Intelligent (maybe), but far from perfect

Spam deleted.Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.

@ crashfrog,First of all, why should we find that the disobedient have a higher incidence of disease? Nobody has claimed that except you. Thats a strawman type argument.Secondly, diseases are not caused by disobedience. The INITIAL cause of disease was disobedience, which is what the other poster claimed. Biological agents that have undergone entropic processes are what we see cause disease, but the original sin of Adam is what began those entropic processes.Lastly, you ask for evidence, and I would have to ask how one would prove that anyway? Disobedience is a concept and not something you can scientifically test. A good way would be to test the reliability of the Bible, and once you come to a conclusion on that, you can find out what it teaches about sin and disease. Have you ever studied the reliability of it in depth? I think you will be surprised. It's interesting how 66 different books pieced together, written by 40 different authors, on 3 different continents, over the period of 1500 years can relay such a coherent message and have its teachings reflect how the world actually is and works. I look forward to your reply.

If you are aware of Artificial intelligence you'd know that imperfection is the most difficult thing to create.

I believe that the Creator designs things to be imperfect. Why would he make things perfect anyway?And to who's standards would we judge what 'perfect' is anyway?Edited by antiLIE, : No reason given.

---

Agent antiLIE of the AGDT
7x153=1071 [ VIII:XXIV]
I klinamaksa exei afypnistei

IMHO God made Adam, Eve and the Garden of Eden perfect. Through original sin imperfection was introduced into the world. Once we die and the Lord comes back we will be once again made perfect.This of course is my opinion.

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.

Good question. I guess it comes down to personal opinion.

Bluejay,I'm too lazy to look back at their posts, but do they claim the Bible teaches this?Genesis 1:31 says, "Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good." Others might argue it says "good" and not "perfect", but I would reply that God's standard of good is perfection. If they were already made imperfect, chapter 3 of Genesis wouldnt really be necessary, right?What do you believe Bluejay?

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.

-deleteEdited by blashmet, : No reason given.

Well to clarify what I was talking about.. Yes I agree Gods original creation was "perfect". But the Imperfection that is created post Sin and post Flood is all by his will and for his good pleasure. Edited by antiLIE, : morning typos

---

Agent antiLIE of the AGDT
7x153=1071 [ VIII:XXIV]
I klinamaksa exei afypnistei

This thread's purpose is to address the argument that the perfection of design in the universe is evidence of God. A recent well-publicized argument of this type is that the banana is perfectly designed to fit our hand, be easily opened, and present itself to be eaten (see the Ray Comfort/Kirk Cameron banana video).The opening post of this thread argues that the world and life are not perfect, and that this is an argument against the existence of God.You're saying that a creator wouldn't necessarily intend perfection, in which case lack of perfection would not be evidence against God, and I think most people would agree that that's a logical implication of the premise, whether they agree with the premise or not.Keeping things simple, we can put the possibilities in a matrix: In other words, only if God intends perfection *and* existence is perfect would it be evidence of God. And the interpretation would still be provisional because there is no evidence that God intended perfection, as you pointed out.So the only conclusion from this simple form of the argument is that the nature of existence is evidence neither for nor against the existence of God.--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

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.

So the fact your organism doesn't live forever means the universe isn't perfect?Great place we'd live in if everything lived forever perfectly...We are here to experience things for a very short time, after that your spirit (life energy) goes back to the perfect dimension.

---

Estepona Apartments - Apartments for sale and rent in Estepona, Spain