Intelligent Design support letter to the editor

[NobbyNobbs]

Sorry, not sure I understand this (bible dumb). Are you saying (based on the original theme of the thread), that cancer cells, cockroaches etc, weren't around prior to the two apple-eaters being chucked out of eden?

Christians do not believe nor teach that the original conditions were as they are now and that these present conditions are attributable to the original design. Hope that clears it up.

I'm still confused. In your belief, did God create cancer cells and cockroaches? Did He simply allow them to come about? Did they evolve naturally?

I'm honestly curious. If your response is the first, then the original argument still applies, i.e., God is responsible for E.coli and viruses and etc. If the second response is your belief, he's still responsible, for letting it happen. If the third response is your belief, then why believe in God at all?

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

Very interestingly ironic way of saying things. Of course his assumptions are all skewed since they are describing post-Adamic fall conditions which are not atrributable to God. But in view of his typically profound unfamiliarity with the essentials of the subject-such ideas are to be expected.

If God had no input/responsibility then how can God be (real) God?

 

[Furi]

If God had no input/responsibility then how can God be (real) God?

If God has no input or responsibility post Eden, what was with things like Floods Parting the sea Jeebus or even any form of latter design/action claims etc.

or am I missing something entirely here?

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

It must be God's agents making false claims that he still had power to do things - like the Flood, etc. Alternatively, Radrook has libelled his own god by declaring it not to have the power.

 

[Furi]

It must be God's agents making false claims that he still had power to do things - like the Flood, etc. Alternatively, Radrook has libelled his own god by declaring it not to have the power.

Oh Noes!

Where is a Frying Pan Spang Smilie when you need one

 

[ponderingturtle]

I liked it, but he gets a 1 point deduction for using cancer cells as a "lifeform".

Why not? There are certain animal cancers that are contagious and live far longer than any of the animal that they infect.

See the Tasmanian devil cancer outbreak.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

If God had no input/responsibility then how can God be (real) God?

To play devil's advocate - he's not saying that God had no input/responsibility, he's saying that God allowed the world he created to play out under the auspices of free will after setting up the rules of the game. That's a B.S. ad hoc explanation as I've pointed out twice now, but different from saying that God had no input/reponsibility at all.

Why not? There are certain animal cancers that are contagious and live far longer than any of the animal that they infect.

See the Tasmanian devil cancer outbreak.

I've asked this once already and as yet haven't seen an answer - are there any papers on PubMed that describe cancers as "lifeforms." Shadron's HeLa example is very interesting, but I'm going to need to see scientists describing cancers not as "lifeform like", but as lifeforms before I accept it.

 

[RobRoy]

If I misunderstood you I sincerely apologize.

No worries then, and thanks for the apology.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I've asked this once already and as yet haven't seen an answer - are there any papers on PubMed that describe cancers as "lifeforms." Shadron's HeLa example is very interesting, but I'm going to need to see scientists describing cancers not as "lifeform like", but as lifeforms before I accept it.

Why would anything about a tasmian devil cancer be on PubMed? Why should PubMed and not biologists be the arbitrator of such a thing?

 

[PBTree]

Christians do not believe nor teach that the original conditions were as they are now and that these present conditions are attributable to the original design. Hope that clears it up.

Hmm.

So, first we humans make up this being called god (or designer if you like) to explain why things are as they are when we look around and don't have the knowledge to understand.

"Look a star, how did they get there?"
"I don't know, must have been put there (designed) by a god".
"A god, phew, lets write a book about this god and tell everyone else".
"ok, how should it start?"
"I don't know but lets put apples in, I like apples".

And now to explain away the foibles of the book that we humans wrote to explain this made up designer, we make more stuff up about its non-creations (cockroaches etc).

Sounds very suspicious to me.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Post 23 is irrelevant

And how can you determine that in a way that doesn't invalidate your reference?

 

[Wildy]

Hmm.

So, first we humans make up this being called god (or designer if you like) to explain why things are as they are when we look around and don't have the knowledge to understand.

"Look a star, how did they get there?"
"I don't know, must have been put there (designed) by a god".
"A god, phew, lets write a book about this god and tell everyone else".
"ok, how should it start?"
"I don't know but lets put apples in, I like apples".

And now to explain away the foibles of the book that we humans wrote to explain this made up designer, we make more stuff up about its non-creations (cockroaches etc).

Sounds very suspicious to me.

Especially since they didn't put apples in the book.

On a slightly similar note I have seen in the Adelaide paper a bunch of letters that are arguing about this whole Evolution/Design "debate", starting right around the time this thread did...

 

[PBTree]

Especially since they didn't put apples in the book.

On a slightly similar note I have seen in the Adelaide paper a bunch of letters that are arguing about this whole Evolution/Design "debate", starting right around the time this thread did...

Good point, should have mentioned fruit. But apple does get quite a few mentions in the book. Do a search on the KJv and you will find it.

As for the design debate, what annoys me the most is that their argument is based upon something that was made up. There is no other way to explain religion. It is made up, invented, pretend, imaginary, fantasy. The antonym is real.

The irony of the article that spawned this thread showed how nonsensical ad is, yet I can guarantee that we will still get believers making more stuff up to explain away their silliness.

Religion will remain in this made-up state until the supposed author (ghost written by others) of this book comes along to disprove it. I won't be holding mybreath.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Why would anything about a tasmian devil cancer be on PubMed? Why should PubMed and not biologists be the arbitrator of such a thing?

So you don't have a citation then?

O.k. thanks...

btw, 20 seconds...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...ez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

 

[RobRoy]

As for the design debate, what annoys me the most is that their argument is based upon something that was made up. There is no other way to explain religion. It is made up, invented, pretend, imaginary, fantasy. The antonym is real.

While I understand and mostly agree with your points, I do disagree on the stance that the "argument is based upon something that was made up". You're right in pointing out that there is no way, short of the original author (or original inspiration) to show up and say, "I'll be signing copies of My book from 2 to 4 in the lobbey" to prove this. But by the same token, there's no way to prove that religion was made up. Even the most nonsensical, and more obviously (to me, anyhow) fabricated religions still have the plausibility of being divinely influenced.

So it is not "invented, pretend, imaginary, fantasy". Or at least it's not provable that it is, just as it's not proveable that it's not. Yes, yes, you can call me to the mat on the double-negative.

 

[Radrook]

I'm still confused. In your belief....

It's not just my personal belief that I am putting forth, it's the generally agreed upon Christian point of view regardless of denominational differences. There are slight differences,
but the main thrust is that God's original plan was not a world full of suffering sinning and death.

, ...did God create cancer cells and cockroaches? Did He simply allow them to come about? Did they evolve naturally? I'm honestly curious.

The Christian belief is that God did not create cancer cells. Such cells are the consequence of physical malfunction after mankind rejected God's guidance, protection and blessing and chose to go it on their own. Mankind's mismanagement of the earth since then has caused many formerly neutral animals to become pestiferous.

If your response is the first, then the original argument still applies, i.e., God is responsible for E.coli and viruses and etc. If the second response is your belief, he's still responsible, for letting it happen. If the third response is your belief, then why believe in God at all?

The issue of responsibility needs a rather detailed and an understanding of the issues that arose in Eden. First, God was accused of being a liar. His prohibitions were described as selfishly motivated. Mankind was described as being better off if they refused his guidance and did as they pleased. Our first parents willingly chose to go in that direction. God permitted their continued existence in order to grant them the opportunity to prove their point. Could they indeed govern themselves better without his guidance and blessing?
All heaven was watching. Destroying the rebels would not have answered that question but would simply raise suspicions that perhaps the rebels were right. So the issue had to be resolved by giving mankind and their angelic rebel friends the time sufficient to prove their point if they could.

With that in mind then you can think about responsibility with the needed background information.

The removal of God's blessings, as requested by our first parents would mean that their bodies would gradually begin to malfunction resulting in eventual sickness and death. As for the animals, they would eventually get out of control as would the earth itself.

BTW
My original contribution to this thread was intended to be for informational purposes only-not for seeking of a debate concerning
religion vs atheism.

 

[Radrook]

Hmm.

So, first we humans make up this being called god (or designer if you like) to explain why things are as they are when we look around and don't have the knowledge to understand.

"Look a star, how did they get there?"
"I don't know, must have been put there (designed) by a god".
"A god, phew, lets write a book about this god and tell everyone else".
"ok, how should it start?"
"I don't know but lets put apples in, I like apples".

And now to explain away the foibles of the book that we humans wrote to explain this made up designer, we make more stuff up about its non-creations (cockroaches etc).

Sounds very suspicious to me.

No one is asking you to believe anything.
You totally misunderstood the purpose of my post as being one of evangelizing. The purpose of my post was merely to provide information. Beyond that you can believe whatever you wish.

As for the post above this one-I was asked for a response along
doctrinal lines and I provided one. That doesn't mean I am seeking or willing to engage is fruitless debates.

BTW

The misconception could have been a Hindu, Budhist, Shintoist, Islamic etcetera and I would have still provided a correction if I deemed it to be useful to a better understanding.

 

[Radrook]

It must be God's agents making false claims that he still had power to do things - like the Flood, etc. Alternatively, Radrook has libelled his own god by declaring it not to have the power.

Does the United States not plowing into Korea militarily mean it lacks power?

BTW
Please try not to attribute things to me which I haven't said.
Thanx.

 

[Radrook]

If God had no input/responsibility then how can God be (real) God?

I did not say he had no input. As for responsibility, that's a slightly more complex issue.
Actually, by your tone you seem to be an atheist. Which means that no matter what answer I provide it will be perceived as silly evangelizing and rejected.

So I won't waste your time nor mine.

 

[articulett]

I did not say he had no input. As for responsibility, that's a slightly more complex issue.
Actually, by your tone you seem to be an atheist. Which means that no matter what answer I provide it will be perceived as silly evangelizing and rejected.

So I won't waste your time nor mine.

Wow... will this work for all us atheists? I'm an atheist, and no matter what answer you provide I see you as silly and evangelizing. I've posted here too. Now, is this method useful for keeping all religious woo from preaching, opinion proffering and asking insincere questions on our forum... or is it just specific to you? Or are you just not going to waste some peoples' time, but you still plan on wasting other peoples' time still?

What percentage of forum members would need to have the "atheist tone" that makes you feel rejected for you to feel rejected enough to go to a woo forum instead of a skeptic's forum?

Inquiring minds want to know!