.
some critics (here) of intelligent design theories claim that it is "self-refuting" to invoke design and / or complexity, as evidence for an intelligent designer explanation for things such as the origin of life, other complex biological structures, etc.
since this claim comes up somewhat frequently, i thought it should be given its own thread.
Some critics (here) of Intelligent Design theories claim that it is "self-refuting" to invoke design and / or complexity, as evidence for an intelligent designer explanation for things such as the origin of life, other complex biological structures, etc.
Since this claim comes up somewhat frequently, I thought it should be given its own thread.
i recently dug up my old copy of the "creation" book, which i haven't looked at for almost 7 years.
as i was flicking through, i caught a glimpse of the table on page 112 and remembered how at the time it thoroughly convinced me that evolution was not factual...
time and experience has passed, and i now agree more with the evolutionary side of the arguement... so i was thinking of various ways to refute what seemed to me at the time to be water-tight reasoning.
.
http://www.biblicalgeology.net/resources/resources.html
.
.
http://www.biblicalgeology.net/resources/resources.html
.
... and evolution, by the way.
if we were designed by an intelligent creator, why the heck do we light-skinned people get burnt to death when the sun is shining?
not very intelligent design... .
king solomon offered as a sacrifice twenty-two thousand oxen and a hundred and twenty thousand sheep.
- 2 chronicles 7:4,5. .
lets look at it another way.
James Holding has posted an online response to "The Numbers of the Book"
retroviral sequences: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/86797/1.ashx.
cytochrome c: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/87238/1.ashx.
this week's primary source: .
I'd also be interested to hear your comments on the apparently defective Vitamin C gene.
Here is a recent arcticle from Woodmorappe: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v18/i3/mistakes.asp
at the time of this story, the bible tells us that adam and eve had two children, cain and abel.
now, dont forget that there are only four people on the planet.
so, apparently, cains only punishment was the requirement to move to another region.
the history study subject has come up lately concerning j.w.
's, which got me to thinking, is there a history study for mormons?
if so, do they have a "history" book that they use?
See what I am getting at? (Even though it may be doctored evidence), the Mormons will let new converts study their past, but will the j.w.'s let new converts study THEIR past?That's what I'm interested in finding out
I believe that the Mormons (LDS) at times provide a small "history" book called "Truth Restored" by Gordon Hinckley to inquiring converts. Its fairly brief and glosses over many issues (such as Joseph Smith being armed and shooting some of his attackers during his final minutes).
Other LDS history publications (such as the 7 volume Joseph Smith History) despite being edited to remove some embarassing points (Ie: Joseph drinking) do contain some problematic issues for the LDS Church. Most converts however will not secure such detailed information.
In fact, many converts are not even vary familiar with some important LDS doctrines.
There are some striking similarities between the two groups such as:
i've just recently declared my agnosticism to myself and to one other person in my life.
i don't necessarily consider myself an atheist because i believe there very well may be some higher power or non carbon based entities in existence with 'godlike' abilities.
my question is, do you still find yourself secretly believing in god?
The mutation rate necessary to explain the genetic differences between humans would have to be at least 20 times that which is actually observed in order to support the "theory" that the most recent common human ancestors lived 6,000 years ago. Of course, strictly speaking, this doesn't make it an impossibility. The gods could easily have manipulated the genomes of early man in order to make it appear that humanity is far older than 6,000 years. Similarly, they could have independently created chimpanzees with nearly identical DNA to humans - right down to the junk DNA in order to make it appear - for their own reasons - that humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor. With this in mind, we might have to go to the evidence provided by other sciences.But then, the gods could just as easily have interfered with the half-lives of isotopes to make human artifacts appear older than 6,000 years, or created artificial fossils of hominids that never existed in order to make it appear that humans evolved from apelike ancestors. They could have - in the blink of an eye - laid down layers of ice in the Arctic to give a false history of our planet. They could have filled the planet with dinosaur bones and meteor craters and layers of different kinds of rock, with different kinds of fossils in each layer, all on some divine whim.
So you're right, hooberus. Your beliefs can never be conclusively proven false, unless we set aside the possibility of deceptive deities. Of course, once we do this, you will accuse us of having a naturalistic bias, of a priori dismissing the idea of divine intervention.
So there we have it. We can never ever know anything for sure. Evidence is unimportant because any omnipotent entities we care to postulate could have manipulated it for their own ends. So, hooberus, where do we go from here?
I hope to respond to the above pot when I get more available time.