Intelligent Design?
When it comes to the Evolution v Creationism debate, I have wondered for a while now... what sort of intelligent designer would make us in such a manner that we have to do so many bodily functions... Such as eating... excrementing waste.
For example there are animals out there that can produce vitamin C... we cannot, and must get our daily vitamin C from food. If we were designed intelligently, what sort of sense does it make to give some (un?)intelligently designed creatures this ability, and then keep it from the Pièce de résistance so to speak. Or going further to plants... they get most of what they need from the Sun, and then other random nutrients in water that can even be given via a mist. (Aeroponics) Why can't we, as intelligently designed creatures utilize the same process as plants when it comes to aeroponics? .-. It doesn't make sense.
"Your sins are not redeemed, by swearing perjury." ~ Mathias Blad
"Change how you look at all things and what you see will change" ~ Per Nilsson/Henrik Ohlsson
"As the need for knowledge flows through the catharsis of thought, ask a question and the answer will be born."
- Login to post comments
- Login to post comments
Neither I have done such a indepth research. Why should i ? The few i have read, give clear evidence enough to me. According to Wiki, Eben Alexander III (born December, 1953 in Charlotte, North Carolina) is an American neurosurgeon and the author of the best-selling Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon's Journey into the Afterlife, in which he describes his 2008 near-death experience and asserts that science can and will determine that heaven really does exist. He as a neursurgeon certainly has the credentials to know, if his brain was shut down or not.
In November 2012, Alexander responded to critics in a second Newsweek article: "My synapses—the spaces between the neurons of the brain that support the electrochemical activity that makes the brain function—were not simply compromised during my experience. They were stopped. Only isolated pockets of deep cortical neurons were still sputtering, but no broad networks capable of generating anything like what we call 'consciousness.' The E. coli bacteria that flooded my brain during my illness made sure of that. My doctors have told me that according to all the brain tests they were doing, there was no way that any of the functions including vision, hearing, emotion, memory, language, or logic could possibly have been intact."[8] Alexander also responded, "I know that my experience happened within coma because of certain anchors to earth time in memory
We have other similar stories :
http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t254-near-death-experiences-evidence-of-dualism?highlight=near+death
During the pilot phase in one of the hospitals, a coronary-care-unit nurse reported a veridical out-of-body experience of a resuscitated patient:
"During a night shift an ambulance brings in a 44-year-old cyanotic, comatose man into the coronary care unit. He had been found about an hour before in a meadow by passers-by. After admission, he receives artificial respiration without intubation, while heart massage and defibrillation are also applied. When we want to intubate the patient, he turns out to have dentures in his mouth. I remove these upper dentures and put them onto the 'crash car'. Meanwhile, we continue extensive CPR. After about an hour and a half the patient has sufficient heart rhythm and blood pressure, but he is still ventilated and intubated, and he is still comatose. He is transferred to the intensive care unit to continue the necessary artificial respiration. Only after more than a week do I meet again with the patient, who is by now back on the cardiac ward. I distribute his medication. The moment he sees me he says: 'Oh, that nurse knows where my dentures are'. I am very surprised. Then he elucidates: 'Yes, you were there when I was brought into hospital and you took my dentures out of my mouth and put them onto that car, it had all these bottles on it and there was this sliding drawer underneath and there you put my teeth.' I was especially amazed because I remembered this happening while the man was in deep coma and in the process of CPR. When I asked further, it appeared the man had seen himself lying in bed, that he had perceived from above how nurses and doctors had been busy with CPR. He was also able to describe correctly and in detail the small room in which he had been resuscitated as well as the appearance of those present like myself. At the time that he observed the situation he had been very much afraid that we would stop CPR and that he would die. And it is true that we had been very negative about the patient's prognosis due to his very poor medical condition when admitted. The patient tells me that he desperately and unsuccessfully tried to make it clear to us that he was still alive and that we should continue CPR. He is deeply impressed by his experience and says he is no longer afraid of death. 4 weeks later he left hospital as a healthy man."
That is YOUR assertion, which cannot be concluded based on what i posted.
"The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago." Stephen Hawking The Beginning of Time
Hawking for example states clearly that time began with the Big Bang. How can you deduce from that, that time existed in some way before the big bang ? A before could not even exist, since a before requires time.
So that you are less ignorant and you don't continue making a complete fool of yourself.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
The beginning of the universe /= to the beginning of matter.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Proofs of Gods existence do not exist. If you see on a sand dune written : John loves Sandy, then you know automatically, a intelligent being wrote that message on the dune. You will intuitively exclude the possiblity , that the wind, and rain, left the written message on the dune, that is was a lucky event. Same with God. All creation testifies Gods existence. And God left his signature in ever living Cell through the complex, specified, codifed code stored in every DNA strand.
Hardened unbelievers like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens say they find God morally repugnant. Others here have shown this attitude. So it would not matter God simply to show up. But God did that once. Look at the life of Jesus; He taught here on earth for 3 years, and many people did believe but many still did not. He made things that only God could do, and never anyone else did before, and after him. He healed the crippled and made them walk, he healed and blind and made them see. He even raised people from the dead. Still many people did not believe that He was the Son of God.
Both hypotheses, M-theory, and virtual particles, have very limited explanatory power.
M-theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstring_theory
Please note that the number of superstring theories given above is only a high-level classification; the actual number of mathematically distinct theories which are compatible with observation and would therefore have to be examined to find the one that correctly describes nature is currently believed to be at least 10^500 (a one with five hundred zeroes). This has given rise to the concern that superstring theories, despite the alluring simplicity of their basic principles, are, in fact, not simple at all, and according to the principle of Occam's razor perhaps alternative physical theories going beyond the Standard Model should be explored.
In other words : there is a chance of one of 10^500 outcomes to create our universe. A event with a chance of one to 10^50 is said to likely never occure.
Virtual particles :
from the book : a case of a creator
Quantum theory ... holds that a vacuum ... is subject to quantum uncertainties. This means that things can materialize out of the vacuum, although they tend to vanish back into it quickly... . Theoretically, anything-a dog, a house, a planet-can pop into existence by means of this quantum quirk, which physicists call a vacuum fluctuation. Probability, however, dictates that pairs of subatomic particles ... are by far the most likely creations and that they will last extremely briefly.... The spontaneous, persistent creation of something even as large as a molecule is profoundly unlikely. Nevertheless, in 1973 an assistant professor at Columbia University named Edward Tryon suggested that the entire universe might have come into existence this way.... The whole universe may be, to use [MIT physicist Alan] Guth's phrase, "a free lunch."20I closed the magazine and tossed it on Craig's desk. "Maybe Tryon was right when he said, `I offer the modest proposal that our universe is simply one of those things which happen from time to time.' “
Craig was listening intently. "Okay, that's a good question," he replied. "These subatomic particles the article talks about are called `virtual particles.' They are theoretical entities, and it's not even clear that they actually exist as opposed to being merely theoretical constructs.
"However, there's a much more important point to be made about this. You see, these particles, if they are real, do not come out of nothing. The quantum vacuum is not what most people envision when they think of a vacuum-that is, absolutely nothing. On the contrary, it's a sea of fluctuating energy, an arena of violent activity that has a rich physical structure and can be described by physical laws. These particles are thought to originate by fluctuations of the energy in the vacuum.
"So it's not an example of something coming into being out of nothing, or something coming into being without a cause. The quantum vacuum and the energy locked up in the vacuum are the cause of these particles. And then we have to ask, well, what is the origin of the whole quantum vacuum itself? Where does it come from?"
He let that question linger before continuing. "You've simply pushed back the issue of creation. Now you've got to account for how this very active ocean of fluctuating energy came into being. Do you see what I'm saying? If quantum physical laws operate within the domain described by quantum physics, you can't legitimately use quantum physics to explain the origin of that domain itself. You need something transcendent that's beyond that domain in order to explain how the entire domain came into being. Suddenly, we're back to the origins question."
As Iwbiek said, nothing in what you quoted contradicted the notion that there was nothing before hand. "The universe" is not the same thing as "all the matter in the universe"; It's just the current existence of things as we understand them. Note, that when coal gets compressed and becomes diamond, it doesn't stop being composed of carbon, but we do stop calling it coal. When ice melts, it doesn't stop being H2O, but we do stop calling it ice.
Nothing in your quoted section says that "everything came from nothing". That was a statement you made that showed that you don't really understand the Big Bang. There is no contradiction from the material you quoted and what I said. Again, positing that everything came from nothing is the claim of creationism.
well, thank god i read more than what you choose to post.
i'm not deducing that at all. time is just a feature of the physically existing universe, and a relative one at that. i'm merely saying that most scientists--including hawking, if i remember brief history correctly--would say that all the "stuff" that exists now, be it in the form of matter or energy or their theoretical "dark" counterparts, existed before the big bang event, either in the form of a quantum singularity or in the form of colliding clouds of matter and antimatter.
there is no scientist that says there was "nothing" before the big bang. there has to be something there for it to go "bang." if you want to be pedantic and object to the term "before" because it implies time, fine, then we'll talk in terms of a syllogism: the presence of "stuff" is necessary for the drastic alteration of "stuff."
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
So what makes your creation story better than any of the other 10^500 possibilities? Oh, and just a number of possiblities doesn't necessarily mean that all of them have equal footing as far as likely hood is concerned. I could have just as well used Super Symmetry. :I
Sorry about the short response I'm extremely pressed for time right now, I'll be able to make a full response on the morrow.
"Your sins are not redeemed, by swearing perjury." ~ Mathias Blad
"Change how you look at all things and what you see will change" ~ Per Nilsson/Henrik Ohlsson
"As the need for knowledge flows through the catharsis of thought, ask a question and the answer will be born."
According to the Big Bang theory, there were no " stuff " beyond the Big Bang. Furthermore, even if there were some kind of stuff, it had to start somehow as well, since, as explained previosly, it could not exist eternally, without a beginning. So you push the problem just further back. And there is also the second law of thermodynamics. If we would be the result of some kind of stuff, we would be in a state of heath death. So your scenario is highly unplausible.
Is God equal nothing ? of course creationism does not say, the universe came from nothing. The cause of the universe was God.
Fine. If you do not believe anymore today, you just prove, your prayer was not genuine. No true believer will EVER give up his faith.
mainstream big bang theory posits two possibilities: the rapid expansion of a singularity or the collision of a cloud of matter with a cloud of antimatter. both a singularity and clouds constitute "stuff." try again.
eternity has neither beginning nor end, so saying something can't exist eternally without a beginning is ridiculous. isn't your god eternal? when was his beginning?
of course the "stuff" could be beginningless. why not? a beginningless cycle of arisings and dissolutions is just as plausible as a supermind creating everything from nothing. in fact, logically speaking, it's more plausible because a god theory introduces unnecessary variables.
of course, the singularity or the matter/antimatter clouds could have had a "beginning," but we haven't the means of finding out about it yet. probably we never will. the difference between you and me is that i am ok with the unknown, and i see no need to fill it with a fairy tale that i accept as 100% historically true, and threaten those who don't with eternal suffering.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
I sincerely meant everything I said in that prayer at the time that I said it. You cannot get more genuine than that.
Well at least you admit that you don't care whether what you believe is true or not.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
You seem more concerned with reading over everything people say, picking over it looking for things to argue about than you do about picking a coherent stance and sticking with it.
That being said, the two creation myths in Genesis posit that God created matter from nothing. There was no matter. Then there was matter. It doesn't matter (sorry, no pun intended) whether or not there was an actor doing the creating; the point is creationism posits matter coming from nothing. The Big Bang does not.
The fact that he left no such message and that DNA evolved are proofs against your god, not for it.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
There is no such thing as a believer, merely people who pretend to believe on various scales. You have proven you don't believe just by posting here, as the science you decry is wholly responsible for the existence of the internet. Every time you go to the doctor you further prove you don't believe.
You'd best hope your god doesn't exist. You'll be crucified when you come before him if he actually does.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
@ Wladyslaw
All the tricks for formatting your posts can be found here:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/filter/tips
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Well, you are actually wrong. See the quotes i have posted, which it seems you wish to ignore.
Well, i have already answered you. A conversion can be held as true and genuine only, if the believer does not give up his faith, and begins actually to live according to how the bible teaches us it should be.
Is everything in the world therefore evidence of God's 'intelligent design'?
Oh, but Peggotty, you haven't given Mr. Barkis his proper answer, you know.
Charles Dickens
My claim was not that I had converted. My claim was that I did once "cry out to God for the salvation only He can offer."
My claim was not that I had converted. My claim was that I did once "cry out to God for the salvation only He can offer."
God can and does offer his salvation to all humanity, because Jesus fullfilled the scriptures, and died on the cross for the sins of all of us, including you. All you need to do, is to convert yourself, and accept Jesus sacrifice also for yourself. You can do this through
a simple prayer, where you confess to God, that you are a sinner, repent from them, and that you want to begin a new life with Jesus. If you do that sincerly, then the holy spirit will enter into you, make you a new born christian, confirm your childhood, and you become a new member of the family of God. If you want a step by step instruction how it works, you can read following web page :
http://www.gotquestions.org/become-a-Christian.html