|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Why is the Intelligent Designer so inept? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Physical defects are not evidence for an inept Creator but are instead explained as the by-product of Sin. Based on this hypothesis is it a reasonable prediction to suggest that those who are most sinful should produce a lineage with the most physical defects?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 764 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Hi, JG Burgess! My grandmother was a Burgess from Missouri! Welcome to EvC!
We believe that the world before the Fall had no death, disease or suffering, as God proclaimed the finished creation "very good" Were Guinea worms, parasitoid wasps, lampreys, Plasmodium falciparum, liver flukes, ticks, and Loa loa worms created? If so, when? Or did they evolve after this Fall? If so, from what "very good" critters?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Physical defects are not evidence for an inept Creator but are instead explained as the by-product of Sin. How did our sins invert the retina in every vertebrate species? How did cephalopods avoid our sin? Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5183 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
Sin didn't cause our retinas to become inverted. It was a trade off in order for our eyes to receive more nutrients such as oxygen.
http://www.catalase.com/retina.htm
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Sin didn't cause our retinas to become inverted. It was a trade off in order for our eyes to receive more nutrients such as oxygen. The cephalopod eye does not have an inverted retina, and cephalopods do just fine. Also, surely and all-knowing and all-powerful designer would not be subject to "trade-offs". You would think that a competent designer would be able to figure out a way to get enough oxygen to the retinal cells without having to put the wires in the light path.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4746 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
It was a trade off in order for our eyes to receive more nutrients such as oxygen. What are the restrictions place upon God that He has to make trade offs? Who placed these restrictions upon Him? Genesis 2 17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness. 18 And we all live happily ever after.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5183 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
The both of you are debating this issue from the perspective of the way you think a creator should be running things.
Why should a creator be concerned with creating a perfect world if it doesn't need to be perfect in order to fulfill certain purposes?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
The both of you are debating this issue from the perspective of the way you think a creator should be running things. I am only debating this from the perspective of an all-powerful and all-knowing deity. Since, by definition, such a deity could produce an eye without the flaws found in the vertebrate eye it stands to reason that either the creator put flaws in the eye on purpose or the creator is not all-knowing and all-powerful.
Why should a creator be concerned with creating a perfect world if it doesn't need to be perfect in order to fulfill certain purposes? So the all-knowing and all-powerful deity that exists outside of time and space didn't have enough time to do it right, just good enough? You don't see the logical problems here?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4746 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
Actually, you're the one arguing from a unfounded perspective; that it is the way it is because someone wanted it that way. I'm arguing from the persective of why do it the dumb way when the smart way won't cost a penny more. Don't have a trade off with stupid.
Genesis 2 17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness. 18 And we all live happily ever after.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5183 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
Maybe the reason why the creator doesn't reside in the physical world is because it has limitations. I don't know. I think design doesn't need to be perfect. It just needs to serve certain purposes. Look at this another way. Does your computer need more memory? Is the screen to small? I am not here in an attempt to convince you otherwise. I am here to sharpen my skills as a proponent of I.D.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
Does your computer need more memory? Is the screen to small? Terrible analogy, my computer was not designed by an all knowing entity. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Does your computer need more memory? Yes.
Is the screen to small? Yes.
I am not here in an attempt to convince you otherwise. OK.
I am not here in an attempt to convince you otherwise. I am here to sharpen my skills as a proponent of I.D. Then you need to find an objective method of differentiating those things which are designed from those things which are not. The simple assertion that it is "obvious" holds no water at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
I think design doesn't need to be perfect. It just needs to serve certain purposes. Didn't you just say the following? "The both of you are debating this issue from the perspective of the way you think a creator should be running things." So you accuse us of overreaching, and then just a few minutes later you do the same.
Does your computer need more memory? Is the screen to small? I am not here in an attempt to convince you otherwise. Would a computer built by an all-powerful and all-knowing deity need more memory and a bigger screen?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4746 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
I am here to sharpen my skills as a proponent of I.D. Ah! The perfect anti-science truth. Have a position, then an argument. Genesis 2 17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness. 18 And we all live happily ever after.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
I am here to sharpen my skills as a proponent of I.D.
Are you here to explore the scientific evidence, or are you here as an apologist who will defend belief in spite of the lack of evidence, or even in the face of contrary evidence? If the latter, that's fine, but just don't call it science. Its the exact opposite of science. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024