This describes the condition all creation suffered due to man's fall. When man is fully restored, then so too will there be a new heavens and a new earth. This will be where there is no sickness, sorrow or death:
No, the Bible is the literal word of God. Genesis is not a metaphor remember.wolfsbane wrote:That is true physically, but it had a typical/symbolic meaning as its main concern; a descendant of the woman (Christ) would destroy Satan.
Here God is literally describing how he is making snakes not like humans, and vice versa. No prophcy. No satan. No Jesus. Just a snake.
It doesn't say that at all wolfsbane.wolfsbane wrote:Just as man had become perverted in his behaviour, so he would meet plants that had been altered from their original purpose: a what you sow is what you reap punishment.
It says God made man have to work for his food, and that he invented thorns to torment man. Thats it.
You yourself are making the last bit up. Are we allowed do that with the Bible. Because I take, ummm, Genesis 10.5 to mean that God made evolution.wolfsbane wrote:Due to your faulty grasp of theology, your logic failed, and so this conclusion also bites the dust - a suitable end for all that opposes God's rule in creation.
Umm, yes. It seems more my faulty ability to just accept anything you make up when ever you feel the need that is causing me to have trouble grasping your logic.
Ok. So the reason why tree trunks sometimes (and only sometimes) block when filtering water through the center, sometimes resulting in stunted growth (therefore demonstrating that while very complex and wonderfully design, the design not perfect and can fail occasionally), is because of the Fall of Man?
What nonsense is that? That isn't in the Bible.
I mean where did this rather ridiculous idea that all life everywhere was altered by the Fall of man come from. It certainly isn't in the Bible.
Funnly enough it only seems to prop up when Creationists are required to answer why none of the systems of life across the globe are prefect designs, ruling out a perfect designer.
"Oh well, that was the Fall. You see it effected everything Everything was perfect, but ummm then the Fall of man happened and everything got a little less perfect"
The response to that is "Umm, no it didn't. That isn't how it is described in the Bible, you are just making that bit up"0 -
Wow, way to just totally contradict yourself in like 2 sentences. :rolleyes:J C wrote:I agree that something is either perfect or it isn’t perfect.
However, the more complex and specified something is, the more perfect it must be to function.
Let me say this slowly .. something is either perfect or it is not perfect. If something is almost kinda getting there perfect it isn't perfect.
Something can't be "more perfect." It is either perfect or it isn't.J C wrote:As life is highly complex and very tightly specified it’s systems must therefore be perfect or almost perfect for it to function (i.e. to stay alive).
I therefore disagree that life is “far from perfect” – because it is alive, it is either perfect or almost perfect.
That is complete and utter nonsense JC, and I think you know it yourself.
My software code isn't perfect, far from it. But it functions just fine. It does the job. It might not do it in the best way, because I don't know how to program it in the best way (I'm not an all knowing intelligence like God)
Life is highly complex and very tightly specified to the point where it will function as much as it needs to. Some systems are very efficent and well designed, others are not. There exists systems all over the various designs of life on Earth that have errors, inefficencies and waste, but they manage to get by day by day, like my computer progams.
Its just like a car engine. Some car engines can wastes up to 70% of the energy stored in the pertol during the convertion of it into kinetic energy. It is far far far from a perfect design, but the design is still enough to get you from A to B, often at 100 miles an hour. You waste a heck of a lot of energy doing so, but it still functions.
In a perfect design you would be converting as much as physically possible to convert into kinetic energy, and as such would be saving the ultimate amount. Engines are a long way off from that goal, but they are getting better designs each year.
That is pretty much how life works. It functions enough to get by, but there still exists waste, inefficency and errors in the design.
It is ridiculous to state that because these systems work they must be perfect, as it would be to state that because a car engine functions it must be a perfect design, or because my software code works it must be a perfect design.
Nonsense JC, utter nonsense.
Very true.J C wrote:Yes indeed, imperfect humans can improve on their initial designs of just about everything – BY APPLYING THEIR INTELLIGENCE to produce the improvements!!!
As I said I've no real problem if you wish to believe an imprefect limited intelligence is the intelligence in "Intelligent Design."
But some how I have a sneaking suspection that Creationists like yourself would not be so hot on the idea of ID if the only logical conclusion, based on the almost infinate examples of functioning but imperfect designs in life, was that the ultimate designer of life on Earth himself was not perfect.
I wonder how hot you would be for Intelligent Design then :rolleyes:
No, not at all. More nonsense.J C wrote:If something is “very very complex AND very very highly designed” then it must have equally very very high levels of perfection in order for it to function.
A modern day CPU has approx 42 million transitors in it. In comparison an ant brain has approx 250,000 neurons in it. Clearly the CPU is far far more complex and specificed than the ant brain (which you claim had is a perfect design and had a perfect designer) The CPU has continued to develop, increasing complexity in the same space. It doesn't have a perfect designer, nor is it a perfect design.
The ant brain is clearly far from perfect, but it does enough to function, enough for the aint to get by. Could the brain be better designed, more complex and use less energy? Sure. Does that stop it from being very complex and very specified? Nope, not at all
Complexity and high levels of design do not in any way imply perfect for them to function efficently, or even to simply function.
Well ignoring the fact that it actually isn't (as has been pointed out to you a number of time JC :rolleyes), if one does suppose that life, like a super computer, must have been designed intelligently, the design and the flaws and inefficencies found in said design, rule out a perfect intelligence as the designer (just like a super computer).J C wrote:However, a belief that life arose via undirected processes is analogous to believing that super-computers could spontaneously assemble and programme themselves using only the basic Laws of Physics and Chemistry (i.e. without any intelligent input).
So the question is JC, based on your dismissal of evolution and embrace of ID, do you consider an imperfect intelligence (ie, not God) as the most likely designer of life on Earth
I would guess not. I imagine that most Creationist like yourself will begin to drop the idea of Intelligent Design like a hot potato over the next few years as the realisation of the theory shows that if life was intelligently designed it is illogical to suppose this intelligent was perfect, thus ruling out God as a possible designer. Just as it would be equally illogical if you came across a super computer to suppose that a perfect intelligence must have designed it too.
And the extention of this logical conclusion is that said Intelligent Agents were not perfect intelligences (ie able to see the perfect solution to a given problem, rather than simply one that worked), nor were they able to see into the future to forsee all future solutions to future problems.J C wrote:Therefore, the ONLY logical conclusion is that an Intelligent Agent or Agents CREATED life within a very rapid timeframe.
Intelligent Design theory by its very logic rules out God, or gods, as possible designers of life on Earth.
You JC are starting to realise this (scientists have none this for years, which is why they were kinda baffled by the religious fundamentalists championing the theory), and I imagine that yourself and other Creationists will slowly start dropping Intelligent Design as it becomes more obvious that its very nature rules out God.
I would point out that not even Evolution rules out God as the designer of life to the same extent as the way the logical extention of Intelligent Design theory does (evolution doesn't actually rule out God at all, only the Bible).
Which is kinda ironic don't you think.J C wrote:The more complex and tightly specified something is, the more perfect it must be to function.
There are not degrees of "perfect" JC. Do you actually understand the English term "perfect".
By definition if something can be done better that thing wasn't perfect in the first place.
Again, complete nonsense JC.J C wrote:ALL functional living systems are perfect or almost perfect. ALL living systems that “are far from perfect” are DEAD!!!
Any living system that does not function to a required level are dead, just like if my computer program isn't up to a basic level it won't compile.
But just because my program compiles doesn't mean it is perfect, far from it. And just because life manages to work doesn't mean it is perfect.
While some aspects of the design of life (this is a pretty wide subject after all) are very near to being perfect, others are way off the mark, but still at the end of the day get the job done.
The systems of life on Earth are not perfect. This has nothing to do with the Fall, which was concerned only with humans and the pain and suffering they might suffer (the Fall had nothing to do with say trees, or cave dwelling spiders).
God is not a possible candidate for the designer of life, because to be blunt if God had designed life on Earth it wouldn't be so imprefectly designed. Large numbers of systems in biology are like the car engine, they do just enough to get by day to day.
They are far from perfect, which rules out a perfect designer.0 -
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement