Posted on 02/26/2005 4:45:01 PM PST by DannyTN
1) How sure are you that those animals have superior vision in all respects to humans?
2) It doesn't matter. The design works and works well. Even if you could come up with and implement a better design, which you can't, this design is the design that God made us with. If a better design exists, it proves nothing.
Why didn't God make us like the angels? One of those killed 15,000 men in a single stroke. We were made lower than the angels. Shall the clay say to the potter Why have you made me thus?
When you come up with a better design implement it on yourself and then tell us how much smarter than God you are.
You do know what doctor's said AIDS originated from, before it was politically incorrect to mention? Sex with monkeys.
And who told us not to practice beastiality? Of course from the atheist view point, I guess all of the animals are just one big family anyway.
s"Why don't animals that have their eye designed correctly not need this protection? "
d1) How sure are you that those animals have superior vision in all respects to humans?
You don't thinks hawks have better vision than we do? I have never seen a hawk with glasses.
2) It doesn't matter. The design works and works well. Even if you could come up with and implement a better design, which you can't, this design is the design that God made us with. If a better design exists, it proves nothing.
The whole point is you don't really know if God designed us or not. I think he created us through the process of evolution and the mechanism of natural selection. These actually explain why we would have suboptimal design. If special creation were true, our design should be perfect and static as the early theologians first assumed.
You are changing your argument to try to fit a "flat Earth"
idea.
Why didn't God make us like the angels? One of those killed 15,000 men in a single stroke. We were made lower than the angels. Shall the clay say to the potter Why have you made me thus?
You are getting a bit off track. Science explains why we are like we are. ID doesn't.
When you come up with a better design implement it on yourself and then tell us how much smarter than God you are.
I am not smarter than God, but either are you. Plus I get real meaning out of Scripture while you reinterpret it to suit your masters in the creationist scamorgs.
I wouldn't know. I am not an atheist.
However, if all the human diseases were carried on the Ark, Noah and his family would have never survived.
Hey, you made my day.
Someone else actually remembers this thing. Scientists can be fun, contrary to popular belief.
Obviously. Genetic diseases are the result of mutations after the ark. We know mutations occur. Bacterial infections are the result of bacteria. They obviously survived. I'm not sure where viruses came from. They may come from decaying life. They may have survived the flood, or they may have been created or occured afterwards.
What does evolution say about viruses? Are they common descent too?
w"Then why did he present all the animals to Adam in the 'hope' that Adam would find a helpmate?"
d-Not in hope, but to demonstrate that none were suitable and for naming.
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
The Holy Bible : King James Version. 1995 (Ge 2:18-20).
I don't think you are sticking the the literal word of God with your latest take on this passage, Danny. How are we supposed to know when it is literal and when it is not, if you keep changing the rules?
Admit it! You have been caught tap dancing around the truth, again.
Genesis 2 should be read in light of Genesis 1. The animals were created before Adam. So at this point after Adam was already made, God's statement that he would make a helper for Adam excludes the animals that were already made.
"What does evolution say about viruses? Are they common descent too?"
I don't know. What does the Bible say about viruses?
No, Genesis 1 should be read in light of Gen 2:4 which explicitly says that a "day" is not a 24 hr literal day, but an indefinite period of time.
Why would God need to create the animals out of the ground if they were already there?
For the Bible to inform us about God's will, it must be interpreted in a consistent manner that takes into account milleu, genre and culture. The literalism you espouse satisfies none of this and get hopelessly entangled in a web of deception.
IOW the "A.B.E." theory of creationism! (Anything But Evolution)
The information conveyed in Gen 2 is that God made the animals out of the ground. It's not conveying when God made them. That was conveyed in Gen 1. Gen 2 is adding additional information.
"The literalism you espouse satisfies none of this and get hopelessly entangled in a web of deception"
Then why does God warn us in 2 Peter 3 that people would forget the flood and creation? And who are these people anyway. It looks to me from all the other signs that we are in or near the last days. Who are the people who forgot creation?
I'll see your Grishak "critique," and raise you one rebuttal: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2228&program=CSC%20Responses&printerFriendly=true
Why am I using Poker terms? Do the link.
you know, I'm not a scientist (although I do have a degree in biology with grad-level coursework in recombinant DNA, cellular biology, etc.) I'm a lawyer. For years I've made my living dissecting what people say and how they say it.
Stepping back, I see a consistent tell-tale signal from NeoDarwinism apologists:
Their arguments against ID are almost universally peppered with ad hominem attacks and a sophomoric use of adjectives that would make even the nominally trained writer cringe. Their tactics alone are indicative that their arguments derive not from an objective sceintific plane, but rather from a very subjective, emotion-laden midframe.
What is especially amusing is that these "intellectuals' seem to believe they have risen above such basic human influences, unlike the "religious fanatics" they denounce. Their obvious blind spot should be enough to make any objective observer question their arguments and motives from the start.
Evolution cherishes creation. I think you should forget the flood only to the extent it was not a global flood and the pagan myth does not make much sense from there.
As to the making out of the ground being done prior to the immediate need for a helpmate. No literal view of the passage could possibly come to that conclusion. Once you depart from your strict literalist and simple view of the Bible, you are stuck with much better options, like my enlightened view based on a literal interpretation from Hebrew.
Sorry, I don't see any mention of viruses. If you want to take the literalist view, you will have to show me where the Bible mentions viruses.
Whose literalist view?
When God made creation He said that it was good. Then man sinned, and God cursed the earth and caused man to die. Then God reduced Man's lifespan.
Nowhere does it say after man sinned, that there wouldn't be illness and death. It says there will be. It says God would send plagues (see the Bible on Sickness).
I don't know any literalist who says God made everything perfect and it continues in a perfect state...Oh except Deepak Chopak and he's not a Bible literalist. He's a hindu who says everthing is as it should be. Obviously he doesn't read the news.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.