The impossible delusion of evolution

by brotherdan 172 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • brotherdan
  • brotherdan
  • moshe

    Yes, our designer is so intelligent, that over 90% of Earth's perfect creation has gone extinct. Big bad T-Rex was the top dog on the food chain for a very long time and then he got too big for his britches- he failed to give proper due to his CREATOR, so zap- God sent an asteroid his way to clean house and then he came up with an even better idea for a creation- Man, except that hasn't been going as planned, either. Man is not only smart, but arrogant, too. He invented the Internet and Twitter and Facebook, which have been causing God all kinds of problems with getting the worship that is due him.

    Hmm, maybe it's time to go back to the reptilian design--

  • ProdigalSon

    I don't know many atheists delusional enough to think everything is just a random accident, brotherdan. The Fibonacci Sequence all by itself is enough proof of intelligent design for me. The problem most of us have is with Biblegod......

  • brotherdan

    Not a valid argument against creationism moshe since the Bible answers that very issue:

    Genesis 3:17: 17 Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’;Cursed is the ground because of you.

  • brotherdan
    I don't know many atheists delusional enough to think everything is just a random accident

    You don't? I know a ton on this very site.

  • ProdigalSon

    According to the older myths that the Garden of Eden story was stolen from and subsequently perverted to say the opposite of what it originally said, it was a primordial soup that we inherited, not a perfect world that we messed up, brotherdan. The Genesis fable is a flat-out lie to put the guilt on us.

  • mrsjones5

    A sign of maturity is agreeing to disagree. Not everyone, especially on this board, is gonna think the same and agree on everything. Why do you think most of us left the bOrg?

    Can't we all just get along?

  • brotherdan
    According to the older myths that the Garden of Eden story was stolen from and subsequently perverted

    Hmmm...or the myths stole from the account of the Garden of Eden.

  • bohm

    debunking video 2

    ~4.30: "everything we know from experience show information-rich systems arise from intelligent design"

    there you go, argument from personal experience which can hardly be said to be an exact method in making inference about what is or is not possible on the primitive earth.

    5.00: "we know there is no natural cause which create information"

    bait and switch. we began with the creation of information-rich systems, now we are down to information. If you read his articles (i know, i know, nobody who like dembski actually try to read his drivel because it debunk itself) William dembski never define what he mean by information in the above statement. It sure aint shannon information or kolmogorov complexity.

    5:14 "but we do know of a cause which is capable to create information, and that is intelligence, so when people infer design they are essentially making what is called in the historical science an inference from best explanation"

    Good lets state the explanations: Either ther is an explanation for the arrival of life on primitive earth William Dembski (who know nothing about abiogenesis or biochemistry) does not understand, or ... poof magic! why the heck is this a good explanation? it seem to fail every criteria an explanation should fullfill, including actually, you know, explaining anything, but no attempt is made to justify why this is so.

    6:16, proposing magic as an alternative to evolution. dumpski started out by stating that it was the arrival of information-rich system which was the problem, now the problem is evolution. The first claim was very strained, the second is disproven time over again by simply observing in the laboratry that evolution can create new structures.

    so if the argument is not: "I dont understand how information can come into existence therefore magic is the better explanation.. oh by the way i dont define information so you cant possibly test my claim, who needs falsifiability anyway?", what is it?

Share this