Our course such a reality would be possible. And the species/subspecies/population group/whatever that didn’t like sex would soon become extinct. The ones who did like sex would thrive. End result= people like sex. That’s how evolution works - luck has nothing to do with it.
You didn’t say “This is what I believe.” You said “Here’s the truth.” Trotting out old, absurd, long-debunked arguments is not respectful. If you’re interested in the subject, why not ask some questions instead of making blanket assertions you can’t support?
The vain hope that somebody reading might learn something. And scientific ignorance should not go unchallenged. There is no shortage of people out there who manipulate the ignorant for their own ends and put a lot of work into spreading misinformation. It’s appalling that so few people seem to understand what evolution actually is.
Probably- it sounds like some animals have a terrible time. But it seems pretty clear to me that a species that doesn’t want to procreate is going to have worse odds of surviving than a species that wants to do it and finds it pleasurable. And I see someone else beat me to this point, but you’re wrong to keep describing evolution as random. It’s not being guided by an intelligent designer, but it’s not random. Mutations are involved and those can be random, but species don’t make random and unsensible changes for no reason without response to the external world.
And I want to respond to this again. It’s frustrating that you won’t follow from Point A to Point B here. You said upthread that “The human body is a marvel of engineering. The countless complex machinations strongly suggest a fore knowledge, not some natural selection process.” People pointed out that from an engineering standpoint the human body is far from flawless and that some kind of intelligent designer certainly would have known about those flaws and improved upon them. That’s an important point and it’s a very sensible argument for evolution, but you’re treating it like a nitpick that misses the big picture. If you believe in some kind of omnipotent god, then that god could have designed a flawless human without any greater difficulty than it designed the flawed real human, but it didn’t design a flawless human. We have all kinds of physical defects, inefficiencies, and weaknesses. We’re fairly easy to kill from an animal standpoint, and all sorts of things can and do go wrong with us. The amount of rare birth defects alone is staggering. Some of those inefficiencies make it very obvious we evolved from something else earlier and the structures have improved over time, which is, you know, evolution.
Yes, if. :dubious:
How have you “out reasoned” what was supposedly reasoned by God?
Which universe have you designed and how have you determined that it is better than the universe that was supposedly designed by God?
Please provide an example of when you used the “If I were God” argument to convince a proponent of Intelligent Design that your viewpoint is correct.
Wow so you have concrete evidence that God is not real? Please share since it would obviously put an end to the debate.
Hmm so why did the gene that gives me back pain win over the ones that does not? Why are there evil people in this world? Or better yet, why is mankind the most cruel to his own species than any other creation?
Or better yet, if you think these Christian arguments are complete rubbish, why even bother debating? Seriously.
You completely missed the point I was getting at, but that’s ok. I expect you to immediately reject any pro-Christian evidence because you have to.
Providing examples of improvements is easy. Convincing an ID proponent he is wrong is the hard part.
How do you know your back pain has a genetic cause?
I’ll ignore the whole question of good and evil and just ask - what does this have to do with genes? Nobody said evolution has created perfect people. That would seem to be the department of some kind of omnipotent god who might design better eyes.
Again, this is a highly debatable comment and it has nothing to do with genetics.
They are rubbish. Do you think you should win debates by just showing up? 
You haven’t posted any evidence.
Really, are you suggesting that sex is pleasurable for all existing forms of life? Otherwise, that species would have died out a long time ago. Hell if I was a male preying mantis, I certainly would abstain from sex. But there is something programmed into animals that forces them to perform such actions.. It’s called instinct.
I can. I have never sinned, and yet I have thistles in my yard. Therefore, God did this purposely. It’s the ONLY possible explanation.
Edit: but if Jesus took the burden of our sin on himself, then why are there still thistles, and pain in childbirth?
You are either completely missing Marley’s point, or you are making a straw-man argument.
Marley did in no way suggest that sex was physically pleasurable to all species. He did, however, point out that any species lacking an instinct that drives it to procreate will soon go extinct. A such instinct is quite adequately explained by evolution, in that a lack of it would preclude reproduction. As such, any mutation causing it would give the bearer an immense reproductive advantage, and therefore result in its spread.
Okay, please provide examples of improvement that were the result of using the “If I were God” argument.
Sure I did. The human body contains several components that would require foreknowledge of design in order to give humans a fighting chance at life. I’ve also demonstrated that humans are more than just a bag of chemicals. We operate by emotion, not programmed instinct.
Of course, you will reject this because you HAVE to reject anything a Christian says. It’s a guarantee!
You sin every day, you just don’t know it. One of the worst sins people commit daily is gossip.
Name them.
This is called “poisoning the well” and is a common logical fallacy. One could easily turn this around and say that you HAVE to reject anything a scientist says. It’s a guarantee!
We work in evidence here.
Like I said, easy. Just to name a couple that evolution has already solved in other species, human eyes have blind spots, many animal eyes don’t. Human teeth cause all kinds of problems; sharks just keep producing new ones. Getting a little more complicated, human males have to want sex in order to have it; so make human females have to want a baby before they can become pregnant. Presto, no more unwanted children.
No, you absolutely haven’t. An assertion is not the same thing as an argument. You’ve said human complexity requires foreknowledge and a designer, but you haven’t said anything to back up that argument. You’ve just said it’s true. And of course you’ve complained that atheists are mean and sarcastic and you’ve failed to respond to their counterarguments.
Again, this is an assertion, not an argument. How do you know those components required foreknowledge? How do you know the answer is foreknowledge instead of evolution?
Nobody said humans were just a bag of chemicals. Well, other than you.
And you think our emotional responses have nothing to do with evolution? I hate to tell you, but they do. I agree our responses are generally not programmed the way simpler animals’ are - whether humans have instincts at all is a matter of semantics and debate and I don’t really know enough about it to offer an answer - but there is no dichotomy between evolution and emotion. Emotions are physical and chemical responses to your experiences. They occur partly in your brain, and your brain is a part of your body - it’s a part of your body that has evolved and which is influenced by other things within your body like your hormones and your heart rate.
Again, I’m not impressed by people who play the victim card like this. I don’t have any problem agreeing with Christians. I do have a problem agreeing with people who spout misinformation and nonsense.
I don’t define God in my own image. The only definitions that I have of God are the ones that I have seen and heard presented by those who believe in God. Those definitions lead to all sorts of logical contradictions. I don’t need to introduce what would be the case “if I were God”.
If I’m going to spend (er waste) my valuable time debating with atheists, I want to know they have the ability to cast aside their anti-Christian biased nature and consider any argument with an open mind. The fact that you have fired off responses within seconds tells me that you never even gave my statements any consideration.
It’s the equivalent of being on American Idol, and one judge rejects every singer regardless of their talent. Why even bother going on the show then?
I’m not going to play your game where the rules are grossly slanted in your favor. Even with your post, you repackage my statements to reject them. Oh that’s not an argument, it’s assertation. Oh yea, a miracle healing is invalid without medical documention. Oh, provide the documentation and then you find some other way to invalidate good solid evidence supporting Christianity.
The irony here is almost literally painful because you make so many comments that alienate any atheist or skeptic who reads your post. But putting that aside, atheists are not inherently biased against Christians. I know you’ve been told that before and I don’t expect you to notice it now, but it’s true.
It means the flaws in your arguments are obvious, especially to people who have seen them before (and most posters here have seen them before.) Whatever you think about everybody’s tone, they have posted a series of detailed and sensible responses to your comments about complexity and a designer. You don’t seem to have any answer to what they said.
Saying “it’s an argument” does not make it an argument. What you made is an assertion and you haven’t backed it up or explained it even though I asked you to do so. If you don’t want to bother explaining comments like “The countless complex machinations strongly suggest a fore knowledge, not some natural selection process,” why make the comment in the first place? Do you expect people to accept it as the truth just because you said it?
Sorry, I’ve created some confusion.
I originally asked for examples of when the “If I were God” argument was used to convince a proponent of Intelligent Design that your viewpoint is correct. You then said that examples of improvements are easy but it is hard to convince an ID proponent that he is wrong.
I took your use of the word “improvements” to mean that you improved the viewpoint of the ID proponent by using the “If I were God” argument". In your subsequent response, you don’t mention ID proponents nor do you provide an example of when you used the “If I were God” argument".
You are discussing something else.
You think sex drive isn’t programmed into us? Look at all the people who throughout history have done stupid things because of sex - nearly as stupid as the praying mantis.
I don’t know if he felt pleasure, but my old dog, who was neutered, would start to hump his bed whenever my wife and I even thought about sex. Not to mention that lots of animals go into heat. We just are in heat 24/7. If God thinks sex is sinful, why did he design us that way?