Originally posted by daniel58If you don’t believe we evolved but rather we where made by “him” then, apparently, “he” does “error” for “he” put the blood vessels for our retinas in front of our retinas (where they would block some of the incoming light 😛 ) rather than behind our retinas -a really stupid error not even most of us would make!
God doesn't error.
"He" apparently also made many simular errors (which I can give on request).
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonIs it possible that things you see in nature have some positive purpose that we are yet to discover ?
If you don’t believe we evolved but rather we where made by “him” then, apparently, “he” does “error” for “he” put the blood vessels for our retinas in front of our retinas (where they would block some of the incoming light 😛 ) rather than behind our retinas -a really stupid error not even most of us would make!
"He" apparently also made many simular errors (which I can give on request).
Is it possible that damage to the design of some part of nature reflects not the original plan but a defection of it ?
There are alternatives to faulting the Creator with error. It is not the only possible explanation. That is to say "God made a sloppy mistake and I would have done much better."
3 edits
Originally posted by jaywill…Is it possible that things you see in nature have some positive purpose that we are yet to discover ? .
Is it possible that things you see in nature have some positive purpose that we are yet to discover ?
Is it possible that damage to the design of some part of nature reflects not the original plan but a defection of it ?
There are alternatives to faulting the Creator with error. It is not the only possible explanation. That is to say "God made a sloppy mistake and I would have done much better."
….
Is there a premise for the belief that ALL things you see in nature have some positive purpose that we are yet to discover? -answer, no (not that I am saying here you said “ALL” things -read on and you see my point: )
Is there a premise for the belief that putting the blood vessels for our retinas in front of our retinas where they would block some of the incoming light has some positive purpose that we are yet to discover? -answer no.
Is there a premise for the belief that putting the blood vessels for our retinas in front of our retinas where they would block some of the incoming light does NOT have some positive purpose that we are yet to discover? -answer yes! -three reasons:
1, the fact that evolution is proven and the fact that evolution does not require “purpose” to operate.
2, the fact that those blood vessels partly block light to the retina is obviously a handicap especially in dim-light where it could mean the difference between seeing a predator/danger approaching and not seeing it and dieing -so this would beg the question “what possible positive advantage could putting the blood vessels in front of the retina have that would more than offset this major disadvantage?”
3, many other animal groups didn’t evolve to have blood vessels in front of their retinas -including birds and many arthropods. Would having blood vessels in front of their retinas have no positive advantage for them and yet have a positive advantage for us and, if so, why is there a positive advantage for one but not the other in this case?
…Is it possible that damage to the design of some part of nature reflects not the original plan but a defection of it ?
...
You mean the blood vessels where once behind our retinas but then they mysteriously moved in front of them?
What would you suggest could cause such a thing? -a mutation? -if yes, there are at least two serious problems with that hypotheses:
1, there are no known human mutations that reverse that ‘bad mutation’ (assuming it exists) by putting the blood vessels back to the behind of the retinas were they belong -this clearly indicates that there is no ‘bad mutation’ that puts the blood vessels in front of the retinas to ‘undo’ or ‘reverse’.
And if such a mutations that reverse that ‘bad mutation’ exists then what would be stopping natural selection from giving all of us this good mutation (‘good’ because it reverses the ‘bad’ mutation) within a few ~hundred generations? -we should all have this good mutation by now!
2, the position of our blood vessels is not determined by one gene but many; if a mutation occurred that placed some of those blood vessels into a position that would be disadvantageous to us, what would be stopping natural selection from simply weeding it out of the gene pool well before it has a chance to spread to the whole population? -answer, nothing.
…There are alternatives to faulting the Creator with error.
….
Why would an all powerful god go to the trouble of making an excellent design only to allow nature to create faults in it? (and by random mutations at that!)
…It is not the only possible explanation. That is to say "God made a sloppy mistake and I would have done much better."
…..
-I thought “God” was supposed to be flawless and incapable of error?
Originally posted by daniel58You have a lot to do with it. The words "God cannot error" were your words. And you can error.
What do I have to do with anything, I'm talking about God, HE MADE THE EARTH, SKY, SPACE... HE DIDN'T MAKE ANY MISTAKES!!!
Anyway, that was not what I claimed in my original post. I said that our belief in Creation can be based on an erroneous assumption. And that can be true for the concept of Evolution too.
Maybe it is all a dream as the aboriginals in Australia say.
Originally posted by souvereinNo it's not if I say "God is God" does that make it a possible error because I posted it and not God? NO!!! It's not all a dream, when we dream we can't sin, but we can sin therefore it's not a dream.
You have a lot to do with it. The words "God cannot error" were [b]your words. And you can error.
Anyway, that was not what I claimed in my original post. I said that our belief in Creation can be based on an erroneous assumption. And that can be true for the concept of Evolution too.
Maybe it is all a dream as the aboriginals in Australia say.[/b]
Originally posted by daniel58…HE DIDN'T MAKE ANY MISTAKES!!!
What do I have to do with anything, I'm talking about God, HE MADE THE EARTH, SKY, SPACE... HE DIDN'T MAKE ANY MISTAKES!!!
….
Have you read my last post to you in this thread?
-how would you account for apparently blatantly obvious flaws
in the arrangement of the anatomy of human beings and also in other animals?
I think you may do well to also read my last post to jaywill in this thread.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonOnly God knows why, we shouldn't question His authority, knowledge or wisdom, He knows the future we don't.
[b]…HE DIDN'T MAKE ANY MISTAKES!!!
….
Have you read my last post to you in this thread?
-how would you account for apparently blatantly obvious flaws
in the arrangement of the anatomy of human beings and also in other animals?
I think you may do well to also read my last post to jaywill in this thread.[/b]
Originally posted by daniel58"God is God" is a statement devoid of content.
No it's not if I say "God is God" does that make it a possible error because I posted it and not God? NO!!! It's not all a dream, when we dream we can't sin, but we can sin therefore it's not a dream.
"God is without error" is a statement you have to proof true
If God doesn't exist the statement is devoid of meaning.
In that case there cannot be Creation by God.
Originally posted by souvereinSo what does God do? He is perfect whether you believe it or not, that's your problem not mine.
"God is God" is a statement devoid of content.
"God is without error" is a statement you have to proof true
If God doesn't exist the statement is devoid of meaning.
In that case there cannot be Creation by God.
3 edits
Originally posted by daniel58…Only God knows why,
Only God knows why, we shouldn't question His authority, knowledge or wisdom, He knows the future we don't.
….
So only “God” knows the reason for the blatantly obvious flaws
in the arrangement of the anatomy of human beings and also in other animals?
That is simply not true because I know why -evolution gives imperfect results as a result of it being a sloppy blind process.
Saying “Only God knows why” is just another way of saying “I don’t know” so this is a none-answer.
So saying “Only God knows why” doesn’t explain how would you account for apparently blatantly obvious flaws in the arrangement of the anatomy of human beings and also in other animals if a god created that anatomy.
In short; there is a extremely good scientific explanation for those flaws and it comes from a process that has been proven to exist (evolution) -but no satisfactory explanation from the ‘Creationist’ hypothesis (or at least not your brand):
evolution theory: 1
Creationism: 0
…we shouldn't question His authority,
...
I question ‘his’ existence.
Before worrying whether or not we should “question His authority”, shouldn’t we first establish if ‘he’ exists? After all, if ‘he’ doesn’t exist then the question of whether or not we should “question His authority” would be redundant.
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton"The fool saith in his heart, there is no God". So if you don't Believe in God, then why do you care if I say "Only God knows"?
[b]…Only God knows why,
….
So only “God” knows the reason for the blatantly obvious flaws
in the arrangement of the anatomy of human beings and also in other animals?
That is simply not true because I know why -evolution gives imperfect results as a result of it being a sloppy blind process.
Saying “Only God knows why” is just another w ...[text shortened]... xist then the question of whether or not we should “question His authority” would be redundant.[/b]
2 edits
Originally posted by daniel58Answer: I want to cure you of your delusions by reason and you saying the none answer of "Only God knows" shows that I am failing to persuade you to engage in reasoning.
"The fool saith in his heart, there is no God". So if you don't Believe in God, then why do you care if I say "Only God knows"?