Does creationist theory suppose intelligence? Surely it does, there would be little point, seemingly, worshipping, or that vast amounts of respect might be due to a thing, body , or entity, in fact vastly dumber than even people. Amoeba, for example, or possible celestial gases. While its held for certain now, that microorganisms are the basis of earthly life, and the building blocks of life as we know it, down to the cellular level and perhaps beyond, they didnt know that when creationist theory was created. Lets take the model T ford; someone invented it, put it together, made it work-yet there were clearly problems with it, problems hammered out and fixed up by successive generations of tinkerers and bright thinkers. Progressive design, in fact, iterative, thoughtful design and redesign. With the occasional massive failure, but all a product of focused effort and occasionally, NEW creation, from leaps in thinking resulting in new ideas and approaches. Clearly, im going to ignore the fact that ford is what it is today, but it's the process of refinement and new ideas that led to the amazing diversity of the automobile industry we have today- but without a truly successful originator, that dominated its environment (i mean marketplace) made by a not particularly intelligent creator, in fact, made by a ignorant and greedy cynic, who knows what might have occured. Thus, the premise- that intelligent creation is a furphy, leaving only iterative , often tangential and adaptive, necessary ongoing design as the "culprit" in explaining away the evident lack of evidence of intelligent creation. Because if creation isnt, or wasn't intelligent, then what value might their be in beleiving it, when design, clearly, is a more intelligent, rational, and provable process? Oh, and jesus is BANNED from responding to this, for now.
I am trying to resurrect this thread. It's been dead for at least three days. What was the question again? Jesus
Im not sure what the question was, i just wanted to see if anyone would click on this thread by mistake
Er, not that the premise of dumb, or largely random design on an iterative, ongoing basis hasnt thrown some spanners in the works of the other arguments-trouble is, they are, just arguments, without basis or substance, beyond blind faith. And due to the evidentiary nature, of an actual plausible theory being at the basis of this thread, it should be obvious why nobody wants to "argue" their points. Without the "logical" fallacy of an open-ended, open sided tetrahexagonal hoop snake of an idea, an endlessly arguable premise, it simply wouldnt appeal to peoples religiosity, because it makes too much sense, and doesnt inspire the necessary vitriol of unfounded ideas and beleifs. Was jesus actually a rabbi? If so, they can declare things dead, right? So a fake jesus, declaring the death of a virtual interaction would probably be ok. I dont think this thread comeing back.