Does a Painting have a painter? If you said yes to those two questions, than look at your eye and body and brain which is more complicated than both and tell me did we come from nowhere?
2007-02-20 09:38:13 · 22 answers · asked by barrett987 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
That is why Evolution will always be a theory, and a false one at that.
We have a creator and designer, God.
Nothing happens by chance, especially something as complex as the universe and everything in it.
There was a big bang, it was God's voice.
2007-02-20 09:42:07 · answer #1 · answered by TG 4 · 1⤊ 7⤋
First you make the absolutely imbecile comparison between a building - which, yes, you're right, has a builder - gold star! - and "eye and body and brain," which are also complicated objects and therefore - as you "think" - must've likewise been designed by some mysterious entity. It's as if you claimed that because a building is made of wood and stone, so must be the eye - because both are complex! The one fact has absolutely nothing to do with the other. Complexity does not automatically imply conscious intent.
2007-02-20 17:42:53 · answer #2 · answered by jonjon418 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Buildings and paintings are inanimate and cannot reproduce themselves. Eyes, brains and other body parts are made of cells which reproduce themselves. The cells are coded by genetic information to develop in particular ways, it is a chemical process. Changes in the genes make changes in the processes which leads to variation in the organism. No builder or painter is necessary.
Don't forget, you started as an ovum with half your genetic material from your mother and a sperm with the other half from your father. This complete cell then reproduced itself following the chemical codes until you were born and then you continued to grow, folowing your codes for some years after that. No builder or painter was necessary.
2007-02-20 17:47:53 · answer #3 · answered by tentofield 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Complexity does not require a creator but can have one. Buildings are drawn and built, paintings are painted but in no way, shape or form is that enough evidence to suggest that the human race was created. Perhaps that question should be asked again when creationism has empirical proof behind it (other than a 2000 year old book with no citations, bibliographies or footnotes).
2007-02-20 17:45:23 · answer #4 · answered by genaddt 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We came from nowhere.
Your "proof" is seriously flawed. First off, you will note that both of your examples are of non-living, inanimate objects. Comparing them to living objects is the first inconsistency in your posting.
Furthermore, just looking at the eye demonstrates that evolution completed the job, not an intelligent creator... seeing as the nerve endings inside the eye cause a blind spot where they travel throught the eye to cconnect with the rods and cones. Any intelligent being would have known this and fixed it appropriately. Alas, the eye still has a blind spot.
I could go on to explain that, if complexity denoted the requirement of a creator, then the creator himself must also be even more complex than his creation, thus requiring him to have an even more complex creator...leading to who created the Creator? But, that might actually confuse you.
So, youre wrong.
2007-02-20 17:42:30 · answer #5 · answered by YDoncha_Blowme 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Does the painter have a builder and designer? If not, then why does the painting need one?
One of the most laughable and self-refuting claims of the religious is that nothing can exist uncreated, so it's all the handiwork of a creator who exists uncreated. No rational person is going to fall for *that* kind of nonsense!
2007-02-20 17:40:51 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
This is a very small-minded arguement. You haven't thought this through properly. We know for a FACT that buildings and paintings are designed and created by PEOPLE.
We have no proof that things in nature are designed by a conscious creator.
This is a bad comparison and a poor arguement for Creation.
Trust me, much smarter people than you have fought this fight and lost miserably. So don't try.
2007-02-20 18:42:22 · answer #7 · answered by God Fears Me 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
When was the last time you saw a person get demolished to make way for a new road?
How stupid a question is that? When was the last time you saw two buildings trying to mate? Or two pictures? I'm not talking about what was going on in the picture, but the pictures themselves.
2007-02-20 17:43:41 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Thinking of the universe in human terms is faulty logic. The universe is not a building, watch, or anything else man-made. It's an apples and oranges comparison.
2007-02-20 17:55:26 · answer #9 · answered by Chong's stash 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
A building has a builder, but a tree is a natural object with no designer, so there are complicated objects with no designer, so your theory falls down.
2007-02-20 17:42:58 · answer #10 · answered by Tom :: Athier than Thou 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Great question.
Nobody can beat this argument.
But the problem with man is that our limited intelligence cannot conceive the Builder of such immense cosmos with the Holy Spirit Who sustains it. Even believers still quarrel with each other about Him!
Therefore, we must be very, very, very patient like our Father in heaven, by cooperating with all our brothers and sisters on earh, and try to guide patiently each other to the Divine School of the Law of the One True God. He never abandons us in this most difficult endeavour.
2007-02-20 17:53:48 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋