subjective understanding of testicles, you perceive it as bad design but what if the person's intended purpose is not to just to reproduce, live, mate mate mate, die. Do you mean that if there is a "God" that he should make humans completely asexual? completely the same, perfect in every way because that would mean intelligent design? Why not we just be designed as robots that don't make mistakes? would that then be the ultimate intelligent design? No problems, no anything.
@timofly About birth pains, God even said the woman will have birth pains because of her disobedience to God. I don't find anything wrong about birth pains. Think of the emotional bonds a mother has to her child after labor, is that not something good? If you think we are in many ways very flawed in our design, think of why after so many years, humanity continues to live, still be able to survive, shouldn't we all be dead because we are so badly made and incapable?
I am not trying to argue anything or debate, but want some deeper thinking into what you're presenting here.
just some weird thought in my head. think of it this way. The screw driver is created for turning screws, but someone picks it up and decides that it is a hammer and then notices that it is not a good hammer, so therefore no one designed it since it doesn't work well as a hammer.
Like lets say us, pretend we're made for a purpose, say to suffer pain during reproduction. but we then decide to believe that we are just some matter, product of the universe. And decide we like reproducing but realize that reproducing hurts so much and therefore we're just some coincidental accident. not designed for any reason, that's just messed up thinking.
@timofly we are completely looking at things with our own eyes and justifying that if something we think is not good, then it's not designed. Say an artist paints a painting and thinks it's beautiful, then a passerby looks and thinks, it looks like it's splatters of mud and rain, so it's just conincidence, if it's interpreted as a painting, the passerby may say, this painting is not well created, not designed well, so it's probably not made, just came into place by chance.
Talk about willfully blind. Your painting analogy is just as bad as the finding a watch on the beach analogy. This is an working organic engine. Engines do not of the luxury of having different viewpoints to function properly, it will either work or will not work, a crappy engine will be viewed as crap by everyone who views it due to its performance and maintenance not to mention lifespan and how often it breaks down.
If the human body had a creator then it is already verified that human engineers are far superior as no human engineer would use such an inefficient design.
"Evolution versus intelligent design" is not a scientific "debate" at all. There are no arguments against religious belief by definition of belief.
Intelligent people just don't participate in such "debates" at all. Arguing with believers that their beliefs are stupid is descending to an intellectual level even below their's.
@Tmac, No you wouldn't expect that at all. Evolution only removes attributes that effect fittness to pass genes onto the next generation. It doesn't have to make anything 'better' by any standards we would measure. All it does is weed out those who aren't well enough adapted to live. Evolution is a great subscriber to "near enough is good enough".
So over millions of years would we "evolve" and as a result, our testicles would be inside the body? Because we haven't seen a change since the beginning of human time.
So if we were continuely "evolving" to become more efficient, wouldn't we see less and less abnormalities/bad design?
@tmacW327 The difference is that evolution can only improve 'designs' by small incremental changes and each small change must result in greater 'fitness' that the previous generation. Evolution does not allow bad designs to be reprlaced with a radically different solution in a single step. A good example of this is the human eye. We have a blindspot at the centre of our retina as the photoceptors are back to front, this cannot be corrected by evolution.
I am as anti-creationism, anti-intelligent-design and anti-pseudo-science as one can be whilest still being an organic life-form -- BUT the creationists or biblical-literalists will definitely trounce the neonate cranium/maternal pelvic birthing issue with Genesis 3:16.
That verse is a simple explanation of a naturally occurring phenomenon. Childbirth is painful for humans, so they made a connection that this was a punishment. No different than the rainbow being a sign that god would never flood the earth again - people didn't understand what a rainbow was, so they came up with an explanation. We know better now, so we don't need to hold onto old beliefs that we know are untrue.
@streetdog75, I agree, StreetDog. Much of the bible is like that -- retrodictive blather. Like saying that Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed by god for some reason... it's like blaming Haiti for their problems It's simple to generate a post-hoc rationale where NONE of the mechanisms or claims are testable.
@DancingInChains, you are so absolutely right. It's dreadful when it happens, because there's always a judgemental air to the claims and one can never ignore how savage and bloodthirsty and merciless the ramifications sound to the fair-minded.
At least when it's done post-hoc, by scientists, there might be directed causation or correlation, but it's not anything resembling a rationalization or non-empirical justification.
No Intelligent Design = No Intelligence was designed.
frikkiemeisterster 5 months ago
If I was an omnipotent designer/creator, I would make the human body look much cooler.
ostbagen 11 months ago
subjective understanding of testicles, you perceive it as bad design but what if the person's intended purpose is not to just to reproduce, live, mate mate mate, die. Do you mean that if there is a "God" that he should make humans completely asexual? completely the same, perfect in every way because that would mean intelligent design? Why not we just be designed as robots that don't make mistakes? would that then be the ultimate intelligent design? No problems, no anything.
timofly 1 year ago
@timofly
All things God made, He said it was good, he sees it as good. It doesn't matter what we think.
The Bible is not about how we feel or how we see things, is how God sees things and how we can learn to see like him, be like him, know him.
I believe everything is beautiful in their ways.
timofly 1 year ago
@timofly About birth pains, God even said the woman will have birth pains because of her disobedience to God. I don't find anything wrong about birth pains. Think of the emotional bonds a mother has to her child after labor, is that not something good? If you think we are in many ways very flawed in our design, think of why after so many years, humanity continues to live, still be able to survive, shouldn't we all be dead because we are so badly made and incapable?
timofly 1 year ago
@timofly
I am not trying to argue anything or debate, but want some deeper thinking into what you're presenting here.
just some weird thought in my head. think of it this way. The screw driver is created for turning screws, but someone picks it up and decides that it is a hammer and then notices that it is not a good hammer, so therefore no one designed it since it doesn't work well as a hammer.
timofly 1 year ago
@timofly
Like lets say us, pretend we're made for a purpose, say to suffer pain during reproduction. but we then decide to believe that we are just some matter, product of the universe. And decide we like reproducing but realize that reproducing hurts so much and therefore we're just some coincidental accident. not designed for any reason, that's just messed up thinking.
timofly 1 year ago
@timofly we are completely looking at things with our own eyes and justifying that if something we think is not good, then it's not designed. Say an artist paints a painting and thinks it's beautiful, then a passerby looks and thinks, it looks like it's splatters of mud and rain, so it's just conincidence, if it's interpreted as a painting, the passerby may say, this painting is not well created, not designed well, so it's probably not made, just came into place by chance.
timofly 1 year ago
@timofly
Talk about willfully blind. Your painting analogy is just as bad as the finding a watch on the beach analogy. This is an working organic engine. Engines do not of the luxury of having different viewpoints to function properly, it will either work or will not work, a crappy engine will be viewed as crap by everyone who views it due to its performance and maintenance not to mention lifespan and how often it breaks down.
Evoker21 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Evoker21
If the human body had a creator then it is already verified that human engineers are far superior as no human engineer would use such an inefficient design.
Evoker21 2 months ago
Comment removed
Evoker21 2 months ago
This is the simplest and most effective approach to countering ID.
freethinker923 1 year ago
"Evolution versus intelligent design" is not a scientific "debate" at all. There are no arguments against religious belief by definition of belief.
Intelligent people just don't participate in such "debates" at all. Arguing with believers that their beliefs are stupid is descending to an intellectual level even below their's.
uncolober 1 year ago 2
@Tmac, No you wouldn't expect that at all. Evolution only removes attributes that effect fittness to pass genes onto the next generation. It doesn't have to make anything 'better' by any standards we would measure. All it does is weed out those who aren't well enough adapted to live. Evolution is a great subscriber to "near enough is good enough".
wolfenight 1 year ago
So over millions of years would we "evolve" and as a result, our testicles would be inside the body? Because we haven't seen a change since the beginning of human time.
So if we were continuely "evolving" to become more efficient, wouldn't we see less and less abnormalities/bad design?
tmacW327 1 year ago
@tmacW327 The difference is that evolution can only improve 'designs' by small incremental changes and each small change must result in greater 'fitness' that the previous generation. Evolution does not allow bad designs to be reprlaced with a radically different solution in a single step. A good example of this is the human eye. We have a blindspot at the centre of our retina as the photoceptors are back to front, this cannot be corrected by evolution.
hexkid 1 year ago
So God was drunk when he made a few things, big deal
ytmndman 1 year ago
I am as anti-creationism, anti-intelligent-design and anti-pseudo-science as one can be whilest still being an organic life-form -- BUT the creationists or biblical-literalists will definitely trounce the neonate cranium/maternal pelvic birthing issue with Genesis 3:16.
CodeSculptor 1 year ago
That verse is a simple explanation of a naturally occurring phenomenon. Childbirth is painful for humans, so they made a connection that this was a punishment. No different than the rainbow being a sign that god would never flood the earth again - people didn't understand what a rainbow was, so they came up with an explanation. We know better now, so we don't need to hold onto old beliefs that we know are untrue.
streetdog75 1 year ago 8
@streetdog75, I agree, StreetDog. Much of the bible is like that -- retrodictive blather. Like saying that Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed by god for some reason... it's like blaming Haiti for their problems It's simple to generate a post-hoc rationale where NONE of the mechanisms or claims are testable.
CodeSculptor 1 year ago
@CodeSculptor "it's like blaming Haiti for their problems"
...like so many Evangelical preachers have already done.
DancingInChains 1 year ago
@DancingInChains, you are so absolutely right. It's dreadful when it happens, because there's always a judgemental air to the claims and one can never ignore how savage and bloodthirsty and merciless the ramifications sound to the fair-minded.
At least when it's done post-hoc, by scientists, there might be directed causation or correlation, but it's not anything resembling a rationalization or non-empirical justification.
CodeSculptor 1 year ago
@CodeSculptor without reading the bible and understanding it, don't reference to it and make immediate judgments and observations.
timofly 1 year ago
What was the alternative title? I can't read it.
justncase80 1 year ago
I LOVE THIS WOMAN!
Subfightr 2 years ago 6
@Subfightr She Rocks!
VinnyMonster1 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
hey check out my video :o MeetYourFling * COM
chechenfree 3 years ago
HAHAHAHAHA!!! You're using the ID'ers arguments against them!! Nice piece of verbal judo!!! 5 stars and 2 thumbs up!!
Scrapheap71 3 years ago 2