Because they are much better designed. Living things including humans are full of flaws and lacks that humans would never build into them.
And? That’s a straw man; no one is saying that science understands everything or can do that yet. They are saying that living things are full of grossly bad design. Frankly, claiming that humans are designed is a condemnation of the alleged designer.
To answer your last comment first the words are meant to show us how we got from there to here.
Your first comment…well its easy enough to answer too but it brings other much harder questions with it.
I will do the easy part first. The scripture you mention is found in Exodus which is part of the Old Testament or old law or even better yet the old contract.
We are not under that contract any longer and for me to kill a witch or even a known mass murderer in any case excepting defense of innocents or myself would be a violation of the new contract or New Testament.
Since those who carried out the crusades and inquisition were also under the new law they have no justification for their acts.
The hard part? Taken out of context at face value this verse and others like it create a dichotomy between the God of the old law and the God of the new law.
To be honest this grieves me and is something I have spent alot of study on.
This verse (along with a good bit of Exodus) suffers from alot of argument over the translation of the Hebrew word chayah. Some scholars say witch and some say sorceress and a few say poisoner and poisoner makes the most sense to me but it is prob the least accepted one of the bunch.
There is also a school of thought that translates this verse to mean dont allow a person to continue in sorcery. In the Bible the term death often referees to the spiritual kind of death.
Why would you think you’re not bound by the old testament? Jesus himself says he came not to break the Law but uphold it.
According to Jesus, there is only one God, and there is only one law. I realize you will say that Jesus was only speaking to a select group of 5000 random people when he said that not one jot or tittle of the Law would pass away before heaven and earth passed away, but that’s what he said.
But the amazing power of indoctrination will force you to deny that Jesus meant what he said in that verse, too. You’ll say it doesn’t mean what it clearly says — until heaven and earth pass away, and ALL, not just the very first step, is accomplished — no, what Jesus was actually telling those people was that it’s really, really important to follow the Law for the next few months, and then you can forget about it.
Have you ever wondered how people can believe such absurd books as the Quran, or Dianetics, or the Book of Mormon? Look in the mirror.
Ok go out and start your vehicle and just leave it running. Put gas in as needed and every couple of months shut it off just long enough to change the oil, slap on a new air and oil filter, keep a check on the other fluids etc. Within a couple of years the design flaws should be self evident.
You do realize that a gasoline combustion engine loses anywhere from 60 to 80% of the power it generates to heat? It uses well over half its fuel just getting power to the drive shaft and we still gotta turn them axels before we even think about getting any torque down to the pavement.
My heart on the other hand has run continously for the last 45 years. And my mom just got her knee replaced recently and one of the things I did ask the doc was how long would it last and he said well if she is carefull it should last at the very least 15 years and could last as long as 20.
So I asked what do you mean carefull? And he said well I gave her a list so later she shows me the list and it has things on it like.
No excessive kneeling or stair climbing, no jumping, no jogging, no aerobics, avoid quick starts and stops, and think before you move,
There were in excess of thirty items on that list.
Why can we not design a knee at least on par with the one natural selection gave us?
Nope never claimed anyone said science understands everything perhaps you were looking your own straw man in the eye and thought it was mine.
I did say they dd not understand enough to tell me what a design flaw is or is not.
Jesus lived and died under the old law in fact the new law was christened with His blood but not put into effect until He arose on the following Sunday.
The book Isiah is full of prophecy about the Messiah who would come and usher in a new contract with God and in Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
He finished the old contract and began the new.
How can you say that the human body is flawed when man can not come remotely close to designing such a creation? Somehow, our body contains 60,000 miles of blood vessels. Try fitting that kind of wiring inside a robot. We have a stomach that contains acid powerful enough to eat metal yet is causes no harm to our stomach. We have a nervous system that can send impulses as fast as 175 mph. It was designed this way so we could have super fast reflexes like when a hand comes in contact with a hot stove.
And? Just try outrunning a car, or carrying as much as it can.
We can’t build them with self repair capability yet.
Well, you’re wrong, we understand living things more than well enough to condemn various aspects as flaws. You are just using the standard religious tactic of handwaving away arguments with “it’s a mystery!”
Because it’s full of glaringly bad flaws and limitations. If we could build one in the first place we’d do a far better job of it.
Much worse than human made wires.
I agree the human body is absolutely ingenious in its compactness. This is not, however, evidence it was designed.
In fact, it and living things in general are overly complex. Living things are Rube Goldberg machines; kludges.
You can go to many Pentecostal services on any Sunday and see at least two of the three successfully tested. Of course, rattlesnake bites are usually not fatal and I’m guessing those swigs of strychnine are pretty small.
The verse actually reads " For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled"
Which means that God would destroy heaven and earth before He would destroy the old contract without fullfillment. I know many seem to think that supreme beings are not supposed to use figures of speech but Jesus often did …easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to go to heaven was another one.
Jesus knew it was not going to come to a choice between fullfillment and destroying heaven and earth but if it did, premature destruction was preferable.
Also most of the rest of that chapter of Matthew He explains the difference between the old law and the new.
Under the old law adultery was a sin but under the new law to look upon a woman (other than your wife of course) with the desire to commit adultery is a sin.
And then in verses 43 and 44 an even more striking difference
Ye heard that it was said: Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and shalt hate thine enemy;
but I – I say to you, Love your enemies, bless those cursing you, do good to those hating you, and pray for those accusing you falsely, and persecuting you,
In case I was not clear before I do not see conflict between the old law and the new law. I see a dichotomy between the very personality of the God of old and the God of the new.
Dammit now I am screwed too see whatcha did. Just kidding and I do think He has a sense of humor (now the whole playground in the sewers thing makes alot more sense huh?) but in all seriousness this is a big problem for me and one I continue to work on.
OTOH I dont think I am required to understand everything but I do think it behooves me to try.
And if you were a rocket scientest we would be having this discussion on Mars?
Come on man I have read many of your posts and you are much better than that.
Perhaps its 1:30 in the am where you are at too and I should have just gave you a pass but that was just too funny.
Have a good night Der Trihs.
You’re the one having trouble understanding. We don’t have the technical ability yet to build a human. But we aren’t complete idiots, so we wouldn’t put the breathing tube and the eating tube in the same place. We wouldn’t put the poo tube near the sex tube. We wouldn’t design eyes that miss a bit of our field of view (which other animals lack as a flaw, so are certainly possible).
The only explanation for why we would be designed would be active malice or outright stupidity in the designer.
Does your God have an IQ of 85 or is he an angry prick?
I dont disagree with that I just dont think you can say that is or is not a design flaw when you cannot build one yourself.
I cannot look at anything on my body and say that absolutely was designed that way but I dont think you can look and and say absolutely it had to evolve that way.
I do alot of things at my job but my vocation is maintaining equipment and I talk to salesmen and managers on a regular basis who try to point out what is stupid about the way some of our machinery is put together.
They are smart people who really have no clue about what they are talking about.
And much of it is really simple stuff…if you know what you are looking at.
I suspect that you are the same person that asks me why would you put a jack shaft in the middle of two drive shafts. You just overly complicated the thing and made it weak in the middle…that is so stupid.
:rolleyes: That’s just ridiculous. Again, there aren’t the same kind of obvious flaws with rockets because they are far better designed than living things are.
Garbage. We just need to know what a body parts function is, not how to make it. It doesn’t matter how it’s made.
I would never do such a thing. But you are saying that the equivalent of someone coming to you and saying, “hey, the doors are welded shut and you can only enter from a broken window with jagged glass around it”, simply doesn’t have the expertise to see why the welded doors and broken glass are necessary?
You’re contending that the flaws other people see are necessary design considerations.
You agree that there are no* necessary design considerations* for an omnipotent being, right? So your God isn’t omnipotent, right?
In these discussion, of course, not in education. There are tons of crackpot theories that a few people believe in - hollow earth, faces on Mars, whatever. Only when religion supports them is there a problem. And only when extremist religion which can’t stand any evidence against. If schools in Utah teach the rather odd history of man in North America found in the Book of Mormon, I haven’t heard it - and that is thousands of times more plausible (though still wrong) than creationism.
Go and read the Exodus story, especially about why Moses was not allowed into the land of Israel. It was all about how Moses, striking the rock, reduced the proof of God’s miracle. It seems clear that this Christian view of faith exists only because they realized that evidence of God was not coming, and that Jesus wasn’t coming back any time soon.