This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

'Why I am no longer a Creationist'...

#271Moorish_IdolPosted 3/20/2013 11:57:42 PM
God has set everything in the body according to its function, and its purpose, he did the same for all plants, and all animals. We recognize disease as being an evil, and deformities as being an evil, because we know within ourselves that there is an order to all life, that each structure serves its purpose and function.


You use "we" when really you mean "I".

Literally nobody in this topic (or anywhere else for that matter) considers disabilities or illnesses "evil". Are they unfortunate? Sure, but most blind and deaf people I know function just fine. Are diseases horrible? Sure, but they have no "evil intent". Hell, I'm not even certain "evil" as a concept is a real thing, but that's a different topic altogether.


We all expect our bodies to be healthy, and we know it is an evil if they are not healthy. Though through evolution, health and disease should be indistinguishable, they would both be alike, one as the other since it was all put together through random DNA sequences.


That doesn't make sense. Health is a concept, Disease is a condition. Evolution has no direction -- it's not aiming to make us all healthy. Natural selection, as a process, contributes to health on a population level. But our genetics are not perfect, everybody here acknowledges they are not perfect, and nobody here is saying or expecting otherwise. You are putting an awful lot of words in our mouths.

I honestly have no interest in replying to the rest of your posts because they are all built on false premises. You are arguing against things we haven't said. You are continuing to misrepresent science and evolution. So many people are saying this, and yet you don't ask yourself, "Gee, maybe I am off on some things here. I should look at this again." It's awfully tiring.
#272kozlo100Posted 3/21/2013 12:09:44 AM
FlashOfLight posted...
The issue remains one of immense information being packed into tiny bits of chemicals that in turn, when fully put together, comprise a living organism. That can not just be replicated by nature sitting there. Everything in biology is taken for granted, if the heart were two notches below where it is on the human body, the person wouldn't survive, if the feet were above the knee it'd be a known freak that would get nowhere.

Our dexterity, our eyesight, our hearing via our ears, all relies on perfection. A random process can not produce perfection to work simultaneously across multiple working structures.


Again, because I am curious as to your answer, I ask: Why not?
---
Time flies like the wind,
and fruit flies like a banana.
#273ryan0991Posted 3/21/2013 2:11:35 AM
From: FlashOfLight | #265
All of these things are taken for granted, even pleasure and pain are taken for granted.

Think, for once, think - if random matter got together to produce anything, what guarantee would there even be that we would be free from pain?

When all our bones are right where they are, we have no pain, but if a child is born with a deformity, if one leg is shorter than the other, the child has to walk through life with pain, but if evolution is the one responsible for mutations, why would the lack of any functioning limb be seen as an evil by anyone? Why would any disease or pain be considered a bad thing?

Nature would just be randomnly trying things out, and maybe one time they would work, and another time it wouldn't. So your own conscious testifies to the fact that deformities are indeed not a part of nature, they are an evil, there is something wrong when a child has a limb that is not working according to its function.

Otherwise, if it's just nature, and you believe in evolution, STOP COMPLAINING, because any deformity, any disease, is just nature trying and failing.

If a child is born blind, why is that an evil? It's just nature failing to put random chemicals together properly in the DNA code.

If a person is born without an ear, why is that an evil? What guarantee is there by dumb matter that you have any sureness in having hearing?

Why is deafness considered an evil thing? If it's just random DNA mixing and matching, then there is no evil in a lack of hearing.

If a hemopheliac suffers throughout their life, why should they be considered "sick" at all compared to the rest of the population? Random DNA sequences just mixed together to prevent their blood from clotting right. Why should it be an evil?

To believe in evolution, with all of its premises, is to deny your reason in its purest sense. You have to meet absurdity head on with a denial of reality.

This is on a level of bad that is hard to quantify.

Seriously man... WTF?

Those things aren't evil. I doubt that you'll find very many atheists who believe that evil is an actual thing. And no one claims that our DNA is or should be perfect. Non-optimal mutations can and do happen. You are showing just how poor your understanding of evolution and natural selection is.
---
http://www.xboxlc.com/cards/sig/newblack/BOBtheMASTER.jpg
Could care less = you care at least somewhat. Couldn't care less = you don't care at all.
#274Faust_8Posted 3/21/2013 7:45:44 AM
The only position I can think of that would make birth defects evil IS creationism.

After all, why the bloody hell are babies born so deformed they die within days if God is designing each one? What point could that serve? It serves none for the baby, the only possible thing I can think of is it's an incredibly cruel "test" for the parents.

Boy, what a swell guy that God is. If you don't believe in a god or feel that evolution/DNA is responsible for defects though, then it has nothing to do with "evil."
---
You are the universe
Expressing itself as a human, for a little while
#275ThuggernautzPosted 3/21/2013 10:30:36 AM
That whole giant rant is a giant Argument from incredulity.

"I can't believe this happens, therefore it can't happen." Guess what, the truth doesn't care about what you believe. People have taken pictures, videos and so many observations of the inner solar system from space and you still believe in Geo-centrism. Obviously, the truth isn't as important to you as being able to hold onto hypotheses so weak that they might as well be non-existent. And I wish they were, so I wouldn't have to keep responding to the same walls of copypasta.

As for your complaint about 'how did organs develop evolutionarily?'; well, if you had done any study you might have a pretty solid answer for that. Hell, if you had spent two seconds on Google you might.

Here's an entire Oxford scholarship book dealing with that exact question, for example (Abstracts of each chapter can be read, but you'll need to subscribe to read the whole thing. Or, you know, go to a library or university once in a while):

http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198566687.001.0001/acprof-9780198566687

One other thing, you seem to have a problem with recognizing that complexity can arise from simplicity. Shaking a dish of sand reveals all kinds of patterns over time, patterns that if you had come across randomly you might think had been painted. The Mandelbrot set reveals infinite recursive patterns from a simple equation. The wind blowing over desert sand dunes leaves amazing patterns that look as if they could only be painted on. That TED talk shows that cell membranes self assemble chemically and can perform cell-like behaviour with the simplest of setups. The question for life arising from non-life, as Kozlo continues to ask, is why not?

As for your definition of kind, did you derive that biblically? Or are you just again morphing a definition to fit your conclusion? Because I can draw up multiple Christian websites that use definitions different to yours. Some define kinds as the biological classification of genus, or family. Or this one, for example, where they classify different bird species as different kinds:

http://www.theistic-evolution.com/kind.html

What makes your definition the correct one? Can you back it up biblically? Do you think your definition of kind is sufficient to explain all the morphological variation in the animal kingdom, or is it severely lacking?
#276FlashOfLightPosted 3/21/2013 11:21:14 PM
lasthero posted...
I'll read that **** when you actually answer my question on the books you've read to learn about evolution.


I already told you I learned through science magazines, not via books.
---
"Listen, children, to a story that was written long ago, 'bout a kingdom on a mountain and the valley-folk below."
#277lastheroPosted 3/21/2013 11:22:43 PM
FlashOfLight posted...
lasthero posted...
I'll read that **** when you actually answer my question on the books you've read to learn about evolution.


I already told you I learned through science magazines, not via books.


Okay, what magazines?
---
X-Men: First Class RPG - Welcoming all new players!
[http://s1.zetaboards.com/New_Mutants/index/]
#278FlashOfLightPosted 3/21/2013 11:24:13 PM
Moorish_Idol posted...

It's not evil.


If it's not evil, then why do some atheists and agnostics, especially in professional setting debates, usually cite that as their number one reason for not believing in God? Their excuse usually is "I don't believe in God because there's so much suffering in the world" or "I don't believe in God because evil exists". One of the things they go on to say specifically, is regarding disease and the pain that goes with it.
---
"Listen, children, to a story that was written long ago, 'bout a kingdom on a mountain and the valley-folk below."
#279bratt100Posted 3/21/2013 11:30:37 PM
FlashOfLight posted...
Moorish_Idol posted...

It's not evil.


If it's not evil, then why do some atheists and agnostics, especially in professional setting debates, usually cite that as their number one reason for not believing in God? Their excuse usually is "I don't believe in God because there's so much suffering in the world" or "I don't believe in God because evil exists". One of the things they go on to say specifically, is regarding disease and the pain that goes with it.


Because god "is good" and allowing suffering to continue is certainly not "good".

We use the word evil to explain our moral perspective and it is still one of the best ways to explain a god who wishes harm on others.
---
"If the victim was a mute, then she shouldn't really be out alone."- OrangeWizard on rape
#280FlashOfLightPosted 3/21/2013 11:45:38 PM
Moorish_Idol posted...
Hell, I'm not even certain "evil" as a concept is a real thing, but that's a different topic altogether.


You're right, it is a different topic altogether.


You are putting an awful lot of words in our mouths.


I'll stick to my statement, under random molecular processes there is no guarantee that any of us should have one day being comfortable in our bodies, since the process of evolution could have deformed things to a point that'd everyone would be living in pain.

Again, a simple thing taken for granted, but demanded and expected by those who believe in evolution (concerning expecting a child to be born healthy and be without pain).

I honestly have no interest in replying to the rest of your posts because they are all built on false premises. You are arguing against things we haven't said. You are continuing to misrepresent science and evolution. So many people are saying this, and yet you don't ask yourself, "Gee, maybe I am off on some things here. I should look at this again." It's awfully tiring.


With all due respect, Moorish_Idol, that's a cop out, just like lasthero's response about wanting to hear what book I read from so many posts ago, being a cop out, whenever any of you who believe in evolution get presented simple facts that expose your theory as being false and faulty, and not making sense as a whole, you always back out by saying that the person who is putting the information out is disinformed, is out to make "science" look bad, and is not worth their time.

You say that I am making things up essentially, and the facts that I put up are not being addressed, all the way back on Page 2, I put up a quote about researchers acknowledging that they put genera in the wrong taxonomy, that is one of the things that, if any of you were being honest and consistent, you would have also acknowledged as being a serious problem to the overall theory, and yet, just like with much of the rest I put up, it is ignored and you people still go on to praise the theory of evolution is being basically infallible, proven, without debate or challenge to it being true, and other fields of science are mentioned as if they justify the theory when they can't even get past the basic taxonomy being in agreement.
---
"Listen, children, to a story that was written long ago, 'bout a kingdom on a mountain and the valley-folk below."