Does Evolution Really Contradict the Bible?

Author: Jarrett_Ludolph

Posts

Total: 132
#91
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5


...and if these scriptures weren't so ambiguous may be people wouldn't need Christians or  the  church or Priests or Pastors or Chaplains to try explain them or defend them.
People need Christians or  the  church or Priests or Pastors or Chaplains to try explain them and defend them because of people like you.
Why have they taken it upon themselves to do this. What business is it of theirs that they should teach to others what you believe are the words  of god ?


Just like you are attempting and failing to do on this thread. 
It's amazing how many times you claim people are failing while never offering a single logical argument.

 I very rarely start with an argument .  I start with a question   and then an  argument ensues and  ending with the likes of you not being able to support your own claims.......

......such as here >> #39 so when you are ready. 



#92
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@PressF4Respect
Like I said, you wouldn't.

So you think that human bodies don't have any physical flaws in them whatsoever?
No, I said there were no faults in the design.

I call trick play. Don't ask me for the purpose of a part of a design. The entire design goes to the purpose. What does a windshield have to do with moving passengers from point A to point B?

The pharynx and accompanying windpipe are as essential to a human as an air intake valve is to a car. Without oxygen, neither the car nor the person would function at all.
Doesn't invalidate my point. There are animals without a pharynx and a windpipe. The point is that the effectiveness of the design is about the car, not a part taken out of the context. Your saying something is a flaw doesn't make it a flaw. I've had homosexual males tell me a vagina is a "flaw".

The value of good designs not only involve benefits or reduced risks, but things like efficient use of space, multi functioning parts, and scalable structures. Everything gained in a design sacrifices some other thing. Want a fast car? You will lose fuel efficiency. Want a spacious car? You will lose aerodynamics. But hubristic armchair creators never have to deal with reality.
Which is probably why their "better" designs never make it past their talk phase.

How would increased spatial efficiency, multifunctionality, and scalability outweigh a greatly increased risk of dying of asphyxiation, for example?
How many people die of choking? It is great that our heads can swivel 180 degrees on our necks. Would we be able to do that if we larger necks? Your argument is, as I said, purely subjective. One armchair creator thinks a heart encased in bone is "better", another thinks being able to bend our midriff is better. So what? Both are just opinions. Each design comes with advantages and disadvantages. Different people place different values on different advantages.

You read about the pharynx and windpipe and because it fit your atheist belief system, you stopped thinking. You never considered that If our pharynx and windpipe were in different tubes, where would the forced air come from to power our speech? So now you need more muscles, or you lose the power of speech. More muscles mean more load on the heart, more complexity, and thus more things to go wrong. More access into the body for pathogens.

And then armchair designers like you would be pontificating that joining the pharynx and accompanying windpipe would be a "better" design.

Is what I said true or false? Has anyone made a single cell?

Ultimately, this point is a red herring. Humans not being able to replicate life wouldn't in any way defeat the point that human anatomy has flaws in it.
It certainly would give your claim of having a better design some credibility. Right now, your armchair designing doesn't impress me.

No it isn't. And even if it was, it would still be based on God's original design.

And tell us, which artificial organ is better designed than the natural one? Hmmm?

Why does it have to be "better designed"? 
It does HAVE to be, but you claim you can dream up better designs. Would not organ replacements be a fine time to test out your " better" design abilities?

Artificial organs are designed to replicate the functions of the biological ones that have failed.
But they need not replicate the form of the biological ones that have failed. How come artificial organs always mimic the design of the original?

This alone proves that human bodies are flawed. 
If you replace the organ you call " flawed" with an exact replica, how then is it flawed? Why not use your design chops and put in a "better designed" organ? Your word "flawed" is subjective claptrap. It is simply an expression of your personal preference, not fact.

Your hubris is what causes you not to see that.
#93
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@zedvictor4
If you will not address the text what good is your commentary here?

The text says there was no sun, and does not say "sunrise".

If you cannot even accept the text for sake of argument, then step aside and allow the adults who are able to debate use the board for what it was designed to do.
#94
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
Why have they taken it upon themselves to do this. What business is it of theirs that they should teach to others what you believe are the words  of god ?
They wanted to and needed no approval from you.

Just like you are attempting and failing to do on this thread. 
It's amazing how many times you claim people are failing while never offering a single logical argument.

 I very rarely start with an argument. 
Tell us something we don't know.

I start with a question and then an  argument ensues and  ending with the likes of you not being able to support your own claims.....
Is that your excuse for spamming?

@....such as here >> #39 so when you are ready. 
I was born ready.
#95
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@fauxlaw
No. That's not even a point, do lions have echo location? We have a more developed frontal cortex and are thus able to form a coherent thought, strategy, and tools, and that's what gives us such an evolutionary advantage. That's weak at best.
#96
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tradesecret
That thing can make improper choices however, something which is not flawed is something which has literally no flaws, the ability to do the wrong thing is a flaw
#97
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5

...and if these scriptures weren't so ambiguous may be people wouldn't need Christians or  the  church or Priests or Pastors or Chaplains to try explain them or defend them.
People need Christians or  the  church or Priests or Pastors or Chaplains to try explain them and defend them because of people like you.
Why have they taken it upon themselves to do this.

They wanted to and needed no approval from you.
So you are saying then they  have actually taken it upon themselves to  force this "good news" ideology  onto someone that doesn't want it?   Where ever did they get such

dictatorial idea? And who or what authorised them, ? 


 I very rarely start with an argument. I start with a question   and then an  argument ensues and  ending with the likes of you not being able to support your own claims.......
......such as here >> #39 so when you are ready. 


Tell us something we don't know.

 I just did . 


#98
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
So you are saying then they  have actually taken it upon themselves to  force this "good news" ideology  onto someone that doesn't want it?
No. Its you saying that. You asked why do they have to explain. Explaining is not "forcing "good news" on anyone and is thus not dictatorial.

Where ever did they get such dictatorial idea?
Its your idea. You should know.

And who or what authorised them, ? 
No one needs authorization to do what they want or do do what you don't like.

 I very rarely start with an argument. 
Tell us something we don't know.

 I just did . 
We already knew you very rarely start with an argument. You very rarely have an argument, but that is a different story.
#99
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
do lions have echo location? 
You're kidding, right? No, lions may not have echo location [we just don't know], but the whiskers on all felines do have sensory purposes [more than one] beyond our nearly useless mustache, if we bother growing one, even by enhancing vision, [look it up] so don't be trimming your cat's whiskers, yeah?

What I'm saying, my friend, is that, in fact, some people do seem to have a rudimentary sense of earth's magnetic field, for example. Certainly not everyone, but does that mean that only a small percentage of humans have that sense, or is it latent in all of us, and we just need practice? Are you going to say that five senses is our limit, period?

Nonsense.

That advanced frontal cortex we have still needs sensory input; the more, the better, so it is exactly the point, and is far from weakness, regardless of you lazy attitude about it.
As I've said, repeatedly, argue for your limitations; they're yours. But, why?
#100
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
Why would God create flawed beings 
God did not make flawed beings.  A being with the potential to make choices is not a flawed being. 

They just make flawed choices. Probably because they are made in the image of god himself. 

#101
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@fauxlaw
why would we become like Gd?
#102
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@fauxlaw
I've already explained that, we don't need them, evolution doesn't seek to make the "BEST SPECIES OF ALL TIME" thats not what it is, its the species most fit for their environment, humans can adapt to environments using tools better than other species can adapt using extra sensory materials, not to mention, lion's whiskers and echo location are not the same.
#103
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,613
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@ethang5
The people looking at the human bodies and saying it is apparent that there are many flaws have not been able to make a single cell. Not even one.
That is because the number of atoms in a single cell is equal to 100 trillion or 100000000000000 atoms in 1 cell. 
#104
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@fauxlaw
therefore various flaws like cancer, birth defects, etc.
Are such things really just a matter of random chance? The CDC says the 60% of cancer and diabetes cases could be prevented in the first place, and 80% of heart disease as well. Prevention by our choice of applying the notion of Genesis 2: 16, 17, wherein we are told that Adam could eat of every tree in the Garden, but that the choice to eat of the tree of knowledge would have a dire consequence; the only choice among all the fruit that had such a consequence. Add further Doctrine & Covenants 89: 1-21; a suggestion of healthy eating from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Compare these scriptures  to CDC's warning that prevention of the maladies noted could actually be prevented, just by making proper consumption choices. Smoking, drinking, drugs, fast food, prepared, manufactured food. All the food that is in the middle of virtually every grocery store. Their layouts are identical. All the fresh food, the food most full of nutrients, is around the outside rim. Al the processed foods are in the middle. Choose to eat from just the outside rim, and ignore the middle. Our choice. Who but us chooses to stuff what down the pie hole? Who knew that grocery stores could be as insidious as the tree of knowledge only because it is a matter of personal choice? I personally grow about 30% of the food I eat. A matter of choice.
While we can certainly take actions to increase or decrease our odds of certain illnesses, what possible choices does someone make which impact their rate of being born with birth defects?

This is of course part of the problem of evil.
#105
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph
I really am not familiar with Unintelligent design. It sounds like it accepts evolution. If UD accepts evolution, then I don't see any problem with it, however if UD denies evolution, then this is problematic for UD.

as for Intelligent design, since it denies evolution, it is very unlikely to be true.
Unintelligent Design is mainly a criticism to creation from a perfect creator (the evidence suggests if there's a creator, it is clearly not a perfect one), which as you can see from the hostility to the very notion of it, is rarely intelligently challenged.

If you ever want a primer on it, here's a pretty good article:

Also if you haven't already read it, you should definitely take the time to read this regarding attempts to teach religion in the science classes:

And yes, my earlier explanation about a drunk unintelligent creator, is paraphrased from the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
#106
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
As the "flaws" argument was pure subjective hokum, it was appropriate that they not try to disguise it in science and went with the laughable spaghetti monster argument. But the implication that evolutionary theory agrees with the FSM has some truth.
#107
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,081
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ethang5
Sun first life second....Why....Who knows....Naive hypothetical texts are what they are.... Pie in the sky.
#108
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,081
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Theweakeredge
Lions whiskers and echo location....Different adaptation....Similar end result...Internal processing.


And humans are outsmarting and out-evolving themselves with technology...And our organic weaknesses will perhaps  be our limiting factor.

Do you think that we will still be in control  a 1000  or 10,000years from now?....Fleeting moments of universal time.

Maybe the whole point of evolution, is the attainment of the GOD principle....And humanity is but one stage of the process.


We are basically, only concerned with our own survival, for a few measly decades...Here and now.
#109
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@zedvictor4
Yeah... that's kind of what evolution is..... And no they aren't similar biological processes at all, they have similar functions, that doesn't mean the they are the same. Get that assumption out of your head. Humans have the evolutionary advantage of being smart, and having thumbs of which to use tools, but mostly the first part, with both of these features together humans were able to become the top of the food chain. Whether we stay there is irrelevant to my point, and the rest is nothing more than postulation or joking I'm too tired to deal with
#110
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Why would God create flawed beings 
God did not make flawed beings.  A being with the potential to make choices is not a flawed being. 

They just make flawed choices. Probably because they are made in the image of god himself. 
But the problem - and one which you never seriously engage with is - what about the all the non-flawed choices that are made? What about the good in the world? What about all the good God does? 

Rather than seriously engage with this topic, you ignore it, ridicule it, and pretend it does not exist. 

God made humans. He gave them free will.  A person cannot love without free will.  Yes, God could have made robots. People without free will. God does not want robots. He desires people to love him freely.  Yet unlike you, God understands that this requires humans who have the capacity to fall.   You see God is not utilitarian. He does not believe the ends justifies the means.   He believes that the journey is just as important as the destination.  

God is perfect. Humanity is and was made in God's image.   A person with the ability to make flawed choices is more perfect than one that cannot.  That is probably too profound for you to get your brain around. But go on - spend a few micro seconds at least trying to understand it. 
#111
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
Why would God create flawed beings 
God did not make flawed beings.  A being with the potential to make choices is not a flawed being. 

They just make flawed choices. Probably because they are made in the image of god himself. 
But the problem - and one which you never seriously engage with is - what about the all the non-flawed choices that are made?

 That may well have to do with after making many request by me for you to start  a thread of your own showing god in a more positive and tolerant light and love, you have simply have failed to do so.  So are you going to do that? 


What about the good in the world?
 I have never been asked to discuss "all the good in the world" of which there is much.



Rather than seriously engage with this topic, you ignore it, ridicule it, and pretend it does not exist. 

You came onto this thread at post  #54 , you didn't "engage seriously" the OP's question with your first post, or your second, which was to do with "flawed beings" #77  which also doesn't "engage seriously"  the OP's question.  Your next post was criticizing - " the self-delusion of people like some of the posters on here" #85 and 25 posts later at post #110   (the post I am now responding to)  you begin by criticizing me for not "engaging seriously  with the topic.  And I have made no ridicule on this thread whatsoever. 

Tell me, where have you once "engaged seriously" OP's  questions in this thread.   I see, that will be nowhere, then.    So I hope now that you feel as incompetent and as stupid as you have clearly shown yourself to be  with your glaring double standards. 



God made humans. He gave them free will.
 How is that "engaged seriously" the OP's question.  


  A person cannot love without free will. 
Nope that doesn't "engaged seriously" OP's question, either.


 Humanity is and was made in God's image. 

Well OP's question aside AGAIN, that is exactly what I have said above at post #100..... Only I was  technically wrong.  We were made in the image of THE gods, plural, is what I should have said. And as the scripture itself tell us. Genesis 1:26.    

I have addressed your posts here  #103  and here too #13


That is probably too profound for you to get your brain around. 

I will  if you can explain how it all relates to you "engage seriously" the OP's question. 




#112
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,613
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Tradesecret
God is not really an explanation, only a non-explanation. It is impossible to gain information from non-information so God as an explanation is a dead end. When we have said that the reason for something is that 'god did it that way' there is no way to understand it any further. We just shrug our shoulders and accept things as they are. To explain the unknown by god is only to explain how it happened, not why. If we are to investigate the world and build our views of life from the world, we cannot assume a god. Because adding god as an explanation leaves as many, if not more questions than it explains, god has to be removed if we are serious in investigating the world.
#113
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph
Do humans have souls according to the Bible?
#114
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Barney
This is of course part of the problem of evil.
Yes, because what is the rate of birth defects caused by careless parents with regard to causing those defects by poor consumption choices? ref. https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/birthdefects/prevention.html

Pre-existing conditions, including mostly poor consumption choices of parents are causing too many birth defects to ignore, specifically because they are preventable causes just by making better consumption choices by parents, whether they intend ed to be parents or not [the so-called sex-for-recreation crowd - and note a root of that particular word]
#115
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,081
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Theweakeredge
No joke.... Just hypothesising.

Life is short and the future is vast and technology has only just started....It's taken Hominids some 20 million years to get to where we are....I do not think that the evolution of  technology will be that slow.
#116
ronjs
ronjs's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 268
0
2
2
ronjs's avatar
ronjs
0
2
2
-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph
As far as origins is concerned  the two are obviously contradictory
#117
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@fauxlaw
Pre-existing conditions, including mostly poor consumption choices of parents are causing too many birth defects to ignore, specifically because they are preventable causes 
That makes perfect sense with random evolution, or even unintelligent design. When considering God, it doesn't seem to be an all good and all loving creator if he's like: 'you're so full of sin that you caused your grandparents to make bad eating choices, so I'm going to punish you with your whole life with a heart defect that might kill you even before you start sinning.'
#118
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@FLRW
God is not really an explanation, only a non-explanation. It is impossible to gain information from non-information so God as an explanation is a dead end. When we have said that the reason for something is that 'god did it that way' there is no way to understand it any further. We just shrug our shoulders and accept things as they are. To explain the unknown by god is only to explain how it happened, not why. If we are to investigate the world and build our views of life from the world, we cannot assume a god. Because adding god as an explanation leaves as many, if not more questions than it explains, god has to be removed if we are serious in investigating the world.
I understand the perplexment in someone saying "God is an explanation". Did I say that? I might have. Please show me where I said that. I certainly do not use it in the "GOD of the gaps hypothesis" and strawman that many atheists accuse theists of. 

Yes, I would be interested to see where you suggest I said that. 

The Big Bang theory as an explanation of everything is a similar ploy.  I find it incredibly baffling that atheists tend to do this.  If they cannot explain it - they just say - "one day we will find out" knowing full well that this is a copout as there are no particular reason for thinking that they will find out.  

Removing God from any serious investigation is a flawed move.  To do so - requires assumptions that will always be found in a conclusion. Logically if you start with the end - your premises must contain those elements.   If you start with an investigation without God in your premises, you will and can only come to conclusions with God not in the picture.   This is how the atheist reasons. IT is however not how the scientist reasons. Thank God for intellectually honest scientists. 
#119
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Barney
unintelligent design.
The design was never intended to be perfect as first produced. Perfection is a process of continuous improvement, not perfectin at the outset. And death happens as part of that process. No one here gets out alive. And no one becomes perfect but by passage through challenges of mortality, which always yields death. Then comes the resurrection [of all living things, not just humans] and continuation on the road to perfection. All in the original, intelligent design.
#120
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
Humans were created good - not perfect.