Human evolution Intelligent Design Medicine

The human back is, we are told, an evolutionary disaster

Spread the love

Everyone who lives long enough is likely to experience back pain. And the cause isn’t just aging. We have evolution to blame for a spine that’s an engineering nightmare. Cheddar Explores how our spines changed to accommodate human bipedalism.

But the real villain is hands and opposable thumbs, right? They’re part and parcel of all the bad stuff humans do. The back pain is incidental.

Naturalism (nature is all there is), often called “materialism,” is a religion that requires us to believe some strange things.

More on bipedality/bipedalism: Paleontologist: Humans walked on two legs from the beginning Carol Ward: It seems to be a behavior that was present in some of the earliest members of our branch of the family tree. It represented what was really the initial major adaptive change from any apelike creature that came before us.

Researchers: Supernova prompted humans to walk upright Funny, if bipedalism originated in a global catastrophe, that it never occurred to any other primate to resolve the problem by becoming fully bipedal. But keep thinking. Resist groupthink.

Bipedalism: Regulatory area cent.com/intelligent-design/bipedalism-regulatory-area-missing-in-humans/” target=”another”>missing in humans

Researcher: To Understand Human Bipedalism, Stop Assuming “A Chimpanzee Starting Point”

Rough terrain caused humans to start walking upright

Early bipedalism walked no straight line

We’ve also heard that bipedalism developed so we could hit each other. Or carry infants. Or scarce resources. Or save energy. Or cool down. But mainly so we could have our hands free for whatever. (Saving eneregy and cooling down don’t really count here because lots of other methods would have worked; they just wouldn’t have freed the hands at the same time.)

See also “I’m Walkin’, Yes Indeed I’m Walkin’” But Not Because It’s Necessarily a Better Way to Get Around

Also, Design perspectives and the physiology of walking

Follow UD News at Twitter!

58 Replies to “The human back is, we are told, an evolutionary disaster

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    The false Darwinian belief that humans gradually evolved to an upright posture, and that this led to current back problems, is a false belief that led to much medical malpractice:

    Back Problems: How Darwinism Misled Researchers – Dr. Jerry Bergman – December 1, 2001
    Excerpt: Since the spine was ‘deformed’ when humans begun to stand and walk erect, Darwinists concluded that the logical treatment for back pain would be to decrease or, ideally, reverse the lordosis curve.4 To reduce the lordotic curve, Williams devised a series of exercises now called ‘Williams flexion exercises’ that have been used widely in many medical back treatment programs. The goal of many of these exercises was to decrease, or even reverse, lordosis as much as possible.8,9 This therapy was used widely for years in spite of its limited success, partly because it was completely logical—from the evolutionists’ paradigm. Mooney10 even claims there never has been a scientific study that demonstrated the effectiveness of this or any other treatment that developed from the Darwinist theory of back problems. Physical therapist Smail11 notes that despite widespread use of the flexion (bending forward) exercises to reduce lordosis, back pain remained a severe problem. This approach often failed, and consequently all too often surgery was used. Unfortunately, the success rate from such surgery was often less than half, and many patients were worse off than before.12
    Fortunately, a Wellington, New Zealand physical therapist named Robin McKenzie13,14,15 discovered that posture exercises that restored full (normal) lordosis actually decreased, or even eventually abolished back pain in many patients. This was the exact opposite of what had been recommended by Williams and other therapists based on Darwinian explanations. As Smail notes, McKenzie is not a creationist,
    ‘… but his work supports the creationist view that the lumbar lordosis is not a deformity with inherit strain from past evolutionary development. The lumbar spine is, instead, a most efficient means for supporting weight and providing for movement in erect, bipedal posture.’16
    It is now recognized widely that back problems generally are not due to maladaption caused by upright posture, but rather to abuses of the body that are common in modern life. This includes lack of exercise and poor posture, stress, and the requirement that one be in unusual positions for long periods of time, such as bending forward on an assembly line or on a computer. In short, anything which decreases normal lordosis causes problems. Other major factors that lead to back problems are bone deterioration that can affect the back, smoking (which contributes to osteoporosis), and obesity.17
    One indication that modern society is largely to blame for back problems is the finding that physicians in Third World countries rarely report chronic back pain.10
    https://answersingenesis.org/charles-darwin/darwinism/back-problems-how-darwinism-misled-researchers/

    Despite much over the top hype from Darwinists, Darwinists simply have no evidence that bipedalism gradually evolved:

    A Look at Lucy’s Legacy – 2015
    Excerpt: Owen Lovejoy, who worked with Johanson analyzing the Lucy fossils and the casts made from them, believed the first reconstruction of Lucy’s pelvis to be in error and, in a much-publicized video shown on public television,22 demonstrated how casts of the bone fragments could be rearranged to produce a more human-like pelvis suitable for bipedal locomotion. Lovejoy believes his pelvic reconstruction demonstrates the pelvic muscles stabilized Lucy’s pelvis as they do in humans, giving her a gait like a human, “fully bipedal and adapted to life on the forest floor.”23
    https://answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/lucy/a-look-at-lucys-legacy/

    Lucy – The Powersaw Incident – a humorous video showing how biased evolutionists can be with the evidence – 32:08 mark of video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FI4ADhPVpA0&feature=player_detailpage#t=1928

    Here is the fraudulent reconstruction of Lucy displayed by Darwinists

    Lucy – fraudulent reconstruction
    http://www.live-news24.com/ass.....-13376.jpg

    Here is an anatomically correct reconstruction of Lucy

    Lucy – a correct reconstruction – picture
    https://cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org/img/articles/campaigns/lucy-exhibit.jpg

    Other ‘Lucy’ fossils have been found since the ‘powersaw incident’ that show that Lucy could not possibly have walked upright.

    A Look at Lucy’s Legacy by Dr. David Menton and Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell on June 6, 2012
    Excerpt: Other analyses taking advantage of modern technology, such as those by Christine Berge published in 1994-25 and 2010-26 in the Journal of Human Evolution, offer a different reconstruction allowing for a unique sort of locomotion. Berge writes, “The results clearly indicate that australopithecine bipedalism differs from that of humans. (1) The extended lower limb of australopithecines would have lacked stabilization during walking;,,,
    Lucy’s bones show the features used to lock the wrist for secure knuckle-walking seen in modern knuckle-walkers.
    https://answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/lucy/a-look-at-lucys-legacy/

    Further notes on the abrupt appearance of man,

    Read Your References Carefully: Paul McBride’s Prized Citation on Skull-Sizes Supports My Thesis, Not His – Casey Luskin – August 31, 2012
    Excerpt of Conclusion: This has been a long article, but I hope it is instructive in showing how evolutionists deal with the fossil hominin evidence. As we’ve seen, multiple authorities recognize that our genus Homo appears in the fossil record abruptly with a complex suite of characteristics never-before-seen in any hominin. And that suite of characteristics has remained remarkably constant from the time Homo appears until the present day with you, me, and the rest of modern humanity. The one possible exception to this is brain size, where there are some skulls of intermediate cranial capacity, and there is some increase over time. But even there, when Homo appears, it does so with an abrupt increase in skull-size. ,,,
    The complex suite of traits associated with our genus Homo appears abruptly, and is distinctly different from the australopithecines which were supposedly our ancestors. There are no transitional fossils linking us to that group.,,,
    per evolution news

    Contested Bones: Is There Any Solid Fossil Evidence for Ape-to-Man Evolution? – Dr. John Sanford and Chris Rupe
    Excerpt: We have spent four years carefully examining the scientific literature on this subject. We have discovered that within this field (paleoanthropology), virtually all the famous hominin types have either been discredited or are still being hotly contested. Within this field, not one of the hominin types have been definitively established as being in the lineage from ape to man. This includes the famous fossils that have been nicknamed Lucy, Ardi, Sediba, Habilis, Naledi, Hobbit, Erectus, and Neaderthal. Well-respected people in the field openly admit that their field is in a state of disarray. It is very clear that the general public has been deceived regarding the credibility and significance of the reputed hominin fossils.
    We will show that the actual fossil evidence is actually most consistent with the following three points. 1) The hominin bones reveal only two basic types; ape bones (Ardi and Lucy), and human bones (Naledi, Hobbit, Erectus, and Neaderthal). 2) The ape bones and the human bones have been repeatedly found together in the same strata – therefore both lived at the same basic timeframe (the humans were apparently hunting and eating the apes). 3) Because the hominin bones were often found in mixed bone beds (with bones of many animal species in the same site), numerous hominin types represent chimeras (mixtures) of ape and human bones (i.e., Sediba, Habilis).
    We will also present evidence that the anomalous hominin bones that are of the human (Homo) type most likely represent isolated human populations that experienced severe inbreeding and subsequent genetic degeneration. This best explains why these Homo bones display aberrant morphologies, reduced body size, and reduced brain volume.
    We conclude that the hominin bones do not reveal a continuous upward progression from ape to man, but rather reveal a clear separation between the human type and the ape type. The best evidence for any type of intermediate “ape-men” derived from bones collected from mixed bone beds (containing bones of both apes and men), which led to the assembly of chimeric skeletons. Therefore, the hominin fossils do not prove human evolution at all.,,,
    We suggest that the field of paleoanthropology has been seriously distorted by a very strong ideological agenda and by very ambitious personalities.
    https://ses.edu/contested-bones-is-there-any-solid-fossil-evidence-for-ape-to-man-evolution/

    “Contested Bones” review by Paul Giem – video playlist
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6ZOKj-YaHA&list=PLHDSWJBW3DNU_twNBjopIqyFOwo_bTkXm

    Theistic Evolution Critique – Human Origins, Missing Transitions 4-13-2019 by Paul Giem
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgWYIuM8yQk

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    Besides misdiagnosing the real cause of modern back pains, Darwinian presuppositions have also led to many other instances of medical malpractice:

    Evolution’s “vestigial organ” argument debunked
    Excerpt: “The appendix, like the once ‘vestigial’ tonsils and adenoids, is a lymphoid organ (part of the body’s immune system) which makes antibodies against infections in the digestive system. Believing it to be a useless evolutionary ‘left over,’ many surgeons once removed even the healthy appendix whenever they were in the abdominal cavity. Today, removal of a healthy appendix under most circumstances would be considered medical malpractice” (David Menton, Ph.D., “The Human Tail, and Other Tales of Evolution,” St. Louis MetroVoice , January 1994, Vol. 4, No. 1).
    “Doctors once thought tonsils were simply useless evolutionary leftovers and took them out thinking that it could do no harm. Today there is considerable evidence that there are more troubles in the upper respiratory tract after tonsil removal than before, and doctors generally agree that simple enlargement of tonsils is hardly an indication for surgery” (J.D. Ratcliff, Your Body and How it Works, 1975, p. 137).
    The tailbone, properly known as the coccyx, is another supposed example of a vestigial structure that has been found to have a valuable function—especially regarding the ability to sit comfortably. Many people who have had this bone removed have great difficulty sitting.
    http://www.ucg.org/science/god.....-debunked/

    The plain truth of the matter is that Darwinists, despite their over the top hype, have no clue how the ‘biological form’ of the human body, (nor how the biological form’ of any other organism), could have possibly come about.

    Darwinism vs Biological Form
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyNzNPgjM4w

    Shoot, advances in quantum biology have now proven that Darwinists, with their reductive materialistic foundation, are not even on the correct theoretical foundation to properly understand molecular biology in the first place:

    Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – Part II – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSig2CsjKbg

    Further notes:

    The Designed Body: Irreducible Complexity on Steroids = Exquisite Engineering
    – Steve Laufmann – March 8, 2017
    Excerpt: The series by Dr. Glicksman discusses 40 interrelated chemical and physiological parameters that the human body must carefully balance to sustain life. The body deploys amazing, interconnected solutions to manage them.
    The parameters are: (1) oxygen, (2) carbon dioxide, (3) hydrogen ion, (4) water, (5) sodium, (6) potassium, (7) glucose, (8) calcium, (9) iron, (10) ammonia, (11) albumin transport, (12) proteins, (13) insulin, (14) glucagon, (15) thyroid hormone, (16) cortisol, (17) testosterone, (18) estrogen, (19) aldosterone, (20) parathormone, (21) digestive enzymes, (22) bile, (23) red blood cells, (24) white blood cells, (25) platelets, (26) clotting factors, (27) anti-clotting factors, (28) complement, (29) antibodies, (30) temperature, (31) heart rate, (32) respiratory rate, (33) blood pressure, (34) lung volume, (35) airway velocity, (36) cardiac output, (37) liver function, (38) kidney function, (39) hypothalamic function, (40) nerve impulse velocity.,,,
    For the human body, though, the whole is much more than the sum of its parts. This is exactly what we see with all complex engineered systems. In fact, this is a defining characteristic of engineered systems.
    With humans, the whole is also quite remarkable in its own right. It’s almost as if the body was designed specifically to enable the mind: thought, language, love, nobility, self-sacrifice, art, creativity, industry, and my favorite enigma (for Darwinists): music.
    The human body enables these things, but does not determine them. As near as we can tell, no combination of the body’s substrate — information, machinery, or operations — alone can achieve these things.
    Yet it’s exactly these things that make human life worth living. These are essential to our human experience. Human life involves so much more than merely being alive.
    This simple observation flies in the face of Darwinian expectations. How can bottom-up, random processes possibly achieve such exquisitely engineered outcomes — outcomes that deliver a life experience well beyond the chemistry and physics of the body?
    Such questions have enormous implications for worldviews, and for the ways that humans live their lives. I’ll look at some of those in a further post tomorrow.
    http://evolutionnews.org/2017/.....-steroids/

  3. 3
    Brother Brian says:

    I had surgery for scoliosis when I was 17 to correct an S curve with two 45 degree curves. The doctors split me from stem to stern and bolted a metal rod to my spine, from base of neck to just above the hip. They then used bone chips out of my hip to fuse my vertebrae together. I grew three inches during a seven hour surgery.

    I then spent three months in a Stryker bed, requiring nurses to flip me from my back to my stomach to prevent bed sores. I then spent three months in a body cast.

    Since the surgery I have had recurring back problems that lay me up for a few days each time. I can’t walk long distances, jump in a pool, play sports, or even rake leaves. So, if I am asked if my spine is poorly designed, I have to say yes.

  4. 4
    aarceng says:

    @Brother Brian, a club foot does not prove that feet are poorly designed, and someone born deaf does not prove that ears are poorly designed; likewise your back problems do not prove that the spine is poorly designed.

  5. 5
    ET says:

    Umm, Brian, your back wasn’t designed. Your back is what happened as the result of Darwinian evolution over thousands of generations.

  6. 6
    Brother Brian says:

    A

    @Brother Brian, a club foot does not prove that feet are poorly designed, and someone born deaf does not prove that ears are poorly designed; likewise your back problems do not prove that the spine is poorly designed.

    I am not talking about all spines, only about 10% of female spines and 6% of male spines. I am not an engineer, but I expect failure rates of between 6 and 10% might be considered to be the result of poor design.

  7. 7
    ET says:

    Brother Brian:

    I am not an engineer, but I expect failure rates of between 6 and 10% might be considered to be the result of poor design.

    Until you can show that rate was present in the originally designed humans all you have is a strawman, as usual.

  8. 8
    bornagain77 says:

    BB: “So, if I am asked if my spine is poorly designed, I have to say yes.”

    Poorly designed is still designed. If you were asked if your spine could have possibly evolved, the answer to that question is not “my spine is poorly designed so it must have evolved”. The ‘scientific’ answer to that question is that your spine, nor any other part of your body, could have possibly come about by random unguided processes so it must be designed.

    One of the main self-refuting flaws in Darwinian reasoning is that they presuppose design, and even presuppose theology, in their argumentation and never get around to the business of actually proving that it is scientifically possibly for any given biological structure to come about by unguided Darwinian processes.

    The role of theology in current evolutionary reasoning – Paul A. Nelson – Biology and Philosophy, 1996, Volume 11, Number 4, Pages 493-517
    Excerpt: Evolutionists have long contended that the organic world falls short of what one might expect from an omnipotent and benevolent creator. Yet many of the same scientists who argue theologically for evolution are committed to the philosophical doctrine of methodological naturalism, which maintains that theology has no place in science. Furthermore, the arguments themselves are problematical, employing concepts that cannot perform the work required of them, or resting on unsupported conjectures about suboptimality. Evolutionary theorists should reconsider both the arguments and the influence of Darwinian theological metaphysics on their understanding of evolution.
    http://www.springerlink.com/co.....34/?MUD=MP

    Methodological Naturalism: A Rule That No One Needs or Obeys – Paul Nelson – September 22, 2014
    Excerpt: It is a little-remarked but nonetheless deeply significant irony that evolutionary biology is the most theologically entangled science going. Open a book like Jerry Coyne’s Why Evolution is True (2009) or John Avise’s Inside the Human Genome (2010), and the theology leaps off the page. A wise creator, say Coyne, Avise, and many other evolutionary biologists, would not have made this or that structure; therefore, the structure evolved by undirected processes. Coyne and Avise, like many other evolutionary theorists going back to Darwin himself, make numerous “God-wouldn’t-have-done-it-that-way” arguments, thus predicating their arguments for the creative power of natural selection and random mutation on implicit theological assumptions about the character of God and what such an agent (if He existed) would or would not be likely to do.,,,
    ,,,with respect to one of the most famous texts in 20th-century biology, Theodosius Dobzhansky’s essay “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” (1973).
    Although its title is widely cited as an aphorism, the text of Dobzhansky’s essay is rarely read. It is, in fact, a theological treatise. As Dilley (2013, p. 774) observes:
    “Strikingly, all seven of Dobzhansky’s arguments hinge upon claims about God’s nature, actions, purposes, or duties. In fact, without God-talk, the geneticist’s arguments for evolution are logically invalid. In short, theology is essential to Dobzhansky’s arguments.”,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....89971.html

    Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin’s Use of Theology in the Origin of Species – May 2011
    Excerpt: The Origin supplies abundant evidence of theology in action; as Dilley observes:
    I have argued that, in the first edition of the Origin, Darwin drew upon at least the following positiva theological claims in his case for descent with modification (and against special creation):
    1. Human beings are not justified in believing that God creates in ways analogous to the intellectual powers of the human mind.
    2. A God who is free to create as He wishes would create new biological limbs de novo rather than from a common pattern.
    3. A respectable deity would create biological structures in accord with a human conception of the ‘simplest mode’ to accomplish the functions of these structures.
    4. God would only create the minimum structure required for a given part’s function.
    5. God does not provide false empirical information about the origins of organisms.
    6. God impressed the laws of nature on matter.
    7. God directly created the first ‘primordial’ life.
    8. God did not perform miracles within organic history subsequent to the creation of the first life.
    9. A ‘distant’ God is not morally culpable for natural pain and suffering.
    10. The God of special creation, who allegedly performed miracles in organic history, is not plausible given the presence of natural pain and suffering.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....46391.html

    Damned if You Do and Damned if You Don’t – Published – 2019-06-02
    The Problem of God-talk in Biology Textbooks
    Abstract: We argue that a number of biology (and evolution) textbooks face a crippling dilemma.
    On the one hand, significant difficulties arise if textbooks include theological claims in their case for evolution.
    (Such claims include, for example, ‘God would never design a suboptimal panda’s thumb, but an imperfect structure is just what we’d expect on natural selection.’) On the other hand, significant difficulties arise if textbooks exclude theological claims in their case for evolution. So, whether textbooks include or exclude theological claims, they face debilitating problems. We attempt to establish this thesis by examining 32 biology (and evolution) textbooks, including the Big 12—that is, the top four in each of the key undergraduate categories (biology majors, non-majors, and evolution courses). In Section 2 of our article, we analyze three specific types of theology these texts use to justify evolutionary theory. We argue that all face significant difficulties. In Section 3, we step back from concrete cases and, instead, explore broader problems created by having theology in general in biology textbooks. We argue that the presence of theology—of whatever kind—comes at a significant cost, one that some textbook authors are likely unwilling to pay. In Section 4, we consider the alternative: Why not simply get rid of theology? Why not just ignore it? In reply, we marshal a range of arguments why avoiding God-talk raises troubles of its own. Finally, in Section 5, we bring together the collective arguments in Sections 2-4 to argue that biology textbooks face an intractable dilemma. We underscore this difficulty by examining a common approach that some textbooks use to solve this predicament. We argue that this approach turns out to be incoherent and self-serving. The poor performance of textbooks on this point highlights just how deep the difficulty is. In the end, the overall dilemma remains.
    https://journals.blythinstitute.org/ojs/index.php/cbi/article/view/44

    Of related note, it is not surprising that Darwinists are vitally dependent on (bad) theological presuppositions in order to try to argue for Darwinian evolution. ALL of science, especially including Darwinian evolution itself, is dependent on basic Theistic presuppositions about the rational intelligibility of the universe and the ability of our ‘made in the image of God’ minds to comprehend that rational intelligibility. Science is simply impossible without those basic Christian presuppositions,,,

    The Threat to the Scientific Method that Explains the Spate of Fraudulent Science Publications – Calvin Beisner | Jul 23, 2014
    Excerpt: It is precisely because modern science has abandoned its foundations in the Biblical worldview (which holds, among other things, that a personal, rational God designed a rational universe to be understood and controlled by rational persons made in His image) and the Biblical ethic (which holds, among other things, that we are obligated to tell the truth even when it inconveniences us) that science is collapsing.
    As such diverse historians and philosophers of science as Alfred North Whitehead, Pierre Duhem, Loren Eiseley, Rodney Stark, and many others have observed,, science—not an occasional flash of insight here and there, but a systematic, programmatic, ongoing way of studying and controlling the world—arose only once in history, and only in one place: medieval Europe, once known as “Christendom,” where that Biblical worldview reigned supreme. That is no accident. Science could not have arisen without that worldview.
    http://townhall.com/columnists...../page/full
    Several other resources backing up this claim are available, such as Thomas Woods, Stanley Jaki, David Linberg, Edward Grant, J.L. Heilbron, and Christopher Dawson.

    The Great Debate: Does God Exist? – Justin Holcomb – audio of the 1985 Greg Bahnsen debate available at the bottom of the site
    Excerpt: When we go to look at the different world views that atheists and theists have, I suggest we can prove the existence of God from the impossibility of the contrary.
    The transcendental proof for God’s existence is that without Him it is impossible to prove anything. The atheist worldview is irrational and cannot consistently provide the preconditions of intelligible experience, science, logic, or morality. The atheist worldview cannot allow for laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, the ability for the mind to understand the world, and moral absolutes. In that sense the atheist worldview cannot account for our debate tonight.,,,
    http://justinholcomb.com/2012/.....god-exist/

    Where Darwinian evolution goes off the rails, theologically speaking, as far as science itself is concerned, is that it uses bad liberal theology to try to establish the legitimacy of its atheistic claims, all the while forgetting that it itself, in order to stay scientific, is absolutely dependent on basic Theistic presuppositions about the rational intelligibility of the universe and the ability of our minds to comprehend it.

    Atheists insist that they strictly follow methodological naturalism and that they do not need Theology to do science. That claim is absurd. Following methodological naturalism as the supposed ‘ground rule for science’, as atheists insist that they are doing, leads to the catastrophic epistemological failure of science itself:

    because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft).
    Bottom line, nothing is real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,,
    – Darwin’s Theory vs Falsification – 39:45 minute mark
    https://youtu.be/8rzw0JkuKuQ?t=2387

    Thus, although the Darwinian Atheist firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to.

    It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.

    2 Corinthians 10:5
    Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

  9. 9
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77 @ 8

    Poorly designed is still designed.

    So you agree that the human spine is a poor design? Then tell us why an all-knowing and all-powerful designer would design such a vital part of human anatomy with a 6-10% failure rate when even a human designer would strive for as close to a zero percent failure rate as possible?

  10. 10
    AaronS1978 says:

    I just would like to point out that I am missing cartilage in my lower lumbar number five that causes my back to slip out of place and I inherited it from my mom

    It slipped out and I was carried out of the gym like a giant cockroach when I was 14 many many years ago when it popped out after I dove for a basketball

    The muscles in my back wrapped around it and have managed to keep it from slipping

    It wasn’t until recently that I tweaked my back and I have had issues trying to sit

    By the way I am not comparing my problems to BB
    That would be douchy of me, I would not certainly minimize his issues with his back which I would hope anybody with those problems would be able to recover or minimize the amount of pain that they are in and I am terribly sorry about that

    But back to my point, This vital organ or part of our body will outlast probably every piece of equipment even with its defects that we have ever created here on this planet.

    My shitty ass back has outlasted five cars in my life every single computer I’ve ever owned every single TV I have ever owned and every piece of electronica equipment I have ever owned. All of the devices I have ever owned throughout my entire life are all gone but I still have my back and it still fully functional and I am 41 years old

    When people complain about the body parts that we have we never look at how long it really lasts and the fact that it regenerates and that none of the designed pieces of equipment that saturate our daily life ever really out last it

    Our backs are subject truly incredible amounts of stress day in and day out something none of the equipment that we design are equally subject to

    Yet our back bounces back from this

    Our body which is so poorly designed always seems to outlast all of our well-designed pieces of equipment that we have

    And here is another thing our bodies are subject to diseases they are subject to external flaws and environmental effects, that all can cause catastrophic failure, but what in life is there where that is not true

    Every designed piece of equipment is subject to catastrophic failure every piece anywhere is subject to catastrophic failure

    And what I see is when people argue that an all powerful and all knowing God would create something you all immediately assume that it’s going to be 100% perfect (which doesn’t exact and adaptable is better then prefect in my eyes because implies it can no longer change.) And also can never fail

    If you want something never to fail become an electron or some other sub atomic particle

    And certainly don’t live in this universe because there’s a lot going on in this universe that can cause a lot of problems

    But if you want to be perfect and you don’t want to fail then you’re more than likely going to be inanimate and indestructible

    But if you want to be animated, have an opinion, and exist, Then these bodies seem to do a pretty damn good job of that

    And despite all the remarkable things that could possibly happen to us we seem to outlast almost all of the equipment and all of the things that we design

    And the only thing that seems to outlast us are things made of giant inanimate slabs of stone, they seem to be perfect and they will do anything more then sit there and erode away

    And I’ll leave you with this we can design a particle collider but we can’t design a little single living cell

    I really think we need to stop thinking we have an opinion on what is considered poor design when it comes to life

  11. 11
    aarceng says:

    Brother Brian @ 6,
    “It is now recognized widely that back problems generally are not due to maladaption caused by upright posture, but rather to abuses of the body that are common in modern life. This includes lack of exercise and poor posture, stress, and the requirement that one be in unusual positions for long periods of time, such as bending forward on an assembly line or on a computer. In short, anything which decreases normal lordosis causes problems. Other major factors that lead to back problems are bone deterioration that can affect the back, smoking (which contributes to osteoporosis), and obesity.17
    One indication that modern society is largely to blame for back problems is the finding that physicians in Third World countries rarely report chronic back pain.” https://answersingenesis.org/charles-darwin/darwinism/back-problems-how-darwinism-misled-researchers/
    [posted by Born Again]

    So the 6-10% failure rate is a result of misuse rather than poor design.

  12. 12
    polistra says:

    There’s a basic metrology problem here. Measurements require a baseline. We can’t say that humans have an unusual amount of back problems because we don’t know anything about back pain in other mammals. They don’t complain about occasional pain. They just get on with life.

    The only thing we know objectively is that humans have an unusual amount of whining.

  13. 13
    bornagain77 says:

    You simply can’t make this stuff up. Nobody would believe it. At the beginning of comment 8 I specifically stated that

    Poorly designed is still designed. If you were asked if your spine could have possibly evolved, the answer to that question is not “my spine is poorly designed so it must have evolved”. The ‘scientific’ answer to that question is that your spine, nor any other part of your body, could have possibly come about by random unguided processes so it must be designed.
    One of the main self-refuting flaws in Darwinian reasoning is that they presuppose design, and even presuppose theology, in their argumentation and never get around to the business of actually proving that it is scientifically possibly for any given biological structure to come about by unguided Darwinian processes.

    And yet, even though the argument from Darwinists is self-refuting in that it presupposes design, even theology, in its premises, in post 9 right after I stated that, Seversky does not miss a beat and instantly, right after I pointed out the self-refuting nature of their argument, reiterates the self-refuting Theological argument from Darwinists as such:

    So you agree that the human spine is a poor design? Then tell us why an all-knowing and all-powerful designer would design such a vital part of human anatomy with a 6-10% failure rate when even a human designer would strive for as close to a zero percent failure rate as possible?

    You simply can’t make this stuff up. Nobody would believe supposedly intelligent people could make arguments this bad.

    I guess, since Darwinists have ZERO scientific evidence that unguided Darwinian processes can produce the intelligently designed back they now want to argue Theological nuances as to why God allows evil to exist in our world? Perhaps they are weighing the Theological arguments to see if they should now become Christians?

    But before we get into that, it is important to reiterate that, as pointed out in post 1, “The false Darwinian belief that humans gradually evolved to an upright posture, and that this led to current back problems, is a false belief that led to much medical malpractice”. Whereas presupposing the intelligent design of the back has led to the successful treatment of many people with chronic back problems:

    Back Problems: How Darwinism Misled Researchers – Dr. Jerry Bergman – December 1, 2001
    Excerpt: Since the spine was ‘deformed’ when humans begun to stand and walk erect, Darwinists concluded that the logical treatment for back pain would be to decrease or, ideally, reverse the lordosis curve.4 To reduce the lordotic curve, Williams devised a series of exercises now called ‘Williams flexion exercises’ that have been used widely in many medical back treatment programs. The goal of many of these exercises was to decrease, or even reverse, lordosis as much as possible.8,9 This therapy was used widely for years in spite of its limited success, partly because it was completely logical—from the evolutionists’ paradigm. Mooney10 even claims there never has been a scientific study that demonstrated the effectiveness of this or any other treatment that developed from the Darwinist theory of back problems. Physical therapist Smail11 notes that despite widespread use of the flexion (bending forward) exercises to reduce lordosis, back pain remained a severe problem. This approach often failed, and consequently all too often surgery was used. Unfortunately, the success rate from such surgery was often less than half, and many patients were worse off than before.12,,,
    a Wellington, New Zealand physical therapist named Robin McKenzie13,14,15 discovered that posture exercises that restored full (normal) lordosis actually decreased, or even eventually abolished back pain in many patients. This was the exact opposite of what had been recommended by Williams and other therapists based on Darwinian explanations.,,,
    It is now recognized widely that back problems generally are not due to maladaption caused by upright posture, but rather to abuses of the body that are common in modern life. This includes lack of exercise and poor posture, stress, and the requirement that one be in unusual positions for long periods of time, such as bending forward on an assembly line or on a computer. In short, anything which decreases normal lordosis causes problems. Other major factors that lead to back problems are bone deterioration that can affect the back, smoking (which contributes to osteoporosis), and obesity.17
    One indication that modern society is largely to blame for back problems is the finding that physicians in Third World countries rarely report chronic back pain.10
    https://answersingenesis.org/charles-darwin/darwinism/back-problems-how-darwinism-misled-researchers/

    This back doctor agrees that the spine is “very intelligently designed” and that it is misuse, not some type of Darwinian maladaptation, that is the root cause of the vast majority of modern back problems:

    Intelligent Design of the Human Back – 2013
    Excerpt: Our spines and low backs were very intelligently designed. The functional anatomical design of your spine is truly a marvel of nature. Our spines are meant to be incredibly strong, and highly bendable in all directions. That being said, the stresses of daily living exert incredible forces on the human frame. Unforeseen accidents, poor ergonomics, carrying groceries, putting kids in car seat, recreational activities and working in chairs rather than in the field, are all factors that subject our back to destructive forces capable of damaging our neck and back.
    What are the most common causes of back pain?
    *Working in a seated position, especially when exhibiting a slumping posture over many years
    *Imbalance between the flexors and extensors of the torso (we do everything in a flexed or sitting position, but do very little extension of our spine during our normal routine).
    *Lifting with tight hamstring muscles
    *Weakness and inflexibility of the core muscles of the torso (abdominals, gluteal, hamstrings, hip flexors, TFL, rectus femoris). This requires abdominal compression back braces with mechanical advantage until strength to the core muscles is restored.
    *Old soft tissue injuries or sprains/strains that have led to immobility and/or generative arthritis
    *”Weekend Warrior Syndrome”
    https://backbenimble.blogspot.com/2013/04/intelligent-design-of-human-back.html

    But since Seversky, and BB, apparently want to argue Theological nuances instead of science, (perhaps they are considering becoming Christians?), let’s go over the theological nuances of their ‘argument from evil’.

    One of the main arguments from atheists is what is known as ‘the argument from evil’. Basically, name whatever particular evil may be troubling you and then argue that God would never allow that particular evil to exist. Yet the fatal flaw with the argument from evil is that in order for evil to even exist in the first place then an absolute standard of perfection must first exist that has been departed from. As C.S. Lewis, a former atheist, stated,

    “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?”
    – C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

    Thus the atheists ‘argument from evil’ fails precisely because it is impossible for evil to even exist unless there is first an perfect standard moral goodness that had been departed from.

    In effect, the atheist, in his ‘argument from evil’, presupposes the reality of the very thing, i.e. the perfection of God, that he is trying to prove the nonexistence of. As Dr. Michael Egnor noted, “Even to raise the problem of evil is to tacitly acknowledge transcendent standards, and thus to acknowledge God’s existence. From that starting point, theodicy begins. Theists have explored it profoundly. Atheists lack the standing even to ask the question.,,,”

    The Universe Reflects a Mind – Michael Egnor – February 28, 2018
    Excerpt: Goff argues that a Mind is manifest in the natural world, but he discounts the existence of God because of the problem of evil. Goff seriously misunderstands the problem of evil. Evil is an insoluble problem for atheists, because if there is no God, there is no objective standard by which evil and good can exist or can even be defined. If God does not exist, “good” and “evil” are merely human opinions. Yet we all know, as Kant observed, that some things are evil in themselves, and not merely as a matter of opinion. Even to raise the problem of evil is to tacitly acknowledge transcendent standards, and thus to acknowledge God’s existence. From that starting point, theodicy begins. Theists have explored it profoundly. Atheists lack the standing even to ask the question.,,,
    https://evolutionnews.org/2018/02/the-universe-reflects-a-mind/

    As well, in his theologically based ‘argument from evil’, the atheist is also basically claiming that we should currently be living in a heavenly paradise that is free from any sort of evil whatsoever.

    Yet Theists, especially Christians, have NEVER argued that we currently live in a heavenly paradise that is completely free from any evil whatsoever. In fact, Christians have ALWAYS maintained that we are currently living in a ‘fallen world’. A fallen world in which we are called to overcome evil with good.

    Romans 12:21
    Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

    In fact, Jesus himself overcame evil with good: As theologian James Stewart stated in one of his sermons, “He (Jesus) did not conquer in spite of the dark mystery of evil. He conquered through it.”

    “He did not conquer in spite of the dark mystery of evil. He conquered through it.”
    ~James Stewart~
    ———————————
    “It is a glorious phrase of the New Testament, that ‘he led captivity captive.’
    The very triumphs of His foes, it means, he used for their defeat. He compelled their dark achievements to sub-serve his end, not theirs.
    They nailed him to the tree, not knowing that by that very act they were bringing the world to his feet.
    They gave him a cross, not guessing that he would make it a throne.
    They flung him outside the gates to die, not knowing that in that very moment they were lifting up all the gates of the universe, to let the King of Glory come in.
    They thought to root out his doctrines, not understanding that they were implanting imperishably in the hearts of men the very name they intended to destroy.
    They thought they had defeated God with His back (to) the wall, pinned and helpless and defeated: they did not know that it was God Himself who had tracked them down.
    He did not conquer in spite of the dark mystery of evil. He conquered through it.”
    James Stewart (1896–1990) was a minister of the Church of Scotland

    Thus the atheist’s argument from evil fails on at least two different levels. First it presupposes a standard of moral perfection that has been departed from. And secondly it falsely presupposes what no Christian has ever held as being true. Namely it falsely presupposes that we currently should be living in a perfect heavenly paradise instead of living in a fallen world that we actually are living in.

    Here are few more related notes on the the atheist’s Theologically based, and thus self refuting, ‘argument from evil’

    This Theologian Has An Answer To Atheists’ Claims That Evil Disproves God – Jan, 2018
    Excerpt: In “The Last Superstition: A Refutation Of The New Atheism,” Feser, echoing Thomas Aquinas, notes that the first premise of the problem of evil is “simply false, or at least unjustifiable.” According to Feser, there is no reason to believe that the Christian God, being all-good and all-powerful, would prevent suffering on this earth if out of suffering he could bring about a good that is far greater than any that would have existed otherwise. If God is infinite in power, knowledge, goodness, etc., then of course he could bring about such a good.
    Feser demonstrates his reasoning with an analogy. A parent may allow his child a small amount of suffering in frustration, sacrifice of time, and minor pain when learning to play the violin, in order to bring about the good of establishing proficiency. This is not to say that such minimal suffering is in any way comparable to the horrors that have gone on in this world. But the joy of establishing proficiency with a violin is not in any way comparable to the good that God promises to bring to the world.
    In Christian theology, this good is referred to as the Beatific Vision: the ultimate, direct self-communication of God to the individual. In other words, perfect salvation or Heaven. Feser describes the Beatific Vision as a joy so great that even the most terrible horror imaginable “pales in insignificance before the beatific vision.” As Saint Paul once said, “the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us.”
    Your Argument Assumes Its Conclusion
    I can already see the disciples of the Four Horsemen readying their keyboards, opening a copy of Dawkins’ “The God Delusion,” and preparing their response. An atheist may claim that he cannot possibly imagine anything in the next life that could possibly outweigh the Holocaust, children’s suffering, or any other instance of significant suffering in this world. According to Feser, this response is precisely the reason he states that the problem of evil is “worthless” as an objection to arguments in favor of the existence of the Christian God.
    The problem is that the only way the atheist can claim that nothing could outweigh the most significant suffering on earth is if he supposes that God does not exist and therefore there is no Beatific Vision. But he cannot presume that God does not exist in the premise of an argument that aims to prove the conclusion that God does not exist. By doing so, he is begging the question, or arguing in a circle, and therefore does not prove anything at all.
    As Feser goes on to demonstrate, the atheist is essentially stating: “There is no God, because look at all this suffering that no good could possibly outweigh. How do I know there’s no good that could outweigh it? Oh, because there is no God.”
    http://thefederalist.com/2018/.....oves-gods/

    The Problem of Evil by Benjamin D. Wiker – April 2009
    Excerpt: We still want to cry, Job-like, to those inscrutable depths, “Who are you to orchestrate everything around us puny and pitiable creatures, leaving us shuddering in the darkness, ignorant, blasted, and buffeted? It‘s all well and good to say, ‘Trust me! It‘ll all be made right in the end,‘ while you float unscathed above it all. Grinding poverty, hunger, thirst, frustration, rejection, toil, death of our loved ones, blood-sweating anxiety, excruciating pain, humiliation, torture, and finally a twisted and miserable annihilation — that‘s the meal we‘re served! You‘d sing a different tune if you were one of us and got a taste of your own medicine.”
    What could we say against these depths if the answer we received was not an argument but an incarnation, a full and free submission by God to the very evils about which we complain? This submission would be a kind of token, a sign that evil is very real indeed, bringing the incarnate God blood-sweating anxiety, excruciating pain, humiliation, torture, and finally a twisted and miserable annihilation on the cross. As real as such evil is, however, the resurrection reveals that it is somehow mysteriously comprehended within the divine plan.
    With the Incarnation, the reality of evil is absorbed into the deity, not dissolved into thin air, because God freely tastes the bitterness of the medicine as wounded healer, not distant doctor. Further, given the drastic nature of this solution, we begin to recognize that God takes the problem of evil more seriously than we could ever have taken it ourselves. ,,,
    http://www.crisismagazine.com/.....em-of-evil

    Verse:

    Revelation 21:4
    He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”

  14. 14
    ET says:

    Seversky:

    Then tell us why an all-knowing and all-powerful designer would design such a vital part of human anatomy with a 6-10% failure rate when even a human designer would strive for as close to a zero percent failure rate as possible?

    Why are atheists such desperate fools? Does anyone think that extant human backs were the originally designed human backs? Apparently foolish and childish atheists do.

    Humans couldn’t design a spine and then integrate it into an animal. Cloning has a HUGE failure rate and that is a human design. ALL cars break down eventually- 100% failure rate predicted there.

    Is there anything man makes that doesn’t require our intervention to maintain and repair?

  15. 15
    ET says:

    Brother Brian:

    I am not an engineer, but I expect failure rates of between 6 and 10% might be considered to be the result of poor design.

    Everything we build will fail sooner or later. That is a 100% failure rate.

  16. 16
    AaronS1978 says:

    @ET
    Is there anything man makes that doesn’t require our intervention to maintain and repair?

    Ya a pyramid, they seem to strict around, also really big stone walls like in China :-/ budumcha

  17. 17
    Brother Brian says:

    AaronS1958

    By the way I am not comparing my problems to BB
    That would be douchy of me, I would not certainly minimize his issues with his back which I would hope anybody with those problems would be able to recover or minimize the amount of pain that they are in and I am terribly sorry about that.</blockquote,
    Please don't get me wrong. I wasn't trying to go for the sympathy vote. Without the surgery I would most likely have died 30+ years ago. I would gladly take what I have over the alternative.

    You make a good point about the spine and other body parts lasting as long as they have to. But I think that is the point that evolution proponents are making with respect to body "design". Obviously there is the argument about why God would design something with so many weak parts, but I think that argument is made just to tweak the noses of avid theists who believe that God is infallible. According to evolutionary theory (yes, the one that ET insists doesn't exist), the only factor that dictates what phenotypes survive and proliferate is reproduction. Evolution doesn't care if our spines or hearts or thyroid or whatever fail in our sixties. If we are successful in producing enough viable offspring, whatever factors cause our body parts to fail later in life will never be weeded out.

  18. 18
    asauber says:

    “Evolution doesn’t care if our spines or hearts or thyroid or whatever fail in our sixties”

    Yes, the above is the argument by poetry. (sigh)

    Evolution doesn’t “care” about anything. It doesn’t “select” for longevity. It doesn’t “select” for anything. Evolution is a euphemism for “whatever happens”. It’s not an explanation. It’s not science.

    Andrew

  19. 19
    ET says:

    Brother Brian:

    According to evolutionary theory (yes, the one that ET insists doesn’t exist), the only factor that dictates what phenotypes survive and proliferate is reproduction.

    Please reference that or admit that you made it all up. And please reference a scientific theory of evolution or admit it doesn’t exist.

  20. 20
    ET says:

    AaronS1978- The pyramids need maintenance and the Great Wall has been repaired many times.

  21. 21
    bornagain77 says:

    Asauber at 18

    “Yes, the above is the argument by poetry. (sigh)”

    🙂 Ha Ha Ha

    You might also appreciate the ‘argument from mass unintelligibility’

    WHAT IS ABSTRACT THOUGHT? A REPLY TO DR. ALI
    Abstract thoughts cannot arise from material things because a cause cannot give what it does not have
    MICHAEL EGNOR – JULY 16, 2019
    Excerpt: “Dr. Ali’s deeper fallacy—deeper than his misunderstanding of the research—is his belief that mere complexity of material processes is sufficient to explain immaterial processes. This fallacy is the pleonastic fallacy—the belief that the unintelligibility of material causation of abstract thought is ameliorated by invoking mass unintelligibility. Materialists assert that an unbridgeable explanatory gap—how immaterial abstract thought can arise from matter—can be crossed by multiplying the things that aren’t explainable.”
    https://mindmatters.ai/2019/07/what-is-abstract-thought-a-reply-to-dr-ali/

  22. 22
    ET says:

    Brother Brian:

    But I think that is the point that evolution proponents are making with respect to body “design”.

    The point is evos don’t have a mechanism capable of producing bodies. You lose.

  23. 23
    asauber says:

    “You might also appreciate the ‘argument from mass unintelligibility’”

    BA77, I do appreciate it. It’s a breathtaking piece of modern art. 😉

    Andrew

  24. 24
    Axel says:

    Seversky, when atheist scientists, such as your good self, talk about anything created by Almighty God, they must bear in mind that the subject in point, indeed, the whole of Creation, was subject to the extremely deleterious effects of the Fall of man from God’s grace – so, this side of etermity, the original design in all its splendour of everything, including such twerpy little things, at the microscopic level, as the E-Coli virus, we may only ever catch the faintest glimpse of, this side of eternity. On the other side of eternity, whether in heaven or in hell, we are unlikely to find such matters of the remotest interest.

    So, all this twaddle atheists dwell, on is – predictably enough – ‘pie in the sky’. If artifacts of our design are comparably marred, and we could get them working at the sub-optimal level God’s creation does, at present, i.e. after the Fall, the designer would deserve a lot better than a Noble prize, even though the perfectly-functioning artifact would inevitably be a piffling thing in comparison with the natural world we are born into, and its seemingly-infinite cornucopia of most subtle designs.

  25. 25
    Axel says:

    Your #21 :
    “Materialists assert that an unbridgeable explanatory gap—how immaterial abstract thought can arise from matter—can be crossed by multiplying the things that aren’t explainable.”

    It gets madder and madder. I don’t know how they get away with it. Pleonastic ! ‘Mass unintelligibility ! (I wondered what on earth that could mean, but it is not necessarily satirical, is it ?) Just wonderful !

    I’ve long believed the only way to get through to A/Mats is by deriding them, and I do suspect it’s been paying off – from before my catching on, of course.

  26. 26
    Brother Brian says:

    Axel

    I’ve long believed the only way to get through to A/Mats is by deriding them, and I do suspect it’s been paying off – from before my catching on, of course.

    I guess when poor evidence, irrational logic and prayer fail to convince the A/mats, deriding is the next best thing. 🙂

  27. 27
    ET says:

    Brother Brian:

    I guess when poor evidence, irrational logic and prayer fail to convince the A/mats, …

    No. We do NOT use your arguments.

  28. 28
    Axel says:

    Your #26 Brother Brian
    … ‘guess’ being the operative word.

  29. 29
    Brother Brian says:

    Axel

    … ‘guess’ being the operative word.

    I think “blind faith” is a more accurate term, but “guess” works just as well.

  30. 30
    ET says:

    Yes, blind faith and a-mats go together. They are inseparable.

  31. 31
    AaronS1978 says:

    @ET

    “ET
    July 22, 2019 at 9:05 am
    AaronS1978- The pyramids need maintenance and the Great Wall has been repaired many times.”

    Oh I know, My point is though for anything to last or have a function that continues to have a nearly 100% success rate you effectively have to be a stone.

    there are so many different factors in our environment that can change the outcome of a design

    And when we argue about whether something is a good design or a bad design we often don’t take these factors into account and how much they impact

    When we judge the design of life we are selves never seem to recognize the fact that we are living organisms part of the exact same lifecycle judging whether it is a good sign or a bad design

    My problem when people argue against life being poorly designed is the fact that we are comparing apples to oranges and we are judging things by a standard that we our selves are subpar on to begin with

    Like I had ended my last quote we can design a particle collider but we can’t design a single celled organism

    We are literally comparing apples to oranges our designs pale in comparison to living organisms in every which way shape and form

    Yet we believe that we can say this is a bad design I don’t think we are smart enough yet to make that comment.

  32. 32
    Seversky says:

    Axel @ 24

    Seversky, when atheist scientists, such as your good self,…

    I’m very flattered but I’m not actually a scientist of any sort, although I am for all practical purposes an atheist.

    … talk about anything created by Almighty God, they must bear in mind that the subject in point, indeed, the whole of Creation, was subject to the extremely deleterious effects of the Fall of man from God’s grace –

    The Fall from Grace argument makes no sense at all. If God is the all-knowing, all-powerful Christian version then He would have known exactly how Adam and Eve would behave when faced with temptation. Your God doesn’t make mistakes, He doesn’t overlook anything, He doesn’t occasionally get things wrong so the only explanation for Adam and Eve’s surrender to temptation is that they were behaving exactly as they were designed to behave and God knew it. So how in the name of fairness and justice can they be blamed for that and, much worse, what possible justification can there be for visiting punishment on their descendants in perpetuity?

    It’s true that we can only judge design according to the standards we have set for what we design. It’s possible a more advanced intelligence might be designing for purposes of which we are as yet unaware. But unless you can provide examples or explanations of what they might be, all we have are our own standards to measure what is good or bad design.

  33. 33
    ET says:

    I smell a strawman

    If God is the all-knowing, all-powerful Christian version then He would have known exactly how Adam and Eve would behave when faced with temptation.

    That God would have known all possible outcomes. Or perhaps you just don’t know what you are talking about.

    Your God doesn’t make mistakes, He doesn’t overlook anything, He doesn’t occasionally get things wrong so the only explanation for Adam and Eve’s surrender to temptation is that they were behaving exactly as they were designed to behave and God knew it.

    You have no idea what transpired. You are just flailing about in your clueless atheistic way. And the sad part is you have yourself convinced that you are making a coherent argument.

    So how in the name of fairness and justice can they be blamed for that and, much worse, what possible justification can there be for visiting punishment on their descendants in perpetuity?

    What blame? It is what it is. And it cannot be undone. Now it is up to us. Liberals are always thinking about entitlements. And they always get belligerent when they get disappointed.

    It’s like if someone that was really super rich gave you a huge mansion, a lot of money and you just partied it all away. And along the way you and your lady totaled the mansion such that it doesn’t exist any more. There isn’t any blame to be passed down along with your genes. There are just stories of this fantastic place. There isn’t any punishment. You just have to make due without a massive handout. Sure you can be upset that your parents squandered it. But they did tell you that about a way to get back to that lifestyle- the path to Heaven. So which would you focus on- being upset or doing what it takes to get back to it?

    But unless you can provide examples or explanations of what they might be, all we have are our own standards to measure what is good or bad design.

    Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Extant organisms and their features are not the designed organisms and features. Extant organisms and their features are the result of many generations worth of genetic entropy. And it just so happens that it drives research that leads to a better understanding

  34. 34
    jstanley01 says:

    Seversky @ 32
    I have no insider knowledge of God’s purposes, that’s for sure. But it seems plain to me that once all is said and done — after pure grace has been fully bestowed and pure justice rightly meted out — moving forward and throughout all eternity, no free-will creature is going be able to convince himself that he is right and God is wrong. IOW, our current plight is nothing if not illustrative.

  35. 35
    jstanley01 says:

    The assumption that all physically-ambulatory humans walk on two legs is untrue, or at least, so says 60 Minutes Australia…

    Remote village where people walk on all fours

  36. 36
    bornagain77 says:

    Turkish family walks on all fours – but scientists now say they don’t move like quadrupedal primates and AREN’T an example of ‘reverse evolution’
    Excerpt: In a report published in PLOS One, the researchers said the family moves laterally – unlike primates, who walk in a diagonal sequence, repeatedly putting a hand on one side and a foot on the other.
    They claimed the siblings’ walk is, in fact, a byproduct of a hereditary condition that causes cerebellar hypoplasia, complicating their sense of balance.,,,
    ‘I was determined to set the record straight, because these erroneous claims about the nature and cause of the quadrupedalism have been published over and over again, without any actual analysis of the biomechanics of their gait, and by researchers who are not experts in primate locomotion,’ lead researcher Liza Shapiro, of the University of Texas, told The Washington Post.
    ‘We have shown that the quadrupedalism resembles that of healthy human adults asked to walk quadrupedally in an experimental setting. [They do not] prefer the diagonal sequence/diagonal couplets gait characteristic of nonhuman primates.’
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2698298/Turkish-family-walks-fours-scientists-say-dont-like-four-legged-animals-ARENT-example-reverse-evolution.html

  37. 37
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky at 32 presupposes that God would never, via the free will of man, allow evil to enter the world. Seversky’s argument basically boils down to this:

    1. If God truly is omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent as is held in Christian theology, then God fore-knew that evil was going to happen in this world and yet He let it happen anyway.
    2. Therefore it is God’s fault that evil exists in the world.
    3. Yet, God, if He truly is omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent, as is held by Christians, then He would never allow evil to exist in this world.
    4. Therefore the God of Christian theology does not exist since he would never allow evil to exist in this world.

    As any first year seminary student can see, the fatal flaw in that argument is, of course, the presupposition from atheists that God had no good reason for allowing evil to temporarily exist in this world. Yet, as the “Beatific Vision” demonstrates, God has ample reason for allowing evil to temporarily exist in this world in that in allowing evil to temporarily exist, (much like the way we ourselves willingly suffer hardships in our own lives for a short while so as to bring about a greater good in our own lives), God is, via temporary suffering, bringing about a much greater good in this world. Thus, the atheist’s presupposition that God has no good reason for allowing evil to temporarily exist in this world is simply wrong.

    This Theologian Has An Answer To Atheists’ Claims That Evil Disproves God – Jan, 2018
    Excerpt: In “The Last Superstition: A Refutation Of The New Atheism,” Feser, echoing Thomas Aquinas, notes that the first premise of the problem of evil is “simply false, or at least unjustifiable.” According to Feser, there is no reason to believe that the Christian God, being all-good and all-powerful, would prevent suffering on this earth if out of suffering he could bring about a good that is far greater than any that would have existed otherwise. If God is infinite in power, knowledge, goodness, etc., then of course he could bring about such a good.
    Feser demonstrates his reasoning with an analogy. A parent may allow his child a small amount of suffering in frustration, sacrifice of time, and minor pain when learning to play the violin, in order to bring about the good of establishing proficiency. This is not to say that such minimal suffering is in any way comparable to the horrors that have gone on in this world. But the joy of establishing proficiency with a violin is not in any way comparable to the good that God promises to bring to the world.
    In Christian theology, this good is referred to as the Beatific Vision: the ultimate, direct self-communication of God to the individual. In other words, perfect salvation or Heaven. Feser describes the Beatific Vision as a joy so great that even the most terrible horror imaginable “pales in insignificance before the beatific vision.” As Saint Paul once said, “the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us.”
    Your Argument Assumes Its Conclusion
    I can already see the disciples of the Four Horsemen readying their keyboards, opening a copy of Dawkins’ “The God Delusion,” and preparing their response. An atheist may claim that he cannot possibly imagine anything in the next life that could possibly outweigh the Holocaust, children’s suffering, or any other instance of significant suffering in this world. According to Feser, this response is precisely the reason he states that the problem of evil is “worthless” as an objection to arguments in favor of the existence of the Christian God.
    The problem is that the only way the atheist can claim that nothing could outweigh the most significant suffering on earth is if he supposes that God does not exist and therefore there is no Beatific Vision. But he cannot presume that God does not exist in the premise of an argument that aims to prove the conclusion that God does not exist. By doing so, he is begging the question, or arguing in a circle, and therefore does not prove anything at all.
    As Feser goes on to demonstrate, the atheist is essentially stating: “There is no God, because look at all this suffering that no good could possibly outweigh. How do I know there’s no good that could outweigh it? Oh, because there is no God.”
    http://thefederalist.com/2018/.....oves-gods/

    Verse:

    Luke 24:26
    Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and then to enter His glory?”

  38. 38
    Fasteddious says:

    An engineer addresses the, “God would only make perfect designs” argument against ID, as follows:
    – there is no such thing as a perfect design, all designs involve tradeoffs to optimize some set of criteria.
    – those criteria may include simplicity, cost, time, purpose, starting point, and other non-technical features.
    – without knowing what the original specifications were, the design cannot be meaningfully assessed.
    – any design can usually be improved in some way or other, but designers usually stop at “good enough”.
    – as time goes on, a given design may no longer be optimum for changing conditions.
    Some of these points may apply to the human backbone and its supposed design flaws.
    As an added note, Genesis does not say God made creation perfect; as a good designer, he just calls it “very good”.

  39. 39
    Seversky says:

    The English philosopher John Stuart Mill set out the arguments against the concept of God as a designer in one of his Three Essays On Religion:

    It is not too much to say that every indication of Design in the Kosmos is so much evidence against the Omnipotence of the Designer. For what is meant by Design? Contrivance: the adaptation of means to an end. But the necessity for contrivance—the need of employing means—is a consequence of the limitation of power. Who would have recourse to means if to attain his end his mere word was sufficient? The very idea of means implies that the means have an efficacy which the direct action of the being who employs them has not. Otherwise they are not means, but an incumbrance. A man does not use machinery to move his arms. If he did, it could only be when paralysis had deprived him of the power of moving them by volition. But if the employment of contrivance is in itself a sign of limited power, how much more so is the careful and skilful choice of contrivances? Can any wisdom be shown in the selection of means, when the means have no efficacy but what is given them by the will of him who employs them, and when his will could have bestowed the same efficacy on any other means? Wisdom and contrivance are shown in overcoming difficulties, and there is no room for them in a Being for whom no difficulties exist. The evidences, therefore, of Natural Theology distinctly imply that the author of the Kosmos worked under limitations; that he was obliged to adapt himself to conditions independent of his will, and to attain his ends by such arrangements as those conditions admitted of.

  40. 40
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77 @ 32

    Seversky at 32 presupposes that God would never, via the free will of man, allow evil to enter the world. Seversky’s argument basically boils down to this

    No, I was simply noting, as so many have before, that the existence of evil and human suffering is inconsistent with an all-loving Creator.

    As any first year seminary student can see, the fatal flaw in that argument is, of course, the presupposition from atheists that God had no good reason for allowing evil to temporarily exist in this world. Yet, as the “Beatific Vision” demonstrates, God has ample reason for allowing evil to temporarily exist in this world in that in allowing evil to temporarily exist, (much like the way we ourselves willingly suffer hardships in our own lives for a short while so as to bring about a greater good in our own lives), God is, via temporary suffering, bringing about a much greater good in this world. Thus, the atheist’s presupposition that God has no good reason for allowing evil to temporarily exist in this world is simply wrong.

    Yes, I know that is the standard apologist explanation for evil, that the existence of evil is, for some unexplained reason, necessary for the achievement of some greater good. Unfortunately, that defense founders on two questions. First, why can’t this omniscient God simply explain why it is necessary and second – and more serious – why can’t an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving God bring about this greater good without having to inflict such vast – and it is vast – amounts of suffering on the creatures He professes to love above all things?

  41. 41
    bornagain77 says:

    as to: Seversky at 32 presupposes that God would never, via the free will of man, allow evil to enter the world. Seversky’s argument basically boils down to this

    No, I was simply noting, as so many have before, that the existence of evil and human suffering is inconsistent with an all-loving Creator.

    For crying out loud that is exactly what you are repeatedly arguing. How your head does not explode from such logical contradictions I have no idea.

  42. 42
    ET says:

    seversky:

    No, I was simply noting, as so many have before, that the existence of evil and human suffering is inconsistent with an all-loving Creator.

    And we were noting that is only your ignorant opinion and you have an agenda.

    First, why can’t this omniscient God simply explain why it is necessary and second – and more serious – why can’t an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving God bring about this greater good without having to inflict such vast – and it is vast – amounts of suffering on the creatures He professes to love above all things?

    How many times does it have to be explained to you?

    First the strawman- compared to an eternity in Heaven there isn’t any such thing as “vast suffering”. We LEARN from an imperfect world. We WANTED to be the holders of knowledge. And WE cause the suffering. You have to be quite the desperate ignoramus to try pin that on God.

    The reward justifies the means.

    “In the beginning” we didn’t want Heaven on Earth and opted for knowledge over blissful ignorance. This is what has come of that.

  43. 43
    Brother Brian says:

    Sev

    Yes, I know that is the standard apologist explanation for evil, that the existence of evil is, for some unexplained reason, necessary for the achievement of some greater good.

    That is something I have never understood. Why do we need evil to appreciate good? We don’t need pedophile priests to appreciate someone helping an elderly person across the street. We don’t need the holocaust or the crusades to appreciate respect for other religions. We didn’t need Columbine or Sandy Hook to appreciate the sacrifice that teachers make.

  44. 44
    ET says:

    LoL!:

    Why do we need evil to appreciate good?

    We don’t. Why do atheists like erecting so many strawmen?

    We don’t need pedophile priests to appreciate someone helping an elderly person across the street.

    The devil needs them to get people off of religion.

    We don’t need the holocaust or the crusades to appreciate respect for other religions. We didn’t need Columbine or Sandy Hook to appreciate the sacrifice that teachers make.

    The devil needs them to sow seeds of doubt.

    You guys don’t seem to know much of anything about the religion you are trying to bash.

  45. 45
    AaronS1978 says:

    It is literally the same principle as the absence of light means the presence of darkness. that’s why it is constantly reference between good and evil light and darkness

    Without one you would only be surrounded by the other

    You never know what the other is like the concept of good is not something that exists without the concept of evil there is an interplay between the two

    You have to have something to compare it to just like the difference between free will and determinism for you to know that you have one you have to have the other and vice a versa

  46. 46
    Brother Brian says:

    AaronS1978@45, I understand the concept, but do you really think that God couldn’t establish a system that allows us to appreciate good without inflicting evil? I am pretty sure that I can appreciate respect for others without killing millions of Jews, shooting up schools, killing people from a hotel room in Vegas. Admittedly, juxtaposing vile, evil acts makes it easier to teach us the value of “good”, but why would an omniscient, omnipotent, loving God have to resort to that. I’m not trying to be a jerk, this is one of the pivotal issues about “God“ that swung me towards atheism. Well, that and the lack of compelling evidence, and the luxury of sleeping late on Sundays. 🙂

  47. 47
    ET says:

    Oh my.

    Admittedly, juxtaposing vile, evil acts makes it easier to teach us the value of “good”, but why would an omniscient, omnipotent, loving God have to resort to that.

    How can we not make fun of people for blaming God for we have sown?

    I’m not trying to be a jerk, this is one of the pivotal issues about “God“ that swung me towards atheism.

    Yes, ignorance and the inability to think lead people to atheism. You are a fine example of that. Thank you.

  48. 48
    bornagain77 says:

    definition: Theodicy
    noun
    the vindication of divine goodness and providence in view of the existence of evil.

    It is the height of insanity for atheists, on the one hand, to adamantly maintain that all morality is subjective and illusory, and then in direct contradiction to that foundational belief they hold as being true, on the other hand insist that their personal sense of objective morality is so refined that it is good enough to overturn 2000 years of Christian theodicy. As Dr. Egnor stated, “Even to raise the problem of evil is to tacitly acknowledge transcendent standards, and thus to acknowledge God’s existence. From that starting point, theodicy begins. Theists have explored it profoundly. Atheists lack the standing even to ask the question.,,,”

    The Universe Reflects a Mind – Michael Egnor – February 28, 2018
    Excerpt: Goff argues that a Mind is manifest in the natural world, but he discounts the existence of God because of the problem of evil. Goff seriously misunderstands the problem of evil. Evil is an insoluble problem for atheists, because if there is no God, there is no objective standard by which evil and good can exist or can even be defined. If God does not exist, “good” and “evil” are merely human opinions. Yet we all know, as Kant observed, that some things are evil in themselves, and not merely as a matter of opinion. Even to raise the problem of evil is to tacitly acknowledge transcendent standards, and thus to acknowledge God’s existence. From that starting point, theodicy begins. Theists have explored it profoundly. Atheists lack the standing even to ask the question.,,,
    https://evolutionnews.org/2018/02/the-universe-reflects-a-mind/

    And to repeat what CS Lewis, a former atheist, stated,

    “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?”
    – C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

    Thus the atheist’s ‘argument from evil’ fails precisely because it is impossible for evil to even exist unless there is first an perfect standard of moral goodness that had been departed from.

    Specifically, in their argument from evil atheists maintain that “There exist a large number of horrible forms of evil and suffering”

    The Problem of Evil: Still A Strong Argument for Atheism – 2015
    Excerpt:,,, the problem of evil, one of the main arguments against the existence of an all-good and all-knowing God.,,,
    P1. There exist a large number of horrible forms of evil and suffering for which we can see no greater purpose or compensating good.
    P2. If an all-powerful, all-good God existed, then such horrific, apparently purposeless evils would not exist.
    C. Therefore, an all-powerful, all-good God does not exist.
    https://thegodlesstheist.com/2015/10/13/the-problem-of-evil-still-a-strong-argument-for-atheism/

    But again this is self defeating position for the atheists to be in. As David Wood puts it,, By declaring that suffering is evil, atheists have admitted that there is an objective moral standard by which we distinguish good and evil.

    Responding to the Argument From Evil: Three Approaches for the Theist – By David Wood
    Excerpt: Interestingly enough, proponents of AE grant this premise in the course of their argument. By declaring that suffering is evil, atheists have admitted that there is an objective moral standard by which we distinguish good and evil. Amazingly, then, even as atheists make their case against the existence of God, they actually help us prove that God exists!,,,
    https://www.namb.net/apologetics/responding-to-the-argument-from-evil-three-approaches-for-the-theist

    Bottom line, if objective morality really does exist, as the atheist must necessarily presuppose in his ‘argument from evil’, (and as he must also necessarily presuppose in any argument about theodicy that he may wish to make), then God necessarily exists:

    If Good and Evil Exist, God Exists: – Peter Kreeft – Prager University – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xliyujhwhNM

    A few more notes

    The Moral Argument
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxiAikEk2vU

    What is the Moral Argument for the Existence of God? – video
    https://www.reasonablefaith.org/videos/interviews-panels/what-is-the-moral-argument-for-the-existence-of-god-bobby-conway/

    And again, I hold Christian theodicy to be far and away the most coherent theodicy of any Theistic tradition. To repeat, Jesus himself overcame evil with good: As theologian James Stewart stated in one of his sermons, “He (Jesus) did not conquer in spite of the dark mystery of evil. He conquered through it.”

    “He did not conquer in spite of the dark mystery of evil. He conquered through it.”
    ~James Stewart~
    ———————————
    “It is a glorious phrase of the New Testament, that ‘he led captivity captive.’
    The very triumphs of His foes, it means, he used for their defeat. He compelled their dark achievements to sub-serve his end, not theirs.
    They nailed him to the tree, not knowing that by that very act they were bringing the world to his feet.
    They gave him a cross, not guessing that he would make it a throne.
    They flung him outside the gates to die, not knowing that in that very moment they were lifting up all the gates of the universe, to let the King of Glory come in.
    They thought to root out his doctrines, not understanding that they were implanting imperishably in the hearts of men the very name they intended to destroy.
    They thought they had defeated God with His back (to) the wall, pinned and helpless and defeated: they did not know that it was God Himself who had tracked them down.
    He did not conquer in spite of the dark mystery of evil. He conquered through it.”
    James Stewart (1896–1990) was a minister of the Church of Scotland

    Verses:

    Romans 12:21
    Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

    Revelation 21:4
    He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”

  49. 49
    ET says:

    Well said, bornagain77 and Dr. Egnor! You are right. To “them” there isn’t any evil, just survival and reproduction. There are things that may help with that, things that are neutral and things that hinder it. They just are. Whatever gets you there is all good evolutionary acceptable. 😎

    Are you alive? and Have you reproduced? Are the only two questions that matter.

    So to admit that evil exists means that something is getting through.

  50. 50
    bornagain77 says:

    ET, “To “them” there isn’t any evil, just survival and reproduction. ”

    It is actually much worse than that for Darwinian atheists. Not only is atheistic materialism in and of itself completely amoral, but when coupled with Darwin’s ‘survival of the fittest’ mechanism,, i.e. “survival and reproduction”,,,

    “One general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.”
    – Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

    ,,, when the amorality of atheistic materialism is coupled with Darwin’s ‘survival of the fittest’ mechanism, then the amorality inherent in atheistic materialism actually becomes downright anti-morality. Self sacrificial morally noble behavior of any sort is simply completely antithetical to Darwin’s survival of the fittest’ mechanism. Whereas, on the other hand, selfishness, greed, (not to mention blind, pitiless, indifference to the suffering of others), is apparently rewarded. As you know, Dawkin’s himself had a book entitled “The Selfish Gene”.

    Thus, if Darwinian evolution were actually true, which thank God it isn’t, then the evil that would actually be present in this world would be very much comparable to the unimaginable evil that is present in hell itself. ,,, If Darwinists had to actually face such evil as their theory actually entails, Darwinists would be begging to have this world back.

    Bill Wiese (Man Who Went To Hell) – 23 Minutes in Hell (8 Minute Version)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqufixPt2w0

  51. 51
    bornagain77 says:

    As to theodicy in general, I have always found this following quote to be exceptionally powerful.

    The Problem of Evil by Benjamin D. Wiker – April 2009
    Excerpt: We still want to cry, Job-like, to those inscrutable depths, “Who are you to orchestrate everything around us puny and pitiable creatures, leaving us shuddering in the darkness, ignorant, blasted, and buffeted? It‘s all well and good to say, ‘Trust me! It‘ll all be made right in the end,‘ while you float unscathed above it all. Grinding poverty, hunger, thirst, frustration, rejection, toil, death of our loved ones, blood-sweating anxiety, excruciating pain, humiliation, torture, and finally a twisted and miserable annihilation — that‘s the meal we‘re served! You‘d sing a different tune if you were one of us and got a taste of your own medicine.”
    What could we say against these depths if the answer we received was not an argument but an incarnation, a full and free submission by God to the very evils about which we complain? This submission would be a kind of token, a sign that evil is very real indeed, bringing the incarnate God blood-sweating anxiety, excruciating pain, humiliation, torture, and finally a twisted and miserable annihilation on the cross. As real as such evil is, however, the resurrection reveals that it is somehow mysteriously comprehended within the divine plan.
    With the Incarnation, the reality of evil is absorbed into the deity, not dissolved into thin air, because God freely tastes the bitterness of the medicine as wounded healer, not distant doctor. Further, given the drastic nature of this solution, we begin to recognize that God takes the problem of evil more seriously than we could ever have taken it ourselves. ,,,
    http://www.crisismagazine.com/.....em-of-evil

  52. 52
    AaronS1978 says:

    Actually I really can’t conceive of any other system outside of it the reason why is the same concept behind the blind leading the blind and to be terribly honest with you there’s a lot to be learned from evil which I hate to say that but it’s true. But the funny part is the very thing that you speak of does exist at least in Christian theology and it’s called heaven
    And the other is called hell and I’m stuck in the middle with you ha ha

    Clowns to the left of me jokers to the right and I’m stuck in the middle with you. I’m sorry I hope I got that song stuck in everybody’s head

  53. 53
    Jammer says:

    Ah, the quality of design argument. One of my favorite Darwinist arguments. It’s just so damn easy to turn around on them. Watch this . . .

    Premise I: If bad design is evidence against intelligent design, then good design must be evidence for it.
    Premise II: The amount of good (brilliant, really) design in life easily outweighs the bad.
    Conclusion: The quality of life’s design provides more evidence for than against the intelligent design position. The I.D. position is strengthened.

    And let’s not overlook how much poor lifestyle choices damage our bodies. So much so-called bad design is really little more than improper personal care. If you stuff your body with garbage and spend far too much time sitting on your butt, then yeah, chances are your back is going to mess up. It’s like buying an i8, never changing its water or oil, and then blaming BMW for “bad design” when the motor goes wonky. I’m 31 years old. I’ve lived a (mostly) healthy lifestyle. My body works fine, with minimal aches and pains. That’s what happens when your treat your body with respect, not like it’s a garbage disposal.

    As for our Darwinist friends . . . I’d tell them to go back to where they came from, but traveling back to the 19th century is impossible. I guess we’re stuck with them.

  54. 54
  55. 55
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77 @ 41

    as to: Seversky at 32 presupposes that God would never, via the free will of man, allow evil to enter the world. Seversky’s argument basically boils down to this

    No, I was simply noting, as so many have before, that the existence of evil and human suffering is inconsistent with an all-loving Creator.

    For crying out loud that is exactly what you are repeatedly arguing. How your head does not explode from such logical contradictions I have no idea.

    You’ve lost me. Exactly what logical contradiction are we talking about?

  56. 56
    Seversky says:

    Jammer @ 53

    Ah, the quality of design argument. One of my favorite Darwinist arguments. It’s just so damn easy to turn around on them. Watch this . . .

    Premise I: If bad design is evidence against intelligent design, then good design must be evidence for it.
    Premise II: The amount of good (brilliant, really) design in life easily outweighs the bad.
    Conclusion: The quality of life’s design provides more evidence for than against the intelligent design position. The I.D. position is strengthened.

    That would be fine if we were just talking about LGM (Little Green Men) designers, extraterrestrial intelligences somewhat more advanced than we are but far from God-like in their knowledge and powers. But we aren’t. And we all know that we aren’t. We are talking about the all-knowing, all-powerful God of Christianity. Reconciling poor design with a being who shouldn’t have to do that is the problem.

    You may be relatively fit and healthy now but that may not always be the case. We have a genetic code which is prone to mutation. In some cases, that can lead to cancers. Some cancers occur in parts of the body where they are often not detected until they are well-established or even spread. As I noted before, the human reproductive system has a natural miscarriage rate of 15-50%, billions of lives cut short at the very earliest stages of development. There are a range of genetic disorders apart from cancers. There are auto-immune diseases where the immune system attacks the body it is supposed to be protecting. Need I go on?

    As for our Darwinist friends . . . I’d tell them to go back to where they came from…

    Not the best choice of words in the current political situation although I’m sure it goes back a long ways.. No doubt the Native Americans felt the same about our colonial forebears when they came in and took the land they had lived on for thousands of years.

  57. 57
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky at 55, I anticipated your response. See post 48 for a more complete explanation of the irresolvable contradiction in your worldview.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-human-back-is-we-are-told-an-evolutionary-disaster/#comment-681350

  58. 58
    ET says:

    Seversky:

    Reconciling poor design with a being who shouldn’t have to do that is the problem.

    Reconciling you with a thinking human is a problem

    We have a genetic code which is prone to mutation.

    LoL! The genetic code is NOT prone to mutation. And we were designed with the ability to adapt and evolve to fill niches so genetic change was designed.

    Seversky is obviously a willfully ignorant troll on an agenda. Extant humans were NOT the intelligently designed humans. Seversky is obviously just a dolt.

Leave a Reply