Random
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

The best evidence against intelligent design of life is the fact that we pewp.

When your design process isn't bound to any limitations whatsoever, why would anyone choose to make something that only utilizes half of its food and turns the rest of it into smelly waste that causes all kinds of diseases? 🤷
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
What makes you think it isn't bound by any limitations whatsoever? It's bound by the laws of nature.
@PathwayMachine God created nature and therefore the laws of nature. He's supposedly all powerful, so if those got in the way of a better design, that's by choice as well.
@NerdyPotato Okay, if you say so. But, if that is true you have to realize that God created man and woman to live forever. Sin, which means to miss the mark, caused them to be cursed to death by God. Wouldn't it be possible part of that imperfect circumstance?

Not that I would use that as an excuse if I should shit myself, but I digress.
@PathwayMachine and where did sin come from? His creation. And cursing them was his choice too.
@NerdyPotato Sin means to miss the mark, so consider some ungodly examples. In the Hebrew it was used to express an archer or sling shooter who missed the target. In modern times it could be equated with being late for work or exceeding the speed limit. The first a sin against your employer and the second against the state. So, in those examples did the sin come from the sinner or the one sinned against?

Here she comes.


https://pathwaymachine.com

Oh. And I forgot, to curse someone is to foresee danger or warn someone. God warned them. It's kind of like when someone says "if you jump off that cliff you'll be sorry."
@PathwayMachine if you keep redefining things in different ways than the bible explicitly states it, I'm not sure what we're debating at all.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@NerdyPotato and what makes some ancient book authoritative on matters of definition?
@NerdyPotato What the Bible says isn't really any more relevant than what I say the Bible says. Everything I state is what the Bible states or implies and you can test that, as God and the Bible himself has encouraged its readers to do. The Bible, as we know it, is the fallible imperfect uninspired translation of the perfect infallible inspired word of God.

So, for example, the Bible says the snake talked to Eve. Not because it did but because from Eve's mistaken perspective, it did. There are many examples of this and I can demonstrate the accuracy of not only the Bible, but what I say. Feel free to test me on that.
@PathwayMachine I'm going to pass on your personal interpretation if it's far off from what the only source we have literally says. I can make up all kinds of things too, but that's not biblical religion anymore. Thanks for your offer though.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@PathwayMachine
perfect infallible inspired word of God

If something that is 'perfect infallible inspired' can so easily become 'imperfect fallible uninspired', then perhaps it was never 'perfect infallible inspired'... or anything at all.

Every scientifically-established fact in the bible either was already known, or is just plain wrong.
@NerdyPotato It isn't made up. Exactly what did I say that you think I made up?
@newjaninev2
If something that is 'perfect infallible inspired' can so easily become 'imperfect fallible uninspired', then perhaps it was never 'perfect infallible inspired'... or anything at all.

Certainly, but that goes without saying, doesn't it? Can you name anything that doesn't apply to? Science? Evolution? You? I don't think so.

Every scientifically-established fact in the bible either was already known, or is just plain wrong.


That seems ambiguous. Especially in the case of someone who most likely has no idea what they are talking about when it comes to the Bible.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@PathwayMachine Neither science nor evolution nor I claims to be 'perfect infallible inspired'.

That seems ambiguous

In what way? it's a straightforward statement.
@newjaninev2
In what way? it's a straightforward statement

No it isn't. It's nonsense. First of all, the Bible described the shape of earth, the hydrologic cycle, and the need for washing hands anywhere from 700 to thousands of years before science, so "science" would have disagreed with the scientifically accurate descriptions given at the time. What you really mean is the Bible is stupid and science isn't. Which is also nonsense. You're only an ideologue who knows virtually nothing about what the Bible says.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@PathwayMachine The bibke describes the Earth as being circular, which is what you see looking at the horizon from a hilltop - it says nothing about a sphere (let alone an oblate spheroid).
Water falls down so water must have gone up. Water flows down so eventually gets to the ocean. Two observations - far from detailing (or even understanding) the hydrologic cycle.
Hand washing was prescribed for expiating sins before bringing offerings to priests. Nothing to do with hygiene.
While some magical entity was busy slaying and murdering and punishing it might have been helpful if it had said, ohm, by the way, you're on a sphere going around and around that big shiny nuclear reactor in the sky.

But it didn't
This comment is hidden. Show Comment