MarsCydonia
New Member
The Magical/Miraculous origin of sex!
Cdesign proponentsists have argued that since evolutionary biology has not yet provided a full answer to the origin of sexual reproduction, their personnal incredulity for the possibility of natural process origin makes cdesignism the only possible explanation.
To quote Brad Harrub, Ph.D. and Bert Thompson, Ph.D. cdesign proponentsists
Did not Harrub and Thompson just knock out their god by saying the he chose a more costly and inefficient means of reproduction? Can any cdesign proponentsists explain why their god, instead of letting Adam reproduce by asexually, chose a means of sexual reproductions that requires two participants? Wouldn't asexual reproduction have a more efficient way to ensure that man be "fruitful and multiply"? Why did the designer obviously chose the less efficient design?
On a more humorous note, I always had to ask: when did the penis come into being? Was Adam created with it from the beginning? Why would God tack-on this sexual organ on Adam if it originally had no purpose? Does it mean that God also has purposeless penis since Adam was created in his image? Was it added after the creation of Eve? etc.
Yet another attempt to argue that we should dismiss natural processes as the possible origin of something because cdesign proponentsists simply find it too incredible should make you realize that their "rationalization" is just as if not more incredible. Would they be fine with us rejecting creationism purely out of incredulity rather than its complete lack of evidence?
Cdesign proponentsists have argued that since evolutionary biology has not yet provided a full answer to the origin of sexual reproduction, their personnal incredulity for the possibility of natural process origin makes cdesignism the only possible explanation.
To quote Brad Harrub, Ph.D. and Bert Thompson, Ph.D. cdesign proponentsists
To quote ElshamahThe origin and maintenance of sex and recombination is not easily explained by natural selection. Evolutionary biology is unable to reveal why animals would abandon asexual reproduction in favor of more costly and inefficient sexual reproduction... We suggest that there is no naturalistic explanation that can account for the origin and maintenance of sex.
Why would animals would abandon asexual reproduction in favor of more costly and inefficient sexual reproduction is a good question that evolutionary seek to answer, to the cdesign proponentsists, I would also ask why would god?Evolution or design? You will be amazed at the complexity and different systems needed to be in place for human reproduction to be possible! ... The human reproductive process is a complicated process of systems that could not have come about gradually.
Evolution, or design ? definitively, design.
Did not Harrub and Thompson just knock out their god by saying the he chose a more costly and inefficient means of reproduction? Can any cdesign proponentsists explain why their god, instead of letting Adam reproduce by asexually, chose a means of sexual reproductions that requires two participants? Wouldn't asexual reproduction have a more efficient way to ensure that man be "fruitful and multiply"? Why did the designer obviously chose the less efficient design?
On a more humorous note, I always had to ask: when did the penis come into being? Was Adam created with it from the beginning? Why would God tack-on this sexual organ on Adam if it originally had no purpose? Does it mean that God also has purposeless penis since Adam was created in his image? Was it added after the creation of Eve? etc.
Yet another attempt to argue that we should dismiss natural processes as the possible origin of something because cdesign proponentsists simply find it too incredible should make you realize that their "rationalization" is just as if not more incredible. Would they be fine with us rejecting creationism purely out of incredulity rather than its complete lack of evidence?