Intelligent Design at its best!

[Straw Man]

Is that a compliment?     Thanks.     My little one is very smart.  All of my kids are.  Including my oldest who was just teasing me about not knowing Calculus (I don't have a clue). 

I guess it might be interpreted as such, and certainly for your youngest kid who seem to know already that his dad is full of it most to the time.

[Deicide]

I guess it might be interpreted as such, and certainly for your youngest kid who seem to know already that his dad is full of it most to the time.

I can't believe you approve of teaching children mythology as fact....! 

[Straw Man]

I can't believe you approve of teaching children mythology as fact....! 

I didn't say I approved of it I pointed out that I Bum most likely doesn't think he is lying when/if he teaches his kids that stuff.

He obviously believes it's true

Also, it's not my place to approve/disapprove what anyone chooses to teach their kids.

[Deicide]

I didn't say I approved of it I pointed out that I Bum most likely doesn't think he is lying when/if he teaches his kids that stuff.

He obviously believes it's true

Also, it's not my place to approve/disapprove what anyone chooses to teach their kids.

I agree. It's too bad for them. When the rest of society is getting ahead they will still be rolling on the floor speaking in 'tongues'...like these kids...

                                                                   

[Dos Equis]

I guess it might be interpreted as such, and certainly for your youngest kid who seem to know already that his dad is full of it most to the time.

That would be my teenagers, who KNOW they are smarter than me.  Just wait till you have kids.  You will go from the smartest man on the planet to a dope (in your kids' eyes).

[Deicide]

That would be my teenagers, who KNOW they are smarter than me.  Just wait till you have kids.  You will go from the smartest man on the planet to a dope (in your kids' eyes).

At least some of us won't be teaching their children Iron Age mythology as scientific and historical fact.

[Straw Man]

That would be my teenagers, who KNOW they are smarter than me.  Just wait till you have kids.  You will go from the smartest man on the planet to a dope (in your kids' eyes).

I'm sure yourr little one has an inkling too

Do you get more abuse at home or on GetBig?

[Dos Equis]

At least some of us won't be teaching their children Iron Age mythology as scientific and historical fact.

 

[Dos Equis]

I'm sure you little one has an inkling too

Do you get more abuse at home or on GetBig?

Neither.   

[Straw Man]

Neither.   

so you get just as much abuse at home as you do on GetBig?

are you a closet masochist?

out of the closet?

[OzmO]

That would be my teenagers, who KNOW they are smarter than me.  Just wait till you have kids.  You will go from the smartest man on the planet to a dope (in your kids' eyes).

And then when they turn 21 and have been on their own for a while you all of a sudden become the wisest man on earth,  at least that's what i'm told.  I'll know for sure in a year and a half.   

[Dos Equis]

And then when they turn 21 and have been on their own for a while you all of a sudden become the wisest man on earth,  at least that's what i'm told.  I'll know for sure in a year and a half.   

lol.  Good luck.  You'll probably be the First National Bank for a while.  I hear that it's very hard to get them off the payroll.   

[Deicide]

Only in a world this demented and deluded could a comment like that get a rolly eyes smiley.

You never did explain why you believe Genesis is literally true!

[Deedee]

Deedee I don't discount anyone's life.  Each one is special, including encephalic newborns, even though they live for a just a short period of time.  The issue I was addressing was whether God plans birth defects.  I maintain the answer is "no." 

When I mentioned sin I wasn't necessarily talking about people contributing to birth defects.  That happens (e.g., my crack baby reference), but I was talking about Adam and Eve.  I know you've heard this before, but all sin on Earth originated from them.  All of the harmful, abnormal, etc. things we see today can be traced to them and the origination of sin with those two.  That's what my "sin" reference primarily related to.

But then, you're only arguing the point that God DOES plan birth defects. 

Because of Adam and Eve's indescretion with Satan and the apple, original sin and its consequences were unleashed upon the world.  Granted.

If God created man, he ensured that some of the population would carry the propensity for bearing defective offspring, via our genetics.  In short, if God created man, then he also created our genetics... ergo he "created" birth defects. 

This idea totally works within the Adam and Eve original sin issue. Doesn't it?

And finally, it seems God has had no problem with the murder of children (as is written in the bible), so why would He balk at creating children with defects, as a reminder of our weakness and sin?

[OzmO]

lol.  Good luck.  You'll probably be the First National Bank for a while.  I hear that it's very hard to get them off the payroll.   

lol,  i already am the first national bank and fort knox.   

[loco]

That picture does not look real, but that's not the point.

The Christian belief is that God created Adam and Eve with two legs, not three.  God created Adam and Eve with the ability to procreate babies with two legs, not three.  Because of the sin of Adam, harmful mutations and birth defects entered this world, hence three legged babies.

Also, regardless of the sin of Adam, certain individuals make their own bad choices, personal sins, such as the ones Beach Bum already pointed out, which affect their unborn babies, hence the three legged baby.

Even if you do not believe in God, you could say the same about nature.  Humans do not have three legs, normally.  If a baby is born with three legs it is understood that this would be a birth defect, a harmful mutation, or consequences of the parents bad choices.  But it is accepted that naturally, this isn't the norm.

Birth defects and harmful mutations are not a good argument against intelligent design.  If anything, harmful mutations have been used as an argument against evolution, which depends on beneficial/positive mutations.

[OzmO]

That picture does not look real, but that's not the point.

The Christian belief is that God created Adam and Eve with two legs, not three.  God created Adam and Eve with the ability to procreate babies with two legs, not three.  Because of the sin of Adam, harmful mutations and birth defects entered this world, hence three legged babies.

Also, regardless of the sin of Adam, certain individuals make their own bad choices, personal sins, such as the ones Beach Bum already pointed out, which affect their unborn babies, hence the three legged baby.

Even if you do not believe in God, you could say the same about nature.  Humans do not have three legs, normally.  If a baby is born with three legs it is understood that this would be a birth defect, a harmful mutation, or consequences of the parents bad choices.  But it is accepted that naturally, this isn't the norm.

Birth defects and harmful mutations are not a good argument against intelligent design.  If anything, harmful mutations have been used as an argument against evolution, which depends on beneficial/positive mutations.

I'm curious as to what versus say that Adam's sin caused birth defects in the human race.  I vaguely remember something heals but perhaps you exactly what that is.

[loco]

I'm curious as to what versus say that Adam's sin caused birth defects in the human race.  I vaguely remember something heals but perhaps you exactly what that is.

I don't think that there is any Bible verse that says "birth defects" specifically are caused by Adam's sin.  What the Bible says is that sin entered our world through Adam and that sin brings consequences, death and suffering.

[Deedee]

That picture does not look real, but that's not the point.

The Christian belief is that God created Adam and Eve with two legs, not three.  God created Adam and Eve with the ability to procreate babies with two legs, not three.  Because of the sin of Adam, harmful mutations and birth defects entered this world, hence three legged babies.

Also, regardless of the sin of Adam, certain individuals make their own bad choices, personal sins, such as the ones Beach Bum already pointed out, which affect their unborn babies, hence the three legged baby.

Even if you do not believe in God, you could say the same about nature.  Humans do not have three legs, normally.  If a baby is born with three legs it is understood that this would be a birth defect, a harmful mutation, or consequences of the parents bad choices.  But it is accepted that naturally, this isn't the norm.

Birth defects and harmful mutations are not a good argument against intelligent design.  If anything, harmful mutations have been used as an argument against evolution, which depends on beneficial/positive mutations.

You always argue everything backwards.  Nobody is saying that birth defects are an argument against intelligent design. Christians just want it both ways. You say God created man (from dust) but then in the same breath you say that the genetic code that makes up the human being, and is responsible for birth defects, is NOT a result of God's creation.

Huh? Doesn't make any sense at all. You and Beach keep harping on crack babies and babies with fetal alcohol syndrome, but most defects are caused by chromosomal issues inherent in our DNA.  Neither one of you seems to be able to explain that away in any simple, intelligent fashion. People who don't believe in man as "God's" creation understand that nature screws up, and so we don't need jump through ridiculous hoops trying to explain the actions of a cruel diety.

[loco]

You always argue everything backwards.  Nobody is saying that birth defects are an argument against intelligent design.

Excuse me?  Read the title of this thread "Intelligent Design at its best!", started by none other than Trapezkerl, a self proclaimed advocate of Unintelligent Design, with a post of a picture of a three legged baby.

Christians just want it both ways. You say God created man (from dust) but then in the same breath you say that the genetic code that makes up the human being, and is responsible for birth defects, is NOT a result of God's creation.

Huh? Doesn't make any sense at all. You and Beach keep harping on crack babies and babies with fetal alcohol syndrome, but most defects are caused by chromosomal issues inherent in our DNA.  Neither one of you seems to be able to explain that away in any simple, intelligent fashion. People who don't believe in man as "God's" creation understand that nature screws up, and so we don't need jump through ridiculous hoops trying to explain the actions of a cruel diety.

Christians do not want it both ways.  Christians believe that God created Adam from dust, without birth defects, and that birth defects are one of many consequences of sin, which entered the world through Adam.  How is this wanting it both ways?  Nature screws up, yes, because of sin.  Nature would not screw up if sin had never entered the world.  I'm just explaining the Christian point of view, Deedee.

[OzmO]

I don't think that there is any Bible verse that says "birth defects" specifically are caused by Adam's sin.  What the Bible says is that sin entered our world through Adam and that sin brings consequences, death and suffering.

Thanks.

So suffering covers much.

[loco]

Thanks.

So suffering covers much.

You are welcome!

[Deedee]

I see.  So then ultimately is Satan is responsible for the glitches in our DNA that cause birth defects   I mean, if it wasn't God who meted out the original punishment for tasting the forbidden fruit then who was it    Did the punishment for original sin manifest itself out of thin air    Because if God DID mete out the punishment that was to affect us through the generations as a reminder, then ultimately it was He who affected the DNA of human beings so that a certain % would give birth to defective babies.  

You do realize that you haven't said anything that even remotely approaches rationality.  If you accept that we are all paying for original sin, then why do you have such trouble accepting that God metes out the punishment on children.

And what about John 9:1-3?  Seems like Jesus doesn't agree with you consistently. Some people seem to be born defective so that God can make miracles out of them.

1  As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. 2 His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"

    3 "Neither this man nor his parents sinned," said Jesus, "but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.

Trapeze hasn't really contributed to the arguments in this thread. 

[loco]

I see.  So then ultimately is Satan is responsible for the glitches in our DNA that cause birth defects  I mean, if it wasn't God who meted out the original punishment for tasting the forbidden fruit then who was it    Did the punishment for original sin manifest itself out of thin air    Because if God DID mete out the punishment that was to affect us through the generations as a reminder, then ultimately it was He who affected the DNA of human beings so that a certain % would give birth to defective babies.   

Let's not give Satan too much credit.  Adam sinned, and we sin.  And is it that human DNA in general already have glitches that cause birth defects, or is it that certain human beings are born with these glitches which cause their off springs to be born with defects?

Deedee, you can look at it anyway you want to.  You can blame Satan for tempting Adam, or you could even blame God for birth defects for not stopping Adam from sinning.  Pick one.  I'll go by what the Bible says.

You do realize that you haven't said anything that even remotely approaches rationality. 

No

If you accept that we are all paying for original sin, then why do you have such trouble accepting that God metes out the punishment on children.

I do not have trouble accepting that God allows children to suffer for the sin of others, just as I do not have trouble accepting that God allows children to be blessed by the good deeds and good choices of others.

And what about John 9:1-3?  Seems like Jesus doesn't agree with you consistently. Some people seem to be born defective so that God can make miracles out of them.

1  As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. 2 His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"

    3 "Neither this man nor his parents sinned," said Jesus, "but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.

Yes, there are always exceptions to the norm.  This particular man was born blind from birth so that this particular miracle could be displayed in him.  Since this man was blind from childhood and everybody in the area knew him well, it was not possible to prove that this miracle was just a trick, though the religious leaders of the time did unsuccessfully try to prove that it was a trick to discredit Jesus.

Trapeze hasn't really contributed to the arguments in this thread. 

So?  The purpose of this thread is obviously, for the reason I stated before, to use birth defects as an argument against Intelligent Design.  If it isn't so, let Trapeze deny it and be done with it.  I don't have a problem with that.  I was simply stating that birth defects are not a good argument against Intelligent Design.

[Decker]

I see.  So then ultimately is Satan is responsible for the glitches in our DNA that cause birth defects   I mean, if it wasn't God who meted out the original punishment for tasting the forbidden fruit then who was it    Did the punishment for original sin manifest itself out of thin air    Because if God DID mete out the punishment that was to affect us through the generations as a reminder, then ultimately it was He who affected the DNA of human beings so that a certain % would give birth to defective babies.  

You do realize that you haven't said anything that even remotely approaches rationality.  If you accept that we are all paying for original sin, then why do you have such trouble accepting that God metes out the punishment on children.

...

It's at this point that I find proponents of the doctrine of Original Sin refer to the mystery of God's will.  It's God's will that this happens and His thoughts/motives are beyond our ken.  His Plan is bigger than anything we can conceive.

This is the quandary that these supporters fall upon--God is a mystery yet we have his full conclusive Word in the good book--a book of history, science, ethics, morality, fashion, politics and on and on...but His will is still a mystery.

It gets to a point where any meaningful discussion of the topic devolves into this type of demagoguery.