Intelligent (maybe), but far from perfect

But, it shouldn't be too difficult for an omnipotent and omniscient God, right?Or, are you suggesting that the designer is imperfect and doesn't have the capacity to make things absolutely perfect? Wouldn't that be evidence that the designer is not the God of the Bible?Edited by Bluejay, : TypoEdited by Bluejay, : I double-pasted the quote.

---

I'm Thylacosmilus.Darwin loves you.

Welcome to EvC, Blashmet! And Criticalthinker, too. Here's the problem with this logic. Everytime two alternative possibilities come up, creationists can say that either one might lead to their God having created the universe. So, if our physical bodies were perfect, it would be evidence of God. If they're not, it might also be evidence of God.You (blashmet) and seekingthetruth say that man was originally created perfect, and that imperfection today is evidence of the Fall. AntiLIE and criticialthinker say that man was created imperfect, and that an imperfect creation makes more sense than a perfect creation.Which one is it?

---

I'm Thylacosmilus.Darwin loves you.

They're only a few posts back, and none of them is particularly long. That's the problem: like seekingthetruth said, it all comes down to personal opinion. I would personally use the phrase "personal preference" in place of "personal opinion," but that's just my preference.But, the point is, neither one would ever be supported definitively by any evidence short of individual omniscience. Even if God came down and said it Himself, you'd have to admit that He could be lying (or that He could be the devil in disguise). As far as I can tell, in Genesis 3, God is just telling Adam that he's going to have to work for his own food, and Eve will be sad (especially during pregnancy) and conceive a lot. I don't see anything that refers inequivocally to perfection and/or the loss thereof. It could be that God was feeding them with His own food. It could also be that Eve had never been pregnant before, and God was just warning her of what was to come. Mind your own business. In the Science Forums, we don't argue beliefs: we argue facts and evidence. That said, I'm a Mormon, but I don't believe in the infallibility of scripture, nor do I believe in the first point of creationism.Edited by Bluejay, : Clarifications

---

I'm Thylacosmilus.Darwin loves you.

I'm no scriptorian or historian, blashmet, nor will I claim to be. There are plenty of people here who are pretty good with Bible history, however (Grizz, PaulK, autumnman, bertot, tc.): I'd let them debate with you about scriptures and stuff.However, this topic is about physiological imperfection as a possible evidence against intelligent design: scriptural accuracy isn't really on-topic. If you start a topic about the accuracy of today's Bibles against the original texts in "Proposed New Topics," I'd love to follow your inevitable discussion with Grizz, autumnman, PaulK and/or all the creationists on this site (I doubt I could contribute much, though).I can't resist pointing this out, though: If they're the originals, how would you ever know if they had any errors? To what would you compare them?

---

I'm Thylacosmilus.Darwin loves you.