Too complex to be intelligently designed?
- Thread starter Gondolin
- Start date
simply indicates that human thinking is not up to the task of universal creation
Of course, it's the only thing that can explain everything. Scientists and philosophers try for ages to figure so many things, but one little magical word can explain all of those things.
Scientists say that things fall because of gravity, and I say that things fall because God makes them fall. What's the difference? Both of them explain why things fall.
God had no choice when he created the universe because he is omniscient, so he knew his own actions which he had to do because he didn't create the desire that made him create the world.
God didn't create himself, so he didn't create his free will, so his free will is not his, so he has no free will.
rofflewoffle
Registered Member
At least you're respectful about it. Although I disagree with you and don't think I can really take you seriously on this issue(no offense whatsoever - you probably won't take me seriously because I admit I'm a bit narrow-minded about just saying "poof," it's there. It'd make life easier, but I don't believe it).Yorda said:
An interesting point. I suppose I'm too tired to argue. It's impossible to know for sure whether it's God or science or whatever that is real. Only when we die will it be revealed. I just believe science outweighs because it has more basis.Yorda said:
Ah, so you believe God already knew this would all happen? Still, that doesn't really explain why his omnipotent, omniscient benevolence didn't take action. Meh.Yorda said:
Then who created God? That's really the underlying question that makes any argument pointless. How did existence begin? Was it forever here? The concept of infinity is a peculiar thing. I doubt we'll ever know.Yorda said:
The thing I love most about almost all theists is how much they know about what god wants.
"God wanted us to spectate His grand design"
Right.
As for being too complex for intelligent design, you could google for all of the things in nature, especially life, that, from a design standpoint, are incredibly over-complex and/or absurdly poorly "designed".
"God wanted us to spectate His grand design"
Right.
As for being too complex for intelligent design, you could google for all of the things in nature, especially life, that, from a design standpoint, are incredibly over-complex and/or absurdly poorly "designed".
being omnipotent is somehow some a disqualification for communication?
you're not talking about the road works of NYC are you?
That is exactly what I'm talking about. The world seems to chaotic and sloppy to be "intelligently" designed.
Intelligent design is one the best theories out there fitting all the facts of the fossil records lack of transitional fossils and taking in the account of the limmiting boundaries of the genetic code. I found Michael Behe's articles and interviews highly enlightening and in pace with many other scientist that seem to be leaving their previous views behind.
It lacks a critical element of naming a designer though.
It lacks a critical element of naming a designer though.
If that were the case, arguably very complex machines, inventions, etc...shouldn't be intelligently created (but we know they are by humans)
HAVE you ever noticed that many plants grow in spiral formations?
A pineapple may have 8 spirals of scales going around one way and 5 or 13 going in the opposite direction. The seeds in a sunflower have 55 and 89 different spirals crossing over each other or perhaps even more. You may even find spirals on a cauliflower. Most plants arrange new growths at a unique angle that produces spirals.
Consider this challenge: Imagine trying to engineer a plant so that new growths are compactly arranged around the growing point with absolutely no wasted space. Lets say you decided arbitrarily to make each new primordium grow out at an angle of two fifths of a revolution from the previous growth. You would have the problem of every fifth primordium growing from the same spot and in the same direction. They would form rows with wasted space between the rows.
The truth is, any simple fraction of a revolution results in rows rather than optimal packing. Only what has been termed the “golden angle” of approximately 137.5 degrees results in an ideally compact arrangement of growths. That's precision.
A pineapple may have 8 spirals of scales going around one way and 5 or 13 going in the opposite direction. The seeds in a sunflower have 55 and 89 different spirals crossing over each other or perhaps even more. You may even find spirals on a cauliflower. Most plants arrange new growths at a unique angle that produces spirals.
Consider this challenge: Imagine trying to engineer a plant so that new growths are compactly arranged around the growing point with absolutely no wasted space. Lets say you decided arbitrarily to make each new primordium grow out at an angle of two fifths of a revolution from the previous growth. You would have the problem of every fifth primordium growing from the same spot and in the same direction. They would form rows with wasted space between the rows.
The truth is, any simple fraction of a revolution results in rows rather than optimal packing. Only what has been termed the “golden angle” of approximately 137.5 degrees results in an ideally compact arrangement of growths. That's precision.
Pardon me, but none of you understand the exquisite feedback mechanism of evolution by natural selection. You have no real knowledge of what the theory says and how we assess the evidence for it.
Sorry. You guys are just plain ignorant of the situation.
Sorry. You guys are just plain ignorant of the situation.
What about evolution by designed(unnatural?) selection? It is a reality ...now. Also in the past, but humans are pretty arrogant that way. We are not the best thing out there.
to our knowledge we are aside from God...
"No one disputes the origins of manufactured items. There isn't a being who proclaims, "Let there be airplanes!" and they magically "poof" into existence. Yet, you disingenuously point to airplanes as an example of a "created object". If you would use manufactured items as evidence of designer and then extrapolate to insist that natural items must also have a designer, you must show the process by which these natural items were "manufactured"."
Alt.Atheism