-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Intelligent Design and People
- Thread starter rojse
- Start date
If God designed the world, then "sloppy," as a part of the world, is necessarily a part of the design.
Compared to a crocodile, shark or cockroach, of course,Kai. Animals so well designed that they've survived for hundreds of millions of years, through huge climate changes, atmospheric and oceanic changes, without needing to change at all.
We hominids are prototypes; new models; still working out the defects.
We hominids are prototypes; new models; still working out the defects.
Good question!
rheff78
I'm your huckleberry.
Sloppy? Even scientists have said the human body and all it's functions and ability to heal itself is the greatest machine ever made. Now if you're saying what about all the bad people do, then that's a different subject. Chalk that one up to free will.
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
To think we were designed sloppily is to imply that we were desigend for a purpose, no ?
kdrier
Revolutionist
Sloppy? What's sloppy about it? Everything about the human body, even life in general, Is so absolutely intense and intricate. If you know anything about computer programming, imagine the physical word as an interface, and then the coding as what makes the program (life) work. I can't think of anything sloppy about it. example maybe?
The human body is not that well engineered.Our spines are a design best suited for a horizontal lifestyle. There's been a lot of thickening in places to enable the vertebral column to bear weight, but we're till the only animal that get backaches, ruptured disks, &c.
Why is there so little collateral circulation in the heart muscle? Almost anywhere else in the body if you block an arteriole the blood has a dozen other routes to the region perfused by it. Not the heart. One little clot and wham! -- you drop dead!
Why is the carpal tunnel in the wrist so narrow? Why are light gathering cells in the eye wired backwards? Why do our third molars not fit our jaws?
There are dozens of design flaws a first year engineering student would never make.
Most of this is because evolution cannot do a complete redesign, but has to modify already existing structures to meet design goals.
Oops, maybe I shouldn't use the term "design goals" inasmuch as evolution has neither design nor goals...
Why is there so little collateral circulation in the heart muscle? Almost anywhere else in the body if you block an arteriole the blood has a dozen other routes to the region perfused by it. Not the heart. One little clot and wham! -- you drop dead!
Why is the carpal tunnel in the wrist so narrow? Why are light gathering cells in the eye wired backwards? Why do our third molars not fit our jaws?
There are dozens of design flaws a first year engineering student would never make.
Most of this is because evolution cannot do a complete redesign, but has to modify already existing structures to meet design goals.
Oops, maybe I shouldn't use the term "design goals" inasmuch as evolution has neither design nor goals...
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
M O N S T E R
Member
If a God exists, and wants people to believe that intelligent design exists, it is reasonable to assume that he would make widespread personal appearances in every century and demonstrate that such is the case. The lack of any such appearances indicates that if a God exists, he does not want people to know that intelligent design exists. As far as I know, withholding evidence could not possibly benefit a God, or anyone else.
Consider the following Scriptures:
John 2:23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did. (KJV)
"When they saw the miracles which he did," not "when they heard the words that he spoke."
John 3:2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. (KJV)
"For no man can do these miracles that thou doest," not "for no man can speak the words that thou speakest."
John 6:2 And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased. (KJV)
"Because they saw his miracles," not just "because they heard his words."
John 10:37-38 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. (KJV)
Those people would not believe based solely upon Jesus' words. They wanted to see some miracles firsthand, and the texts say that they got what they wanted.
The message of his grace was confirmed with miracles, not with words.
Regarding those Scriptures, does anyone see people complaining about getting too many answers regarding getting firsthand demonstrations of God's tangible powers? Words do not confirm power. Power confirms words. Some of the Scriptures that I quoted agree with that. Anyone can speak words, but not just anyone can demonstrate that intelligent design exists.
If a God exists, he could easily show up and prove that intelligent design exists, but he refuses to do so, with no possible benefits for himself or for anyone else. Why would God choose the theists of this forum to defend intelligent design when he could do a much better job of that himself? If encouraging people to believe that the Bible is true is God's chief desire, there is no way that he would act like he does.
Is God trying to reveal or conceal himself? It is difficult to tell which is the case. Perhaps God is trying to show himself, but only his big toe. If so, a toenail would be a good start.
Consider the following Scriptures:
John 2:23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did. (KJV)
"When they saw the miracles which he did," not "when they heard the words that he spoke."
John 3:2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. (KJV)
"For no man can do these miracles that thou doest," not "for no man can speak the words that thou speakest."
John 6:2 And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased. (KJV)
"Because they saw his miracles," not just "because they heard his words."
John 10:37-38 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. (KJV)
Those people would not believe based solely upon Jesus' words. They wanted to see some miracles firsthand, and the texts say that they got what they wanted.
The message of his grace was confirmed with miracles, not with words.
Regarding those Scriptures, does anyone see people complaining about getting too many answers regarding getting firsthand demonstrations of God's tangible powers? Words do not confirm power. Power confirms words. Some of the Scriptures that I quoted agree with that. Anyone can speak words, but not just anyone can demonstrate that intelligent design exists.
If a God exists, he could easily show up and prove that intelligent design exists, but he refuses to do so, with no possible benefits for himself or for anyone else. Why would God choose the theists of this forum to defend intelligent design when he could do a much better job of that himself? If encouraging people to believe that the Bible is true is God's chief desire, there is no way that he would act like he does.
Is God trying to reveal or conceal himself? It is difficult to tell which is the case. Perhaps God is trying to show himself, but only his big toe. If so, a toenail would be a good start.
It's not the design that's sloppy, it's your question.
More what? You were given everything, YOU screwed it up.
But then, if God designed the world, and "screwing up" is a part of the world, then it too is included in the design.
M O N S T E R
Member
This site does a fine job of illustrating God's supposed intelligence.
http://oolon.awardspace.com/SMOGGM.htm
http://oolon.awardspace.com/SMOGGM.htm
M O N S T E R
Member
With the evidence available, it's easy to conclude that intelligent design isn't even remotely established. The first objection would be that design of any kind is determined by comparing the object which is proposed to be designed to other objects known not to be designed. In fact, that's the entire basis of how the hypothetical wristwatch found on the beach is determined to have been designed - it doesn't look like anything in its surroundings, and it appears to have a designed function compared to other objects in the surroundings. So, to establish that the universe is designed, you'll need to compare it to other universes known to be not designed. The second objection to the argument from design is the assumption that a designed artifact of medium to high complexity must have an intelligent designer implies that God Himself must have a designer. The counterargument that God is eternal doesn't work either, because it requires an answer to the question of "who" placed God eternally in time. If that question doesn't need to be asked/answered, then of course neither does the question of who caused/designed the universe.
That's a pretty good argument for Deism.
Any way you look at it, we (each) are the intelligence in the design.
To me, the most obvious problem area is the esophagus: we use the same tube for breathing and eating. If we eat carelessly, we suffocate to death; how is that good design?