Is there any better argument against intelligent design that the human mouth/teeth? , page 23

posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 03:27 PM

link

Originally posted by Grimpachi

Originally posted by Darkphoenix77

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

Sorry it is taking me so long to respond to you. I was exhausted last night and was having a hard time responding to others clearly. I should have just gone to sleep but you know how it goes when some post erks you.

I would still say it is perception. There are stories in the bible of murder and there is one that stands out to me. I can’t remember the names but god was going to have a father kill his son to prove his devotion/loyalty whatever you want to call it but he stopped him just before he could. If he had killed his son would we classify God as evil or the father? Consider this we perceive god as good so they could not be considered evil. Good and evil is only a matter of perception. I know there are others stories where god smites people consider the flood so does that make god evil?

Consider the death penalty and social acceptance. Some consider it evil while others do not it is all a matter of perception.

That is part of the reason that I do not subscribe to mainstream religion, alot of inconsistencies. The book was written by men and it may indeed be they that misinterpreted alot of things. Not to mention with it being so old, and translated umpteen hundred times things may have been twisted to suit theideologies of the day rather than the original intent.

The "God" I choose to believe in has one rule, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. That's it. If you would not like a certain something to happen to you them you should not visit it upon others because karama's a b**ch.

Edit: Don't worry about last night man, I was finding it all interesting, perhaps too much, I looked at my last post and it was like 5 AM..........I was like holy poop!!

I went back and starred everyone whether I believed what they said or not, as long as they added something substantial. I hate seeing great discussion not be rewarded no matter if I agree or not.

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

Grimpachi

posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 03:31 PM

link

reply to post by defcon5

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.

So basically lies. You can dress it up however you wish it still means it is bogus.

It can be just as easily argued that other texts stole from the same verbal stories

does not mean that the Bible “borrowed” it from older sources.

That is exactly what it means.

Or, does it mean that the Bibles version actually came first, but was simply verbal and not written down until later

No it doesn’t. Verbal stories handed down have changed by every person who retold it therefor historically speaking they cannot be trusted for the slightest bit of accuracy.

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

That is your belief but in no way factual.

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.

Again stories that have been verbally retold for generations are not trusted to be factual.

I don't cherry pick at all

That is debatable.

that agenda is to pick on Christians because someone has a grudge against them.

No grudge here I just think they are wrong.

Freewill. I don't believe that I ever said otherwise.

That is where the cherry picking comes in. I was also addressing all posters which is why my post was not addressed as a reply to you but you took it that way.

And yet men of the cloth are some of the most highly educated people throughout history

You fail to mention that throughout history men of the cloth were the select few who were taught how to read and write. In recent history some of the most intelligent people consider religion as fairytales. If you are trying to create a logical fallacy here by Argumentum ad populum you are setting it up nicely.

I think I summed it up easily where your reasoning is the bible is true because of circular reasoning. You haven’t provided any evidence outside of the object in question(the bible itself).

You keep saying the bible says this or says that I am sorry but if that is your evidence then you are never going to convince me or others who do not hold your bible in high esteem like yourself of any position.

Have you ever tried debating without referencing the bible? As far as I am concerned those are fabricated stories it is in no way way a factual document.

bigfootgurl

posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 06:22 PM

link

I dont get what your saying here that GOD cant do what he wants? maybe you should read the bible and see what it says.!

Lucid Lunacy

posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 06:46 PM

link

reply to post by bigfootgurl

It says God can do whatever he wants you're right.

Including genocide, murder of children, condoning rape and slavery.

Don't get upset with me, it's in the book.

defcon5

posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 01:09 AM

link

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Originally posted by Grimpachi

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.

So basically lies. You can dress it up however you wish it still means it is bogus.

Not at all...
What happened was that in the Middle Ages the Catholic Church “Personified” Satan into what people think of today when they picture him: A horned, hoofed, winged, beast with a pitchfork. That does not mean that they “changed” his description in the Bible. It also doesn't mean that they “lied”, they just put a face to the image for use in popular art of the time.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
That is exactly what it means.

You've lost me here.
The fact that we don't have any record of what came first, as things were not written down efficiently throughout history, is also not the same as them “fabricating” it.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
No it doesn’t. Verbal stories handed down have changed by every person who retold it therefor historically speaking they cannot be trusted for the slightest bit of accuracy.

Ah...
The common anti-christian excuse of how things had to “change” because it was verbally handed down...
Holds no water in fact.

There are still groups, such as the American Indians, which I have spent significant time with, who still hand down their religious teachings verbally and have done so for thousands of years.

When they train a new religious “leader”, that person spends upwards of 18 years memorizing their beliefs VERBATIM, and is not allowed to take his position until he can do so. Its nothing like the often hyped “game of telephone” that is so commonly used as an example.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
That is your belief but in no way factual.

Salvation by grace imparts complete freedom as your “works” have no effect on your salvation.
Additionally, as any good Christian can tell you, when the laws of man conflict with the laws of God, then the Laws of God trump the laws of man. That my friend is the opposite of “control”

Originally posted by Grimpachi
Again stories that have been verbally retold for generations are not trusted to be factual.

And again, this is not a game of “telephone”, these guys were highly trained for a large precentage of their lives until they know the facts “verbatim”.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
That is where the cherry picking comes in. I was also addressing all posters which is why my post was not addressed as a reply to you but you took it that way.

Your accusation of Cherry Picking seems to be a product of your not really understanding the religion nor really wishing to learn otherwise, but to stay happily in a state where you can pick on it with a clear conscience.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
You fail to mention that throughout history men of the cloth were the select few who were taught how to read and write. In recent history some of the most intelligent people consider religion as fairytales. If you are trying to create a logical fallacy here by Argumentum ad populum you are setting it up nicely.

No men of the Cloth are still among the most highly educated and intelligent folks on the planet. Most hold multiple Advanced Doctoral Degrees and you will often find them teaching in Universities to this day.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
Have you ever tried debating without referencing the bible?

You need to go back to my original post before you guys threw all these theological issues at me in an attempt to deflect away from that post.

“According to the theory of evolution, lack of airway patency, and rem atonia, should not exist as they lead to sleep apnea and should have easily been one of the first things that was selectively bread out of all species that had to live in a survival situation.”

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

pyramid head

posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 01:23 AM

link

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by pyramid head

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.

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. After life originates, evolution applies. The origin of life and evolution are separate issues. They are often cobbled together by creationists and ID believers, but not in science. Basic biology states that the origin of life and evolution are not related. Basic bio.

Morowitz does not reinforce anything about ID or creationism. Morowitz is often misrepresented by creationist and ID proponents. You used Morowitz in the same manner as those that misrepresent his work. That's why you used him.

Here is the point.

If a coin were flipped many times and it came up close to heads half the time and tails half the time we'd suppose that this were a event expressing a type of randomness we call uniformly random. That means that the coin is behaving not only randomly, but the outcome is evenly distributed amongst the possible outcomes. It is possible for an even number of heads and tails as the outcome without the events being random. It is also possible for the outcome to be random, but due to the physical properties of the coin, heads are much more common that tails. You have to be careful when it comes to saying random. People say it without thinking about what it means and often people have different ideas about what random means.

What Morowitz is saying is that the outcome we see is unlikely to be due to independent random events. That word independent is crucial. It means that events that happen do not influence future events. Morowitz suggests that there are things about how chemistry works and how physics works that constrain events. These constraints mean that the assumption that life arose from independent random events does not apply.

Here is where the misrepresentation comes into play. Morowitz suggests that there are physical laws that apply that constrain the possibilities just as a coin can be made to be more likely heads. Proponents of ID and creationism claim that some entity is constraining the events. That is not what Morowitz states.

You avoided the question. Then how do you have evolution? Aside from the study of genetics, in any reputable university you will learn the two in the same or consecutive chapters. You cannot tell someone they are scientifically wrong for giving an explanation for the origins of life when you have no scientific answers. Again, the two have different definitions, i get you wikied their definitions, but how do you have evolution without a beginning? You cannot tell someone their explanation for the origin of life is wrong while you only attempt to explain the middle. Its a cop-out. The two are related unless you have some "alternative" view on the origin of life?

You can read morowitz however you would like, he concluded the earth randomly creating life is not mathematically probable. That leaves only one other conclusion. Morowitz is not supporting ID, hes ruling out that life randomly occurred, again, thats why I used him.

edit on 27-2-2013 by pyramid head because: (no reason given)

pyramid head

posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 02:02 AM

link

reply to post by SplitInfinity

Dr Morowitz is a supporter of evolution.............

SplitInfinity

posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 02:56 AM

link

reply to post by pyramid head

Yale is a school that has a long history of former students that are or have been in the seats of power and especially business.

At the very top level of the Business Worlds...and in this case we are talking about perhaps 50 people that are a mix of Business and Poloticians....this groups stated goals are to increase the population of the United States as a way to increase profits and keep business in a state of growth.

Their doctrine states that any means must be applied to increase the U.S. Population and this includes using all means necessary to do this such as using the Supreme Court to change Abortion Laws...donations to and connections to various Religious orgs that are against anything that has to do with abortion as well as those religions advocating the Go Forth and Multiply aspect of the Bible or other Religious Texts.

An independent study was done...and was OVERTLY and PUBLICLY ridiculed and assaulted in just about every possible way this group could apply pressure to attempt to render this study questionable....the study compared Yales Alumni and their various conclusions of study to their application of being a benefit to drive public opinion and public concepts and acts towards the rapid increase of the U.S. Population.

This is why I do not trust any conclusions coming out of Yale as they might be tainted.

Split Infinity

wmd_2008

posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 04:25 AM

link

reply to post by defcon5

SORRY but MAN created god(s) that is a FACT!!!

Here are just a few Names of god(s)

All over the world every race/creed have their creation stories for man.earth universe etc they are ALL different they ALL have as much right to be believed as each other, can they ALL be right NO but they can ALL be WRONG!!

They are all stories nothing more nothing less, if you are brought up and have these beliefs forced on to you by the education system /church some are going to take it as true, others learn to think for themselves!

I mean if there was some all powerful being who could create the whole universe why wasn't his message given all over this small speck of dust we live on at the same time that should have been no problem for a so called creator of the universe

Is it because the simple fact that the people who created this MYTH didn't know and couldn't travel to the other ends of the Earth to push their FAIRY TALE!!!.

God(s) were created to solve puzzles, things that at the time man could not understand that's why in some parts of the world the sky dragon eats the Sun well it's really an eclipse but that was what people thought at the time, or how about gods like Thor the Norse thunder god again a god used to explain something at the time which was not understood.

Religion is about power and control, religious leaders have always had control over the masses and still do to this day (for example the pope) but belief in the church and attendance is falling as people wake up smell the coffee and actually think for themselves.

Grimpachi

posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 05:29 AM

link

reply to post by defcon5

What happened was that in the Middle Ages the Catholic Church “Personified” Satan into what people think of today when they picture him:

From much older mythological stories. But still just stories.

It also doesn't mean that they “lied”, they just put a face to the image for use in popular art of the time.

You are are still talking about the boggie man. The escape goat. The one to blame. The tool to scare others into doing what they are told.

The lie.

The fact that we don't have any record of what came first

You could have stopped right there and been correct.

Ah...
The common anti-christian excuse of how things had to “change” because it was verbally handed down...

It is called common sense. Not common excuse.

There are still groups, such as the American Indians, which I have spent significant time with, who still hand down their religious teachings verbally and have done so for thousands of years.

Somehow you are under the impression the stories didn’t change.

When they train a new religious “leader”, that person spends upwards of 18 years memorizing their beliefs VERBATIM, and is not allowed to take his position until he can do so. Its nothing like the often hyped “game of telephone” that is so commonly used as an example.

That in no way validates your claim. The flaw in your logic is apparent. It would be much worse than the telephone game it would be more like a polished sales pitch.

Salvation by grace imparts complete freedom as your “works” have no effect on your salvation.
Additionally, as any good Christian can tell you

There are no good Christians asside from one even in your stories the name was JESUS. You are all sinners prone to lie by your own accounts unless you are convienyently forgeting that part to fit your narrative.

when the laws of man conflict with the laws of God, then the Laws of God trump the laws of man. That my friend is the opposite of “control

Your perception of the truth in no way dictates what is true.

And again, this is not a game of “telephone”, these guys were highly trained for a large precentage of their lives until they know the facts “verbatim”.

And still you are incorrect. See above reference of sales pitch.

Your accusation of Cherry Picking seems to be a product of you’re not really understanding the religion nor really wishing to learn otherwise, but to stay happily in a state where you can pick on it with a clear conscience.

Every single one of you interprets the stories in your own way picking the parts that suit you. You are no different in that respect.

No men of the Cloth are still among the most highly educated and intelligent folks on the planet. Most hold multiple Advanced Doctoral Degrees and you will often find them teaching in Universities to this day.

I already covered this. Argumentum ad populum still applies and on top of that that group no longer holds the distinction of education.

“According to the theory of evolution, lack of airway patency, and rem atonia, should not exist as they lead to sleep apnea and should have easily been one of the first things that was selectively bread out of all species that had to live in a survival situation.”

And your point is? There are two ways to see it either it is a flawed design which dictates inteilgent design is a farce or the way you presented it. I believe the first.

edit on 27-2-2013 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)

jed001

posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 11:30 AM

link

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by Monger

Human Beings are now being born without wisdom teeth as these teeth are no longer needed as we no longer grind down hard and heavy plant matter as we eat food that has been prepared.

As far as there being a better example to disprove Intelligent Design...Genetics and Genome Comparison is the way to go.

Split Infinity

i only have two wisdom teeth , does that mean i am that much more evolved than people with all four

FreeThinkerbychoice

posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 04:31 PM

link

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by FreeThinkerbychoice

Damn!

That was a good reply. Good Job!

Split Infinity

Thank you for the compliment, I wish you the very best in your quest and thirst for knowledge.

Godd things

pyramid head

posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 06:57 AM

link

reply to post by SplitInfinity

A school can have an overall opinion, that does not mean 100% of all involved share those views. Again, Morowitz is a supporter of evolution

stereologist

posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 10:37 AM

link

reply to post by pyramid head

You avoided the question. Then how do you have evolution? Aside from the study of genetics, in any reputable university you will learn the two in the same or consecutive chapters. You cannot tell someone they are scientifically wrong for giving an explanation for the origins of life when you have no scientific answers. Again, the two have different definitions, i get you wikied their definitions, but how do you have evolution without a beginning? You cannot tell someone their explanation for the origin of life is wrong while you only attempt to explain the middle. Its a cop-out. The two are related unless you have some "alternative" view on the origin of life?

Again, evolution theories deal with the changes in life. Just because some reference is made to the origin of life in a text book or lecture does not mean that the two are related.

I am not telling anyone they are wrong for a scientific explanation for the origin of life. Furthermore, anyone can point out fallacies in an idea even if they do not have an alternative explanation. It's a cop out to claim otherwise.

pyramid head

posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 02:51 PM

link

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by pyramid head

Again, evolution theories deal with the changes in life. Just because some reference is made to the origin of life in a text book or lecture does not mean that the two are related.

Did you read what you wrote? That does mean the two are related. Its not just some reference, that is the way it is taught in today's university curriculum. You denying the relationship between the two is due to the fact you cannot defend evolution from it. Abiogenesis was originally called chemical evolution. Cant have evolution without it no matter how inconvenient it is.

Barcs

posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 04:16 PM

link

Originally posted by pyramid head
Did you read what you wrote? That does mean the two are related. Its not just some reference, that is the way it is taught in today's university curriculum. You denying the relationship between the two is due to the fact you cannot defend evolution from it. Abiogenesis was originally called chemical evolution. Cant have evolution without it no matter how inconvenient it is.

One is not dependent on the other. That is 100% false. When people refer to evolution they are talking about BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION. The scientific theory of evolution addresses genetic mutations sorted by natural selection. It has nothing to do with how life originally got there. How do you know that life wasn't designed to evolve? You don't. The idea of god/creator and evolution are not mutually exclusive. We observe changes to life that is already here. How it got here in the first place has to do with a completely different hypothesis.

If you want to talk about a naturalistic / materialistic universe, then you have a point, but not if you're simply talking about evolution. Evolution is a process of change over time via what I defined above. You don't NEED abiogenesis to be true for evolution to be true. That's ludicrous.

edit on 28-2-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

stereologist

posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 07:33 PM

link

reply to post by pyramid head

Did you read what you wrote? That does mean the two are related. Its not just some reference, that is the way it is taught in today's university curriculum. You denying the relationship between the two is due to the fact you cannot defend evolution from it. Abiogenesis was originally called chemical evolution. Cant have evolution without it no matter how inconvenient it is.

That is false. They are not related. Evolution is about the change in life. That is a delta. You need life to life to get a delta. The origin of life is no life to life. Thus no delta for evolution.

University curricula do not teach that the origin of life is a part of evolution.

Only creationists make this false claim that the two are connected. It is a false claim, a lie, a dishonest ploy used by creationists to muddy the waters.

dusty1

posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 10:45 PM

link

reply to post by stereologist

Only creationists make this false claim that the two are connected. It is a false claim, a lie, a dishonest ploy used by creationists to muddy the waters.

You mean muddy the primordial waters?

pyramid head

posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 05:16 PM

link

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by pyramid head

Did you read what you wrote? That does mean the two are related. Its not just some reference, that is the way it is taught in today's university curriculum. You denying the relationship between the two is due to the fact you cannot defend evolution from it. Abiogenesis was originally called chemical evolution. Cant have evolution without it no matter how inconvenient it is.

That is false. They are not related. Evolution is about the change in life. That is a delta. You need life to life to get a delta. The origin of life is no life to life. Thus no delta for evolution.

University curricula do not teach that the origin of life is a part of evolution.

Only creationists make this false claim that the two are connected. It is a false claim, a lie, a dishonest ploy used by creationists to muddy the waters.

Lets be honest one of two things are happening:
1:You actually do not understand what im talking about

2: There is no way you claim evolution without having the two disassociated. So you will deny it till your blue in the face.

The two are related. Lets take your stance for a second, and the two are completely unrelated, then you should have no problem then accepting intelligent design as a probable cause for the origin of life on earth since your only attempting to explain the middle.
At last, welcome to ID my good friend, good to have you aboard!

stereologist

posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 10:05 PM

link

reply to post by pyramid head

Lets be honest one of two things are happening:
1:You actually do not understand what im talking about

2: There is no way you claim evolution without having the two disassociated. So you will deny it till your blue in the face.

The two are related. Lets take your stance for a second, and the two are completely unrelated, then you should have no problem then accepting intelligent design as a probable cause for the origin of life on earth since your only attempting to explain the middle.
At last, welcome to ID my good friend, good to have you aboard!

To claim that the origin and life and evolution are connected is simply avowing a lack of knowledge about evolution as it is used in science. The two are different.

Evolution is not about a middle. Evolution is about change of life on Earth.

I do have a problem accepting ID. ID is not science. ID is nothing more than creationism.

There is no intelligence in evolution. Evolution is not goal directed. Evolution is simply change.