serious question for evolutionist, (page 20)

unstopableravens

bohm: let me ask you this, without anyone being unreasonable. let us take this painting a step further. if you seen a painting and on that painting was new york city in very good detail. what would you conclude? that it was painted by a person with intellagance. does not the detail of just our human bodys scream an intellagant designer. really what is more complex a painting or us our ability to even talk to each other. i am not jut saying it because romans 1:2o say so. i really see the creator in the universe in us! even cofty was made in gods image:)

bohm

Unstopable: I will answer your question if you answer mine. It is no good trying to reach common ground if you just reply with questions to even the most basic questions:

Can we agree the argument "Yahweh is not a creation because he was not created." is as circular as asserting the universe is not creation because it was not created?

Now, as to your argument: does not the detail of just our human bodys scream an intellagant designer.

Yes it does! And very nearly everybody thought so for centuries. Then Darwin came along and demonstrated this need not be the case; later Darwins idea was confirmed by fossils, experiments, DNA evidence etc. etc. etc. The basic concept behind evolution, optimization by stochastic exploration and rejection of poor candidates, is by the way the idea behind some of the strongest optimization techniques known.

This, and much else, has since convinced the best minds who know the most about biology that indeed our body is NOT designed.

You can talk about painting and argue by analogy, or you can argue from the actual evidence and go where it lead you...

Now over to you.

adamah

USR said- does not the detail of just our human bodys scream an intellagant designer.

Yes, but does not the ignorance of basic human anatomical functions from the one who's claiming to be the "Intelligent Designer" exclude God from consideration? God of the Bible fails in knowledge of his creation on the most basic roles of the organs (the true roles of the heart, kidneys, and brain, are all FUBARed, since the writers of the Bible were basing their understanding of human anatomy on the Egyptian and Babylonian doctors of the day, who were wrong).

If you found a watch, you can assume it was made, right? If someone walks up and claims it was his and he designed it, you'd expect him to be able to identify the basic functions of the parts of the watch (eg the role of the strap, the hands, the mainspring, etc). God fails this test, so can be dismissed as "the Intelligent Designer".

unstopableravens

bohm: i see from ur point that that statment is circluar, like im not a pig because i am human?

unstopableravens

sorry if what i said was circular or not clear, to me it just seems like if you see our bodys sream a desginer, and we now reject that for a persons theory, that is illogical. did darwin 1oo% deny god? and going off what adam just said if i found a watch i would know it had a maker, i may not know how but i will know it was someone. not a mistake

J. Hofer

but you go on and say koalas swam from turkey to australia.

bohm

Unstopable: it has absolutely nothing to do with a particular point of view. Do you feel any of the following two statements are circular:

1) "Yahweh is not a creation because he was not created."

2) "the universe is not creation because it was not created"

Is 1 circular? is 2 circular? are both circular? This is a question of elementary logic..

jgnat

unstop, you are playing checkers at a chess tournament. I don't know what it will take. A jolt? Something that pushes you out of your comfort zone?

http://www.theinvisiblegorilla.com/videos.html

http://www.ted.com/talks/apollo_robbins_the_art_of_misdirection.html

You can't see what you don't see.

LucidChimp

jgnat: you just made me do a happy. (Apollo robbins is a new one on me)

MadGiant

"mad: a painting is a painting because it was painted, Yahweh is not a creation because he was not created. every painting has a start , a time it was painted, just like every creation, but god is not in the creation side, he is not created, because hes not a creation" - unstop

Wait!, What?
Really?

Ma'am/Sir, English is my second language, but you really have to start reading what you write.

"a painting is a painting because it was painted" -

Ok, completely agree with this description.

"Yahweh is not a creation because he was not created." -

Now I am completely lost. Does it make any sense that a painting need a painter but a creator doesn't need a Creator? How this creator become to be, if she/he/it wasn't created by something or someone (like us perhaps)?

"every painting has a start , a time it was painted, just like every creation, but god is not in the creation side, he is not created, because hes not a creation" -

Really? You just wrote exactly the same thing from the previous sentence. This leave us in the same place (circular reason, maybe?). If every painting has a start and a time, a creator has to have a Creator, a start and a time. Something or someone (like us), created the creator.

Their is no way around it.

serious question for evolutionist,

Share this