Jump to content

Unintelligent Design


Recommended Posts

Yes I do.You don't?Why would you doubt it? Randy has already given me the carte blanch acceptance of it's reality. He's just struggling over some of the trivial details.And answer me this Mr. Racist defender....where are all the unicorns?
yep, I'm a detail kinda guy. So help me out. This is confirmed Geological Time Scale that would not be disputed by any scientific or religous source that I'm aware of. It is taught to kids in school. And well, we've all seen Jurassic Park. So, can you tell me when God had Noah build the Ark in corellation to the timescale? A red X would be fine.timescale.gif
Why would deep sea anything need to be on the ark?
QUIT QUESTIONING GOD YOU HEATHEN! HE HAS HIS OWN REASONS!
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 345
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

why burden yourself with such a logical falacy when the story clearly calls for two of each animal? even the ones that don't reproduce sexually.
I think I just meant that the Bible says "animals that move along the ground," and yes, I realize I might be getting into some kind of trouble by putting that inside quotation marks.But I see what you're saying.
Link to post
Share on other sites
yep, I'm a detail kinda guy. So help me out. This is confirmed Geological Time Scale that would not be disputed by any scientific or religous source that I'm aware of. It is taught to kids in school. And well, we've all seen Jurassic Park. So, can you tell me when God had Noah build the Ark in corellation to the timescale? A red X would be fine.timescale.gif
You think I'm stupid?I'm not marking my monitor just to show you how wrong you are.But thanks for the laugh...they teach it in schools...to kids...LOLAnd not disputed by any religious source that you're aware of? Really? They all agree to this time line?You're just mad at me because I refuted your original lists forcefully and with conviction.So now you're trying to prove the ark wrong using a chart from an evolutionist perspective as your proof.You think it's a co-incidence that they use the colors from a gay flag to prove evolution? I don't...
Link to post
Share on other sites
why burden yourself with such a logical falacy when the story clearly calls for two of each animal? even the ones that don't reproduce sexually.
What did you expect?A Carnival Cruise ship?
Link to post
Share on other sites
You think I'm stupid?I'm not marking my monitor just to show you how wrong you are.But thanks for the laugh...they teach it in schools...to kids...LOLAnd not disputed by any religious source that you're aware of? Really? They all agree to this time line?You're just mad at me because I refuted your original lists forcefully and with conviction.So now you're trying to prove the ark wrong using a chart from an evolutionist perspective as your proof.You think it's a co-incidence that they use the colors from a gay flag to prove evolution? I don't...
hahha, I can't get you to fall for anything.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I am going to have a hard time if you remove my ability to make snide remarks and offhanded quips by either not seeing them for what they are, or by forcing me to defend them as 100% true.
Yes, I'm going to ask you to defend your posts, even if they're snide. Sorry for the inconvenience.If you were God with infinite ability and time, why would you reuse design elements from other animals? If you wanted to make a really good bat, wouldn't you start from scratch on the wings instead of reusing genetic code for front legs?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, I'm going to ask you to defend your posts, even if they're snide. Sorry for the inconvenience.If you were God with infinite ability and time, why would you reuse design elements from other animals? If you wanted to make a really good bat, wouldn't you start from scratch on the wings instead of reusing genetic code for front legs?
If I was God is really a bad way to start because I go off on fantasies that probably aren't helpful.But, as far as I can speak for God...aren't you stuck with the equal question; "Why shouldn't God use similar designs on His creations?" They are His after all.And I still think it's a much bigger problem to argue that way back about 500 million years ago, when some creature that we have no clue what it was, but it was at the branch point where flying mammals and walking ones converged as one, at this point the similar trait of the fingers was set enough not to hardly change even though almost everything else did on these two lines.Of course your answer is equally slanted as mine.Yours: Because the anthropological principle thingy says that since it did, therefore it did.Mine: Because God wanted to.So do you really feel you have asked a fair question that the answer for is required for me, while yours is equally dependent on faith?
Link to post
Share on other sites
But, as far as I can speak for God...aren't you stuck with the equal question; "Why shouldn't God use similar designs on His creations?"
Because some of them aren't as well suited as they could be. I'd make my bat with four legs plus wings. If I really wanted a sea mammal, I would be sure to give it gills. I'd be sure any of my animals that walked upright had a sufficient circulatory system.I'd also make sure that women could purr, because that would be cool.
And I still think it's a much bigger problem to argue that way back about 500 million years ago, when some creature that we have no clue what it was, but it was at the branch point where flying mammals and walking ones converged as one, at this point the similar trait of the fingers was set enough not to hardly change even though almost everything else did on these two lines.
I don't know where you're going with this.
Of course your answer is equally slanted as mine.Yours: Because the anthropological principle thingy says that since it did, therefore it did.
Is this the kind of snide comment you think I should ignore, or is this a real point of discussion?
Mine: Because God wanted to.So do you really feel you have asked a fair question that the answer for is required for me, while yours is equally dependent on faith?
I think if you weren't so fixated on trying to "win" every post you would do a better job of exploring and expressing your position.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Because some of them aren't as well suited as they could be. I'd make my bat with four legs plus wings. If I really wanted a sea mammal, I would be sure to give it gills. I'd be sure any of my animals that walked upright had a sufficient circulatory system.
You are supposing that you know the purpose God had and would have done a better job of reaching that purpose. What if that wasn't God's purpose? Or what if the purpose changed because sin entered the world?
I'd also make sure that women could purr, because that would be cool.
You get to do anyhting you want, and instead of shutting their mouths completely..you go with purrrrrr? Yea, you're not helping your case that you could do a better job than God.
I don't know where you're going with this.
The implication of saying that since two animals have similar make up, this lends itself to evolution requires you to explain the fact that in these massive numbers of changes from point A where the common ancestor existed, to point B, the point we are at now, left alone the similarities. This cannot be done, so why try to use this point as 'proof' that they came from common ancestors. This is really only in reference to two completely different species, such as a bat and a man. Of course I can see why a donkey and a horse would have cloven hooves.
Is this the kind of snide comment you think I should ignore, or is this a real point of discussion?
Depends on whether or not I can win with it.
I think if you weren't so fixated on trying to "win" every post you would do a better job of exploring and expressing your position.
I am merely answering some questions presented by people who have not thought through their questions, but are trying to use these questions to make the case that they are right and I am wrong. Why shouldn't I try to win? Are you guys curios why I don't believe in evolution? Because so far no one has asked, they have only tried to imply that I am stupid for not believing the things they believe. Which is funny, and sad. In this thread I won every argument because the argument presented was so easily refutable.Usually I have a tougher time, mainly because logic is not required for the other side of the debate.But I'll take the easy win.Because I'm a winner!Winner.jpg
Link to post
Share on other sites
You are supposing that you know the purpose God had and would have done a better job of reaching that purpose. What if that wasn't God's purpose? Or what if the purpose changed because sin entered the world?
Oh yeah, if I were God I would definitely skip creating the things that piss me off, which includes by definition sin.
You get to do anyhting you want, and instead of shutting their mouths completely..you go with purrrrrr? Yea, you're not helping your case that you could do a better job than God.
I know you think you're being funny here, but I find this comment offensive.
The implication of saying that since two animals have similar make up, this lends itself to evolution requires you to explain the fact that in these massive numbers of changes from point A where the common ancestor existed, to point B, the point we are at now, left alone the similarities. This cannot be done, so why try to use this point as 'proof' that they came from common ancestors. This is really only in reference to two completely different species, such as a bat and a man.
Are you sure that they aren't supposed to have lots of similarities? You know, "Where's the 'missing link' between iguanas and geckos?"
Are you guys curios why I don't believe in evolution? Because so far no one has asked, they have only tried to imply that I am stupid for not believing the things they believe. Which is funny, and sad.
I assumed that you were telling us why you don't believe in evolution, but since you a require an invitation:Hey Balloon Guy, why don't you believe in evolution?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to unintelligent design. I just love making fun of how God designed this mess.In Mammals we have a laryngal nerve that runs from the brain to the voicebox. In the Giraffe instead of just going straight over 6 inches he ran it all the way down the giraffe's neck around 5 meters, wrapped it around some bone and then all the way back up to the larynx. Now the poor thing can barely "mew". I mean, wtf? I'm kinda crazy but I was thinking that maybe, just maybe at one time the Giraffe didn't have a long neck and that, well, at one time the nerve was just fine but as the giraffe evolved, adapted growing a longer neck the nerve just happened to be in the wrong place. Kinda silly I know since i've seen pictures of giraffes on the Ark when I was a kid so it must be true. A giraffe couldn't have evolved anymore than humans.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh yeah, if I were God I would definitely skip creating the things that piss me off, which includes by definition sin.
So no drugs, no talking back to your parents, no sex outside of marriage? Or no consequences for these things?
I know you think you're being funny here, but I find this comment offensive.
It was meant to be, that was why it was funny. That and my wife will hopefully never read this.
Are you sure that they aren't supposed to have lots of similarities? You know, "Where's the 'missing link' between iguanas and geckos?"
Again, you are assuming that the similarities shouldn't be there if God created them, why can't I be equally right by saying that with evolution they shouldn't be there either?You pays your nickles and make up your rules.
I assumed that you were telling us why you don't believe in evolution, but since you a require an invitation:Hey Balloon Guy, why don't you believe in evolution?
Cause it's dumb and stuff
Link to post
Share on other sites
Back to unintelligent design. I just love making fun of how God designed this mess.In Mammals we have a laryngal nerve that runs from the brain to the voicebox. In the Giraffe instead of just going straight over 6 inches he ran it all the way down the giraffe's neck around 5 meters, wrapped it around some bone and then all the way back up to the larynx. Now the poor thing can barely "mew". I mean, wtf? I'm kinda crazy but I was thinking that maybe, just maybe at one time the Giraffe didn't have a long neck and that, well, at one time the nerve was just fine but as the giraffe evolved, adapted growing a longer neck the nerve just happened to be in the wrong place. Kinda silly I know since i've seen pictures of giraffes on the Ark when I was a kid so it must be true. A giraffe couldn't have evolved anymore than humans.
Well in one of SB's lost books it explains it very well.See the Giraffe was a bit of a talker.Day and night yack yack yackJust shut the heck up already Mr. Giraffe.Well he wouldn't shut up."Look how high I can reach cause my neck is longer than yours""Man my legs are way bigger than yours."So God finally got tired of the suggestion box being full and 'fixed' the problem.Now you are complaining about the fix?There is just no pleasing some people...But pretty cool how God created a series of baffles in the Giraffe's neck to regulate the flow of blood to it's head when they bend down to drink. Otherwise the pressure needed to get blood to the head would cause the Giraffe's head to explode.Of course evolution could have done this by trial and error. As long as it never erred..cause that would kill all the giraffes...
Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, you are assuming that the similarities shouldn't be there if God created them, why can't I be equally right by saying that with evolution they shouldn't be there either?
Because it's nonsense. Similarity through ancestry is not an assumption; it's an observable phenomenon. Similarity through God's will (which on this particular point seems to be unknowable) is not testable and provides no predictive value.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Human limb regeneration... or rather, our lack of it. If a 'lowly' salamander loses a limb, it can grow another one. It does this by reactivating the genetic instructions for limb formation that, in the embryo, formed the limb first time round. If we are such important creatures to the Creator, why did he not bother to endow us with this ability? Why do mammals in general not have this blatantly useful feature?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Because it's nonsense. Similarity through ancestry is not an assumption; it's an observable phenomenon. Similarity through God's will (which on this particular point seems to be unknowable) is not testable and provides no predictive value.
Your inability to know the mind of God is not proof that the mind of God does not exist.You can't test evolution, yet you have no reservations on accepting it.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Human limb regeneration... or rather, our lack of it. If a 'lowly' salamander loses a limb, it can grow another one. It does this by reactivating the genetic instructions for limb formation that, in the embryo, formed the limb first time round. If we are such important creatures to the Creator, why did he not bother to endow us with this ability? Why do mammals in general not have this blatantly useful feature?
Similarity through ancestry should have this phenomenon happen in lots of other species.Oh that's right.If it only happens once, it's evolutionIt if happens a bunch, that's also evolutionIf it happened by God, that's untestable and therefore nonsense.
Link to post
Share on other sites

And so far Randy you have a theme.That theme is: "It makes more sense if God did things the way I think He should have."I thought I was supposed to be the person with the high opinion of himself...Cause right now you are arguing that God can't exist because He's not as smart as you.This is because almost 90% of all atheist websites that you are cutting and pasting from are filled with pure arrogant drivel that only sheep would think are intelligent arguments.Good luck with the line of reasoning.Next comes voices from the dog next door with 'instructions for you to follow'

Link to post
Share on other sites
That theme is: "It makes more sense if God did things the way I think He should have."
Not that I disagree with your problem with this statement, but your common theme of, "Who are we to question anything because we can't know the mind of god," is pretty useless itself...not only does it assume that there is a god (which you don't understand is a dumb way to go about things, butthat's neither here nor there), but it's just an apologist way of having a catch-all for anything that doesn't make sense. It's convenient, but intellectually dishonest. Not that you care, or that I care if you care, but I felt like saying something.I went to an Eddie Izzard show last night...it was pretty hilarious. There was a lot of making fun of religion and the idea of a personal god. Good stuff. You would've liked it, I think.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Not that I disagree with your problem with this statement, but your common theme of, "Who are we to question anything because we can't know the mind of god," is pretty useless itself...not only does it assume that there is a god (which you don't understand is a dumb way to go about things, butthat's neither here nor there), but it's just an apologist way of having a catch-all for anything that doesn't make sense. It's convenient, but intellectually dishonest. Not that you care, or that I care if you care, but I felt like saying something.I went to an Eddie Izzard show last night...it was pretty hilarious. There was a lot of making fun of religion and the idea of a personal god. Good stuff.
Pretty sure that I am not saying "Who are we to question anything because we can't know the mind of God," I am only countering the argument being presented which is: "We know there is no God because if there was He would do things my way, because I'm smarter than a God"Do you see the distinctions?And Eddie Izzard won't be joking like that on Judgment Day!
Link to post
Share on other sites
Pretty sure that I am not saying "Who are we to question anything because we can't know the mind of God," I am only countering the argument being presented which is: "We know there is no God because if there was He would do things my way, because I'm smarter than a God"Do you see the distinctions.
I understand the distinction...that's why I said I see why you have a problem with Rando's statement. Although, I think Randy is more saying, "There probably isn't a god because if there was he would be able to design the universe better than I could, and even I wouldn't have made some of these basic mistakes."Anyway, I was just comparing his statement to "Who are we to question anything because we can't know the mind of God," because they are similar, if almost polar opposite, sentiments.
And Eddie Izzard won't be joking like that on Judgment Day!
Well, his jokes about himself on Judgement Day were funnier...but, to be fair, he is a professional.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Pretty sure that I am not saying "Who are we to question anything because we can't know the mind of God," I am only countering the argument being presented which is: "We know there is no God because if there was He wouldn't do things my so stupidly, because he's supposed to be all-knowing and all-powerful"Do you see the distinctions? Evolution explains this all simply.And Eddie Izzard won't be joking like that on Judgment Day!
fyp
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...