Is there any better argument against intelligent design that the human mouth/teeth?

page: 20
21
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 12:47 AM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


I wasn’t necessarily referring to you I was trying to answer your question in the pretext I thought you were asking possibly dealing with other posters assertions.




posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


Ah...Gotcha.

Split Infinity



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by pyramid head
 



Evolution does not exist without "spontaneous generation".

Evolution does not involve the origin of life, only the manner in which life changes.


Its funny how you are not searching for "the origins of life" when your reasoning is mathematically impossible, but then you want to simply dismiss other explanations(like ID) like your some scientific authority on the origins of life. Your are not even putting together coherent thoughts.

Evolution is about the diversity of life, not the origin of life.

BTW, the name is Morowitz, not Horowitz.

Morowitz is mentioned int he wikipedia

Morowitz's book Energy Flow in Biology laid out his central thesis that "the energy that flows through a system acts to organize that system,"[11] an insight later quoted on the inside front cover of The Last Whole Earth Catalog. He has long been a vigorous proponent of the view that life on earth emerged deterministically from the laws of chemistry and physics,[12] and so believes it highly probable that life exists widely in the universe.[4][13]

In 1983, he testified at "McLean v. Arkansas" (nicknamed "Scopes II") that creationism has no scientific basis and so should not be taught as science in public schools.[14]

en.wikipedia.org...

Morowitz states in his calculations that pure random does not make sense. That is not the same as claiming that something designed life. Rather he claims that the laws of chemistry and physics tend towards the creation of life.


Soooo if you dont have spontaneous generation or random chemical reactions, then how do you have evolution? I understand the two have different definitions, but that does not mean they are not related. Again, basic bio. Not arguing creationism, ID and Morowitz reinforces that. Thats why I used him. Other than a spelling error not really seeing your point.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 12:50 AM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


I would like to know exactly how this world was created by one microorganism Is that not hard for you to understand? Almost 9 million completely different species of animals some how evolved from a microorganism. Actually , its not possible. You just can't believe in God but you can wrap your head around that? There is no proof there is not a God and there is no proof there is, despite miracles and there is "scientific" miracles that even the most intelligent scientist could not believe. I guess that is the work of the "master microorganism" that created this fine world.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 12:56 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenOne23
 


It would be much easier for you to understand both Quantum Evolution and Biological Evolution if you took the time to read about it as well as see and understand the absolute proof of Biological Evolution.

When we start talking about Billions of Years of development...it is not hard to understand at all.

Split Infinity



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenOne23
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


If this is all so ridiculous to you, how to you explain the pull between good and evil?


That is a philosophical question heavily reliant on one’s own perception.

Some cultures and entire religions believe cow is a sacred animal do you see the conundrum?
edit on 26-2-2013 by Grimpachi because:




posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


So pain, death, decay, disease, etc... Are all side effects from our fall from grace.

That god sure knows how to hold a grudge.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 12:59 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Originally posted by Grimpachi
When you got to Satan that was pretty much it for me. Satan is a fabrication by the church

The idea of an adversary of God is vastly older than the Church, and goes back to the most ancient religions that we are aware of. There is no “fabrication” on the part of the Church. There has been some exaggeration, and personification, resulting from Roman Catholicism, but that is thousands of years later in history.


Originally posted by Grimpachi
furthermore if there is such a thing as god you will have to admit you may be following the wrong one.

That comes down to a matter of faith.


Originally posted by Grimpachi
Abrahamic religion is far from being the original religion as far as I am concerned it is a mix and match hodge podge of older religions and there is evidence that supports that.

Yet its the main religion of “the book” followed by the majority of the indigenous people from that area now. It can be just as easily argued that other texts stole from the same verbal stories that lead to the Bible, or that they were the same story witnessed and told by different people. The fact that nothing was written down for quite a long time, does not mean that the Bible “borrowed” it from older sources.

For example, the Epic of Gilgamesh is one of the oldest, if not the oldest, text that we have, and it relates to the Flood story of Noah in the Bible. Now does that mean that the bible stole this story from Gilgamesh? Does it mean that they are both accounts of an event witnessed by different people and recorded separately? Or, does it mean that the Bibles version actually came first, but was simply verbal and not written down until later. It can be argued either way.


Originally posted by Grimpachi
I am not going to waste my time believing in something thought up by a bunch of sheep herders to keep their people in line.

True Christianity does not “keep anyone in line” as a matter of fact, it gives you complete freedom. Salvation through grace is granted to anyone who desires, and asks for it, nothing that you “do” here has an effect on the status of your eternal soul as long as you accept grace. “Salvation through works”, which is what all other religions, including Roman Catholicism, teach are in fact religions of “control”.

You turn in so many box tops to get salvation in a religion that is “works” based. In a Religion that is “grace” based you simply accept it, and you're all set. Christianity is “grace” based because only the sacrifice of God is able to pay off even the smallest of our sins, it does not matter how many “box tops” you turn in.


Originally posted by Grimpachi
If you are going to claim a god why don’t you at least go back to the earlier ones.

You're complaining about Christianity being controlling and causing harm?

Maybe you should look into those other religions and see what they required of their people...
Oh... Things like making your children “walk through the fire”...

You have mentioned these wrongs that Christianity has caused... What are they?
What wars have Christians started? The Crusades? Uhm... That was the Roman Catholic Church.
What other wars, etc, can you name that have been fought in the name of Christianity outside of Catholicism (which many do not consider to be a Christian faith anyway)?

Originally posted by Grimpachi
You say we humans chose the law over grace sorry I am not biting. I never chose any such thing and neither did my ancestors.

You didn't have to... The fall was long before us or any of your "known" ancestors...


Originally posted by Grimpachi
By your own account you don’t believe the earth age is what the bible claims it to be. You are just picking and choosing what suits you if you are going to do that why do it at all.

Not at all. I can show Bible verses which seem to imply that there was stuff here before "this world", I can definitely point you to pseudepigraphal texts that mention it.

The idea that the world was here and "destroyed" before goes hand in hand the old Christian belief in Catastrophism, not something that I "Cherry picked":

Catastrophism
Christians up until the 19th century, held dominant scientific beliefs that were founded on the biblical narratives of Creation and the universal deluge.

Earth's history was viewed as the result of an accumulation of catastrophic events over a relatively short time period, before the depth of geological time was appreciated.

Science went with uniformitarianism. It now looks like they are going to have to eat crow on that one, and the Christians were actually correct.

You, on the other hand, seem to be painting all Christians with a very wide, and very inaccurate brush.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Grimpachi

Originally posted by GoldenOne23
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


If this is all so ridiculous to you, how to you explain the pull between good and evil?


That is a philosophical question heavily reliant on one’s own perception.

Some religion and entire religions believe cow is a sacred animal do you see the conundrum?


I will agree that in situations the definition enters a grey area, but some things are hard to argue. I would say to murder someone in cold blood is most definately something that can be classified as an evil act. I would also say that performing an act of heroism example: running into a burning orphanage to save a babies life from certain death could be classified as good. Just my perceptions, of course.
edit on 26-2-2013 by Darkphoenix77 because: typo



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 

Its not Gods grudge, its the consequences of our choice that we now live as we do. God has gone to great lengths to ensure that we have a way out of the situation.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


And you know this as a fact...how?

Split Infinity



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


Don't all religions have some version of the flood myth in them? I mean are they all wrong? Not saying that it was an Act of God, but there would seem to be evidence to point to some sort of world wide apocalyptical event of some type in my thinking....



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by pyramid head
 


I have actually read abit about his theories before as well as his calculations but not this one specifically.

I find his logic and basis for such calculations shaky at best.

It is a fact that given enough time...as long as materials and conditions exist...probability increases to 100% for a specific reaction.

I find that when reading his theories that it would seem that he does not account for the reality that it took about the same amount of time for our Universe to exist as it does...so he is claiming that it would take 15 Billion Years for LIFE to develop....doesn't seem logical.

Split Infinity



That is my point, it is illogical that life would develop. I believe that Morowitz did take time and scale of the universe into account. Its been a while so dont quote me but i believe he said something like the universe would have to be a trillion times larger and older for a chance that proteins develop on their own. In any case, unlikely.
edit on 26-2-2013 by pyramid head because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 01:09 AM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


The science of common sense. Why do wisdom teeth come in at the "mid-life" point? Humans were not meant to have perfect hygiene an at that point the molars that were ment for chewing were worn and in some cases completely rottened. A wisdom tooth would take the place of the molar to chew. You don't have to use science to think.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 01:10 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


Its not Gods grudge, its the consequences of our choice that we now live as we do.

Semantics. If we gave lateral examples of parents and children on Earth. Children "falling short in the parents eyes", and receiving an enduring and seemingly permanent punishment, that consequence would be viewed as a grudge. A grudge is persistent resentment. I'm not willing to discuss the morality of this god and somehow afford you the ability to change meanings around. You can do that, but I won't partake.


God has gone to great lengths to ensure that we have a way out of the situation.

Assuming this is true, this would only apply to the people that heard the Good News. Of course thousands upon thousands upon thousands never did, yet still suffered the consequence of the "fall from Grace".



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by defcon5
 


Its not Gods grudge, its the consequences of our choice that we now live as we do.

Semantics. If we gave lateral examples of parents and children on Earth. Children "falling short in the parents eyes", and receiving an enduring and seemingly permanent punishment, that consequence would be viewed as a grudge. A grudge is persistent resentment. I'm not willing to discuss the morality of this god and somehow afford you the ability to change meanings around. You can do that, but I won't partake.


God has gone to great lengths to ensure that we have a way out of the situation.

Assuming this is true, this would only apply to the people that heard the Good News. Of course thousands upon thousands upon thousands never did, yet still suffered the consequence of the "fall from Grace".


Just to play devil's advocate would that not fall under free will?

Edit: this is an interesting discussion regardless of anyone's position, seems like a crime nobody getting stars.....gonna go back and star some posts

edit on 26-2-2013 by Darkphoenix77 because: Edit:



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by pyramid head
 


And there are many more calculations that disagree with this. I myself do not see the logical basis that would support a starting point for such calculations.

We has the reality of knowing Biological Evolution to be a reality. We see it occuring when we look at Micro-organisms in real time. We have extensive fossil records. We use it in practicle applications.

As far as the origin of life...this would be a product of Quantum Evolution and we see this all the time as well.

But the most significant evidence is the reality that we exist as well as a multitude of species where there is absolutely ZERO proof of a GOD creating them in any other manner besides EVOLUTION.

Split Infinity



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Darkphoenix77
 


Just to play devil's advocate would that not fall under free will?

That consequence is an inevitable result of choice? That free will dictates punishment and reward?

Well yeah. Sure. I wouldn't argue that.

What comes into question, at least should, is benevolence. Is it really 'wrong' what they did. Is it really 'right' what this god did.

A god made us exactly how we are (Creator), knowing full well what we could do (omniscience), perhaps even would do, and feels disease is a fitting punishment for billions and billions of people who never ate that apple (so to speak). Is that 'right'. More to the point, is it truly reconcilable with an infinitely all-loving being. Does that resonate with your heart? It doesn't with mine.

That's rather horrible.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by pyramid head
 


And there are many more calculations that disagree with this. I myself do not see the logical basis that would support a starting point for such calculations.

We has the reality of knowing Biological Evolution to be a reality. We see it occuring when we look at Micro-organisms in real time. We have extensive fossil records. We use it in practicle applications.

As far as the origin of life...this would be a product of Quantum Evolution and we see this all the time as well.

But the most significant evidence is the reality that we exist as well as a multitude of species where there is absolutely ZERO proof of a GOD creating them in any other manner besides EVOLUTION.

Split Infinity



Simply dismissing a study by a theoretics professor at Yale does not make it any less credible. I look at cells for a living, I have yet to see evolution in them. Evolution can exists with ID, but using evolutionary means has a way to explain the origins of life is mathematically unlikely and not logical. The more logical scenario is ID, whether God or ET.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by Darkphoenix77
 


Just to play devil's advocate would that not fall under free will?

That consequence is an inevitable result of choice? That free will dictates punishment and reward?

Well yeah. Sure. I wouldn't argue that.

What comes into question, at least should, is benevolence. Is it really 'wrong' what they did. Is it really 'right' what this god did.

A god made us exactly how we are (Creator), knowing full well what we could do (omniscience), perhaps even would do, and feels disease is a fitting punishment for billions and billions of people who never ate that apple (so to speak). Is that 'right'. More to the point, is it truly reconcilable with an infinitely all-loving being. Does that resonate with your heart? It doesn't with mine.

That's rather horrible.


That is a good argument, it is hard to believe in the "righteousness" of a being that allows atrocities to happen without intervention. Is that something we should question or a test of faith? Is the supreme being even a god? It is just as likely that it is just an entity that we cannot fathom at all. Some of the things that happen in the religious texts do not exactly lend credence to the notion that it is an all loving "God" for sure. All I know is I believe that the creation of the universe is something I cannot reconcile as being a random event....





new topics
top topics
 
21
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join