Poor Design

[Lilandra]

Until agnostics/atheists want to knock the Bible?

Ha ha. Joke's over. We don't need any more absurd theology and pseudoscience here; we're all stocked up.

 

[NamesAreHardToPick]

Until agnostics/atheists want to knock the Bible?

The Bible is not science. There are hundreds of unbacked claims in the book, it is mythology that explains natural events, but since we already do that in science, it is no longer needed.

The Bible is a nice story, but THEOLOGY =/= Scientific evidence. Present scientific evidence, not what the Bible says.

 

[NamesAreHardToPick]

Poor design is the worst proof of evolution ive ever heard, its just another accuse for evolutionist to dog on God. You think we know everthing their is to know we have yet to fathom half of anything. Poor design but dont know a way to fix it, or how it could be better. You might as well call us stupid. The huming bird, the bee, the ant, the blood in you, Every one of your stupid poor design ideas are fine its people that cause the problems that could damage them. chocking is hardly a problem our tail born is important, our immune system is beyond anything we could image producing, and to say their are flaws when we dont no everything about them is silly.

I somewhat agree with your first statement. Poor design is one of the biggest reasons why I reject the Judeo-Christian God (and other philosophic issues). But if you are comfortable believing that God used poor design, feel free to believe that.

Either way, just because you don't like the evidence does not invalidate it. Poor design exists, and it exists STRONGLY. And it is the ultimate refutation to Creationists and ID Theorists, and neither group likes it and it is obvious why.

But poor design is what occurs with evolution. Sometimes you get good, and sometimes bad. Evolution explains it, ID Theory does not.

 

[Randall McNally]

Until agnostics/atheists want to knock the Bible?

I said "absurd theology." And sacrificial appendices certainly qualify as absurd.

 

[JohnR7]

The Bible is not science. There are hundreds of unbacked claims in the book, it is mythology that explains natural events, but since we already do that in science, it is no longer needed.

The Bible deals with a lot more than just science. For one thing Moses gave us the law.
The law he wrote 3500 years ago, if properly understood is a lot better of a law than what we are going by today here in America.

 

[NamesAreHardToPick]

The Bible deals with a lot more than just science. For one thing Moses gave us the law.
The law he wrote 3500 years ago, if properly understood is a lot better of a law than what we are going by today here in America.

Libertarians have the true answer, Moses was not a Libertarian.

 

[Lilandra]

The Bible said it, so the churches taught it. Flat earth Biblical creationists used to be the majority centuries ago, but now the largest organization of them is the Flat Earth Society which has 200 members. Some of the verses in the Bible are:
"Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor."- Job 38:13
"that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it?" -Matthew 4:8
"In the visions of my mind as I was lying in bed, I saw this: There was a tree in the middle of the earth, and its height was great."- Daniel 4:10
"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in."- Isaiah 40:22
There are plenty more.

"Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor."- Matthew 4:8

With this one the Devil has magical powers so he and Jesus can stand on a mountain and he can push his picture in picture button and all the kingdoms can be seen at once. (I am half serious)

"that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it?" -Job 38:13
I see see this as a limitation of language to describe the powers of God to people who would have a hard time picturing what God does. Or likely it is a hebrew concept that is difficult to translate into English. Because really nowhere in the Bible is there an instance of any wicked person being shaken out of the Earth really.

"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in."- Isaiah 40:22

I think you are being technical sphere/circle it is amazing that he said circle having never traveled into space.

 

[NamesAreHardToPick]

"Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor."- Matthew 4:8

With this one the Devil has magical powers so he and Jesus can stand on a mountain and he can push his picture in picture button and all the kingdoms can be seen at once. (I am half serious)

I can deal with this one. Why did Jesus and Satan have to go up on a "high" mountain??? If Jesus and Satan can push a "magical" button, then they didn't need to go up on a mountain.

In other words, that passage makes no sense unless you have a bias in FAVOR of the Bible, but if you look from a neutral perspective it is completely confusing.

 

[Lilandra]

How can anyone argue with Atlas publisher?

I said "absurd theology." And sacrificial appendices certainly qualify as absurd.

 

[Lilandra]

On Christianforum.com I find that really hard to believe. Especially because the name of this board is Creation and evolution discussion and debate. So I am guessing that theology, philosophy, and just about anything that proves/ disproves Creation and Evolution are inbounds. Not just Science whose flaws we could pick on too. You know?

In fact what is a cliched "well Science is not so great let's chuck it" criticism.

Hmmm.... Why hasn't science cured the common cold? Dumb science what are they talking about?

That is what this criticism of ID amounts too.

Really I think science is awesome but I hope you see how picky your points about ID are.

The Bible is not science. There are hundreds of unbacked claims in the book, it is mythology that explains natural events, but since we already do that in science, it is no longer needed.

The Bible is a nice story, but THEOLOGY =/= Scientific evidence. Present scientific evidence, not what the Bible says.

 

[Event Horizon]

Ty to tkster for taking care of the first.

"that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it?" -Job 38:13
I see see this as a limitation of language to describe the powers of God to people who would have a hard time picturing what God does. Or likely it is a hebrew concept that is difficult to translate into English. Because really nowhere in the Bible is there an instance of any wicked person being shaken out of the Earth really.

It seems more metaphorical when it says shaking the evil out of it, however, the edges (or "ends" as some versions put it) part seems literal. Whenever there is a slight chance of mistranslation Bible's usually carry footnotes about it, yet there's nothing about this one.

"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in."- Isaiah 40:22

I think you are being technical sphere/circle it is amazing that he said circle having never traveled into space.

Well, according to the Bible, "All Scripture is Godbreathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,"- 2 Timothy 3:16 and "Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him."- Proverbs 30:5 so if it's directly inspired by god and god's never wrong then it should say sphere.
I thought I would never be arguing for flat earthers.

 

[Lilandra]

I don't know. It is very quiet up there you know. Why is whether they needed to or not a reason to go up there? If I could whisk myself up to the top of a mountain at a whim w/o all that climbing I would do it.

[/b]

I can deal with this one. Why did Jesus and Satan have to go up on a "high" mountain??? If Jesus and Satan can push a "magical" button, then they didn't need to go up on a mountain.

In other words, that passage makes no sense unless you have a bias in FAVOR of the Bible, but if you look from a neutral perspective it is completely confusing.

 

[NamesAreHardToPick]

I don't know. It is very quiet up there you know. Why is whether they needed to or not a reason to go up there? If I could whisk myself up to the top of a mountain at a whim w/o all that climbing I would do it.

They already were in a desert and alone enough. See this is EXACTLY what I mean, it does NOT make sense! Coming up with ad hoc excuses, don't make sense, and the fact that you have to do it shows that there is some kind of problem with the Bible.

 

[NamesAreHardToPick]

On Christianforum.com I find that really hard to believe. Especially because the name of this board is Creation and evolution discussion and debate. So I am guessing that theology, philosophy, and just about anything that proves/ disproves Creation and Evolution are inbounds. Not just Science whose flaws we could pick on too. You know?

In fact what is a cliched "well Science is not so great let's chuck it" criticism.

Hmmm.... Why hasn't science cured the common cold? Dumb science what are they talking about?

That is what this criticism of ID amounts too.

Really I think science is awesome but I hope you see how picky your points about ID are.

If ID is to be taught in school, it must be SCIENCE, NO theology. All you've done is when ID is refuted, back your claim up with theology. Theology would be totally violating separation of church and state.

My point is that ID is not science as it MUST have theology to back it up. ID is religious.

 

[Humboldt]

Greetings,

This is my first post here, so forgive me if I'm treading over well-worn ground here. As someone firmly on the evolution side of the debate, I was intrigued by the statement:

Poor design is the worst proof of evolution ive ever heard, its just another accuse for evolutionist to dog on God.

It got me thinking. One of the strong arguments against ID is that it's an argument from omission- Someone can't see how some feature of a living organism could have occurred naturally, therefore it must be designed. As chef Anthony Bourdain said of the flavoring agent, "I can't believe it's not butter? I can , and it's not" Doesn't the argument of poor design, at least when used to support evolution in general, do something similar? I can't believe that anyone would have designed it that badly, therefore it's evolution. Poor design clearly lends support to one aspect of ET- namely the concept of contingency. It does raise interesting questions about the notion of an all-powerful creator dictating the details of anatomy and physiology, but these, too can be at least addressed. The creator could be simply inept or, as others have more successfully argued, inscrutable.

Poor design does argue against the hypothesis put forth by intelligent design, but in terms of arguing for evolution, I think that we're still stuck with the fossil record, molecular record, comparative anatomy etc.

 

[JohnR7]

I can't believe that anyone would have designed it that badly, therefore it's evolution.

Congratulations, you just single handedly falsified the theory of evolution and you did it your first time out. According to natural selecton poor designs would not be selected and would therefore be eliminated. Only good or benificial things would be selected.

As Christians we know that "poor design" is not poor design at all, but a indication of the fallen state of creation. But there is good news, God does have a plan of redemption and restoration, to put His creation back into the condition He intended it to be, so He can once again say: It is good.

 

[JohnR7]

If ID is to be taught in school, it must be SCIENCE, NO theology.

Why is that? Do you have something against theology? If your anti theology then why do you come to a theology board to post?

 

[Jet Black]

Congratulations, you just single handedly falsified the theory of evolution and you did it your first time out. According to natural selecton poor designs would not be selected and would therefore be eliminated. Only good or benificial things would be selected.

As Christians we know that "poor design" is not poor design at all, but a indication of the fallen state of creation. But there is good news, God does have a plan of redemption and restoration, to put His creation back into the condition He intended it to be, so He can once again say: It is good.

actually wrong. poor designs can be selected for out of the total of possible designs. there are not evolutionarily realisable pathways between all solutions to a problem.

 

[kingreaper]

Congratulations, you just single handedly falsified the theory of evolution and you did it your first time out. According to natural selecton poor designs would not be selected and would therefore be eliminated. Only good or benificial things would be selected.

But poore designs are examples of things that are evolutionarily advantageous over the form they evolved form, but either haven't or ca't reach a better stage which humans could come up with

As Christians we know that "poor design" is not poor design at all, but a indication of the fallen state of creation. But there is good news, God does have a plan of redemption and restoration, to put His creation back into the condition He intended it to be, so He can once again say: It is good.

Oh yes, God made the world perfect

Then ruined it purposefully

And now he's rying to fix it

Hmm, does that sound sane to you?

 

[TheFriendlyGiant]

I'm not sure how we can look at the human body and call it a poor design...take anything man (ID) designed and see how it compares to the human body. If we say that the human body is poorly designed, and we cannot come close to even replicating it...what does that say about us?

People arguing that we have a bad back, tail bones that break, poor immune systems, etc etc etc...maybe its because we have been abusing our bodies and not using them for what they are designed for...mistreat your Chevy and see how long it lasts...is that cause its poorly designed? or cause it was misused?

Saying something ia a poor design, still implies a designer...does it not?