Evidence God Exists: Part II

[Thor]

[quote='Thor']...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.

Actually, I learned about these creatures from watching a nature program on television. But what difference does it make where I learned about this? Unless, of course, my information is faulty. But I notice you're not making that claim.

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.

Yeah, your argument that we're the only "sapient" animal does nothing as far as supporting your "intelligent design" argument. And I noticed that you didn't answer my question concerning the hydrothermal vents....

This is a very immature line of debate, and I won't continue.

What the hell is "immature" here? YOU proclaimed that man is the only species that uses "an element of nature" (fire). I countered with the fact that every species uses some sort of element of nature. You then dismissed my point because you claimed that man is the only species that EXCLUSIVELY uses an element of nature. I then pointed out creatures that live in the deep sea and use hydrothermal vents to survive (a point which you don't bother to address). How is this "immature"?

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.

Isn't a plant that relies on fire to reproduce "using" fire? What about a caveman who cooked his food over a fire that was started by a lightning strike? By your definition, he isn't "using" fire because he didn't start it! Seems to me that you're trying to move the goalposts.

But your answer was semantics-based, and I won't entertain this line of immature debating from here on out.

My answer was based on the definition of "use". Use: "the act or practice of employing something". I guess you expect me to read your mind and determine what you REALLY mean. And, by the way, the terms, "starting" and "manipulating" do not appear anywhere in the dictionary's definition of the word "use".

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.

I was not implying the world should be perfect. Far from it. The world makes perfect sense when you take the notion of a "loving, all powerful" deity out of the equation. Why would anything in nature be "perfect"? You obviously missed my point. I was trying to demonstrate that things like killer microbes, poisonous mushrooms and disease-spreading insects are inconsistent with the notion of a deity who is all powerful and loves us. But I see that is lost on you.

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.

Gee... he's so "complex" as to allow horrors among us like elephantisis? Tumors that grow out of control and destroy people's faces? Spina bifida? Cerebral palsy? Severe allergic reactions? Worms that eat our insides? Babies being born with their heart outside their body? Diseases that destroy people's minds like Alzheimer's? I can go on and on.... If you believe in a "loving, all-powerful" deity who would allow things like this to afflict people that he supposedly loves, then you believe in a contradiction. THAT seems like "simple-minded thinking" to me.

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

And what evidence do you have to support this absurd statement?

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.

HONK! HONK! HONK!

There goes my rationalization meter again!

It has been said that all life on this earth serves a purpose.

"It has been said"? By whom? Other creationists desperately looking for a way to explain their way out of a difficult conundrum? This is one of the creationist platitudes that really bug me. If this bullshit is true, please explain the "purpose" of Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, Jeffrey Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy, Ed Gein, and the parasite that causes river blindness.

So who knows why all those things you mentioned were either created or allowed to develop in this world?

I can tell you why all those things came about and were allowed to develop. Evolution and natural selection. What's your answer?

The answer is too complicated to try to simplify it in atheist terms.

Not at all. I just explained it to you. Perhaps the answer is too complicated to simplify it in terms a believer will understand.

So there has NEVER been an underground oil seepage that has been ignited by lightning?.

---

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!"

---

You say "oil and grease fires" are "manmade". I point out how this is not always true. Your response to this is a non sequitor.

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.

Maybe you're not bright enough to make a good analogy. Adding vinegar to an apple gives you a vinegar flavored apple. It does not become "something else". Now if you had said adding eggs to flour and then baking it gives you "something else" I would agree. Also, a fire is a fire. It doesn't matter what is burning. A fire is a rapid oxidation of material. The material that is burning doesn't change the simple fact that you have a fire. The only difference the material makes is that it determines the method you should use if you're trying to extinguish it.

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 how of oxygen?

I don't know. I figure your incredibly brilliant deity could have provided us with some method for doing this.

By putting a giant cup over it, killing all the flames, and any survivors inside while they're at it?

Again, your super-intelligent deity could have certainly figured out some way for us to do this. And anyone inside the structure wouldn't need to worry. The fire will be extinguished if it is denied oxygen for just a few seconds. People can last without oxygen much longer than that!

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.

And your deity couldn't change the properties of fire so that it works in the modern world and less developed areas without smoke killing people?

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.

Great. You got away. Many thousands every year aren't as fortunate because they die of .... get ready for it.... SMOKE INHALATION! And this number includes many firefighters! Like I said, your briliiant deity couldn't create smoke without making it deadly?

AngelThMan Wrote:
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).

Wow. That is just such a horrible analogy that I don't think I even need to rip it apart.

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.

It doesn't matter if "Jesus" really lived? I think it matters a WHOLE LOT! If Jesus never lived everything you've written here goes down the crapper.

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.

Then why didn't he just design a fruit that would cure cancer instantly when you ate it? Once again, you are simply making unsubstantiated claims.

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?

Yeah, I tried Googling "Why did the banana develop an antioxidant?" and came up empty. You see, unlike believers, atheists will say, "I don't know". We don't try to fill gaps in knowledge with "Goddidit!".

Then you admit it is a difficult thing to explain by evolution alone.

No, I just don't know why the banana developed this particular antioxidant. Just like I don't know why oak trees drop their seeds in acorns and not in some sort of fruit.

Even if you don't believe in God, could it at least show a sign of intelligent design?

If what you believe is true, then try explaining why many plants have compounds that are harmful and even deadly to us. Are the poisonous leaves of the oleander plant the result of "intelligent design"? If not, why not? You want to give "God" credit for the antioxidants in the skin of the banana. In that case, your deity must also be responsible for deadly things like hemlock, nightshade and moonseeds. After all, he's either responsible for all of it, or none of it. If he "intelligently designed" the banana to have some sort of antioxidant, then he also "intelligently designed" certain berries to be deadly if we consume them. But if these deadly plants were not "intelligently designed", then neither was the banana skin.

So which is it?