- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Impressive support for Intelligent Design
Posted on 2/20/26 at 12:06 pm to RebelExpress38
Posted on 2/20/26 at 12:06 pm to RebelExpress38
Our brains are nothing more than fancy radio receivers that our consciousness uses to communicate with the rest of the universe.
1
Posted on 2/20/26 at 12:09 pm to RebelExpress38
quote:
I guess we are just supposed to have faith that all of this evolved because lightning struck some soup and then randomly mutated into this!
The pure mathematical impossibility of humans being randomly formed makes that position one of the least scientific positions a person can have.
There is zero chance humans aren’t intelligently designed, yet the designer haters fight tooth in nail to preserve their viewpoint so they can comfort themselves with the thought of no accountability for their actions.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 12:10 pm to RebelExpress38
quote:
The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God. - Charles Darwin
Posted on 2/20/26 at 12:15 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Making one out of dirt and the other from a rib is more believable.
Infinitely more believable than lighting in goo. Or life from non life.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 12:17 pm to Decatur
quote:No fingers were snapped and man did not just suddenly appear.
Versus someone snapping their fingers and everything appeared in seven days ?
But your point seems to be that you think it's just as difficult to accept a supernatural creation as a natural creation. The difference is that if all you assume exists is the material world, you cannot even begin, because matter cannot arise from non-matter on its own. God provides an immaterial first cause of all that is, including time and space. If all that began to exist had a beginning, then the cause of its beginning had to be outside of the parameters of those things that began.
Therefore, space needed to be created by something spaceless; time had to be created by something timeless; matter had to be created by something immaterial. And if there was a creation, then there was a will and a purpose to create, which implies a personal being with a mind. That's what we call God.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 12:18 pm to TexasForever81
quote:
Infinitely more believable than lighting in goo. Or life from non life.
Why?
Why is God acting through time and science anathema to you?
The only things we’re pretty positive about is that earth was not created in six days, and all life on earth wasn’t just plopped down here like it is now.
Surely even the most ardent religious types don’t believe in a literal translation of Genesis.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 12:20 pm to FooManChoo
Perfect. God created human life through billions of years and evolutionary progression. What’s the problem?
Posted on 2/20/26 at 12:24 pm to Bass Tiger
quote:
I'm not sure how reliable someone's critical thinking abilities are if they still believe complex life was birthed from a single cell organism in a primordial soup somewhere on earth 4 billion years ago.
And the most important point, to think it randomly happened.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 12:28 pm to Indefatigable
quote:The problem is that He didn't. He said He didn't.
Perfect. God created human life through billions of years and evolutionary progression. What’s the problem?
This post was edited on 2/20/26 at 12:29 pm
Posted on 2/20/26 at 12:30 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
The problem is that He didn't. He said He didn't.
Strict literal interpretation of the Old Testament is too illogical for me to discuss.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 12:30 pm to RebelExpress38
Why does this incredible scientific accomplishment have to be turned into a conversation about religion?
It's amazing either way.
It's amazing either way.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 12:32 pm to Indefatigable
quote:It's not illogical. It's just not believable in your estimation.
Strict literal interpretation of the Old Testament is too illogical for me to discuss.
There is nothing about the creation narrative that defies the laws of logic.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 12:33 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
There is nothing about the creation narrative that defies the laws of logic.
Practically everything about it is illogical and completely opposite of everything we know about life and earth in general.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 12:34 pm to FooManChoo
Thank you for explaining your faith-based rationale. That’s not science though.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 12:36 pm to RebelExpress38
quote:
I guess we are just supposed to have faith that all of this evolved because lightning struck some soup and then randomly mutated into this!
If that happened, can we not say that was the method of intelligent design?
Or are we supposed to believe humans in our present form just magically appeared one day?
Posted on 2/20/26 at 12:36 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Why is God acting through time and science anathema to you? The only things we’re pretty positive about is that earth was not created in six days, and all life on earth wasn’t just plopped down here like it is now. Surely even the most ardent religious types don’t believe in a literal translation of Genesis.
God didn’t say he combined goo and lightening to create life. That’s not the science he used.
How are we “pretty positive” about this? What defines pretty positive?
Why wouldn’t I believe in a literal translation? Christ affirmed Genesis as it was given.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 12:38 pm to Lou
quote:
The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God. - Charles Darwin
Good quote.
Most people don't realize that Darwin never attempted to explain the origin of life because he knew it was a huge problem for his theory of evolution.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 12:42 pm to Decatur
quote:
Versus someone snapping their fingers and everything appeared in seven days ?
If there was no creator then where did the inert matter from which life arose come from?
Posted on 2/20/26 at 12:43 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
Most people don't realize that Darwin never attempted to explain the origin of life because he knew it was a huge problem for his theory of evolution.
No. Evolutionary theory does not attempt to answer the question of the origin of life. This is a typical creationist tactic to say that it does so.
This post was edited on 2/20/26 at 12:46 pm
Posted on 2/20/26 at 12:44 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Practically everything about it is illogical and completely opposite of everything we know about life and earth in general.
Penzias and Wilson discovered background radiation in 1973, which pretty much put the final nail in the scientific coffin of trying to claim a past eternal universe.
Penzias was an agnostic at the time.
A few years later he was giving an interview for a magazine and gave this famous quote:
quote:
"The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five Books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole
People who say stuff like you just said are either ignorant of what the scientific consensus says about the origin of the universe, the origin of life on Earth, and the math applied to the probability that something like DNA arose by chance, or they are ignorant of what the Bible is saying.
Or both.
Page 2 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News