16 Jun 08
3 edits
Originally posted by jaywillWould an all powerful all knowing God make mistakes when designing us and other liking things?
.... ============================================
You want to believe that your kidneys, your eyeball, your sexual organs, and your brain are the results of accidents? Go ahead.
I think Intelligence is behind the Design of such biological organs.
=============================== ....
Correct me if I am wrong but I assume you think the answer to this question is ‘no’?
If so, then, assuming just for a moment that God did design all living things, how would you account for the apparently obvious design flaws in us and many other living things that would indicate that god is a complete moron?
I give some examples of these ‘design flaws’:
1, The retinas of the human eye are back-to-front (the blood vessels for the retina are in front of the retina’s light-sensitive nerves instead of behind them where they wouldn’t partly obscure vision)
2, we have an appendix in our guts which is completely redundant.
3, at one stage of the human embryo, the embryo grows some completely redundant gills only to then reabsorb them into the body of the embryo.
4, flatfish have completely redundant and unnecessary asymmetry.
5, many flightless bird species have wings with various features needed for flight and yet the birds don’t fly so what is the point of have wings with those various features needed for flight ?
...
This list can be made to go on and on.
These design flaws are evidence that god did not designed living things (unless you assume god make mistakes).
On the other hand, these design flaws are good evidence that evolution designed living things as these design flaws are exactly the kind of flaws that you should expect if things evolved through natural selection which is a completely blind and unintelligent process.
For example, the retinas of the human eye are back-to-front as a result of a mindless accident of evolution and we have an appendix in our guts which is completely redundant because this is the remnant of an organ that once had a use in our evolutionary past but no longer has a use and evolution has not had time to eliminate it completely. At one stage of the human embryo, the embryo grows some completely redundant gills because that is the remnant of the gills of our fish-like ancestor very far back in our evolutionary past etc etc etc.
So all the evidence confirms that we and life evolved and there is not a shred of evidence that we (including our body organs) and life were designed by a god.
So why do you believe that an intelligence is behind the design of biological organs such as eyes etc?
16 Jun 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYour indirect proof works. Or one could simply prove evolution to be true.
Would an all powerful all knowing God make mistakes when designing us and other liking things?
Correct me if I am wrong but I assume you think the answer to this question is ‘no’?
If so, then, assuming just for a moment that God did design all living things, how would you account for the apparently obvious design flaws in us and many other living ...[text shortened]... do you believe that an intelligence is behind the design of biological organs such as eyes etc?
17 Jun 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYou might want to remove the appendix from your list:
Would an all powerful all knowing God make mistakes when designing us and other liking things?
Correct me if I am wrong but I assume you think the answer to this question is ‘no’?
If so, then, assuming just for a moment that God did design all living things, how would you account for the apparently obvious design flaws in us and many ...[text shortened]... do you believe that an intelligence is behind the design of biological organs such as eyes etc?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299779,00.html
Also you seem to use "redundant" in a few places where "useless" or "superfluous" would be appropriate.
17 Jun 08
Originally posted by scherzoYeah, those Muzz are a real high-classed bunch.😛
All right. "Why Creationism is wrong," then. However, most other religions also apply, except perhaps Islam, which is a less fundamentalist religion, on the whole. Sound wrong? Muslims were making scientific, mathematical, and artistic advancements while Christians were being burned at the stake for accidentally saying His name in vain.
17 Jun 08
Originally posted by scherzoAthiests are people who simply dont believe in a god/gods. I don't think 'denial' is the right word.
Atheism, for those who somehow don't know, is the denial of the existence of a God.
The basic arguments for atheism:
.....
I think the number one reason for being atheist is not having a good reason to be theist. I do not lack belief in the Hindu gods because of some clever argument showing that their beliefs do not make sense, I lack belief in their gods because I have never heard a good argument for their existence, so I don't even consider the possibility.
Most of your arguments are usefull for showing Christians flaws in their beliefs, but they probably only rule out one possible God not all possible gods.
17 Jun 08
Originally posted by scherzoyou can hardly call the catholic church in the middle ages a religious institution. it actually was a political force, helping the totalitarian states keep the peasants ignorant and enslaved by superstition and influencing disputes between countries. the inquisition may have been at first for burning witches but after several women burnt they could have realized from the lack of demonic retribution that witches don't exist so they turned to being a terror police force, burning heretics, people who threatened their institution.
Hopefully this thread will trigger some pretty thoughtful discussion, or, if DSR comes into the thread, heated arguments.
Atheism, for those who somehow don't know, is the denial of the existence of a God.
The basic arguments for atheism:
1. The Epicurean argument:
Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is God ab ...[text shortened]... because everyone knows that they are wrong?
EDIT: Please no flaming, hijacking, etc.
a more peaceful human is perhaps unfit to survive in the world. i as a religious person believe that evolution is the best theory we have. so we needed to be as bastardish as we have been to climb to the top of the food chain. if we were not selfish and greedy, to develop the desire for more and perhaps at the expense of others and god would have created the world a paradise we would have been hippies living in the trees and maybe without even speech.
and if god didn't intend to interfere with tweaks every time a problem appeared, they way we are is fine. not too peaceful so we don't develop the interest to come down from the trees but not too warlike so we wipe ourselves out with nukes(that is still and open issue)
about creationism. i believe in God. and i believe he created the world. but it has been proven that the universe is more than 6000 years old and to still believe in what a book tells you without a single evidence is sheer idiocy. i don't approve with religious people being called idiots. a granma who believes in creationism is simply misinformed. but those so called creationist scientists, people who go to the grand canyon and say it is a proof the great flood happened, that fossils are the work of the devil and all the scientists who use carbon dating are in satan's club, those are idiots.
no science theory disproves god. they disprove what books written long ago say about god. and they prove that god is not needed for the universe to work. the lack of need for god for atheists is proof he doesn't exist or at least it is unreasonable to believe in him. for me and some religious people it simply proves what a good job made with the universe.
17 Jun 08
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonthe appendix is not redundant. you can live without it but it has its uses.
Would an all powerful all knowing God make mistakes when designing us and other liking things?
Correct me if I am wrong but I assume you think the answer to this question is ‘no’?
If so, then, assuming just for a moment that God did design all living things, how would you account for the apparently obvious design flaws in us and many other living ...[text shortened]... do you believe that an intelligence is behind the design of biological organs such as eyes etc?
just because god didn't make you a complete awesome clark kent it doesn't prove his non-existence. if you would have been made like superman, you would have said that god must not exist because he didn't give you gills, or the ability to move objects with your mind.
have you heard of evolution? birds flew at the beginning. those that couldn't developed other feats. they adapted or they disappeared. penguins live in the antartica. what use is flying for them? they adapted to environment.
17 Jun 08
Originally posted by ZahlanziWell, not really.
your opinion. i don't even respect it.
the problem with you is that "you don't even consider the possibility" like you just said. you don't consider a lot of things.
Saying that you feel the religious shouldn't be called idiots, then calling biblical literalists idiots IS contradicting yourself!
17 Jun 08
Originally posted by ZahlanziWell you started by admiting your belief in God.
your opinion. i don't even respect it.
You then called yourself - and all other religious people - idiots with the statement:
"to still believe in what a book tells you without a single evidence is sheer idiocy."
You then said you did not approve of yourself with:
"i don't approve with religious people being called idiots."
Or is it possible that you are not one of the idiots you were refering to? Do you have a single piece of evidence? If you do, I suspect you would be contradicting statements you have made in the past.
17 Jun 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneWell that is inconvenient. I did not know that the appendix may have a possible function after all
You might want to remove the appendix from your list:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299779,00.html
....
although I am sceptical that the said function of the appendix more than compensates for the biological cost of the risk of appendicitis.
However, I think I can replace this example with a better one:
“…2, the human male nipple … “
Now surely that has no function?
It is only there because the process of evolution, because evolution has no intelligence, gave both sexes nipples and then, because there is no significant biological cost of having functionless nipples, natural selection did not remove it. Thus it makes evolutionary sense.
But, why on earth would an all-knowing and all-powerful god give men functionless nipples?
What would be his reasoning behind this?
I don’t see how the ‘god designed us hypothesis’ can make any sense.
17 Jun 08
1 edit
======================================
It is only there because the process of evolution, because evolution has no intelligence, gave both sexes nipples and then, because there is no significant biological cost of having functionless nipples, natural selection did not remove it. Thus it makes evolutionary sense.
But, why on earth would an all-knowing and all-powerful god give men functionless nipples?
What would be his reasoning behind this?
I don’t see how the ‘god designed us hypothesis’ can make any sense.
===========================================
An all powerful and intelligent God Who has a purpose for creating man might well give the male a nipple so that the male and the female humans have a strong sense of mutual identity with one another.
God could have done so for the same reason that there is no other creature on the planet like man. He looks down from the top of a pinnacle of creatures and feels a kinship with them yet also an unmistakable uniqueness in relation to them.
Where we are in the ascending ladder of living things cultivates a certain self appreciation that the Creator deems we need. I think the presence of the male nipples cultivates a sense of male / female kinship and connection as to being strongly related.
Anyway, even a "poor" design is still a design. Even a design that you think you could improve upon is still a design.
17 Jun 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI am an atheist, but I don't think your argument is valid.
But, why on earth would an all-knowing and all-powerful god give men functionless nipples?
What would be his reasoning behind this?
There are a number of possible valid reasons why men have nipples:
1. They serve an erotic function.
2. The design of the DNA is simpler.
3. Men who want to have a sex change have something to work with.
There are just so many possibles, that your arguement of "I can't figure out what its for therefore its useless" is little different from the age old theist "I can figure out how it works therefore God did it".
We all think we could design a better human, but the question you should ask first is "what is the aim?". You cannot define 'better' untill you know what the purpose of a human is.
The very existence of pain and suffering tells us that if an all-knowing and all-powerful god exists then he either wants us to suffer or has a good reason for not preventing it. The apparent uselessness of male nipples just pales in comparison.
17 Jun 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadthe problem with you is that you don't think but to the immediate explanation. we were talking about science. i find that believing the book when it comes to science is idiocy. not when it comes to "don't kill, don't steal and love each other". and i said countless times that you can't take for granted anything and you should think. it all comes down to choice. you choose to believe genesis or evolution, and you choose to believe the bing bang theory or the 6 days creation theory, and you choose to believe that god doesn't exist or he does. the only problem is that the first choices are actually quite easy. there are theories that disproves what the bible says. there isn't anything about god not existing. so you choose whether to believe he exists which i do and you choose whether to respect religious people, which you don't
Well you started by admiting your belief in God.
You then called yourself - and all other religious people - idiots with the statement:
"to still believe in what a book tells you without a single evidence is sheer idiocy."
You then said you did not approve of yourself with:
"i don't approve with religious people being called idiots."
Or is it possi ...[text shortened]... ence? If you do, I suspect you would be contradicting statements you have made in the past.