The arguement that recently convinced me of god's existence

[jthegreat]

Too bad for him that it's demonstrably fallible, isn't it?

How any of you can respect a guy who continues to believe that the Bible doesn't contradict itself, despite several examples to the contrary (2 creation stories and jacob's burial location, for example), is beyond me.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Too bad for him that it's demonstrably fallible, isn't it?

How any of you can respect a guy who continues to believe that the Bible doesn't contradict itself, despite several examples to the contrary (2 creation stories and jacob's burial location, for example), is beyond me.

[/ QUOTE ]

This kind of bashing is not useful in any way.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

His main problem is presupposing the Bible is inerrant and infallible. But, once he lets go of that, I'm sure he'll be an Agnostic/Atheist in a matter of months. Unless I just jynxed it.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is key of course. If the Bible isn't the Word of God it's just another ancient text. If it is ....

[/ QUOTE ]

If it is... then a lot of good people are going to be tortured by a sadistic god. God help us. Umm... nevermind.

[jthegreat]

[ QUOTE ]
This kind of bashing is not useful in any way.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a statement of fact.

[maurile]

While we are discussing evolution, as a random aside, there is a pretty interesting article in today's NYT about the the evolution of insects.

[DougShrapnel]

I've given the whole ID v Evolution some thought. And have gone back and forth on ID a couple of times. But it is conclusive both xtians and scientists argee that the way evolution is taught in schools seems to imply that God hasn't made his involvemnt in evolution apparent. Both sides agree that the raw data seems to confirm the absense of Gods hand in the process of our creation. Id is clearly a political attemp to reintroduce God back into public schools. ID is also not a free speach issue. NotReady it is unfortunate for you that the raw data shows no compelling evidence of Gods involvment. Everyone agrees on this. I'm sorry but everyone should realize that when science and religion are telling conflicting stories that science is the one likely to be correct. It has always been this way, it will always contiune to be this way.

OK I'll jump back in. Heck with another thread - allinlife must get to 10,000 reads.....

Hey great post maurile on the Vitamin C. Even now I am chewing on some vitamin C lest I become a scurvy dog. This is one way of illustrating a point that I think is very very solid. There are design flaws in humans and in other forms of life. There are several different ways of making this point. I take it to be true.
I've said I do agree with the general idea of evolution but designers are outnumbered on this forum so to the above point I say....

BUT ! This point does not disprove design. Now I know the point I'm going to make is going to make evolutionists mad because it will sound like a "devil's advocate" argument. And it might make creationists mad because it will disagree with a religious belief...maybe... But thats the fun of making such a point.So here it goes......

It just so happens the the windshield wipers scratch the windshield on the 1995 model Z-28. Annoying I might add when it does occur. A design flaw ! But wouldn't you know - that design flaw was repeated in the 1996 model - and the 1997 model ! And - the same design flaw is found on the Pontiac Firebird ! And also on the Pontiac Formula - and the Pontiac Trans Am. The problem was a designer made a mistake and the mistake got incorporated into many different models that the same designer (or group of designers) produced.

Somehow I think many of us come into the whole evolution vs design comparison thinking we must disprove a perfect designer. But that's just religious baggage. In my mind the best guess on a designer - if there was one - is that they design things just like we do. If I want to design something I start with something simple. That's why you see simple forms of life appearing early in the fossil record and more complex forms later. But also a designer may make mistakes - sometimes learn from them and sometimes not realize them.

I realize this is pure speculation on the characteristics of a designer, but I think it makes more sense than to think of a designer who never makes any mistakes.

On the religious side - hey didn't God say he regretted what he had done and sent the flood to wipe everything out and start over. If he had regrets, doesn't that mean he learned from a mistake ? (By the way I think the idea of a flood a few thousand years ago is falsifyable if anyone is holding to that specific belief. I'm making a point about the description of why it happened.)

OK so I've made a point thats a devil's advocate argument - it tries to incorporate what is good evidence for evolution into a complete speculation about a designer. But aside from all that I still think that if we approach the question of a designer without any religious baggage - why not think that the designer is a lot like us but just more advanced? In other words capable of making mistakes.

Again everyone I prefer evolution as an explanation for the origin of life. Maurile's post is better interpreted as evidence for evolution than evidence for design. Also he could argue from a point of view that gets at the question of evolution vs a mistake prone designer.

However I assert 1. That if there was a designer to life - that designer must have made mistakes. 2. Without religious baggage it makes more sense to think a designer of something complex would make mistakes.

[hmkpoker]

I have another theory. Perhaps the universe is a manifestation of by a bunch of cosmic spiders going on tilt on Party Poker. The cosmic spider of vitamin C enzyme manifestation in primates overplayed his AQ, and humans and monkeys got screwed.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

So from the above, it appears to be either a late non-hominid ape or an early hominid ape, that could appear in our ancestral lineage just before the most recent common ancestor of chimps and humans, or just after. But either way, it is probably a human ancestor.


[/ QUOTE ]

Or a GORILLA.

[ QUOTE ]

I've got a fun exercise for you if you're up to it.


[/ QUOTE ]

They all look alike to me.

[ QUOTE ]

The creationist model, on the other hand, would predict that there are humans, and there are apes, and there are no intermediates between the two.


[/ QUOTE ]

When you say intermediate you virtually assume a progression between ape and human. I expect what IDers say is your intermediates are just other types or species of primate.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

The link between humans and non-humans is not only supported by fossil evidence; the DNA evidence is also overwhelming.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to pass on the DNA stuff for now. This was about the fossil record concerning human evolution. You gave me a link where the first entry is controversial. I see no reason to continue until that question is settled.