Design or Non-Design, finally we know, Darwin's Doubt (page 22)

QC

There is nothing about the world that requires the meddling of a designer.

What's neat about the DESIGNER is, his design is self-correcting, no need for micromanaging.

A multitude with the right attitude (this is important) gets back in sync with the design of creation, so that “creation itself will also be set free from the bondage of corruption [by man, not God].” No more Canaanites (spiritual darkness) on Earth, the SOURCE of pain and suffering, repercussion from Adam's WRONG free-will choice.

That’s the future!

cofty

Meaningless rambling.

Apognophos

God is so great he can even remove the need for himself to exist.

Captain Obvious

Bla bla bla bla.

Hey QC, once Adam's wrong free will choice is corrected, what happens the next time someone willingly (not out of ignorance like Adam's sin was.. He was set up to fail according to Genesis) sins? Let's look into the future shall we? I am a perfect, blameless man freed from sin by Jesus. (I'll assume that we'll still have men making up rules for us to follow) I decide to sin privately... Later that night my wife and I fool around (as we often do) and she gets preggers.

Regardless of whether I am forgiven or not, is sin passed on to my child? Am I to be destroyed, devastating my wife and child? I know this is OT, but I'm curious how the hard headed believer like yourself works these things out... Considering you have no issues making up all sorts of excuses for your god.

Apognophos

The JWs would say that you would never choose to sin in the first place. The trials of this system and the post-1000 year trial by Satan would make sure that anyone who gets that far would never turn against God. However, QC may have a different answer.

I'm more interested in hearing QC explain why Adam and Eve's sin had to carry down to all of us. He seems to treat imperfection as a natural consequence of sin. I'd like to hear how that would work on a genetic level. It sounds like God designed some sort of boobytrap, and I'm just wondering why he would do that to the rest of us.

Actually, truth be told, I'm more interested in hearing more about Captain Obvious and his wife fooling around, as it's a much more relevant and tangible subject than reconciling modern science with ancient man's thoughts on why snakes don't have legs.

QC

Guys,

This thread is swerving off-topic.

Intent here is to challenge and expose the ineptness of Neo-Darwinism.

And, consider other viable explanations.

cofty

Intent here is to challenge and expose the ineptness of Neo-Darwinism.

Well we are on page 11 and so far you haven't said a single word that challenges neo-Darwinian evolution.

It has become obvious you don't understand the first thing about the subject. Why should anybody waste time when all you do is copy-paste and ignore well reasoned and detailed responses?

QC

Hi cofty,

Wishing you a speedy recovery.

We need you at the celebration when JWism and Darwinism collapse like the Berlin Wall, maybe simultaneous.

That will be some conversation! Your humility will be refreshing.

It will happen!

cofty

Less patronising and more information would be good QC.

Have you actually got anything to say? It's page 11 and so far the anti-science lobby are proving to be as vacuous as ever.

jgnat

It is premature to pronounce the death of evolution. We don't need alternative theories. The working theories are working just fine without the bible.

Design or Non-Design, finally we know, Darwin's Doubt

Share this