Failure to use intelligent design protocols when creating humans

Pro in Round #2: “Let’s see if the sociopath psychopath Con who has no genuine friends or loved one which are all in itself phenomenally SCREAMING red flags, can hang out WITHOUT inventing excuses and or flat out lying during this debate? He also has a 15% appalling rating on The Big Issues showing on his profile thus 85% against which is also appalling and thus stands that his character is most certainly ‘unstable’ is a great word, suspect, dubious, and erratic.” Con has tried to explain this to Pro in the past, but he seems either incapable or unwilling to understand what he is decrying as my 15% rating. It is simply the level of agreement between us that he or I will see when viewing each other’s profile. It’s actually a fairly simple concept and it is telling if he truly cannot grasp it. As for his repeated use of ad hominem attacks, I will let them speak for themselves, as anyone who follows his activity on this site is well aware he has a disorder where he makes for himself a reality of any and everything unkind quality he can imagine regarding an opponent. He thinks it, therefor it is-this ability to make things true by an act of will is an attribute of God alone, Who he finds appalling, yet he seeks to make of himself the same sort. Pro: “After all, he has to turn around his god’s imperfections of man which are imperfections - an impossibility.” This is Pro’s attempt to alter substantially the argument he posted in the debate offering. His initial claim, which we agreed to debate, was not that man was made to be imperfect. The debate topic was his proposition that intelligent design is not at work in the creation of man. These are two very different topics. I hope Pro will make an attempt to engage in the debate at hand in Round #3. In Round #2 Pro corrected Con’s misguided assertion that Pro did not intend to misuse the word “idolize” by applying it to our relationship with God. Pro makes it clear that his untenable position is that if you accept an all powerful, all holy, Supreme Being in God, then He must be worthy of being idolized. The word does not work and shows a lack of knowledge of subtle meanings of similar words. It’s just as ridiculous as it is to say a mother who acknowledges her newborn infant loves it too much. It is not possible to worship true God too much. He cannot be given, as true God, the adoration given to Him as a false God. He cannot be idolized. It is a nonsensical statement.Pro in round #2 goes to great lengths to repeat many of the list of imperfections of man which he enumerated in round #1. As he has mostly repeated Round #1 in this round, I will simply defer to my round #1 response for the majority of this round in the interest of brevity. Again Con maintains, and Pro has failed to argue effectively against, the notion that the designed imperfections of man are not evidence of God failing to use intelligent design, but they are rather the exact opposite. They are evidence of His intelligent design for us. We are created for something far greater than this petty life on earth, which amounts to upwards of 100 years (if you are long lived) of misery and sorrow interspersed with moments of joy and happiness. In His mercy and goodness, he designed us for so much more in eternity. In His justice, He intelligently designed us so that by undergoing the hardships of this short life, we may earn what has been promised to those who are willing to fight the fight and win the crown. Those who are created by Him, intelligently, with physical defects even beyond the norm have reason to be even more thankful to Him if they consider what He is offering them in eternity in exchange for a few years of trial. I look forward to Pro’s on topic Round #3 argument. I am hopeful he will refrain from again projecting onto Con the social failures which he apparently suffers, as he persistently accuses every opponent of the social failures he attributes again here to Con. They are not relevant to the debate, and their repeated use as ad hominem attacks against his opponents whom he does not know shows a level of petty cowardice that can only muster the courage to attack strangers from a safe distance. I hope he will raise the bar for the subsequent rounds.