Intelligent Design?

[Shadow Wolf]

The answer I'm surprised the don't use is that sin is to blame for flaws in the design. However, I would think if that was the intention then God must really hate us.

 

[Blackheart]

WTF?

Bible can explain design faults? Sounds like you are adding to the book of prophecy, committing idolatry, bearing false witness, and using the second in service to the first is a clear violation of the first commandment... what's wrong with you people, cannot even put two sentences together without breaking every rule in the book?

You right I totally mis referenced there. I apologise. I should of said the Book of Enoch or his Book of Giants. As you know this is from the Dead Sea Scrolls not the Bible. Again I apologise.

 

[ellenjanuary]

You right I totally mis referenced there. I apologise. I should of said the Book of Enoch or his Book of Giants. As you know this is from the Dead Sea Scrolls not the Bible. Again I apologise.

No big. I get excitable sometimes.

 

[Zen Sensei]

interesting site anders... definitely some good points being raised...

"Our only "redeeming" feature is our intelligence, yet it seems to me that the only thing that ever did was give us the capacity to sin in new and creative ways. That's one messed up situation right there. Maybe god doesnt want to be loved...."
there is a "purposeful" reason for giving us free will though... but that's another thread! I

I definitely agree. The atheist are absolutely brilliant and the theist downright stupid.

 

[Etritonakin]

(From another thread)

Just to throw a few things out there................

Form follows function.

The life forms which we can consider and study -living or dead -are "imperfect" from a certain perspective.

Many have pointed out fraitlies and vulnerabilities, etc in life forms, which they perceive as not very intelligent from a design perspective.

According the the bible, the earthly, physical creatures of Genesis (which were not the first on earth, but those made after the earth became waste and ruin at some point after the earth's completion) -including "man" by biblical definition (not necessarily scientific definition) beginning with Adam -were caused to be after God had made much more "perfect" beings.

Forget blind spots in our eyes and spinal issues.... We die! Certainly that should be number one on the imperfection list!

We are extremely vulnerable to our environment in many ways -but even if we manage to avoid all of the dangers in daily life all of our lives, our bodies become less and less functional -and then we die.

Why would God make humans "a little lower than the angels" -yet tell them they would eventually judge the affairs of the angels?

If God is already able to make us immortal, why did he not just do so in the first place?

What possible function could this form perform?

If God could have made our bodies perfect and invulnerable, the function of this body and environment would be to cause psychological effects. Experiencing this environment in this body would have the desired effect on the minds which could eventually be transferred to a perfect "glorious" body (similar to the one which enabled the being who became Christ to create the universe and make all things subject to himself.)

(Php_3:21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.)

As we are creative beings, our environment is certainly a training tool to teach us to be better creators -but our perspective of imperfection also creates a drive toward perfection.

According to the bible, we are not the first creative beings created -and not the first to inhabit the earth. The angels inhabited the earth before we did. Their activities are not described in any great detail -but it is possible they had an effect on earthly life forms just as we do -perhaps with greater ability to do so.

(It would also be reasonable to think that God's creative processes involved some sort of research and development/field trials, etc., at some point)

However, the angels were created into perfection/a perfect situation -and were drawn toward imperfection -it was an unknown from their perspective. (Adam and Eve initially had a perfect situation in microcosm until introduced to the larger situation, which had already become imperfect by the sin of the rebellious angels -but they were flesh -not spirit -not as "perfect".)

Then angels and humans were allowed to interact. The angels witness man's experience, and man strives against "principalities, powers, spiritual hosts of wickedness in high places" -and are also aided by the angels who did not sin as God directs them.

(Eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil -not just of the tree of life -and being cast out of the garden included being more subject to environmental factors/not having the full benefit of God's oversight and maintenance of the situation. That would not affect the basic human design, but would have adverse effects on future generations.)

That is the basis of the psychological reasons for our present form, but there are also practical considerations.

While the cycle of earthly life -birth, death, decomposition, recycled materials, etc, actually hints at the fact that life does not have to be of such a nature -that it is not necessarily a temporary state, it also allows for many things to be accomplished in a limited space, with limited materials, and in a specific time frame.

One life form may be composed of material from many other different life forms which once existed, so many individual creatures and men/women can live in the same limited space over time using the same material.

God limited man's lifespan to 120 years at a certain point ( not sure if he allowed any wiggle room), which allowed great numbers of men to live long enough for this form to perform its function, then die and make room for the next generation.

God is quoted as saying he limited man's lifespan so that his "spirit will not always strive with man" -so it limited his frustration with our newbish behavior to that which was necessary to accomplish his purpose.

As we are rather destructive at present -as were the sinning angels who were restrained -this form also limits our ability to destroy things.

When we are of a mindset to no longer be destructive, we may inhabit the universe. Space will not be an issue.

"For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else"

 

[Sapiens]

(From another thread)

Just to throw a few things out there................

Form follows function.

The life forms which we can consider and study -living or dead -are "imperfect" from a certain perspective.

Many have pointed out fraitlies and vulnerabilities, etc in life forms, which they perceive as not very intelligent from a design perspective.

According the the bible, the earthly, physical creatures of Genesis (which were not the first on earth, but those made after the earth became waste and ruin at some point after the earth's completion) -including "man" by biblical definition (not necessarily scientific definition) beginning with Adam -were caused to be after God had made much more "perfect" beings.

Forget blind spots in our eyes and spinal issues.... We die! Certainly that should be number one on the imperfection list!

We are extremely vulnerable to our environment in many ways -but even if we manage to avoid all of the dangers in daily life all of our lives, our bodies become less and less functional -and then we die.

Why would God make humans "a little lower than the angels" -yet tell them they would eventually judge the affairs of the angels?

If God is already able to make us immortal, why did he not just do so in the first place?

What possible function could this form perform?

If God could have made our bodies perfect and invulnerable, the function of this body and environment would be to cause psychological effects. Experiencing this environment in this body would have the desired effect on the minds which could eventually be transferred to a perfect "glorious" body (similar to the one which enabled the being who became Christ to create the universe and make all things subject to himself.)

(Php_3:21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.)

As we are creative beings, our environment is certainly a training tool to teach us to be better creators -but our perspective of imperfection also creates a drive toward perfection.

According to the bible, we are not the first creative beings created -and not the first to inhabit the earth. The angels inhabited the earth before we did. Their activities are not described in any great detail -but it is possible they had an effect on earthly life forms just as we do -perhaps with greater ability to do so.

(It would also be reasonable to think that God's creative processes involved some sort of research and development/field trials, etc., at some point)

However, the angels were created into perfection/a perfect situation -and were drawn toward imperfection -it was an unknown from their perspective. (Adam and Eve initially had a perfect situation in microcosm until introduced to the larger situation, which had already become imperfect by the sin of the rebellious angels -but they were flesh -not spirit -not as "perfect".)

Then angels and humans were allowed to interact. The angels witness man's experience, and man strives against "principalities, powers, spiritual hosts of wickedness in high places" -and are also aided by the angels who did not sin as God directs them.

(Eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil -not just of the tree of life -and being cast out of the garden included being more subject to environmental factors/not having the full benefit of God's oversight and maintenance of the situation. That would not affect the basic human design, but would have adverse effects on future generations.)

That is the basis of the psychological reasons for our present form, but there are also practical considerations.

While the cycle of earthly life -birth, death, decomposition, recycled materials, etc, actually hints at the fact that life does not have to be of such a nature -that it is not necessarily a temporary state, it also allows for many things to be accomplished in a limited space, with limited materials, and in a specific time frame.

One life form may be composed of material from many other different life forms which once existed, so many individual creatures and men/women can live in the same limited space over time using the same material.

God limited man's lifespan to 120 years at a certain point ( not sure if he allowed any wiggle room), which allowed great numbers of men to live long enough for this form to perform its function, then die and make room for the next generation.

God is quoted as saying he limited man's lifespan so that his "spirit will not always strive with man" -so it limited his frustration with our newbish behavior to that which was necessary to accomplish his purpose.

As we are rather destructive at present -as were the sinning angels who were restrained -this form also limits our ability to destroy things.

When we are of a mindset to no longer be destructive, we may inhabit the universe. Space will not be an issue.

"For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else"

Actually, from the perspective of your genes, death is a good thing.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

What true logic would exclude intelligent design?
you easily accept that a program as complex as windows XP was intelligently designed
and the space shuttle was made by intelligent design and just one of our cells is more complex than either of those items by a long shot.
Why do we assume that there is intelligent life outside our planet but don't consider it possible that we could have been created by intelligent design? if we found something as complex as we are would we only believe it was accidental?
to exempt the possibility of intelligent design we hobble our own possible understanding of that which science cannot explain. a true scientist should always assume that he doesn't know all the variables and never rules out anything, if I remember my Sherlock Holmes correctly I believe it was stated that once you rule out every logical explanation then whatever is left no matter how improbable is the truth, and unless you can come up with another possibility besides:
1) natural beginnings
2) intelligent design (whether by GOD or the little green creatures)

then if I can easily rule out natural beginnings you would only have I.D. left

I wonder why the is such opposition to I.D., is it too hard to believe that you were created? it seems so strange to me to believe otherwise when you consider that every cell in your body is as complex as any city and together your body has the complexity of this whole world and the entire universe as well all wrapped up in the fragile little body that is you.

It always strikes me as an odd double standard

That atheists would accept the simplest mathematical sequence caught drifting across interstellar airwaves, as proof positive of alien intelligence- and hence human insignificance

Yet the vast array of mathematical constants and algorithms, written into and specific to the fabric of the universe - can safely be assumed to have blundered into existence for no particular reason.

 

[Etritonakin]

Actually, from the perspective of your genes, death is a good thing.

It definitely has its place.

 

[Sapiens]

It definitely has its place.

Death is essential. Without death the same genotype would endure forever without change. As wiki observes: "Contemporary evolutionary theory sees death as an important part of the process of natural selection. It is considered that organisms less adapted to their environment are more likely to die having produced fewer offspring, thereby reducing their contribution to the gene pool. Their genes are thus eventually bred out of a population, leading at worst to extinction and, more positively, making the process possible, referred to as speciation. Frequency of reproduction plays an equally important role in determining species survival: an organism that dies young but leaves numerous offspring displays, according to Darwinian criteria, much greater fitness than a long-lived organism leaving only one."

 

[rusra02]

The human body is riddled with design mistakes. Examples include the deadly birth canal, the unforgiving prostate, the exploding appendix, the fragile spine (America's #1 cause of disability), the idiotic crossing of airway and esophagus (that causes history's greatest killer--pneumonia), and our useless male breasts whose only claim to fame is cancer.

Given all the mistakes in human design, how can the doctrine of “Intelligent Design” have merit?

Mistakes? How often doctors and scientists have claimed certain organs had no use, or are poorly designed, only to be proven wrong. I am reminded of what Isaiah 45:9 says; "Woe to the one who contends with his Maker, For he is just an earthenware fragment Among the other earthenware fragments lying on the ground! Should the clay say to the Potter: “What are you making?” Or should your work say: “He has no hands”?
On a positive note is this quote: "How did those lifeless building blocks come together to form a living human? To illustrate the enormity of the challenge, consider the NASA space shuttle, one of the most complex machines ever devised. This technological marvel contains a staggering 2.5 million parts. It took teams of engineers years to design and put it together. Now consider the human body. It is made up of some 7 octillion atoms, 100 trillion cells, dozens of organs, and at least 9 major organ systems. How did this biological machine of mind-boggling complexity and superb structure come to be? By blind chance or by intelligent design?"

 

[Bunyip]

Mistakes? How often doctors and scientists have claimed certain organs had no use, or are poorly designed, only to be proven wrong. I am reminded of what Isaiah 45:9 says; "Woe to the one who contends with his Maker, For he is just an earthenware fragment Among the other earthenware fragments lying on the ground! Should the clay say to the Potter: “What are you making?” Or should your work say: “He has no hands”?
On a positive note is this quote: "How did those lifeless building blocks come together to form a living human? To illustrate the enormity of the challenge, consider the NASA space shuttle, one of the most complex machines ever devised. This technological marvel contains a staggering 2.5 million parts. It took teams of engineers years to design and put it together. Now consider the human body. It is made up of some 7 octillion atoms, 100 trillion cells, dozens of organs, and at least 9 major organ systems. How did this biological machine of mind-boggling complexity and superb structure come to be? By blind chance or by intelligent design?"

God would he more complicated - and thus an even less plausible solution than chance. After all how did god come to be?

 

[Etritonakin]

Death is essential. Without death the same genotype would endure forever without change. As wiki observes: "Contemporary evolutionary theory sees death as an important part of the process of natural selection. It is considered that organisms less adapted to their environment are more likely to die having produced fewer offspring, thereby reducing their contribution to the gene pool. Their genes are thus eventually bred out of a population, leading at worst to extinction and, more positively, making the process possible, referred to as speciation. Frequency of reproduction plays an equally important role in determining species survival: an organism that dies young but leaves numerous offspring displays, according to Darwinian criteria, much greater fitness than a long-lived organism leaving only one."

Death is essential to "evolution" as we know it -and evolution does serve a certain purpose in a specific environment (a basically closed system with limited materials, etc.).

However, things do not necessarily have to be arranged as they are now.

Theoretically (from our perspective), life could continue, and change/adaptation could occur by other means.

Actually, gene therapy is essentially adaptation which does not require death -but it is not internal.

Active camouflage (among other things) in nature is an immediate adaptation, and immediate adaptation could potentially be applied to other systems -and even directed by choice/decision.

Decreased vulnerability and need for further adaptation, etc., would decrease the need for high reproductive rates -but I understand that certain drastic changes in environment could make that a disadvantage.

(As a "religious" person, I believe in beings which are not vulnerable to their environment [at least not to the point of death], and which are capable of immediate adaptation by will -so I like to consider how that might be possible)

 

[rusra02]

God would he more complicated - and thus an even less plausible solution than chance. After all how did god come to be?

Because something is beyond our ability to understand does not make it implausible, IMO. The Bible says of God; "Before the mountains were born Or you brought forth the earth and the productive land, From everlasting to everlasting, you are God." (Psalm 90:2) God has always existed and always will. I find the concept of a first Cause logical and plausible, though I do not fully understand God's everlasting existence. (Psalm 36:9)

 

[Sapiens]

Death is essential to "evolution" as we know it -and evolution does serve a certain purpose in a specific environment (a basically closed system with limited materials, etc.).

However, things do not necessarily have to be arranged as they are now.

Theoretically (from our perspective), life could continue, and change/adaptation could occur by other means.

Actually, gene therapy is essentially adaptation which does not require death -but it is not internal.

Active camouflage (among other things) in nature is an immediate adaptation, and immediate adaptation could potentially be applied to other systems -and even directed by choice/decision.

Decreased vulnerability and need for further adaptation, etc., would decrease the need for high reproductive rates -but I understand that certain drastic changes in environment could make that a disadvantage.

(As a "religious" person, I believe in beings which are not vulnerable to their environment [at least not to the point of death], and which are capable of immediate adaptation by will -so I like to consider how that might be possible)

That's interesting, but in the final analysis we have death because it creates more robust life than does immortality.

 

[Skwim]

That's interesting, but in the final analysis we have death because it creates more robust life than does immortality.

Careful not to imply some goal.

 

[Sapiens]

Careful not to imply some goal.

But there is a "goal," access to the gene pool of the future, and organisms that die seem to do better at winning that race.

 

[Skwim]

But there is a "goal," access to the gene pool of the future, and organisms that die seem to do better at winning that race.

All organisms die, but even if they didn't, other than the changes wrought by overcrowding the earth and using up vital resources, it wouldn't affect the changes in the emerging gene pool: mutations and adaption would still go on. So I don't see the race you speak of. What's at the finish line they're racing to?

 

[Sapiens]

Without death to provide the selective force they would be little or no evolution. Death is what keeps genes from moving on to the future. If you had to depend solely on completion for niche space without death as the final arbitrator the process would be much slower.

 

[Skwim]

Without death to provide the selective force they would be little or no evolution.

The selective forces might (would) simply be different---likely a result of overcrowding and greater competition for resources---but they'd still be there.

Death is what keeps genes from moving on to the future.

?

If you had to depend solely on completion for niche space without death as the final arbitrator the process would be much slower.

What does death arbitrate? The process would be what ever it will be; adapting to whatever pressures arise. As I see it, that the progenitors of subsequent life are still around only impacts subsequent life to the degree that it reduces living room and will likely reduce resources.

 

[Sapiens]

Quite simply death arbitrates if, and to what degree (how much) a genome gets to move on into the next generation. Natural Selection operates by winnowing out (with death or at least stilted reproduction).