CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
What I mentioned has EVERYTHING. E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G, should I spell it out for you? LOL
Religion/ the evidence for intelligent design/ creationism will NOT N _ O _ T go away. Why not? It is a part of us, it IS US. You cannot see it. This does NOT MEAN it is not existent.
So let me get this straight, your saying your evidence for intelligent design is the fact that religion exists? You said, "If mankind and society cannot get rid of alcohol, it surely cannot be rid of religion." and you expect me to get religions existence is evidence of intelligent design from that, to the point where you act all dramatic about it? Seriously!?
I think religions existence is evidence of unintelligent design, especially given the fact that there are so many opposing religions. An intelligent designer wouldn't make so much confusion. Religion exists because people didn't understand how things worked. When lightning struck or volcanoes erupted they didn't understand what really caused them, so they assumed someone must be doing it. When people got sick they didn't understand that illness can be caused by viruses, so they assumed invisible spirits must be doing it. It's all a product of superstition and ignorance of how things work.
There are 2 sides to a debate.
There can be more than 2. For example, there could be a debate about what is the healthiest diet, a vegan one, a vegetarian one, an omnivorous one, or a carnivorous one. That's 4 sides.
What are you debating again? LOL! hahahahahha
If you don't know then maybe you should reread the debate description and my arguments over on that side of the debate -----> LOL! hahahahaha :p
I don't need to read it again...I've read yours, as well as many many others, well enough to understand the ole.
"If there is Intelligent Design, why all of the destruction and ugliness and selfishness in the world..." It's so standard and a weak argument against Intelligent Design.
And I k now many many many people simply believe religion was "created" by mankind simply because they "didn't know and understand the world around them".
AS IF, science understands and knows everything the world has to offer.
In your beliefs, one day science will become obsolete until the "next thing comes along".
Do you truly believe science will ever go away? Do you really think science is the only source to understand the world around?
See, that is primitive belief, NOT those whom believe. I've come to the conclusion that the quest to seek truth is in fact within the realms of BOTH science and religion, and until people accept and realize this is how it is, the unification of these two beliefs and understandings and knowledge, people like you and many others will continue to state that religion is "primitive thought"
That is precisely what I am laughing about, people like you and your thoughts.
It's so standard and a weak argument against Intelligent Design.
If it's so weak, then how about you refute it instead of just dismissing it?
AS IF, science understands and knows everything the world has to offer.
Science doesn't claim to know everything. If science knew everything, then there would be no need for it anymore.
In your beliefs, one day science will become obsolete until the "next thing comes along".
I assume you meant some scientific hypothesis will become obsolete, and not science as a whole. You and I already had this dicussion
Do you truly believe science will ever go away?
Of course not If science ever went away we would stop advancing and learning.
Do you really think science is the only source to understand the world around?
Yes I do. Do you have some other reliable method of understanding the world around you? If so, please share it with us. You and I already had this discussion too, and you never responded to any of my arguments.
I've come to the conclusion that the quest to seek truth is in fact within the realms of BOTH science and religion, and until people accept and realize this is how it is, the unification of these two beliefs and understandings and knowledge, people like you and many others will continue to state that religion is "primitive thought"
How did you come to that conclusion and how do you know that "this is how it is"?
That is precisely what I am laughing about, people like you and your thoughts.
And we're laughing at you for your lack of thoughts, so I guess we're even :p
No, with me there is no lack of thought. I am thinking of thought and am thought as much as any other person whom has thought, and intelligent thought.
You have beef with extremist religious folk, NOT ME
You've got a notion that religion cannot exist within the science realm and that science cannot exist within the religion realm.
I say, fuck that, it's not true.
Why is it not true?
Because science and religion are trying to figure out the truth, together.
When you claim there is no room for religion.
And thats when I say.
FUCK YOU, for believing that science is the ONLY truth to understanding the world around them, hypothesis or not, asshole.
This is how it is.
The thought that religion AND science IS HOW IT IS.
Your thoughts of MERELY scientific is OLD NEWS. NOT RELIGION.
You must understand this.
I am not trying to pursued a person to believe this or that.
I am trying to proclaim to people that science is not the only source of truth, and that religion is also the source of truth
Hah! When I drink I tend to go down to the level of those I speak to. ;)
And so, lately this forum has had many trolls, religion bashers, and it's like fuck it. This site is hardly a "debate" site anymore, I don't believe it ever was. Don't get me wrong, I've had great discussions on here, but religion bashers, ethos bashers, and damned trolls make this sight laughable and I do not take it serious as much as I used to.
I am trying to proclaim to people that science is not the only source of truth, and that religion is also the source of truth
Here is the problem, there are lots of conflicting religions out there and there is no way to determine which one, if any, is true. They all rely on faith and feelings, both of those things are not reliable methods of determining truth, because everyone has faith in their religion and everyone feels their religion is the true one, but they can't all be right.
Why? There is more for the evidence of intelligent design as there is for the existence of alcoholism and dependance.
I can only assume you meant this: There is more evidence for intelligent design, than there is for alcoholism and alcohol dependence.
First, why alcoholism and alcohol dependence? Random example maybe?
Second, they are both real phenomena that have been studied extensively. (Although more research is always being done)
Intelligent Design so far does not have any credible evidence supporting it. It is merely an argument from incredulity. "The universe is so perfectly made, it just had to be intelligently designed, there is no other option".
Tell me, are you able to find a single paper published from a reputable scientific journal on Intelligent Design?
It is a reference to how trying to ban alcohol backfired and that if banning alcohol has not worked and I know without a doubt, religion will never go away, it's here to stay forEVER; so long as humans exist.
There are alcoholics in the world, and there are religious people in the world, and there are religious alcoholics in the world. This part isn't necessary to realize, though it's pretty obvious.
And so in this same realm, since there are obviously "beautiful" people, as well as said "ugly" people; the universe is ascetically beautiful and complex; human brains are the most complex thing that we can physically study (in my opinion and many others); the human species evolving to what it is is pretty profound; complexity and chaos within nature, to me, is obvious evidence that it, us, we're designed in a particular way; DNA structure; matter and how it reacts and acts and performs; societal individuality and the structure of how groups of people interact; chemical reactions.
There are more reasons why and how I believe in "Design", or "Intelligent Design"...versus "Oh we're just here because of some combustion of energy and matter, like the Universe totally Vomited out of no where.." I mean people will believe what they will, however, the moment someone says "We are here because an "Intelligent Being" created us", people go nuts and call for their heads. It's fucking ridiculous when you actually think about it. People believing in something is as natural to a human, curiosity is faiths' roots, is it not? Has science not progressed because "it" was curious? Because "it" wanted to know more.
I believe what we're seeing all around us is the evidence. I don't need to go online and fish for a damn paper to show you. Go look it up yourself, it's there. Having me "show" you a "scientific journal on Intelligent Design" is not the point. Unless of course, you are one of those people whom actually believe there are not scientist whom have written papers and believe in Intelligent Design. In that case, HAH, good luck with that.
It is a reference to how trying to ban alcohol backfired and that if banning alcohol has not worked and I know without a doubt, religion will never go away, it's here to stay forEVER; so long as humans exist.
Literally speaking, you're correct, but perhaps not in the way you meant it to be. Religion will probably exist as long as humans exist, but I believe it will dwindle to a minuscule amount of followers. Religion is on the decline as evidenced here,here, and here.
"I mean people will believe what they will, however, the moment someone says "We are here because an "Intelligent Being" created us", people go nuts and call for their heads. "
So, somebody basically said "kill that guy because he proposed intelligent design" ? Or was that just an exaggeration and the guy just received some criticism? Usually it's the other way around, with the religious threatening physical harm to evolutionists and such, you'll find no shortage of those.
I don't need to go online and fish for a damn paper to show you. Go look it up yourself, it's there.
You wouldn't go looking up my sources for me. It's your argument, you back it up. If not, you forfeit your point. I don't care if you don't care that you forfeit your point. This is how debates work. Otherwise it just turns into my word vs your word, and "please go look up my sources for me, k thx"
This is the whole point of the scientific method though, so we can all try to get on the same page here. If ultimate reality and truth are all about perspective, then everybody's truth is equally valid. But the fact is everybody's truth is not valid, many people's beliefs conflict with each other. If I believe that the ultimate purpose of the universe is a piece of chipped paint on the playground down the street, then technically it is just as equally valid as whatever your belief is. This is absurd though. The scientific method fixes this, it gives us the best tools to go about seeking truth and the way reality really is.
And so if every individual and society in this world believed in one source of truth, aka science; and so if every single individual and society in this world believed in the same ideologies, the same philosophies, the same rational, the same logic, then what?
What is the way reality "really is". Lets analyze that.
According to you it's the scientific method.
According to me, it's both the scientific method and spirituality (aka the religious, belief, faith in something that's not in front of us).
Hm, and so you refute my beliefs because many people have beliefs.
Have you ever considered that due to societal boundaries (language, tradition, culture), that everyone is speaking of the general same deity; as a whole? It's like when someone says "Mother Nature", versus "Gia", versus "blah, blah blah". Is it not speaking of the same thing, mother nature.
It's quite simple.
Perhaps, just MAYBE, all those that do believe in X, Y, Z, speak of the same thing, yet in their own respective ways. And due to societal boundaries, it is named Judaism, or Hinduism, or Buddhism, or X, Y, Z.
It's pretty evident that each culture has their beliefs.
And so, why not?
People like you Mark, have such a problem with religion and spirituality because of the extremities of religion, that it makes all religion and faith look bad. So, somebody basically said "kill that guy because he proposed intelligent design" ? Or was that just an exaggeration and the guy just received some criticism? Usually it's the other way around, with the religious threatening physical harm to evolutionists and such, you'll find no shortage of those. < - - - C'mon I know you feel that way.
This is where it become unfair. Not because you're asking questions, but because you're asking the wrong questions to those like myself and many others whom are not bullshit sheep believers that believe because our mommies told us so!
same philosophies, the same rational, the same logic, then what?
This isn't necessarily the goal, nor is it realistic I think. The goal is not conformity. Just look at any religion today, members within that religion can and do disagree with each other on certain aspects of their religion. Take a look at the scientific community, there are disagreements, but those disagreements are based on the strength of evidence present for your theory. It's not some arbitrary "I have personally experienced my god, and plus my holy book says your god is fake".
What is the way reality "really is". Lets analyze that.
According to you it's the scientific method.
According to me, it's both the scientific method and spirituality (aka the religious, belief, faith in something that's not in front of us).
Just to clarify, I'm not saying reality is the scientific method. I said the scientific method is the most reliable method to truth.
By spirituality, you mean religion, belief, and faith in things without evidence? I can have faith in whatever I want then, completely devoid of all evidence. How is that a way to discern the way reality truly is? If this is your definition of "spirituality" then everyone's definition can be different. Perhaps a schizophrenic patient has faith that reality is really about My Little Pony. Whereas you believe differently. How do you reconcile those differences?
Hm, and so you refute my beliefs because many people have beliefs.
I don't refute your beliefs, because you and others have beliefs. I refute yours because they lack evidence and appear to be wishful thinking.
Is it not speaking of the same thing, mother nature.
It's quite simple.
Perhaps, just MAYBE, all those that do believe in X, Y, Z, speak of the same thing, yet in their own respective ways. And due to societal boundaries, it is named Judaism, or Hinduism, or Buddhism, or X, Y, Z.
It's pretty evident that each culture has their beliefs.
I'll just ignore many of the conflicting beliefs of the world's religions. We'll run with your point you're trying to make. So everybody, at some basic level, believes in some type of deistic god at the heart of all religions.
What then? How does this prove a god exists? How is this not just argument from popularity? "Lots of people believe in the same thing, therefore it must be true"
People like you Mark, have such a problem with religion and spirituality because of the extremities of religion, that it makes all religion and faith look bad.
The extremities are part of it, but you can include general human ignorance, apathy towards truth, and wishful thinking as well. Most people would rather believe a comforting fantasy, than a disappointing truth. I'd rather people were more honest with themselves and others, and were actually interested in their beliefs and ideas being true, rather than just comforting themselves with fantasies, and putting more value in winning the argument than whatever the truth really is.
yawn ok let's get this over with. I get it... You don't like us questioning your beliefs, you don't like that we think your beliefs are invalid. So you want to rant, don't worry I understand... Religion is intertwined in your life... But all politics, philosophies, even science deserves no less than criticism, I see no reason why religion should be excluded from this. So guess what... You're on a debate site.. know what that means? When your beliefs come up I'm going to tell you you're wrong, so let's get this party started.
And so if every individual and society in this world believed in one source of truth, aka science;
You have any other disciplines in discovery? I'd sure like to see them. Religion is such a poor alternative, it is simply insulting to science that people actually think religion can do what science does, hut I'll get back to that later on.
and so if every single individual and society in this world believed in the same ideologies, the same philosophies, the same rational, the same logic, then what?
Science does not determine ideologies, philosophies, or logic. Logic and science both need each other. The only ideologies atheists typically argue is the pursuit of logic and reason, if any at all. The only effect on philosophy is a progress in secular philosophy. Why do you think that we want to control every single thought we have? Cause we have an opinion? Really? We want people to think differently, however when we see at least 3/4ths to around 95% of the earth population believing in myth we disagree on what is thought to he rational in society.
What is the way reality "really is". Lets analyze that. According to you it's the scientific method.
I don't think that is what we are saying that reality is the scientific method but more or less the scientific method helps us determine reality.
According to me, it's both the scientific method and spirituality (aka the religious, belief, faith in something that's not in front of us).
Can you explain to me how religion helps us determine reality?
How merely the act of believing something helps you determine reality? I can explain how the scientific method can progress this goal. You have yet to explain to me how religion/faith/spirituality/etc does this. Perhaps you are so attached to spirituality that when we big, bad atheists argue for the invalidation of spirituality, you can't stand it, so you try to equalize faith and science in your mind. However you will have to convince us why we should do the same, as not being attached to faith we can judge it's efficiency towards discovery without bias of wanting it to be.
So my main response to this assertion is why? Why do you think that faith can lead us towards discovery? Why do you think that all it takes to figure out what is, is by simply believing something to be? Surely, such a notion seems to imply we control what reality is.
Hm, and so you refute my beliefs because many people have beliefs. Have you ever considered that due to societal boundaries (language, tradition, culture), that everyone is speaking of the general same deity; as a whole? It's like when someone says "Mother Nature", versus "Gia", versus "blah, blah blah". Is it not speaking of the same thing, mother nature.
It's quite simple. Perhaps, just MAYBE, all those that do believe in X, Y, Z, speak of the same thing, yet in their own respective ways. And due to societal boundaries, it is named Judaism, or Hinduism, or Buddhism, or X, Y, Z. It's pretty evident that each culture has their beliefs.
The thing about those beliefs are though, is whether or not you want to say they are of the sane thing, they all believe this one deity to be a certain way that disagrees with everyone else. Your beliefs aren't refuted because their are such a multitude of different beliefs, it is brought up to put your perspective in perspective. Surely we all can't be right about this one god, or all our gods exist, however you want to look at it. God(s) existence are all based on presumption for consideration, after that and essentially because of that nobody can decide who this God really is, what this god is like? Does such a belief really have a strong basis?
And so, why not?
Why in the first place?
People like you Mark, have such a problem with religion and spirituality because of the extremities of religion, that it makes all religion and faith look bad.
What DoD he do so bad? Disagree with you?
So, somebody basically said "kill that guy because he proposed intelligent design" ? Or was that just an exaggeration and the guy just received some criticism? Usually it's the other way around, with the religious threatening physical harm to evolutionists and such, you'll find no shortage of those. < - - - C'mon I know you feel that way.
This merely only shows how you see us atheists, you see us as hostile and offensive people, for what? Disagreeing with you? For holding the opinion that the faith you so desperately cling to us invalid? Anyways whether this was true or not is irrelevant to the argument here.
This is where it become unfair. Not because you're asking questions, but because you're asking the wrong questions to those like myself and many others whom are not bullshit sheep believers that believe because our mommies told us so!
Explain to me how are questions are unfair? How are our questions the wrong questions? I suspect it is because those questions don't make the faith you cling to seem so valid and make it look so strongly supported? Perhaps you just don't like our questions because the questions come from a place of skepticism? You want questions that try to validate your beliefs not try to invalidate them... You see it doesn't work that way, everything, even science itself needs to be questioned. We question what we think is true in order to be open to the possibility that we are wrong, and to help others like us we question everything else, we question your beliefs because we want you to consider the possibility that you are wrong. If your beliefs cant take question... How quality of beliefs are they?
Anyways good talk, I look forward to your reply friend.
It is a very long list. I did not see anything about the design of animals, which makes me think that list is not so crazy, but it doesn't capture the heart of religious ID.
Nearly every single argument on that list fails to factor in the size of the universe. There are approximately 7 sextillion stars in the observable universe, that's 7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. Scientists estimate that there are around 100 billion galaxies in the universe. Our galaxy alone is estimated to have around 100 billion planets. So that's 100 billion times 100 billion, 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000! So the chances of one of the planets having the right conditions to support some form of life are not nearly as impossible as they may seem. Scientists have already discovered many planets in our galaxy that they think may be able to support life.
I never said they were currently supporting life. Until we are able to travel to every planet in the universe we will never know if there is other life out there. That's not the point I'm trying to make. I'm just saying that the "fine tuning" argument that website is making doesn't factor in the vast size of the universe, which is a significant oversight.
I like the concept of Intelligent design, just not the application. This is what makes it hard to be full Atheist. Think about all of the rules of physics. Wouldn't it makes sense that if you were going to create a system you would want to have rules governing how all the particles interact. How about elements, atoms, molecules. It seems very intelligent to create building blocks that go together to make bigger things. Then create an organism that is alive and allow the organism to change through evolution, then let it do its thing and see what happens.
BUT
Somehow a concept like this was applied to how humans and other animals are designed and that's where I give up on the idea of intelligent design.
God created the species of man kind not each individual person genes do that and genes are created by humans and humans are imperfect so as a result genes sometimes have imperfections which cause defect and Disease. What ever happened to you guys going after creationists by the way?
So your saying that people created genes and that it's our own fault for genetic disorders? Wow, what a prejudiced little god lover you are. Please, go burn in the place you call hell.
@Littlemisfit
Congrats, you have just made me afraid of ever becoming a father ;P
Well its a little more complicated than just that you see God made us so technically speaking he created genes because he designed our reproductive system. But practically speaking your genes develop in your earthly body which as I said is not made by God (that's why when you die your body stays on earth) so they can be imperfect though they usually aren't. You don't really have much to worry about.
If a man created parts for a machine that were prone to breaking, he would be responsible for the failure of the machine when it breaks. The same applies to god, if he made genes that are prone to breaking and causing horrific and excruciatingly painful deformities in babies, he is responsible for it. Even if he wasn't the one that designed the faulty genes, if he is all-powerful he could easily correct the faulty genes and save those children from pain and misery.
We are imperfect creatures only god is perfect. Of course there are imperfections in our genes but I believe it has more to do with the world around us than the world within us. It's no secret the earth is dieing as all planets do the environment is becoming more and more hostile these changes (as well as some of the junk we put into our bodies) are causing mutations in our genes. God didn't design us with faulty parts the problem is we aren't meant to operate in this environment
If we aren't meant to operate in this environment, why would god put us here? If he put us in an environment not suited for us, then he is still responsible.
Regarding the "junk we put into our bodies", cases of harlequin-type ichthyosis, the worst of those deformities, has been documented clear back to 1750, long before we started filling our bodies with chemicals and artificial crap. Even if all of those diseases and deformities were caused by junk food, if god is all-powerful and loving he could easily prevent those things. Why would he let a child suffer like that?
The environment is not the same as it was when humans first appeared it was perfectly suitable back then but over time it has changed and caused these mutations. And the cases you are referring to where caused by insest within the royal families a function incompatible with our design so as a result the proses produced errors. The junk I mentioned isn't the cause but it is making things worse.
Despite the fact that you haven't presented any evidence to show that the mutations are caused by changes in the earth's environment, for the sake of argument I'll assume that is what is causing them. Regardless, if god is able to see the future like most Christians claim, he would have known that the environment would change, yet he still chose to put us here and not stop the environment from changing. If he knew the environment would change and didn't make our genes immune to those changes, then he failed to plan properly. So, no matter how you look at it he is still responsible.
You also haven't addressed my argument about him having the power to stop the mutations from happening. I ask again, why would he let a child suffer like that if he is all-powerful and loves us?
USELESS EYES: Many animals have eyes but can't see. For example, many types of mole rats and other burrowing rodents eyes are completely covered by skin or fur. The Mexican Tetra fish develops eyes as an embryo, but eventually skin grows over them and the eyes degenerate completely. The Texas Blind Salamander has no eyes, only two small black dots under the skin where eyes would normally be.
USELESS WINGS: Many birds have wings but can't fly, such as Cassowaries, Rheas, Ostriches, Kiwis, Tinamous, Emus, Kakapos, Flightless Steamer Ducks, Giant Coots and Penguins.
WISDOM TEETH: Most people need to have their wisdom teeth removed, otherwise they have lots of dental problems. Why would an intelligent designer put them there is the first place if they just cause problems?
HUMAN EAR MUSCLES: There are muscles in the human ear that don't do anything. A few people can use them to wiggle their ears, but most people cant. Why would an intelligent designer add muscles that serve no purpose? Many primate species have the same muscles, but they are able to use them to move the ears around so they can hear things around them better.
HUMAN EMBRYONIC TAILS: During the 5th to 6th week of intrauterine life, the human embryo has a tail with 10–12 vertebrae. By 8 weeks, the human tail disappears. Why would an intelligent designer create an embryonic tail, then just make it disappear?
Unless you can explain how the specific things I mentioned are useful and appear to be intelligently designed, I'm afraid I don't buy that argument. A Kiwi's wings are so miniscule they can't even be used for balance. You can't even tell they have wings just by looking at a photo of them. They serve no purpose at all. How could non-functional eyes be useful?
The fact that Darwinian evolutionists frequently cite imperfections in the organs of living things as an argument against Intelligent Design betrays their desperation. The argument from organisms' biological imperfections is a theological argument, not a scientific one:
1)it assumes that organs were designed, raather than the proteins which regulate their development;
2)it assumes that the Intelligent Designer always makes things perfectly;
3)it assumes that there are no design constraints which account for the alleged imperfections in these organs;
4)it assumes that imperfect organs are the same as they were when they were first designed (i.e. no devolution); and
5)it assumes that the alleged imperfections don't serve any useful purpose that may currently elude us, with our limited biological knowledge.
1)it assumes that organs were designed, rather than the proteins which regulate their development;
Let's face it, intelligent design is just a term Christians came up with to try to get creation taught in schools. So, this designer we're talking about is the Biblical god who is supposed to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and perfect in every way. If god designed the proteins knowing (due to his omniscience) exactly how those proteins would turn into organs, then he is still responsible for their design.
2)it assumes that the Intelligent Designer always makes things perfectly;
Why would a perfect being create flawed things? When you create things do you intentionally make them flawed even if you have the skills to make them flawless?
3)it assumes that there are no design constraints which account for the alleged imperfections in these organs;
What kind of design constraint could possibly explain having useless eyes, when so many other animals have no such constraint?
4)it assumes that imperfect organs are the same as they were when they were first designed (i.e. no devolution);
Why would god create things that devolve and fall apart? That seems like pretty bad design.
5)it assumes that the alleged imperfections don't serve any useful purpose that may currently elude us, with our limited biological knowledge.
Do you honestly think harlequin babies could possibly serve some useful purpose that couldn't be achieved through less horrific means? What good reason could there be for god to create a baby that suffers excruciating pain and dies within days?
That's quite a lot to assume.
Lets take a look at what creationists assume.
1. There is a perfect, magical, tri-omni god that transcends time and space and defies every known law of science.
2. This god created an entire universe filled with chaos, destruction, and death, but he must have had a good reason to make it so messed up.
3. This god created a circle of life that survives by brutally killing and eating each other, but he loves us and doesn't like suffering.
4. In order to save his flawed creations from the eternal torment that he condemned them to, he sacrificed himself to himself to save us from himself.
Yes, ID is another term for creation, but their are factors beside the protiens in play to make the organs.
Let me clarify what I meant by poiint 2. I meant perfect by fitting into God's plan. The human definition of "perfect" frequently means no human sufferring or pain.
3) The animals who have useless eyes quite frequently have heigthened (compared to species that have more functional eyes) smell or hearing or another method to oriant their surroundings.
4) Once again you assume devoltion means the complete crumbling of a species but it simply means a simplification which can be used to better suit a species for the present situation.
5) I do not deny it is a horrific disease. I do have one question though. I haven't responded in a few days because I've been doing research as to the cause of the condition, do you know what it is? I also find it ironic. No matter how much pain a human feels while on earth, it makes the prospect of heaven so much sweeter. For some reason most Western culture focuses for some reason on a "blessed life" when it comes to "living for God". But the writings of the apostles did not encourage this. It didn't encourage pursueing pain, but any sufferring that came along (disease or persecution) was in fact welcomed if faith in God could still be had and edure that pain.
"Lets take a look at what creationists assume.
1. There is a perfect, magical, tri-omni god that transcends time and space and defies every known law of science."
Most people think God "bends science", but they simply don't include God in the equation. Just a quick math explenation to clarify what I mean. Lets assume x=God. Most people assume the equation is 1+1=2. Natural science is 1+1 and no matter what 1+1=2. But in reality x(1+1)=All real numbers.
Let me clarify what I meant by point 2. I meant perfect by fitting into God's plan.
So gods perfect plan includes the suffering and misery of innocent children. I may not know everything, but I know without a doubt I could come up with a better plan than that.
3) The animals who have useless eyes quite frequently have heigthened (compared to species that have more functional eyes) smell or hearing or another method to oriant their surroundings.
They still doesn't explain why an intelligent designer would give them non-functional eyes instead of either functional ones or no eyes at all. It makes no sense from an intelligent design standpoint to make a fish develop eyes as an embryo, but then have skin grows over the eyes and have them completely degenerate. An intelligently designed fish would either have functional eyes, or no eyes would develop at all.
4) Once again you assume devoltion means the complete crumbling of a species but it simply means a simplification which can be used to better suit a species for the present situation.
How does losing the ability to fly "better suit a species"? Being able to fly makes it much easier to escape predators.
5) I do not deny it is a horrific disease. I do have one question though. I haven't responded in a few days because I've been doing research as to the cause of the condition, do you know what it is?
It's a genetic disorder caused by an abnormality in the ABCA12 gene, which normally makes a protein that is necessary for the development of skin cells.
I also find it ironic. No matter how much pain a human feels while on earth, it makes the prospect of heaven so much sweeter. For some reason most Western culture focuses for some reason on a "blessed life" when it comes to "living for God". But the writings of the apostles did not encourage this. It didn't encourage pursueing pain, but any sufferring that came along (disease or persecution) was in fact welcomed if faith in God could still be had and edure that pain.
That seems a bit masochistic. I just don't see any way for suffering to exist if god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent. Suffering is incompatible with those two characteristics.
Most people think God "bends science", but they simply don't include God in the equation. Just a quick math explenation to clarify what I mean. Lets assume x=God. Most people assume the equation is 1+1=2. Natural science is 1+1 and no matter what 1+1=2. But in reality x(1+1)=All real numbers.
Bending science is the same as defying it. Simply saying that plugging god into the equation makes all things possible doesn't change the fact that it defies the laws of science. Let's plug something else into the equation and see how you feel about it. If I say 1+1=2 unless you factor magical fairies into the equation, would you think that is an acceptable answer? I seriously doubt it. You would want to know how magical fairies can change the equation, and want proof that magical fairies actually exist.
I'm curious how people who believe in Intelligent Design can explain things like the stuff shown in the link following this warning. WARNING! Some of the images are really gross!
Okay, I am sorry for the name-calling and hate in my post disputing Warrior.
My argument against intelligent design is that their are just too many randoms in the world. If somebody who was ultimately intelligent did create everything, why are there so many inefficient processes? Why didn't the creator make an obvious clean and powerful energy source for us to use? Why didn't the creator make something to solve overpopulation or extinction?
I agree with you on all the randomness that occurs.
It's like life is minecraft, in minecraft we are god, we design everything nothing ever malfunctions because we made it that way to work one way and that's the only way it can, does, and ever will work.
Any random event was either planed by an omnipotent God who loves everyone, unlikely, or they happened by accident because nature is completely left up to chance, no intelligent design, more likely.
There are so many sickening things out there, like diseases such as the cordyceps fungus (http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/biology/news-4-new-species-mind-controlling-fungi-discovered?image=0), smallpox and leprosy.
