Intelligent design can not be debunked until our scientists find a way to resurrect dead people who can then assure us that nothing happened after they died. And I'm not talking about people who were clinically dead for a short time, I'm talking about really dead people. Like some dude that died a hundred years ago.
You would have better chances reanimating this scalpel than repairing a broken nervous system!
That is definitely the funniest thing I've read today. Thanks for the laugh.
I'm not sure I follow this reasoning...
The question of the origin of the universe doesn't have much to do with resurrecting dead people.
Unless you're a Christian; then it does. But still the logic would be a little off...are you speaking of debunking the concept of intelligent design, or the concept of the Christian God as Intelligent Designer?
Putting the burden of being able to ressurect, on science, as the ultimate way of debunking Intelligent design is to impose your own criteria for what would qualify as evidence of intelligent design and as the only appropriate method for doing so. Which, in your case, appears to be at least resurrection of the dead. But that is to assume that an intelligent designer can do that (resurrect)......
Perhaps I don't understand. How did you come to this reasoning?..
Your're just saying that because you can't do it. Come on now, I'm just talking about the reanimation of dead tissue. Are you saying that science will never ever be able to do that?
Uh. No...I'm trying to understand how intelligent design has anything to do with resurrection of the dead and science's attempt of it. Reread what I said. You misunderstood completely. I wasn't attacking. I asked for clarification and I'm attempting to see how you came to that reasoning.
To assume you know why i ask is a little presumptuous.
I believe that there's probably a God. I just didn't see how your reasoning was logical.. So I asked for clarification and a discussion. Your response to what I said had nothing to do with my response.
I promise I didn't think you were attacking. Now it is my understanding that the one who created us will resurrect us, otherwise what's the point? You just live for a short time and then that's it? That sucks! So I'm not sure how creation is associated with resurrection, but if an afterlife were true then if a person came back from the dead they could confirm it for all of us weather there is in fact an afterlife or not.
No compulsion here believe what you want, I've got no problem with it. just remember this;
So you feel that life must have some sort of purpose simply because life would suck if it didn't....
maybe reality is just that way. Maybe there is no purpose.
I disagree with your way of reasoning here, but I will admit the movie made me laugh.
Just saying what comes to mind ...... Nothing intended ...
I lightning bolt striking has a purpose, And after it does what it does, it goes back to where it came from.
It's purpose was to "BE" whatever it is, as best as it can, acording to how well it knows how to be the thing that it is.
It appears to me that you are saying you aren't interested in answers. You have willfully closed your mind by insisting that a bizarre and pointless scenario must happen before you will listen to alternative possibilities. Does that about sum your statement up?
Well now I think that you are ignoring my point. Since we as a society obviously know a tiny fraction of how the physical world works, I think it is astoundingly presumptuous to say that there is no possibility for intelligent design, or an afterlife.
I would agree, that ego alone drives the foolish and presumptuous argument that we know enough to make definitive statements on anything at this point. But, talking about reanimating bodies over a century old wouldn't have been my choice of ways to point that out.
Yeah but I get a star for creativity don't I?
so you have decided that you have the answer to the only way we can say whether life after death really exists. wow, i wish i was that awesome.
This sounds like an outright statement.
Where's the discussion?
I agree with the "impossibility" of resurrection, except by the miraculous power of God.
The dead don't resurrect to life; it is only the near-dead who get to life; like Jonah and Jesus.
There are lots of things we can't do. We can't even unboil an egg. However, we can explain why we can't unboil an egg or resurrect the long dead. We can explain lots of things - more and more each day, in fact. And our explanations don't need the concept of intelligent design.
Well we certainly can explain things but I think it is obvious that our understanding of the physical world is no more than seeing the tip of the ice berg if, after all, we can not even figure out how to do something as simple as reversing irreversible change.
Your rationale is faulty. There's no reason to even attempt to resurrect the dead and it's futile to even attempt to go in that direction. It makes no sense.
Sure there is. I would much rather be walking around living and breathing, than being food for worms.
No there isn't. I can understand that you would like to be walking around and living instead of being worm food, but since you're already alive and NOT DEAD, it doesn't matter.
You're talking about after your dead, what about finding out how to prevent death in the first place? Or stop it from happening to begin with?
Again, you make no sense.
Well dude if nobody ever died, then we would never know if there were life after death. Don't you see your logic eats its self?
People die all the time and nothing has shown that there's anything after death, so your logic as per usual is flawed.
You're simply assuming there's something after death because you're religious. If you actually understood reality and the human body, then you would not have this sad way of thinking.
You say that as if you know everything there is to know about the human body. Why not tell us how to cure all the diseases in the world, or tell us the intricate unknown details of the functions of the human brain and the cerebrum, and how and why they work with preciseness. Because I'm pretty sure the rest of the scientific community can not.
Tell me why do we yawn? When and why did the human phase of adolescence evolve? why do placebo's work? why do we dream? why do people blush? why do we grow pubic hair? are human's altruistic or not? Why do we like art? Why do people find it pleasurable to share saliva? Why is the sky blue? why do birds suddenly appear every time you are near?
I find it interesting that you jump from a statement that there is no evidence of something more after death to you must know everything. If I say that I have no evidence that my cat can speak the English language I'm not claiming I know everything there is to know about cats.
I can see you're quite sincere in learning things because you present so many questions. Therefore, it would be reasonable to assume you'll sincerely go about trying to find answers to those questions and not just toss them into a post in order to defend Intelligent Design.
I've always found it odd that some people are happy to dismiss 'science' as some evil construct because it doesn't have an answer for *everything*.
Fortunately, we understand more and more about the way things work not because we keep on praying to various oracles, but through scientific inquiry.
Not so. Part of this illusion, I believe, regarding "the evils of science" is a misconception. It is actually ridiculous to say that science proves there isn't a God just as it doesn't prove there isn't. Doesn't it....
No, I'm not. You just like to be difficult as per usual.
And this just shows you've a lot to learn that's all.
We yawn due to a lack of oxygen.
Actually adolescence is a label established by humankind so as to understanding aging.
Placebos work because the power of the mind can do wonderful things, such as speed up healing and many other things.
You dream due to the subconscious. It uses all the things already stored which the conscious mind doesn't understand or know about. It's like the imagination.
Because someone apparently is embarrassed about something. Why else.
The human body grows hair over every part of the body, so pubic hair is just one location.
Only those who truly understand their life are, otherwise they are not.
This is subjective and solely based on an individual's perception of beauty.
It's a turn on and not the same in every person.
This is based on perception and many other factors to do with your eyes.
Near what? Birds exist in number more than the human species, so expecting to see one is pretty obvious...there's a LOT of them.
Is your foolish quiz over with?
Ah yes, very well executed. The mysteries are all solved.
LOL Moving target aren't we ?
First religious nutjobs are ready to oppose human cloning and now we're keeping one more condition that science must resurrect dead people? What happened to prayers and book babbling ? Not working isn't it ?
I firmly believe there's life after death...cause I dated this dame once who died[or at least became lifeless]every time we hit the sack...afterwards she reanimated and ate all my rocky road ice cream....I guess that's where the term frigid came from...
Just highlighting my truthful viewpoint for discussion.
Actually, it's called "self importance", is what you did. And the fact that you had to come back and "highlight" your statement....is a selfish act.
Thank you for showing what your truthful religion has taught you.
Well that's one man's opinion. I myself am going with the writings of God's prophets, "The soul shall be restored to the body, and the body to the soul; yea, and every limb and joint shall be restored to its body; yea, even a hair of the head shall not be lost; but all things shall be restored to their proper and perfect frame."-Alma 40:23
by Baileybear5 years ago
<snipped graphic image>Search for 'birth defects' and you will find lots of disturbing images like this one - some look barely human
by Ron Karn5 years ago
If all life forms evolved from a single organism, where did the first organism originate from? It seems to me that to classify the science of evolution as scientific fact that they would need to establish a basis...
by kirstenblog3 years ago
Darwin acknowledged from the start that the eye would be a difficult case for his new theory to explain. Difficult, but not impossible. Scientists have come up with scenarios through which the first eye-like structure,...
by janesix4 years ago
It just means evolution was designed by god
by Alexander A. Villarasa2 years ago
An article on National Geographic, in discussing "The Multiverse" stated it simply this way: "One can best get a sense of the fine-tuning problem by thinking about the gravitational force. If this...
by Topaz8 years ago
Here in this dilemma lays the full concept of the descriptive meaning of two little words, They are not nouns, but they should be," How or Who."Lets start with the "How" this goes all the way back to...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.