Evidence God Exists: Part II

[AngelThMan]

...There are certain creatures that live in the vicinity of deep sea hydrothermal vents. Areas that are toxic to other life forms. Did some "intelligent designer" provide hydrothermal vents for these creatures? Or did these creatures evolve and adapt to live near hydrothermal vents?...

This is reaching, brought to you by Google/Wikepedia. Your argument is starting to sound like the kiddie arguments I got in my first thread, where my claim that man is the only sapient and sentient animal was countered with painting elephants and chimpanzees which have been in space. This is a very immature line of debate, and I won't continue. Here's an excerpt from what I was forced to write in that thread...

---

It has been very frustrating trying to get people here to talk about the real subject. When I make the claim that humans are the superior and most intelligent species, all I get is discussions about dolphins, fangs, and bacteria. I'm obviously dealing with very young people here, because their arguments remind me a little bit of kindergarten. Like when a teacher says something like, "Dogs like to eat bones." And a student raises their hand and says, "But my dog eats Alpo!" The teacher explains, "Yes, some of them like Alpo too, but as an instinct they gravitate towards bones." Another tiny student raises their hand and says, "But wait, my neighbor's dog loves to eat hot dogs." The teacher grabs their forehead and says, "Yikes!"

---

I sure did. But this is reaching. Certain plants thrive in situations where there is fire. But these are fires started by man or nature. There are no plants or animals that can start or cultivate fire at will.

So it matters HOW the fire got started? Seems to me that you are the one who is reaching. Some plants use fire to reproduce. This shoots down your contention that man is the only species that uses fire...

Of course it matters how the fire got started. A more mature debater would have understood that when I wrote that only man uses fire, the word 'uses' is an umbrella term for starting, manipulating, employing, etc. But your answer was semantics-based, and I won't entertain this line of immature debating from here on out.

So you believe that your loving deity gave us water. Then answer this... did your "loving" deity also give us plague, malaria, influenza, smallpox, diptheria, tuberculosis, internal parasites, ticks, mosquitos, lice and poisonous snakes?

Neither God, nor the bible, nor any theologian has ever claimed that the world God created for us here is perfect. The claim is that heaven is perfect. Our world is not heaven.

Where did I say that the world should be perfect?

You implied it by pointing to all these horrible things that exist to challenge the existence of God.

(Although, you would think a perfect being would create a perfect world for his creations...)

See what I mean?

Based on what you would do, or how you think, this world would be perfect if a perfect being created it. But this is very simple-minded atheist thinking, and God is much more complex than that.

...YOU claim that some intelligent being provided water so that we could control fire (never mind that we need the stuff to live...).

I never said that water was only provided to use to control fire. I even pointed out in one of my replies to you that water has many uses. Since I drink water every day, why would I think that the only purpose water serves is to control fire? Again, very immature arguing on your part.

What I said was that there's someone behind the rules by which fire, smoke and water relate to one another.

I pointed out numerous things that make our lives miserable, harm us and kill us. Why would a being that loves us unleash such horrors among us? Would you put your child into a room full of poisonous snakes?

There might be a reason why all those horrible things you mentioned exist. It has been said that all life on this earth serves a purpose. So who knows why all those things you mentioned were either created or allowed to develop in this world? The answer is too complicated to try to simplify it in atheist terms.

Have you ever seen anyone try to put out a burning oil well with water? IT DOESN'T WORK!

It has been very frustrating trying to get people here to talk about the real subject. When I make the claim that humans are the superior and most intelligent species, all I get is discussions about dolphins, fangs, and bacteria. I'm obviously dealing with very young people here, because their arguments remind me a little bit of kindergarten. Like when a teacher says something like, "Dogs like to eat bones." And a student raises their hand and says, "But my dog eats Alpo!" The teacher explains, "Yes, some of them like Alpo too, but as an instinct they gravitate towards bones." Another tiny student raises their hand and says, "But wait, my neighbor's dog loves to eat hot dogs." The teacher grabs their forehead and says, "Yikes!"[/hide]

So of course the rules are modified, and other means need to be employed to extinguish these fires.

So your deity has "different rules" depending on how the fire came about?

No. Oil and fire are two different elements. When man mixes them together, a different monster is created. I was trying to illustrate fire by itself, not fire as strengthened by oil. You can take any element and mix it with another, and something new is created.

That's like saying apples taste good, and someone else saying, "Have you ever eaten an apple with vinegar on it? It doesn't taste so good."

This makes no sense whatsoever...

Maybe you're not bright enough to understand what I meant. Apples are one element (as is fire), but when you add another element (vinegar representing oil or grease), then it becomes something else.

Fire, in its basic form, which is how God provided it to us, is best controlled by water.

No, fire is BEST controlled by denying it oxygen. That puts it out immediately and with the least amount of damage. If your house was on fire, which would you rather have the fire department do? Pump thousands of gallons of water on and in your house? Or immediately shut off the fire's oxygen supply?

Last I checked, they do pump thousands of gallons of water when a house in on fire. How are they going to deny an entire house of oxygen? By putting a giant cup over it, killing all the flames, and any survivors inside while they're at it?

What usually kills people in a fire? IT'S NOT THE FIRE! It is smoke inhalation!

You and others have been jumping thousands and even millions of years ahead and assuming I meant structural fires in civilized environments. My example is of fire in its basic form, as it was provided to us.

So this "warning system" worked great thousands of years ago, but not so much in a modern environment? Then why didn't this genius of a "designer" change the properties of fire so that it would be less likely to kill us as civilization developed? I would think that by now we should have FIRE version 3.6 (or something similar).

You're limited to thinking that fire is just what you see on your stove, and what you see in destructive modern-day fires. But fire is still used in its more primitive form all throughout the world, including civilized societies like ours. I know I have experienced many situations in the past, as I'm sure you have, where I detected that something was burning because of the smoke I smelled. That smell gave me time to act, and find out what the cause was, or escape to safety.

People do sometimes remain indoors foolishly.

And this is obviously an offense that merits the death penalty....

Is jumping off a bridge an offense that merits the death penalty? It's never a good thing to play with fire (pun intended).

Christ himself was poor and died violently.

There is no evidence that "Jesus" ever lived.

Here you missed the point entirely. My point was that even if you don't believe Jesus existed, you can't challenge a faith by pointing to terrible things, when the faith's main figure himself was described as suffering those terrible things as well. If the bible and the teachers of the faith painted Christ as a being that lived here with immune privileges, then your argument would make more sense. Whether Christ really lived or not is irrelevant to this argument.

...which means the banana started developing an antioxidant which helps prevent and treat certain diseases that didn't even exist way back then (eg. cancer).

If the disease didn't exist "way back then", what would be the point in having a plant with the capacity to prevent or cure it?

The point is that God knew back then that cancer, etc. would come to exist, and he designed for the banana to develop its powerful antioxidant.

[quote=Thor Wrote:I have no idea. (And neither do you.) But I do know that it had nothing to do with an invisible man living in the sky.

That's your answer? You have no idea? Your Wikepedia/Google button malfunctioned?

Then you admit it is a difficult thing to explain by evolution alone. Even if you don't believe in God, could it at least show a sign of intelligent design?