NationStates Jolt Archive

I hate to do this. I know most people are really sick of creation/evolution threads. Sorry folks, I'm just too curious to let this go.

This thread is only about one question. That question is: How do you reconcile the fact that the human body has some stupid design flaws with the idea that an intelligent being designed it?

Examples of stupid design flaws: Appendix and Occular nerve connection in front of retina

They seem pretty consistent with evolution, but I don't think they seem consistent with intelligent design.

I hate to do this. I know most people are really sick of creation/evolution threads. Sorry folks, I'm just too curious to let this go.

This thread is only about one question. That question is: How do you reconcile the fact that the human body has some stupid design flaws with the idea that an intelligent being designed it?

Examples of stupid design flaws: Appendix and Occular nerve connection in front of retina

They seem pretty consistent with evolution, but I don't think they seem consistent with intelligent design.

God got bored and decided to have some fun?

I hate to do this. I know most people are really sick of creation/evolution threads. Sorry folks, I'm just too curious to let this go.

This thread is only about one question. That question is: How do you reconcile the fact that the human body has some stupid design flaws with the idea that an intelligent being designed it?

Examples of stupid design flaws: Appendix and Occular nerve connection in front of retina

They seem pretty consistent with evolution, but I don't think they seem consistent with intelligent design.
"God works in mysterious ways."

this is why ID is such an unscientific theory...any such contradictions can just be eliminated with the wave of the magic ignorance wand. "we cannot understand the fullness of God's plan..."

blech.

One day I noticed something strange: There is a stamp on my big toe...It says "made in China".

During a conversation about the balance mechanism in our ears today, (don't ask) I kept thinking about how unlikely it is that as system like evolution where, slightly simplified, everything we are is the result of genetic fuck ups that worked, would produce such complex organs.

Then again, evolution still holds up better than any other theory I can think of.

I think the main reason why I can't accept creationism is just my inability to believe that there is a sentient higher being. But I've already been warned about going into that. So I won't.

This thread is only about one question. That question is: How do you reconcile the fact that the human body has some stupid design flaws with the idea that an intelligent being designed it?

I've only encountered two "explanations" of this over the years...

1. The "god probably did it for a reason" excuse. Of course, no attempt at actually providing such a reason ever follows, which means that this is exactly the same as saying "just because". Persuasive it is not.

2. The "Our bodies degenerated in the Fall" response... which I always have more fun with since it lets you torment the unfortunate person who thought this made sense by requiring them to explain why in the world the Fall would have resulted in genetically reengineering human eyesight, along with all the other clearly sub-optimal components of the body.

Really, all the design argument biols down to is this:

The human body looks designed...as long as we don't look too close. So, ummm... turn your head and squint and voila! It's clearly designed!

I seriously doubt any of the black shirts will respond to this.

During a conversation about the balance mechanism in our ears today, (don't ask) I kept thinking about how unlikely it is that as system like evolution where, slightly simplified, everything we are is the result of genetic fuck ups that worked, would produce such complex organs.

Then again, evolution still holds up better than any other theory I can think of.

I think the main reason why I can't accept creationism is just my inability to believe that there is a sentient higher being. But I've already been warned about going into that. So I won't.


i dont have it with me now, but later tonight, ill check my bio book and see if it has any info on that one.

i know the eyeball is the common 'this couldnt possibly evolve through chance mutations' example, and i know its got some examples from currently extant organisms that display 'stages' in the evolution of the eyeball.

Is there some way of combining gay marriage with evolution with abortion iwith gun control in one big topic?

Man, that thread would be the fight to end all fights.

OBVIOUSLY your idea of intelligence and god's idea of intelligence are not the same. what do YOU know of the parameters he had to work with? do you think its EASY to design a body as flawed as the human body? do you think its EASY to make it seem as if we were made through evolution?

Is there some way of combining gay marriage with evolution with abortion iwith gun control in one big topic?

Man, that thread would be the fight to end all fights.

Oooooh! And if we'd add USA vs. Europe pissing contest people would keel over dead from just clicking the thread.

OBVIOUSLY your idea of intelligence and god's idea of intelligence are not the same. what do YOU know of the parameters he had to work with? do you think its EASY to design a body as flawed as the human body? do you think its EASY to make it seem as if we were made through evolution?
But god is omnipresent and omnipotent, and thus infallbile.

He has no limits.

but that dosent solve the question

why, why would he make us flawed, and why would he make us look evolved

what is his logic.

oh wait we can understand it, the old relgion catch 22, defy all reasoning with a simple anser.

Examples of stupid design flaws: Appendix and Occular nerve connection in front of retina


That is where God put your soul.

If you creationalists are Catholic then you should've listened when they said alot of things in the bibal were metaphorically like most of Genisis which is the first book in the bibal and therefore the first book in the torah.

That is where God put your soul.

:D

I hate to do this. I know most people are really sick of creation/evolution threads. Sorry folks, I'm just too curious to let this go.

This thread is only about one question. That question is: How do you reconcile the fact that the human body has some stupid design flaws with the idea that an intelligent being designed it?

Examples of stupid design flaws: Appendix and Occular nerve connection in front of retina

They seem pretty consistent with evolution, but I don't think they seem consistent with intelligent design.
You forgot the worst one of all. Our spine. It's as stable as a stack of quarters.

Is there some way of combining gay marriage with evolution with abortion iwith gun control in one big topic?

Man, that thread would be the fight to end all fights.
Especially if some of the gays in the topic were Jewish and then the Nazis attacked it too.

But god is omnipresent and omnipotent, and thus infallbile.

He has no limits.

but that dosent solve the question

why, why would he make us flawed, and why would he make us look evolved

what is his logic.

oh wait we can understand it, the old relgion catch 22, defy all reasoning with a simple anser.


Simple, God has a sense of humor. How do you confuse a nincompoop?



put him in a round room and tell him to pee in the corner.

same thing applies to the idea of God and Man, isn't this entertaining to try to figure out why we work? Some of those flaws are'nt realy flaws, just things that we haven't figured out yet.

You forgot the worst one of all. Our spine. It's as stable as a stack of quarters.


And yet it works better than any other structure i've seen so far for skeletal structure.

And yet it works better than any other structure i've seen so far for skeletal structure.

nah, the bottom vertebrae are at the wrong angle for creatures which stand erect. Easy to see the fix.

Clearly god wanted there to be doubt, so that people would have to have faith. That's why he put fossils in the ground. It's about free will. Otherwise he might as well just appear with a big giant 'god' name badge.

nah, the bottom vertebrae are at the wrong angle for creatures which stand erect. Easy to see the fix.

Clearly god wanted there to be doubt, so that people would have to have faith. That's why he put fossils in the ground. It's about free will. Otherwise he might as well just appear with a big giant 'god' name badge.

Arrrg dont talk about faith, its the absence of reason.

So why woulnt god appear on a roof shouting he was god, becuase he likes the kicks he gets out of our 'doubt' see reason and 'faith' the lack there of, of the former.

nah, the bottom vertebrae are at the wrong angle for creatures which stand erect. Easy to see the fix.

Clearly god wanted there to be doubt, so that people would have to have faith. That's why he put fossils in the ground. It's about free will. Otherwise he might as well just appear with a big giant 'god' name badge.


refer to my first post, I agree.

And yet it works better than any other structure i've seen so far for skeletal structure.
So how many skeletal strcutures have you seen? One?

And some of the skeletal structures in the human body would only have been designed by someone who is a total asshole. Take, for example, the ridge of bone on the inside of our skull that is right on top of our brain. One whack in the right place, and the brain now has a gaping gash in it.

And yet it works better than any other structure i've seen so far for skeletal structure.
Let me put forth a different example.

The eye, specifically the optic nerve.

It is in rather an inconvenient spot, seeing as it passes back through the retina, leaving a spot with no photoreceptors. This causes the blind spot.
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/blindspot1.html

And yet, we have seen an animal with no blind spot. The octopus has eyes that are set up in a more convenient way than ours, such that the optic nerve doesn't interrupt the place where photoreceptors should be. So this is a case where we have seen a better alternative.

Arrrg dont talk about faith, its the absence of reason.

So why woulnt god appear on a roof shouting he was god, becuase he likes the kicks he gets out of our 'doubt' see reason and 'faith' the lack there of, of the former.
Agreeing-God didn't have any problem constantly showing up and 'proving' himself all throught his book, but now-only over the last 2000 years or so-s/hes decided, 'Nah, keep 'em guessing.' That doesn't seem to wash.

Let me put forth a different example.

The eye, specifically the optic nerve.

It is in rather an inconvenient spot, seeing as it passes back through the retina, leaving a spot with no photoreceptors. This causes the blind spot.
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/blindspot1.html

And yet, we have seen an animal with no blind spot. The octopus has eyes that are set up in a more convenient way than ours, such that the optic nerve doesn't interrupt the place where photoreceptors should be. So this is a case where we have seen a better alternative.

Wow, I never knew I had a blind spot. I learned something today, thanks ;)

Wow, I never knew I had a blind spot. I learned something today, thanks ;)
press the palm of your hand into your eye for about 5 mins then take it away and you can kinda see it.*


*no scientific basis what so ever.
Scouserlande will not be blaimed for any optic injury or other wise caused during this experiment

Let me put forth a different example.

The eye, specifically the optic nerve.

It is in rather an inconvenient spot, seeing as it passes back through the retina, leaving a spot with no photoreceptors. This causes the blind spot.
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/blindspot1.html

And yet, we have seen an animal with no blind spot. The octopus has eyes that are set up in a more convenient way than ours, such that the optic nerve doesn't interrupt the place where photoreceptors should be. So this is a case where we have seen a better alternative.
The octopus was designed by Cthulhu, so it's obviously going to be better.

Arrrg dont talk about faith, its the absence of reason.

So why woulnt god appear on a roof shouting he was god, becuase he likes the kicks he gets out of our 'doubt' see reason and 'faith' the lack there of, of the former.

Evading reason is the only way religion can survive.

If god wanted people to know he existed, we'd be in no doubt. So there must be an element of blind faith or religion dies.

The octopus was designed by Cthulhu, so it's obviously going to be better.
We Ctulhu cultists have all the cool animals on our side, don't we.

Too bad we won't get to enjoy them and gloat about it after the Devouring...

:D

Arrrg dont talk about blind faith, its the absence of reason.

Corrections in bold.

Corrections in bold.
Nope not having that

What is faith then, by very definition is it a idea that carries a large degree of uncertainlty, reason and logic carry no uncertainty.

So how many skeletal strcutures have you seen? One?

And some of the skeletal structures in the human body would only have been designed by someone who is a total asshole. Take, for example, the ridge of bone on the inside of our skull that is right on top of our brain. One whack in the right place, and the brain now has a gaping gash in it.


Several thousand different ones, I intened last year with TPWD in their skeletal analysys offices, allong with the nongame wildlife department. The skeletal structure of the human body may not seem adequate for upright stance but it is by far the most adequate. Yes were vulnerable. the reson for that is that if we were perfect there wold be no need for our medical and scientific study. no reason to advance. IE we invented a helmet to prevent being hit in that vulnerable spot.

Yes were vulnerable. the reson for that is that if we were perfect there wold be no need for our medical and scientific study. no reason to advance. IE we invented a helmet to prevent being hit in that vulnerable spot.
Ok, there's a difference between perfect and well designed. A Nissan Maxima is well designed. It doesn't contain a part who's only function is to burst and destroy the car. The human body contains an appendix who's only purpose is to burst and kill the human.

Another one for IDists- How come we have a completly useless bit in our bums thats the remains of a tail?

That is where God put your soul.

Aah! That'll teach the unfaithful to get appendectomies! Now the hospital owns your soul!

I bet that Hitler's appendix burst, or something. That would explain a lot.

Erm, anyway, this is just a case of religions being mixed up over the centuries. We've all heard of the elixir of the gods, and some of us have even had a snout full of Jesus' blood. Clearly, somebody was drunk on the job.

"And... ah'll jus' take this optic nreve ahnd put it... aw, Man, I love you, you know, Man? You remind me of... myself... woops, you might want to read up on a condition called wandering...bladder..."

Nope not having that

What is faith then, by very definition is it a idea that carries a large degree of uncertainlty, reason and logic carry no uncertainty.

Reason and logic never carry any uncertainty? Wow, you have no idea what you are talking about.

If reason and logic never carried any uncertainty, anything arrived at through logic could never be wrong. As such, science doesn't work because we *logically* know that anything we say may later be disproven.

Several thousand different ones, I intened last year with TPWD in their skeletal analysys offices, allong with the nongame wildlife department. The skeletal structure of the human body may not seem adequate for upright stance but it is by far the most adequate. Yes were vulnerable. the reson for that is that if we were perfect there wold be no need for our medical and scientific study. no reason to advance. IE we invented a helmet to prevent being hit in that vulnerable spot.

Yeah... and it would be a great tragedy if we didn't need to constantly figure out ways to compensate for God's little design foibles so that's the reason he put them there... That makes loads of sense.

And it's not like scientific pursuit would be non-existent if we didn't have to do that. Not needing to be engaged in a constant race with the latest killer germ or genetic retrovirus or ticking time bomb body part doesn't mean our sense of curiosity about the world suddenly vanishes.

Given that, I'll take perfectly designed over compellingly motivated to save my life from a deliberate body plan flaw any day of the week thank you very much.

Another one for IDists- How come we have a completly useless bit in our bums thats the remains of a tail?

Far better question... how come we have the genetic code for a functional tail which occasionally gets reactivated, resulting ever so rarely in babies born able to wag the little extra appendage sticking out their rear?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms_ex2

Far better question... how come we have the genetic code for a functional tail which occasionally gets reactivated, resulting ever so rarely in babies born able to wag the little extra appendage sticking out their rear?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms_ex2
I have an uncle who was born with a tail.

blackshirts? Am I one? Labelling...

Spark of life came from God. We aren't perfect beings. We get sick, we die. We live on an Earth with natural laws. Sh*t happens. Is your life worse off because these two organs are vestigial? Why have we not evolved an immune system that is perfect?

From the point sound waves strike your pinna (outer ear) until it reaches the brain it goes through four different energy transducers. Acoustic to kinetic to hydrolic to electrical...this is an accident. Those items randomly occured?

Ok, there's a difference between perfect and well designed. A Nissan Maxima is well designed. It doesn't contain a part who's only function is to burst and destroy the car. The human body contains an appendix who's only purpose is to burst and kill the human.

But it had a function once. The fact is that we don't need an appendix any more

blackshirts? Am I one? Labelling...

Spark of life came from God. We aren't perfect beings. We get sick, we die. We live on an Earth with natural laws. Sh*t happens. Is your life worse off because these two organs are vestigial? Why have we not evolved an immune system that is perfect?

From the point sound waves strike your pinna (outer ear) until it reaches the brain it goes through four different energy transducers. Acoustic to kinetic to hydrolic to electrical...this is an accident. Those items randomly occured?
Yeah, but who designs something with a part that has absolutely no function, and occasionally destroys the creation? Not an intelligent designer. A semi-random system that builds on previous designs might.

There can be no perfect immune system. It's an arms race and the bacteria and viruses evolve too quickly for us to avoid getting sick. Once again, consistent with evolution, perhaps not so consistent with an intelligent designer.

Yep. I can see those randomly occuring. It could easily occur in stages, and you can find ears in different stages of "completion" in the animal kingdom.

But it had a function once. The fact is that we don't need an appendix any more
I know. That's why it fits with evolution, but not with design. A Nissan is designed. It doesn't have worthless "self destruct" parts.

You know that that is exactly the same things as Drunk Commies is saying, right?
He's saying that it once had a purpose, but it no longer does.
No, he's actually figgured me out. I've turned creationist. I now beleive all those things I said as Jesussaves.

easiest solution is god was just to dumb to work out all the kinks

blackshirts? Am I one? Labelling...

Spark of life came from God. We aren't perfect beings. We get sick, we die. We live on an Earth with natural laws. Sh*t happens. Is your life worse off because these two organs are vestigial? Why have we not evolved an immune system that is perfect?

From the point sound waves strike your pinna (outer ear) until it reaches the brain it goes through four different energy transducers. Acoustic to kinetic to hydrolic to electrical...this is an accident. Those items randomly occured?
Nope. Not randomly. Nothing happens randomly.

But it had a function once. The fact is that we don't need an appendix any more
huh sounds a lot like evolution...

blackshirts? Am I one? Labelling...

Spark of life came from God. We aren't perfect beings. We get sick, we die. We live on an Earth with natural laws. Sh*t happens. Is your life worse off because these two organs are vestigial? Why have we not evolved an immune system that is perfect?

Because nothing about evolution suggests we ever should. Evolution isn't about making things "perfect", evolution is about haphazardly jury-rigging what's available until it works better than it did before.

From the point sound waves strike your pinna (outer ear) until it reaches the brain it goes through four different energy transducers. Acoustic to kinetic to hydrolic to electrical...this is an accident.

No, this is the co-option of other pre-existing features that ended up getting progressively modified and selected to perform a secondary purpose which proved more beneficial.

I suggest you begin introducing yourself to this concept by looking up the evolution of the modern mammalian ear from earlier reptilian jaw bones.

You can start here, enjoy:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex2

The illustration in figure 1.4.3 of the transitional forms is especially informative.


Nope. Not randomly. Nothing happens randomly.

Mutations happen randomly... they're just not randomly selected...

Evading reason is the only way religion can survive.

If god wanted people to know he existed, we'd be in no doubt. So there must be an element of blind faith or religion dies.
Not evading reason, just cultivating the irrational. Reasons we got lots'a.

Mutations happen randomly... they're just not randomly selected...
Read the comment I was replying to. "Those items randomly occured?".

No.

I want to know if I'm a black shirt. Someone tell me. I'm not up on this cyber argot.

But god is omnipresent and omnipotent, and thus infallbile.

He has no limits.

but that dosent solve the question

why, why would he make us flawed, and why would he make us look evolved

what is his logic.

oh wait we can understand it, the old relgion catch 22, defy all reasoning with a simple anser.
given i dont know anything about the theory of intelligent design but

its rather obvious to me that a perfect creator wasnt interested in making a perfect creation. god doesnt need to conform to OUR ideas, we need to conform to HIS. it disappoints you that god made our bodies less "perfect" than a nissan sentra? well it disappointed my son that i moved him to new mexico when he was 8, tough luck, i guess both god and i had reasons that werent apparent at the time.

as god said to job...(paraphrased) "where the fuck were YOU when the world was designed? what do you know about it? who are you to question the foundations of the universe?"

given i dont know anything about the theory of intelligent design but

its rather obvious to me that a perfect creator wasnt interested in making a perfect creation. god doesnt need to conform to OUR ideas, we need to conform to HIS. it disappoints you that god made our bodies less "perfect" than a nissan sentra? well it disappointed my son that i moved him to new mexico when he was 8, tough luck, i guess both god and i had reasons that werent apparent at the time.

as god said to job...(paraphrased) "where the fuck were YOU when the world was designed? what do you know about it? who are you to question the foundations of the universe?"

I've only encountered two "explanations" of this over the years...

1. The "god probably did it for a reason" excuse. Of course, no attempt at actually providing such a reason ever follows, which means that this is exactly the same as saying "just because". Persuasive it is not.

<SNIP...>

I didn't want to type it again...

given i dont know anything about the theory of intelligent design but

its rather obvious to me that a perfect creator wasnt interested in making a perfect creation. god doesnt need to conform to OUR ideas, we need to conform to HIS. it disappoints you that god made our bodies less "perfect" than a nissan sentra? well it disappointed my son that i moved him to new mexico when he was 8, tough luck, i guess both god and i had reasons that werent apparent at the time.

as god said to job...(paraphrased) "where the fuck were YOU when the world was designed? what do you know about it? who are you to question the foundations of the universe?"
I'm not talking about designing a perfect human. I'm just saying that if we're designed, I'd expect we'd be well designed. Like a Nissan Maxima.

hmm... methinks im going to have to pull out my 'logical fallacies' handout...

i may be wrong ( i really hope so) but it seems like all of the evolution counter arguments are logical fallacies of one sort or another.

I know. That's why it fits with evolution, but not with design. A Nissan is designed. It doesn't have worthless "self destruct" parts.

So you own nothing that is outdated?

In fifty years there will be absolutely no point in iwning a VCR, but do you want to tell me your VCR wasn't designed?

IMHO the biggest design flaw with humans is teeth. They don't last as long as we do, why not engineer ourselves to regrow teeth like sharks?

I want to know if I'm a black shirt. Someone tell me. I'm not up on this cyber argot.
Sure why not, all members of the right are black shirts to me.

If your more right than the labour party that is, thats my cut off line.

Most likely explaination by far (demolishing this "intelligent design" crap), has to be evolution (combined with the slight possibility that the original bacteria that evolved into everything else came via comet, either that or it developed here over billions of years).

Don't understand why so many people are against it, and or don't understand it.

The Earth's natural processes (wind, water, earthquakes, volcanoes) change the surface of the earth greatly, albiet usually taking millions of years+ to become noticable.

What prevents a similar thing occuring to an entire species?

So you own nothing that is outdated?

In fifty years there will be absolutely no point in iwning a VCR, but do you want to tell me your VCR wasn't designed?
Actually most Consumer goods, such as ipods or stero's do have desing flaws built into them ,that makes them fail after a x average number of years.
So you then have to buy a new one.

Cant rember what its called but its very wide spread, hell was part of my Dt gcse corse it was.

So you own nothing that is outdated?

In fifty years there will be absolutely no point in iwning a VCR, but do you want to tell me your VCR wasn't designed?

It was. But it would have become outdated through evolution. Are humans supposed to become something higher, like VCRs are replaced by DVDrecorders ?

It was. But it would have become outdated through evolution. Are humans supposed to become something higher, like VCRs are replaced by DVDrecorders ?
Fun question; actually yes. Evolution doesn't stop by creating intelligence. It's a weird thing, but compare a historical and biological timeline and you'll see that the first humans that e.g. used fire where not even Homo sapiens Cro-Magnon (modern man).

Reason and logic never carry any uncertainty? Wow, you have no idea what you are talking about.

If reason and logic never carried any uncertainty, anything arrived at through logic could never be wrong. As such, science doesn't work because we *logically* know that anything we say may later be disproven.I'd be tempted to suggest that logic and reason properly applied do not make the result uncertain/potentialy wrong, but instead include the uncertainty/potentiality within the result

(i.e. "It appears that $foo is the cause of $bar" is the conclusion from logic and reason, where the admitance is essentially that the lay-proven "$foo is the cause of $bar" statement is only valid on the given evidence.)

But I could be wrong... (And, of course, we all tend to shortcut our explanations and expositions, I don't doubt I've made such a shortcut in this message. I see one already, in fact! ;))

IMHO the biggest design flaw with humans is teeth. They don't last as long as we do, why not engineer ourselves to regrow teeth like sharks?


Actually we live too long... after we reach 40 years our bodies
start to decade pretty fast. Possibility of getting cancer, hart
problems etc increases. So our teeth last as long as we
should live, about?

I don't beleive in inteligent desing. I don't see no proof of it.

I have an uncle who was born with a tail.But for it being the wrong way round, you could have said "I'm a monkey's uncle!"... ;)

(No insults intended towards your uncle, of course...)

Actually we live too long... after we reach 40 years our bodies
start to decade pretty fast. Possibility of getting cancer, hart
problems etc increases. So our teeth last as long as we
should live, about?

I don't beleive in inteligent desing. I don't see no proof of it.

Try telling that to some ancient crone who longs for the feeling of biting into apples.

Try telling that to some ancient crone who longs for the feeling of biting into apples.
That's why we invented false teeth... :-)

That's why we invented false teeth... :-)

Invented to fulfil a need! What's more I don't think denture-grip is very effective, an elderly friend of mine always had problems with getting his to stay in.

Fun question; actually yes. Evolution doesn't stop by creating intelligence. It's a weird thing, but compare a historical and biological timeline and you'll see that the first humans that e.g. used fire where not even Homo sapiens Cro-Magnon (modern man).

I know. But this directly conflicts with intelligent design if one sees humans as the end product/ made in Gods image.

Invented to fulfil a need! What's more I don't think denture-grip is very effective, an elderly friend of mine always had problems with getting his to stay in.

Then they have poor-fitting dentures. Well fitted dentures need no grip-stuff.

But god is omnipresent and omnipotent, and thus infallbile.

He has no limits.

but that dosent solve the question

why, why would he make us flawed, and why would he make us look evolved

what is his logic.

oh wait we can understand it, the old relgion catch 22, defy all reasoning with a simple anser.


As a biologist and a creationist, I think your question of 'why WOULD God make us flawed' is a very good one. A question that perhaps everyone should ask sooner or later. Why do we get sick? Why do we get old? Why did He make us that way? Why did He give us sexual drives, and then make all these rules for us to live by? A person may well come to the conclusion that perhaps He likes to see angry and hurt. That is, unless he or she knew about the message of His great love for us in the Bible. Maybe I don't have any very good answers to this great question, and the Bible doesn't seem to directly address the question. However, it does give us certain hints, for the Bible says that God created Satan as the one creature closest to perfection, and yet describes him as the most miserable creature of all time (and outside of time). Furthermore, it's no secret that those people with a lesser intellect or weaker bodies than most can often be the happiest people. I'm sure you and I could agree that it is not perfection that makes our lives meaningful and happy. I, for one, am content with the way that he made me, warts and all, so long as I get to enjoy a relationship with Him.
As for the evolutionary version, it doesn't make much sense in the context of a God who seeks to enjoy a relationship with each human that He made (plus there are lots of other reasons, many of them biological, genetical, chemical, etc., why I don't go along with most of the evolutionary theory).

So you own nothing that is outdated?

In fifty years there will be absolutely no point in iwning a VCR, but do you want to tell me your VCR wasn't designed?
Faulty analogy.
The aging process by which things become outdated would be evolution itself.

So you own nothing that is outdated?

In fifty years there will be absolutely no point in iwning a VCR, but do you want to tell me your VCR wasn't designed?
It wasn't designed with useless parts that perform no function. It seems you don't get my argument.

But for it being the wrong way round, you could have said "I'm a monkey's uncle!"... ;)

(No insults intended towards your uncle, of course...)
He's more of a big ape. Nice guy, but not too bright, and in his prime he was strong as an ox. I'm proud to say I've got some genes from his side of the family.

As a biologist and a creationist, I think your question of 'why WOULD God make us flawed' is a very good one. A question that perhaps everyone should ask sooner or later. Why do we get sick? Why do we get old? Why did He make us that way? Why did He give us sexual drives, and then make all these rules for us to live by? A person may well come to the conclusion that perhaps He likes to see angry and hurt. That is, unless he or she knew about the message of His great love for us in the Bible. Maybe I don't have any very good answers to this great question, and the Bible doesn't seem to directly address the question. However, it does give us certain hints, for the Bible says that God created Satan as the one creature closest to perfection, and yet describes him as the most miserable creature of all time (and outside of time). Furthermore, it's no secret that those people with a lesser intellect or weaker bodies than most can often be the happiest people. I'm sure you and I could agree that it is not perfection that makes our lives meaningful and happy. I, for one, am content with the way that he made me, warts and all, so long as I get to enjoy a relationship with Him.
As for the evolutionary version, it doesn't make much sense in the context of a God who seeks to enjoy a relationship with each human that He made (plus there are lots of other reasons, many of them biological, genetical, chemical, etc., why I don't go along with most of the evolutionary theory).
I'm not asking why we get sick or old. I'm asking why a designer would add parts that are useless, and use a poor design for the eye when a better design already exists. I'm not arguing that god would make humans perfect, only that if a god designed humans he'd at least do as good of a job as I would.

On the subject of teeth, the human teeth are specifically designed/evolved/whatever to fit together exactly. A shark's teeth do not do this -- if you study a shark jaw, you'll see lots of separate teeth. Now look at your own -- you will, in most cases, find what amounts to a single, elongated cutting edge made up of all your teeth on the jaw. This could not be maintained if they were constantly regrowing and were thus of different sizes. Like it or not, for what we are, two sets of teeth is a pretty good deal. Okay, so a third one coming in during old age would be better, but I don't think anyone claimed we were meant to be perfect.

After all, what would be the /point/ -- to take a Creationist viewpoint for a few moments -- in a world of perfect people? There would be no opportunity for us to develop, no need for technology... in other words, it would be a waste of space. And that's ignoring the fact that a 'perfect person' would be a reproductive system with attached photosynthetic system, and perhaps a brain if you feel the need. None of this 'movement' lark -- we don't need that to think nice thoughts at God, and without it, we don't need the energy we'd get from digestion. So, if you want God to have done the best job he can, that's pretty much what you're asking to be.

I don't believe he did, though. True, a car won't have a piece which exists solely to destroy it -- but a game will. As will a test -- every wrong answer in any exam you've ever taken is analagous to these design flaws. And unless you've studied hard enough, or unless you've developed the right medical technology, the hard question or the burst appendix are major problems.

-- there, now, see what you've made me do? I went off into my own quirky beliefs, and I wasn't going to do that.

As a biologist and a creationist,

These two things are incompatible. Do you mean a biologist and someone who believes in creation?

As for the evolutionary version, it doesn't make much sense in the context of a God who seeks to enjoy a relationship with each human that He made (plus there are lots of other reasons, many of them biological, genetical, chemical, etc., why I don't go along with most of the evolutionary theory).

Actually, it makes perfect sense, if you believe that we are supposed to be improving and moving closer to God as species, as well as individuals.

It wasn't designed with useless parts that perform no function. It seems you don't get my argument.

No, you aren't getting mine.

Consider all the things you own: (for arguments sake): TV, VCR, PC, CD player, telephone, pens, etc..

Over time, some of thiose become outdated, like the appendix in the human body. Others remain needed and functional, like the phone or the pen.

IMO it is the environment changing that renders the organ unnecessary, and I don't see how this proves evolution. After all, we have free will, and that allows us the ability to alter our environment.

The appendix disappearing because we have altered our living environment to the point where it is redundant, now that would be evolution.

No, you aren't getting mine.

Consider all the things you own: (for arguments sake): TV, VCR, PC, CD player, telephone, pens, etc..

Over time, some of thiose become outdated, like the appendix in the human body. Others remain needed and functional, like the phone or the pen.

IMO it is the environment changing that renders the organ unnecessary, and I don't see how this proves evolution. After all, we have free will, and that allows us the ability to alter our environment.

The appendix disappearing because we have altered our living environment to the point where it is redundant, now that would be evolution.
Ok, I see what you're saying, but isn't that much more consistent with evolution than creationism?

#1: God (if he/she/it exists) is apparently "all knowing".

#2: God (if he/she/it exists) has apparently been around since before the beginning of time.

#3: If God is all knowing, then he MUST know both the exact position & the exact velocity of every atom in the universe, allowing him to ignore Hinesburg’s uncertainty principal (All knowing means ALL knowing).

#4: If God knows the exact location of everything, and it's exact speed, then, as a result, he knows how every particle will interact with every particle, causing more interactions, which he can predict.

#5: If God can predict every interaction, for all eternity, then the Future MUST be set. If God knows the future, then there must be only one possibility, otherwise, he wouldn't know everything for sure, and he wouldn't be all knowing.

#6: If the Future MUST be set, then you have no free will at all. Merely the idea that you have free will.

#7: If you have no free will, merely the idea of one, then there is no need of faith, because you can't change the way God made you turn out (cause and effect, cause and effect, down the millennia).

#8: If you can't change the way you turn out, then God MUST have made you to do what ever you do.

#9: If what you do is NOT believe in God, then, if he exists, you are doing what he wants you to do.

#10: If this is the case, then God would have no need to make things to test your faith, such as flaws in your eyes, or appendixes.

#11: If we have such flaws, an intelligent designer must NOT be a God, because he can't know everything, or we wouldn't have flaws.

#12: God, if he exists must either:
1) Not have made us.
2) Not know everything.

Chew on that for a bit.

That is where God put your soul.
there goes my soul....

severly applaudes previous post, copies pastes and shows to RE teacher at high school, pays royalties to superiorgeekdom and is labelled as a heretic

Ok, I see what you're saying, but isn't that much more consistent with evolution than creationism?

It think it works for either.

It's consistent with evolution if you go and buy new stuff when your old products become outdated.

If you can't do that (like the human body can't replace/remove the redundant sections, according to creationism) then the analogy is more consistent with creationism.

The point still stands, however, that the human body was designed (by a higher being or the process of evolution) for a world that is massively different from the one we currently operate in. Even if you believe in evolution, the human body doesn't stand a chance of keeping up with the changes we make to the environment.

I hate to do this. I know most people are really sick of creation/evolution threads. Sorry folks, I'm just too curious to let this go.

This thread is only about one question. That question is: How do you reconcile the fact that the human body has some stupid design flaws with the idea that an intelligent being designed it?

Examples of stupid design flaws: Appendix and Occular nerve connection in front of retina

They seem pretty consistent with evolution, but I don't think they seem consistent with intelligent design.

We are flawed because it gives God the glory for any of our accomplishments that are in spite of our flaws, and any of our good choices that are in spite of our sinful nature (the biggest flaw). The whole of creation points to God, hence the verse that says "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament sheweth His handiwork." The purpose of the creation is to please and honor God, and humans have the greatest potential for honoring God, because we can choose to do it, instead of being robots like, say, the angels.

It think it works for either.

It's consistent with evolution if you go and buy new stuff when your old products become outdated.

If you can't do that (like the human body can't replace/remove the redundant sections, according to creationism) then the analogy is more consistent with creationism.

The point still stands, however, that the human body was designed (by a higher being or the process of evolution) for a world that is massively different from the one we currently operate in. Even if you believe in evolution, the human body doesn't stand a chance of keeping up with the changes we make to the environment.
Yeah, but a functioning appendix wouldn't hurt us and could easily be explained by ID. A vestigial one that only exists to occasionally kill us is consistent with change over a period of time. In other words, evolution.

We are flawed because it gives God the glory for any of our accomplishments that are in spite of our flaws, and any of our good choices that are in spite of our sinful nature (the biggest flaw). The whole of creation points to God, hence the verse that says "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament sheweth His handiwork." The purpose of the creation is to please and honor God, and humans have the greatest potential for honoring God, because we can choose to do it, instead of being robots like, say, the angels.
Thanks for the sermon padre.

#1: God (if he/she/it exists) is apparently "all knowing".

#2: God (if he/she/it exists) has apparently been around since before the beginning of time.

#3: If God is all knowing, then he MUST know both the exact position & the exact velocity of every atom in the universe, allowing him to ignore Hinesburg’s uncertainty principal (All knowing means ALL knowing).

#4: If God knows the exact location of everything, and it's exact speed, then, as a result, he knows how every particle will interact with every particle, causing more interactions, which he can predict.

#5: If God can predict every interaction, for all eternity, then the Future MUST be set. If God knows the future, then there must be only one possibility, otherwise, he wouldn't know everything for sure, and he wouldn't be all knowing.

#6: If the Future MUST be set, then you have no free will at all. Merely the idea that you have free will.

#7: If you have no free will, merely the idea of one, then there is no need of faith, because you can't change the way God made you turn out (cause and effect, cause and effect, down the millennia).

#8: If you can't change the way you turn out, then God MUST have made you to do what ever you do.

#9: If what you do is NOT believe in God, then, if he exists, you are doing what he wants you to do.

#10: If this is the case, then God would have no need to make things to test your faith, such as flaws in your eyes, or appendixes.

#11: If we have such flaws, an intelligent designer must NOT be a God, because he can't know everything, or we wouldn't have flaws.

#12: God, if he exists must either:
1) Not have made us.
2) Not know everything.

Chew on that for a bit.
Did God create randomness in this scenario? If so, then #4 is the weak link. No matter how knowledgable God might be, even he cannot predict with 100% accuracy.

If he did not, and the intent is to present a deterministic view, then not even God wills what will happen next, so #7 and #8 are the weak links: God did not determine how you turn out. (Determinism defies will, which can introduce causes to the scenario "at will".) If, on the other hand, the intent is to present a predestined view, allow God will and hence humanity will, then we are back to allowing randomess into the scenario.

hmmm...

not saying anyone here said it, but it seems whenever i get into one of these evolution/creationism/intelligent design arguments/discussions that one of the things that keeps popping up is

'evolution without intelligent design is impossible, it cant account for the perfection of a human eye/fetus/random body part'

so now we have some posts with excellent arguments(imo) backing up how evolution alone can account for these (granted, it doesnt rule out intellegent design, you cant disprove that anymore then you can disprove the existance of a diety) giving some very strong evidence that intelligent design isnt a necessary component for these organs.

and now people are claiming that the reason they are flawed isnt because of evolution, which can do some wonderful things with random scraps in a really half-assed manner, but because they were made to 'trick us/fool us/test our faith'

just seems kinda funny, how some people tend to waffle their arguments around, almost doing a 180, but claiming either side 'proves' that humans are intelligently designed.

Yeah, but a functioning appendix wouldn't hurt us and could easily be explained by ID. A vestigial one that only exists to occasionally kill us is consistent with change over a period of time. In other words, evolution.

The key question is: what has changed?

According to the evolutionists, the human body is changing continually over time. The physical construction changes in response to chnages in the environment.

However, according to me (I can't speak for the "religious" creationists), the physical construction of the human body can not change in this way. Changes in the environment cause the functions of various parts of the body to change, but not the physical design. Does this not offer an equally valid explanation for why we have an appendix that does nothing useful?

Thanks for the sermon padre.
You ask, I deliver. If you know you won't like the answer, don't ask. There's no use condescending. If Christians had all the answers, we wouldn't need faith, and God would get no honor from that.

By the way, I am by no means saying that we should stop looking for the answers, because we should always be striving to understand God. All I'm saying is that we have to have faith in order to please God, which is a central theme in the Bible. Also, trying to use science to understand spiritual things is like trying to use a fork to eat tomato soup. It's just the wrong tool. You'll get a little bit, but the vast majority will be a mystery to you.

Did God create randomness in this scenario? If so, then #4 is the weak link. No matter how knowledgable God might be, even he cannot predict with 100% accuracy.

If he did not, and the intent is to present a deterministic view, then not even God wills what will happen next, so #7 and #8 are the weak links: God did not determine how you turn out. (Determinism defies will, which can introduce causes to the scenario "at will".) If, on the other hand, the intent is to present a predestined view, allow God will and hence humanity will, then we are back to allowing randomess into the scenario.
But if he though randomness in then his omnipotent portion (ability to create randomness) would override his all-knowing portion because he has created a situation where he is not all knowing (we can get into the ability create randomness in this universe ... ;) but I do not believe it is possible lol)

The key question is: what has changed?

According to the evolutionists, the human body is changing continually over time. The physical construction changes in response to chnages in the environment.

However, according to me (I can't speak for the "religious" creationists), the physical construction of the human body can not change in this way. Changes in the environment cause the functions of various parts of the body to change, but not the physical design. Does this not offer an equally valid explanation for why we have an appendix that does nothing useful?
An appendix in animals that have a functioning one helps break down tough plant material. If nothing had changed but the food we eat then vegetarians and vegans would still have a fully functioning appendix. They don't. Something changed genetically.

Ever heard of optimal design?

Ever heard of optimal design?
Not that I can remember. Why don't you tell us about it?

But god is omnipresent and omnipotent, and thus infallbile.

He has no limits.

but that dosent solve the question

why, why would he make us flawed, and why would he make us look evolved

what is his logic.

oh wait we can understand it, the old relgion catch 22, defy all reasoning with a simple anser.

DUH! First, you are right on the first two lines. Congrats. Now, lets divulge a few interesting facts.

First, if we all were the same as Adam and Eve we'd all live to be well over 1000 years old and would be just perfect as perfect can be. We'd also have dark brown skin, curly black hair and be kinda JEWISH!

Ok, so, we fell. We degnerated, obviously, becasue we don't live 1000+ years now days. Hell, they were still bearing children at over 800 back then. Evolution isn't the way we were created, but we still evolve. The reason we die....get ready....OXYGEN! Yes, that I-CANT-LIVE-WITHOUT-IT element kills us with free radicals. :) Screws up your genes, and you pass em on to your children. That is the price for eating the forbidden fruit. Wonder what would happened if they'd have baked a pie out of it instead.....ewww..... If we were the still perfect designs we would have never changed. Alas, Eve, you screwed us up. And damn you Adam for being as stupid as she was. :)

Oh, and a few ACCEPTED facts. Spend 1 min looking and you can find the sources outside the Christian or Jewish books. The chances of one DNA type strand forming by accident on Earth, 1 in 10^400(give or take 50 powers). The chance of a single, ultra simple one celled life form forming by chance (and this is MUCH simpler than what we have today), 1 in 10^50000 power, give or take 5000 powers. To put that in perspective, the universe as we know it is estimated to have 10^80 electrons. So, mathematically we don't exist. Also, the HHGTTG presents some proof along those lines, too. </really long reply>

You ask, I deliver. If you know you won't like the answer, don't ask. There's no use condescending. If Christians had all the answers, we wouldn't need faith, and God would get no honor from that.
Actually I asked that this thread be used to discuss the question of how intelligent design can be reconciled with the obvious flaws in the human body. I was asking for arguments based on reason, not just statements of faith.

The key question is: what has changed?

According to the evolutionists, the human body is changing continually over time. The physical construction changes in response to chnages in the environment.

However, according to me (I can't speak for the "religious" creationists), the physical construction of the human body can not change in this way. Changes in the environment cause the functions of various parts of the body to change, but not the physical design. Does this not offer an equally valid explanation for why we have an appendix that does nothing useful?
In that case we would have to have body organs for ALL options of envyromental change ... which we dont have

The key question is: what has changed?

According to the evolutionists, the human body is changing continually over time. The physical construction changes in response to chnages in the environment.

However, according to me (I can't speak for the "religious" creationists), the physical construction of the human body can not change in this way. Changes in the environment cause the functions of various parts of the body to change, but not the physical design. Does this not offer an equally valid explanation for why we have an appendix that does nothing useful?
In that case we would have to have body organs for ALL options of envyromental change ... which we dont have

But if he though randomness in then his omnipotent portion (ability to create randomness) would override his all-knowing portion because he has created a situation where he is not all knowing (we can get into the ability create randomness in this universe ... ;) but I do not believe it is possible lol)
No, he has created a situation in which the future is unpredictable. But the future doesn't exist. "All knowing" encompasses all that exists.

Oh, and a few ACCEPTED facts. Spend 1 min looking and you can find the sources outside the Christian or Jewish books. The chances of one DNA type strand forming by accident on Earth, 1 in 10^400(give or take 50 powers). The chance of a single, ultra simple one celled life form forming by chance (and this is MUCH simpler than what we have today), 1 in 10^50000 power, give or take 5000 powers. To put that in perspective, the universe as we know it is estimated to have 10^80 electrons. So, mathematically we don't exist. Also, the HHGTTG presents some proof along those lines, too. </really long reply>


got any more info on that one? like how it was calculated and such? (im honestly curious here)
anyways, ive got to get to class, so i dont have time to look it up now, but i thought i read something about some experiments where they abiotically created some rna monomers or something, in a manner that they think could have happened on primitive (evolution's verison:) ) earth.

ill look it up, but it wont be till later tonight, maybe tomorrow, but i am interested in how they figured the odds on that stuff

No, he has created a situation in which the future is unpredictable. But the future doesn't exist. "All knowing" encompasses all that exists.
But then he would not be ALL knowing he would be To just knowing as much as possible there is a difference in conotation ... he know longer knows EVERYTHING otherwise he would know all outcomes (and the orinal quoted poster had it right about the uncertanty principal) so he is either conciously limiting his power of knowing or is not powerfull enough to know everything (kind of like the "creating an object even he can not move" arguement in omnipotance"

But then he would not be ALL knowing he would be To just knowing as much as possible there is a difference in conotation ... he know longer knows EVERYTHING otherwise he would know all outcomes (and the orinal quoted poster had it right about the uncertanty principal) so he is either conciously limiting his power of knowing or is not powerfull enough to know everything (kind of like the "creating an object even he can not move" arguement in omnipotance"
No, it's just you who redefines ALL to include things that don't exist. I see no reason why even God should have knowledge of things that don't exist.

i can't be sure, but i would presume these features will serve some purpose in the future. there are other features of the human body that can't have arisen through evolution, and didn't serve a purpose at all, until recent technology and diseases made them necessary or usefull. for example, we have a secondary nerve cord outside the spinal column, which is the only reason para- and quadra- palegics are alive, but it was just a waste of space until medicine advanced to a point where the lives of people who suffered such crippling accidents could be saved.

Actually I asked that this thread be used to discuss the question of how intelligent design can be reconciled with the obvious flaws in the human body. I was asking for arguments based on reason, not just statements of faith.
If you take God to be the intelligent designer, then I did reconcile it for you. I think you should go back and read it again. And as I said before (perhaps you missed it since I edited my post), using reason to understand spiritual things is the wrong approach. Jesus said he is the ONLY way. You can't understand it all by logic. It's just not logical. Good thing we're not Vulcans.

An appendix in animals that have a functioning one helps break down tough plant material. If nothing had changed but the food we eat then vegetarians and vegans would still have a fully functioning appendix. They don't. Something changed genetically.

I wonder how many vegetarians and vegans eat only completely natural, unfarmed, raw plant matter? And how many of those are eating identical plant matter to the animals you are reffering to? Not many, I should think.

In that case we would have to have body organs for ALL options of envyromental change ... which we dont have

No, we would only need to possess organs for the environment in which we began. After that, our bodies are left to cope as best as they can.

No, it's just you who redefines ALL to include things that don't exist. I see no reason why even God should have knowledge of things that don't exist.
But not knowing the future would put a limitation on its power ... I know you dont follow the standard christian POV but traditionaly it is concidered "beyond limits"

A limeted power god could exist yes

I wonder how many vegetarians and vegans eat only completely natural, unfarmed, raw plant matter? And how many of those are eating identical plant matter to the animals you are reffering to? Not many, I should think.



No, we would only need to possess organs for the environment in which we began. After that, our bodies are left to cope as best as they can.
Farming has nothing to do with it. Farmed plants have indigestible cellulose and lignin in their cells too. Plus many people do make raw vegetables a central part of their diets. I've know a few. Identical plant matter has nothing to do with it. It's just plant matter. Leaves, stems, roots, etc.

Farming has nothing to do with it. Farmed plants have indigestible cellulose and lignin in their cells too. Plus many people do make raw vegetables a central part of their diets. I've know a few. Identical plant matter has nothing to do with it. It's just plant matter. Leaves, stems, roots, etc.

What purpose would ingesting and being able to use the plant matter serve? Perhaps this function is being taken care of by some other element of modern society.

I seriously doubt any of the black shirts will respond to this.
explain that one in detail. or make another thread.

What purpose would ingesting and being able to use the plant matter serve? Perhaps this function is being taken care of by some other element of modern society.
It seems you're grasping at straws there. The human appendix hasn't worked for centuries. Long before "modern" society. you can look at early anatomical drawings and it's still vestigial.

Farming has nothing to do with it. Farmed plants have indigestible cellulose and lignin in their cells too. Plus many people do make raw vegetables a central part of their diets. I've know a few. Identical plant matter has nothing to do with it. It's just plant matter. Leaves, stems, roots, etc.
true, and its calle ovo-lacto vegan, or something like that.

It seems you're grasping at straws there. The human appendix hasn't worked for centuries. Long before "modern" society. you can look at early anatomical drawings and it's still vestigial.
i agree with you, but , just think for a second about this. the appendix does contain lymphatic material, which can become inflammed/infected , signalling soemthing is wrong in the human system. this almost always results in removal of the organ. so perhaps it is a leftover of an ancient warning system that our bodies were developing?

It seems you're grasping at straws there. The human appendix hasn't worked for centuries. Long before "modern" society. you can look at early anatomical drawings and it's still vestigial.

Grasping indeed, because my position isn't based on some blind "It was God. Do not question God" nonsense (not that I'm saying yours is; most creationist arguments are)

But even the earliest anatomical drawings don't predate certain basics of civilised society:shelter, fairly regular food supplies; reliable water sources etc.

But not knowing the future would put a limitation on its power ... I know you dont follow the standard christian POV but traditionaly it is concidered "beyond limits"

A limeted power god could exist yes
My apologies; I shouldn't have resorted to a second-person grammar, which made what I said more of a personal attack than I intended.

Yes, some people use "all knowing" to include the future (which I think is inappropriate) but for argument's sake, let's say just for a moment that they're wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, and just plain wrong, and maybe a little bit wrong, too, because it is not really limiting at all to say God cannot do the impossible, cannot know the unkown, and cannot be in places that aren't places at all.

Grasping indeed, because my position isn't based on some blind "It was God. Do not question God" nonsense (not that I'm saying yours is; most creationist arguments are)

But even the earliest anatomical drawings don't predate certain basics of civilised society:shelter, fairly regular food supplies; reliable water sources etc.
Shelter and water sources wouldn't have anything to do with it. Food would. There are plenty of parts of the world where meat is a luxury that most people can't afford. They eat vegetables and grains. If environment was all it took to activate the appendix one would expect theirs to be fully functional. It's still vestigial.

i agree with you, but , just think for a second about this. the appendix does contain lymphatic material, which can become inflammed/infected , signalling soemthing is wrong in the human system. this almost always results in removal of the organ. so perhaps it is a leftover of an ancient warning system that our bodies were developing? something else i found.
Given our current evolutionary knowledge of comparative anatomy and phylogenetics, many biological structures can be considered vestiges. In evolutionary discussions the human vermiform appendix is one of the most commonly cited, and most disputed, vestigial structures. Evolutionary vestiges are, technically, any diminished structure that previously had a greater physiological significance in an ancestor than at present. Independently of evolutionary theory, a vestige can also be defined typologically as a reduced and rudimentary structure compared to the same homologous structure in other organisms, as one that lacks the complex functions usually found for that structure in other organisms (see, e.g. Geoffroy 1798).

Classic examples of vestiges are the wings of the ostrich and the eyes of blind cavefish. These vestigial structures may have functions of some sort. Nevertheless, what matters is that rudimentary ostrich wings are useless as normal flying wings, and that rudimentary cavefish eyes are useless as normal sighted eyes. Vestiges can be functional, and speculative arguments against vestiges based upon their possible functions completely miss the point.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vestiges/appendix.html

Actually I asked that this thread be used to discuss the question of how intelligent design can be reconciled with the obvious flaws in the human body. I was asking for arguments based on reason, not just statements of faith.
you are demanding a scientific explanation for a question based on faith. you have been given the reasons of faith, there are no more. we cant have a scientific knowlege of the mind of god. we can GUESS or we can go by clues in the bible but thats it.

it may not seem logical to YOU that god made us so strangely but that is indeed your problem. for the faithful, god has made us as he saw fit. the bits that ARE intelligent are enough for the intelligent designists to go by. they are forced to ignore the unintelligent parts but that is THEIR problem eh?

Scouserlande, if I'm a blackshirt...to be fair and objective, could you or anyone else suggest a derogatory name for yourself? If name calling works I'd like to try it.

Mussolini's blackshirts attempted to shut people up with intimidation. Is calling me a blackshirt an attempt to politically isolate my comments from the forum? Would you ban all opposing views from this forum if you had the ability to do so without consequence? honesty answer that.

A hallmark of the Mosley's British Union of Fascist and later Union Movement was antisemitism. How do you feel about the Jewish state of Isreal? I'm calling you to the floor on this, have the personal honor to answer it.

Breaking in, for a moment, amidst the phrase-flinging, I'd like to address the originating question:

[paraphrase]
"Why would God create beings with [x] flaw(s)?"

It's all well and good to ASK such a question, but you're comparing apples to oranges. 55 will never be equal to 56 - so why attempt to relate, empirically, divine (God) intent to finite (man) results?

Oh geez, I can hear the cries of the Anti-ID camp already: "Look! Another automotian spewing Christian drivel! Obviously, he's not thinking about things, just brushing them off with the 'don't question God' argument!"

Actually, no. If you ask questions ABOUT God, be prepared for people to RESPOND in like vein. If you don't believe in Him, then don't ask why He'd do [x] - because the responses you will get will clash. Majorly.

If "God has a plan for the appendix" burns you that badly, then don't ask a question where that's the answer that can only LOGICALLY come back.

Consider it that way for a moment. You're asking a human to tell you what God (hypothetically assuming for sake of argument that He is real, as the Christian Bible portrays) thinks. This is impossible, because God (assumed real) is certainly NOT humans. That's like asking a grade-school student to explain how (E=mC^2) works.

"Explain the theory of relativity, and how it affects us as humans."
Kid: "I don't know - it just does"
"COP-OUT! Einstein was a sham!!"

"Explain what purpose God has for the human appendix?"
"I don't know - but logically, He must."
"COP-OUT! God is a sham!!"

Hehe. No thanks.
Logically speaking, if God exists as the Christians say he does, then He's infallable. If he's incapable of error, then there is a reason your eye has a blind spot - maybe not a reason for you, but in the "Grand Scheme" of things, yes. (Operating, still, under my hypothetical assumption)

And yet, the only logical answer to the question is tagged, from the get-go, as "not acceptable".

It's not an excuse "not to think" about things - it's an answer.
Sorry you can't see it that way.


[the post is not directed to anyone specifically - 'you' and 'your' are very generic]


The "Einstein" point was - for the child to understand the theories, he'd have to have some higher-level (intelligence/education-wise) person explain it. For us, as humans (STILL OPERATING under the hypothetical supposition that the Bible is true) to understand "why" God does things, we'd have to have a higher-level understanding - ie: beyond what we have capacity for, as finite humans.

It think it works for either.

No, it really doesn't.

It's consistent with evolution if you go and buy new stuff when your old products become outdated.

If you can't do that (like the human body can't replace/remove the redundant sections, according to creationism) then the analogy is more consistent with creationism.

The point still stands, however, that the human body was designed (by a higher being or the process of evolution) for a world that is massively different from the one we currently operate in.

And if you can provide a single explanation of how the environment we were 'designed" for would have required us to have a blind spot on our retinas or the latent genetic code for a tail then I'll be really, really impressed.

Unless you can pull that one off, the 'design' of our eye is consistent with being kludged together through evolutionary processes and our genetic code shows overwhelming evidence of the same... while neither of them is consistent with an intelligent design/creationism hypothesis.

you are demanding a scientific explanation for a question based on faith. you have been given the reasons of faith, there are no more. we cant have a scientific knowlege of the mind of god. we can GUESS or we can go by clues in the bible but thats it.

it may not seem logical to YOU that god made us so strangely but that is indeed your problem. for the faithful, god has made us as he saw fit. the bits that ARE intelligent are enough for the intelligent designists to go by. they are forced to ignore the unintelligent parts but that is THEIR problem eh?
Ah, so ID isn't a scientific theory, it's a question of faith. If it was a scientific theory there would be an answer to my question based on logic.

I hate to do this. I know most people are really sick of creation/evolution threads. Sorry folks, I'm just too curious to let this go.

This thread is only about one question. That question is: How do you reconcile the fact that the human body has some stupid design flaws with the idea that an intelligent being designed it?

Examples of stupid design flaws: Appendix and Occular nerve connection in front of retina

They seem pretty consistent with evolution, but I don't think they seem consistent with intelligent design.

I like that DC. You focused the discussion on a particular point and a good one.

....if you can provide a single explanation of how the environment we were 'designed" for would have required us to have a blind spot on our retinas or the latent genetic code for a tail then I'll be really, really impressed.

Unless you can pull that one off, the 'design' of our eye is consistent with being kludged together through evolutionary processes and our genetic code shows overwhelming evidence of the same... while neither of them is consistent with an intelligent design/creationism hypothesis.


An interesting counter-question would be - do we encounter situations where it is required for us NOT to have a blind-spot?

In that case, it would be perfectly consistent with the ID theory - we are (have been) created adequate for our surroundings.

i think one of the reasons this keeps coming up is because of the whole evolution/creationism debate.

honestly, i could care less about what someone else thinks of the origin of life, the world, our species, etc. But when people start demanding that their views be granted the same academic legitimacy as well formulated, supported, and documented theories, theyve got to back it up. and 'faith' or 'it is impossible to understand god' doesnt work.

thats fine if some darwin missionary is trying to convince you of something, but when you(not you personally) want creationism/intelligent design to be taught alongside evolution(or, forbid, in place of it) your going to have to provide support, in a scientific manner, of why your version of beliefs should hold the same rank as a theory.

note-none of this meant personally, and i realize theres a wide range of beliefs here, so nothing is intended as personally insulting, etc.

To tie back to the opening question (again):

The way that I find ID to be consistent with so-called "design flaws" is that we, as humans, are totally and completely situated to exists perfectly fine in our world. What is more, we are in posession with (1) the mind to understand/create/design and (2) the ABILITY to craft/construct ways to overcome difficulties.

I fail to see how ID is illogical, given that we seem to be getting along just fine - in fact, humans have to REIGN IN, and actively try not to completely choke out all other life on this planet.

We seem to be thriving.

Ah, so ID isn't a scientific theory, it's a question of faith. If it was a scientific theory there would be an answer to my question based on logic.

The one logical argument could be that we're not done yet. Maybe God has a tail and that's why we have the latent code. Soon that intelligent source is going to give us a bump and make tails sprout. Won't that be fun. I can hold my drink and drive a stick at the same time.

Breaking in, for a moment, amidst the phrase-flinging, I'd like to address the originating question:

[paraphrase]
"Why would God create beings with [x] flaw(s)?"

It's all well and good to ASK such a question, but you're comparing apples to oranges. 55 will never be equal to 56 - so why attempt to relate, empirically, divine (God) intent to finite (man) results?

Oh geez, I can hear the cries of the Anti-ID camp already: "Look! Another automotian spewing Christian drivel! Obviously, he's not thinking about things, just brushing them off with the 'don't question God' argument!"

Actually, no. If you ask questions ABOUT God, be prepared for people to RESPOND in like vein. If you don't believe in Him, then don't ask why He'd do [x] - because the responses you will get will clash. Majorly.

If "God has a plan for the appendix" burns you that badly, then don't ask a question where that's the answer that can only LOGICALLY come back.

Consider it that way for a moment. You're asking a human to tell you what God (hypothetically assuming for sake of argument that He is real, as the Christian Bible portrays) thinks. This is impossible, because God (assumed real) is certainly NOT humans. That's like asking a grade-school student to explain how (E=mC^2) works.

"Explain the theory of relativity, and how it affects us as humans."
Kid: "I don't know - it just does"
"COP-OUT! Einstein was a sham!!"

"Explain what purpose God has for the human appendix?"
"I don't know - but logically, He must."
"COP-OUT! God is a sham!!"

Hehe. No thanks.
Logically speaking, if God exists as the Christians say he does, then He's infallable. If he's incapable of error, then there is a reason your eye has a blind spot - maybe not a reason for you, but in the "Grand Scheme" of things, yes. (Operating, still, under my hypothetical assumption)

And yet, the only logical answer to the question is tagged, from the get-go, as "not acceptable".

It's not an excuse "not to think" about things - it's an answer.
Sorry you can't see it that way.


[the post is not directed to anyone specifically - 'you' and 'your' are very generic]


The "Einstein" point was - for the child to understand the theories, he'd have to have some higher-level (intelligence/education-wise) person explain it. For us, as humans (STILL OPERATING under the hypothetical supposition that the Bible is true) to understand "why" God does things, we'd have to have a higher-level understanding - ie: beyond what we have capacity for, as finite humans.
The question wasn't "what purpose does god have with the human appendix." The question was "how does ID explain the presence of an appendix." Intelligent Design wants to be taken seriously as a scientific theory, so it should be able to account for human biology in a logical manner. If it can't, it should be scrapped in favor of another theory, or it should be called a religious beleif.

Ah, so ID isn't a scientific theory, it's a question of faith. If it was a scientific theory there would be an answer to my question based on logic.
That's the ticket, bub.

I like that DC. You focused the discussion on a particular point and a good one.
Thanks. My posting strategy is alot like natural selection. Throw enough crap into the mix and some of it will thrive. Then post more of the stuff that works.

The question wasn't "what purpose does god have with the human appendix." The question was "how does ID explain the presence of an appendix." Intelligent Design wants to be taken seriously as a scientific theory, so it should be able to account for human biology in a logical manner. If it can't, it should be scrapped in favor of another theory, or it should be called a religious beleif.

<points>

To tie back to the opening question (again):

The way that I find ID to be consistent with so-called "design flaws" is that we, as humans, are totally and completely situated to exists perfectly fine in our world. What is more, we are in posession with (1) the mind to understand/create/design and (2) the ABILITY to craft/construct ways to overcome difficulties.

I fail to see how ID is illogical, given that we seem to be getting along just fine - in fact, humans have to REIGN IN, and actively try not to completely choke out all other life on this planet.

We seem to be thriving.

My prior post rather dealt with how it's terribly hard to seperate "faith statements" (judged as toss-outs by many) when dealing with a question involving, by default, some ammount of faith.

Scouserlande, if I'm a blackshirt...to be fair and objective, could you or anyone else suggest a derogatory name for yourself? If name calling works I'd like to try it.

Mussolini's blackshirts attempted to shut people up with intimidation. Is calling me a blackshirt an attempt to politically isolate my comments from the forum? Would you ban all opposing views from this forum if you had the ability to do so without consequence? honesty answer that.

A hallmark of the Mosley's British Union of Fascist and later Union Movement was antisemitism. How do you feel about the Jewish state of Isreal? I'm calling you to the floor on this, have the personal honor to answer it.
as a memberof the RFP- that comment was quite offensive to me as well.

To tie back to the opening question (again):

The way that I find ID to be consistent with so-called "design flaws" is that we, as humans, are totally and completely situated to exists perfectly fine in our world. What is more, we are in posession with (1) the mind to understand/create/design and (2) the ABILITY to craft/construct ways to overcome difficulties.

I fail to see how ID is illogical, given that we seem to be getting along just fine - in fact, humans have to REIGN IN, and actively try not to completely choke out all other life on this planet.

We seem to be thriving.
If you were designing a toaster would you add handlebars? If you were designing a human would you add an appendix?

Shelter and water sources wouldn't have anything to do with it. Food would. There are plenty of parts of the world where meat is a luxury that most people can't afford. They eat vegetables and grains. If environment was all it took to activate the appendix one would expect theirs to be fully functional. It's still vestigial.

So then does this mean you know what the functions of the nutrients extracted by the appendix are? Please share

If intelligence has anything to do with the construction of the universe or parts thereof, I can only think of one mind who would design a universe for beings like us that consists of mostly cold, empty space punctuated with ridiculously massive balls of searing plasma, and so far displaying only one example of prime real estate that is in fact 70% covered in this sloshy, salty substance that's rather difficult to live in without gills. Which our designer neglected to give us.

A name springs to mind. That name is Bergholt Stuttley Johnson, also known as 'Bloody Stupid' Johnson.

Lakshmi "It might look a mess right now but you come back in a few million years!" Planum.

If you were designing a toaster would you add handlebars? If you were designing a human would you add an appendix?

Why not?
When we were created (hypothetically), God just made humans. First of their kind. It's not like he had an in-existance toaster -er- human to go off of, to say: "this is how it should look"

Handlebars would make the toaster mobile, without burning yourself. Again - why not?
It might seem silly now, but the first person to design the things surely could have done it without people calling him on the carpet.

The "Einstein" point was - for the child to understand the theories, he'd have to have some higher-level (intelligence/education-wise) person explain it. For us, as humans (STILL OPERATING under the hypothetical supposition that the Bible is true) to understand "why" God does things, we'd have to have a higher-level understanding - ie: beyond what we have capacity for, as finite humans.


This entire line of reasoning is seriously flawed. To make it apply to the situation we find ourselves in you would have to substitute the kid with Einstein himself.

Certain humans proposed the "God created it all" hypothesis.
Einstein proposed the theory of relativity.

If Einstein was incapable of even understanding the reasoning behind his own proposal and wasn't able to reconcile his own proposal with the observational evidence we sure as hell wouldn't take his word for the fact that it was true anyway for reasons he says he can't share with us because they're beyond his own understanding!

Creationists are constantly saying things like "the whole world is evidence of God creating it" (hell, we got it again right in this thread back in post 84)... but then you ask them exactly how that is with detailed examples that appear to disprove their claim and all of a sudden it's "Uhhh... I don't know... God's all mysterious and beyond our understanding so us limitted humans can't explain it! It's just true!"

Well if the limitted humans in question can't understand the reasoning behind their own proposals and can't explain why their own proposals can't be reconciled with the evidence then those limitted humans never had a basis for making them in the first bloody place.

Sorry, but they just have to do a wee bit better than that.

If you were designing a toaster would you add handlebars? If you were designing a human would you add an appendix?
I wouldn't, but I'm not as intelligent as the "intelligent designer." You call it a stupid design flaw, but we can't just say it's a flaw when we don't know what purpose it serves (logically).

So then does this mean you know what the functions of the nutrients extracted by the appendix are? Please share
It contains bacteria that help break down plant foods. It's a place for a stomachfull of plant based food to ferment. The human appendix can't do the job.

Not that I can remember. Why don't you tell us about it?

Optimal design is when something is designed with a comprimise to get the best possible results.

I wouldn't, but I'm not as intelligent as the "intelligent designer." You call it a stupid design flaw, but we can't just say it's a flaw when we don't know what purpose it serves (logically).
We know what purpose it served before it shrank and became useless.

Ah, so ID isn't a scientific theory, it's a question of faith. If it was a scientific theory there would be an answer to my question based on logic.

well YEAH
i dont know why anyone feels the need to reduce religion to science but it is impossible.

This entire line of reasoning is seriously flawed. To make it apply to the situation we find ourselves in you would have to substitute the kid with Einstein himself.

Certain humans proposed the "God created it all" hypothesis.
Einstein proposed the theory of relativity.

If Einstein was incapable of even understanding the reasoning behind his own proposal and wasn't able to reconcile his own proposal with the observational evidence we sure as hell wouldn't take his word for the fact that it was true anyway for reasons he says he can't share with us because they're beyond his own understanding!

Creationists are constantly saying things like "the whole world is evidence of God creating it" (hell, we got it again right in this thread back in post 84)... but then you ask them exactly how that is with detailed examples that appear to disprove their claim and all of a sudden it's "Uhhh... I don't know... God's all mysterious and beyond our understanding so us limitted humans can't explain it! It's just true!"

Well if the limitted humans in question can't understand the reasoning behind their own proposals and can't explain why their own proposals can't be reconciled with the evidence then those limitted humans never had a basis for making them in the first bloody place.

Sorry, but they just have to do a wee bit better than that.


Please - clarification.
In my example, Einstein is God.
Children are "humans" - and when you compare them to Einstein, it IS like comparing humans to God.

My point was - with our limited understanding (ie: like a child's, compared to a genius), we can't hope to understand the workings.

What nutrients would you like to know about? are you trying to suggest the appendix has it's own unique nutrients? whose function is unknown? if so can you give a link to some research supporting your comment??

If you were designing a toaster would you add handlebars? If you were designing a human would you add an appendix?
are you too young to remember when cars had fins?

Why not?
When we were created (hypothetically), God just made humans. First of their kind. It's not like he had an in-existance toaster -er- human to go off of, to say: "this is how it should look"

Handlebars would make the toaster mobile, without burning yourself. Again - why not?
It might seem silly now, but the first person to design the things surely could have done it without people calling him on the carpet.
An appendix is totally useless in a human. It does exist as a functional organ in what biologists agree are species related to us. It would be reasonable to assume that we evoloved from a species that had a functioning appendix.

If we were designed, it's a worthless extra part. Even less usefull than the handlebars in my example.

An appendix is totally useless in a human. It does exist as a functional organ in what biologists agree are species related to us. It would be reasonable to assume that we evoloved from a species that had a functioning appendix.

If we were designed, it's a worthless extra part. Even less usefull than the handlebars in my example.

And yet - it's not detrimental. The question "why not" again comes to mind?

Well if the limitted humans in question can't understand the reasoning behind their own proposals and can't explain why their own proposals can't be reconciled with the evidence then those limitted humans never had a basis for making them in the first bloody place.

I"ll take this one. I and others have already explained why it can't be reconciled with logic. Spiritual things cannot be understood by science, because science is the wrong tool. Science is for understanding the physical world. You're eating tomato soup with a fork here, Reformentia. Not everything can be understood by science. The spiritual world and the physical world are two very different things. You're assuming that if it's based on faith that it's wrong. Well that's not right either.

I agree with Fabistan, in principle.

So why should creationism be taught in *Science*, if it can only be analysed by *Faith*?

And yet - it's not detrimental. The question "why not" again comes to mind?


Not detrimental? Have you ever heard of appendicitis?

Thanks. My posting strategy is alot like natural selection. Throw enough crap into the mix and some of it will thrive. Then post more of the stuff that works.

So your posting strategy doesn't have an intelligent design?

So why should creationism be taught in *Science*, if it can only be analysed by *Faith*?

Because evolution is just as unprovable - when you get down to "how did the first bits of matter" get there.

As a Christian, I can say my issue isn't to get CREATIONISM taught as science.
If I could work my will in Public Schools, I'd have two things:

1) Evolution be clearly taught as theory (which it is)
2) ID mentioned as an alternative theory.

Is that so bad? Is that even wrong?

So your posting strategy doesn't have an intelligent design?
Ouch. :rolleyes:

What nutrients would you like to know about? are you trying to suggest the appendix has it's own unique nutrients? whose function is unknown? if so can you give a link to some research supporting your comment??

That is nothing like what I said.

What I would like to know is this:
when food leaves the appendix, what has been extracted for use by the body?
what is the use to which that which has been extracted is put?

I"ll take this one. I and others have already explained why it can't be reconciled with logic. Spiritual things cannot be understood by science, because science is the wrong tool. Science is for understanding the physical world. You're eating tomato soup with a fork here, Reformentia. Not everything can be understood by science. The spiritual world and the physical world are two very different things. You're assuming that if it's based on faith that it's wrong. Well that's not right either.
So, you're taking the stance that the doctrines of religion are mythology, and god had no real hand in creating the physical universe?

Because evolution is just as unprovable - when you get down to "how did the first bits of matter" get there.

As a Christian, I can say my issue isn't to get CREATIONISM taught as science.
If I could work my will in Public Schools, I'd have two things:

1) Evolution be clearly taught as theory (which it is)
2) ID mentioned as an alternative theory.

Is that so bad? Is that even wrong?

Yes, because ID doesn't even warrant theory status. There's absolutely NO proof.

Why not?
When we were created (hypothetically), God just made humans.
<SNIP>
So, if an Intelligent Designer created all living beings, where did he start?
At the beginning of life, defining the rules of evolution?
At the dawn of mankind? (Which seems rather random, what was before then?)
Did he design us through and does so now? Why would he then create a race of humans with brains superior in volumes to that of modern man (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) just to let it get wiped out by the more aggressive Homo sapiens sapiens?

Fun idea: I've been thinking about how to explain million-year-old dinosaur-skeletons and the likes provided God created the World something 10000 years ago; and I FOUND THE ANSWER!
God created animals several times before the actual Creation, but scraped them all, burying their remains under the earth.
Same goes for the continents: first He just created one gigantic continent (Pangea), but then thought: "What the heck, I still have so much sea around it, let's scramble it up a little bit.

;-D

Not detrimental? Have you ever heard of appendicitis?

you ever hear of lung cancer or a heart attack?

Evolution is happening around us and *is* proovable. Bacteria is evolving all the time and you can even observe it evolve if you so wanted to.

So why should creationism be taught in *Science*, if it can only be analysed by *Faith*?
For balance. If you are attempting to explain the origin of life (which involves a certain amount of faith, being that we were not there to witness and observe it directly--the hallmark of science), and there are multiple (possibly) valid theories, don't you want to give them all a voice?

So, you're taking the stance that the doctrines of religion are mythology, and god had no real hand in creating the physical universe?

I feel he was stating that attempting to use ONLY "science" to explain things which may have a spiritual component is impossible, without bringing spiritual matters up.

Ouch. :rolleyes:

DC knows I'm kidding and he/she LOVES it.

DC knows I'm kidding and he/she LOVES it.

I knew you were kidding, and personally have respect for this "DC" character.

I was just highly amused by the comment.

are you too young to remember when cars had fins?
One can see fins. They evolved through sexual selection. Females were more willing to mate with men who owned cars with big fins. It showed that the prospective mate had enough money to take care of her offspring.

You can't see an appendix except through exploratory surgury or maybe an MRI.

you ever hear of lung cancer or a heart attack?


Yes, but those organs have other, USEFUL functions. All the appendix does is sit there uselessly until the stupid thing bursts and kills you.

Evolution doesn't describe *the origin of life*. It describes *the origin of species*. How organisms change over time, ID can't be an alternative to Evolution because they aren't even describing the same process.

Please - clarification.
In my example, Einstein is God.

Which is the problem.

Children are "humans" - and when you compare them to Einstein, it IS like comparing humans to God.

But I'm not debating this issue with God. We're not in a situation where humans are being compared to God so why are you comparing children with Einstein when attempting to illustrate that situation? God isn't the one who comes onto forums like these and proposes God created all life on earth. God isn't the one who writes books proposing that God created all life on earth. God isn't the one who preaches sermons that God created all life on Earth. Humans (particularly creationist-type humans) do all that, and I have every justification for expecting that if they are going to do such a thing they be able to explain their own reasoning.

My point was - with our limited understanding (ie: like a child's, compared to a genius), we can't hope to understand the workings.

Then with "our" limited understanding "we" shouldn't be making completely unsubstantiated claims about things "we" don't begin to understand in the first place, should "we"?

The proposals presented by evolutionary theory have extensive evidential support. They are fully reconcileable with the observational data. They are not only reconcileable with that data, they explain that data. We have every reason to present evolution as a completely valid and rational hypothesis... one that has survived over a century of intensive testing without ever being disproven while more and more and more evidence pours in that it is correct. The people presenting evolutionary theory to us CAN explain themselves.

If creationists can't then that's their (very large) problem.

And yet - it's not detrimental. The question "why not" again comes to mind?
It is detrimental. It's like building a car with a totally useless glass port on the gas tank that can only serve to shatter and risk causing the car to go up in a big fireball. No designer would incorporate such a thing.

And yet - it's not detrimental. The question "why not" again comes to mind?
i referenced this issue in a prior post, and provided links. do you people read anything????????????????

Yes, but those organs have other, USEFUL functions. All the appendix does is sit there uselessly until the stupid thing bursts and kills you.

So what causes it to burst?
Surely it's doing something, eh?

So your posting strategy doesn't have an intelligent design?
No, I'm not very intelligent.

i referenced this issue in a prior post, and provided links. do you people read anything????????????????

Actually, I used to read all [x]nth pages. Then, by the time I responded, the thread had either died, or the topic had changed again. Now I read the first couple/several pages (as long as they're interesting), and the last few (for context).

My apologies - either you weren't interesting, or someone BEFORE you wasn't - and I skipped to the end.

(just kidding about you, personally, of course. ;) )

So what causes it to burst?
Surely it's doing something, eh?

Nope. It bursts because bacteria infect it. All it is is a giant target.

Because evolution is just as unprovable - when you get down to "how did the first bits of matter" get there.

As a Christian, I can say my issue isn't to get CREATIONISM taught as science.
If I could work my will in Public Schools, I'd have two things:

1) Evolution be clearly taught as theory (which it is)
2) ID mentioned as an alternative theory.

Is that so bad? Is that even wrong?
Evolution isn't concerned with the first bits of matter. At it's core evolution is just the theory that after life developed it changed slowly into the myriad forms around us today. It is provable. We have plenty of evidence to support it. Predictions made by evolutionary theory are bourn out by observations. Evolution is scientific, and provable.

So what causes it to burst?
Surely it's doing something, eh?
Actually it does have a reason, just a highly redundant one. However, it mostly bursts when the lymph nodes around it expand or the entrance gets blocked off and it is infected with bacteria.

Nope. It bursts because bacteria infect it. All it is is a giant target.

Playing God for a moment:

Perhaps there are people who, if the appendix did not attract the bacteria, would be faced with crippling diseases and/or death - ie: if they didn't have their appendix (which then continues to "sit there" as if nothing happened), they would be dead.

Perhaps. It's a posibility.

For the critically-minded: TalkDesign.org (www.talkdesign.org)

That is nothing like what I said.

What I would like to know is this:
when food leaves the appendix, what has been extracted for use by the body?
what is the use to which that which has been extracted is put?
Tough plant cells are broken down in the appendix (in animals where it still works) so that extra nutrients can be extracted. Not so that new nutrients will form.

We know what purpose it served before it shrank and became useless.

What's that?

When the appendix gets infected, it IS a crippling disease.

So why bother replacing one disease with another, even if what you said was remotely possible, which it's not.

Evolution isn't concerned with the first bits of matter. At it's core evolution is just the theory that after life developed it changed slowly into the myriad forms around us today. It is provable. We have plenty of evidence to support it. Predictions made by evolutionary theory are bourn out by observations. Evolution is scientific, and provable.

But, at the same time, it completely falls down when you walk it back to the beginning. Granted, micro-evolution is possible, and does happen - teach away.

It's the macro stuff that's questionable, and that - since we can't observe - falls under the "theory" label (I would be inclined to think).

Tough plant cells are broken down in the appendix (in animals where it still works) so that extra nutrients can be extracted. Not so that new nutrients will form.
I'm fairly sure that no animal can digest cellulose by itself, and those that can the bacteria live in the stomach/intestines, not the appendix.

you ever hear of lung cancer or a heart attack?
Difference is that while they work properly the lungs and heart are essental. The appendix serves no good purpose.

What is the purpose the appendix served?

For balance. If you are attempting to explain the origin of life (which involves a certain amount of faith, being that we were not there to witness and observe it directly--the hallmark of science), and there are multiple (possibly) valid theories, don't you want to give them all a voice?

Science is not about giving balace, its about finding the right theory, or the one closet as possible to being right and teaching that.

Shall we go back to teaching the world is flat or the earth is the center of the universe, you know becuase they were theories upheld by the catholic church

you know to give some balance.

No becuase its effectivly retardifing science.
ID around before evolution becuase it was what people though in there ignorance

Difference is that while they work properly the lungs and heart are essental. The appendix serves no good purpose.
... that you can tell.

Since it's God we're talking about, we'd better check with him to make sure that the appendix doesn't serve one of his plans for one or more people plagued with the useless lump of tissue.

What is the purpose the appendix serves?
it used to be used to digest grass apparently but i never knew , and i doubt that.

What is the purpose the appendix serves?
Produces some antibodies that can be made elsewhere.

So what causes it to burst?
Surely it's doing something, eh?
It gets clogged up with fecal matter and bacteria, becomes infected, and bursts. It's not helping in any way.

Evolution isn't concerned with the first bits of matter. At it's core evolution is just the theory that after life developed it changed slowly into the myriad forms around us today. It is provable. We have plenty of evidence to support it. Predictions made by evolutionary theory are bourn out by observations. Evolution is scientific, and provable.


so your saying we are comparing two irrelevent matters? ID is a creation theory, evolution is a maturation theory. Those two things have nothing to do with each other and it is compleetly plausible that they both are factual. We are debating two things that are not very well related, it's like trying to say that an actor is less inteligent than a mathematician, they are two different forms or areas of intelligence.

What's that?
See earlier posts.

It gets clogged up with fecal matter and bacteria, becomes infected, and bursts. It's not helping in any way.
Playing God for a moment:
Perhaps there are people who, if the appendix did not attract the bacteria, would be faced with crippling diseases and/or death - ie: if they didn't have their appendix (which then continues to "sit there" as if nothing happened), they would be dead.
Perhaps. It's a posibility.

The point is - we can't know. As humans. Assuming that ID is the correct theory.

So you have an unsolvable question on your hands?

OBVIOUSLY your idea of intelligence and god's idea of intelligence are not the same. what do YOU know of the parameters he had to work with? do you think its EASY to design a body as flawed as the human body? do you think its EASY to make it seem as if we were made through evolution?

As usual, the magic ignorance wand waving. Oh, and why do Christians always TYPE like THIS in which THEY choose to capitalize important WORDS?

But, at the same time, it completely falls down when you walk it back to the beginning. Granted, micro-evolution is possible, and does happen - teach away.

It's the macro stuff that's questionable, and that - since we can't observe - falls under the "theory" label (I would be inclined to think).
Where does it fall down? Please tell me because all I have seen shows that it stands up all the way through.

Macroevolution happens. Just think about it this way. Eventually microevolution will change a population of Oh, let's say insects, into a whole different species of insects. What's going to stop this from happening? Haven't we seen macroevolution in action when a bacteria evolved to "eat" nylon? Or did god create this species 6000 years ago and it's been going hungry up until recently?

We have every reason to present evolution as a completely valid and rational hypothesis... one that has survived over a century of intensive testing without ever being disproven while more and more and more evidence pours in that it is correct.
According to logic, you cannot say it is absolutely correct unless it is a tautology, meaning that all possible aspects are known and explained. The very fact that "more and more and more evidence pours in" means that you have to remain skeptical.

Shall we go back to teaching the world is flat


Shall we return to the fact that Washington Irving started the myth that people thought thatthe world was flat?

God said "The life of Man shall be one hundred and twenty years". Of course, years were a little shorter back then, so I don't really expect anyone to get a drivers licence renewed at 120 years of age :p

so your saying we are comparing two irrelevent matters? ID is a creation theory, evolution is a maturation theory. Those two things have nothing to do with each other and it is compleetly plausible that they both are factual. We are debating two things that are not very well related, it's like trying to say that an actor is less inteligent than a mathematician, they are two different forms or areas of intelligence.
ID relies on species being created more or less as they are today. Evolution contradicts this. I'm siding with evolution because it fits all the available facts and predictions based on it are supported by later observations.

Sauron, Explain to me how you think dna works then. Obviously with macro-evoltuion discounted, the genome cannot be changed and dna remains static (or some unknown process corrects it). How do you explain when it does change?

I'm fairly sure that no animal can digest cellulose by itself, and those that can the bacteria live in the stomach/intestines, not the appendix.
The appendix is part of the intestines; it's kind of a "brewing pot" where bacteria have time to digest cellulose. In the digestive tract of a small mammal (like a rabbit), there would not be enough time to digest enough cellulose (or rather, the resulting over-amount of bacteria) to keep the animal alive.

Playing God for a moment:

Perhaps there are people who, if the appendix did not attract the bacteria, would be faced with crippling diseases and/or death - ie: if they didn't have their appendix (which then continues to "sit there" as if nothing happened), they would be dead.

Perhaps. It's a posibility.
What about the people who've had their appendix taken out and live normal lives? It shows that you don't need an appendix.

Science is not about giving balace, its about finding the right theory, or the one closet as possible to being right and teaching that.

Shall we go back to teaching the world is flat or the earth is the center of the universe, you know becuase they were theories upheld by the catholic church

you know to give some balance.

No becuase its effectivly retardifing science.
ID around before evolution becuase it was what people though in there ignorance
Hey, I meant until you disprove it. We can prove that the world is round. We can prove that the earth is not the center of the universe. No one has disproved that God created everything, and no one can.

ID relies on species being created more or less as they are today. Evolution contradicts this. I'm siding with evolution because it fits all the available facts and predictions based on it are supported by later observations.


you still have given no relevence to the two theories.

I'm fairly sure that no animal can digest cellulose by itself, and those that can the bacteria live in the stomach/intestines, not the appendix.
No mammal can digest cellulose. That's true. I'm not talking about that. The animals with a functioning appendix can get to nutrients within the cells of plants because the bacteria in the appendix breaks the cell walls effectively.

According to logic, you cannot say it is absolutely correct unless it is a tautology, meaning that all possible aspects are known and explained. The very fact that "more and more and more evidence pours in" means that you have to remain skeptical.

Science is always skeptical!

And what point exactly did you think you were making here? Evolution has mountains of evidence in it's favor and can be completely reconciled with everything that we do know about the biological world, and provides massive explanatory power for the observations we make about that world... but we don't know absolutely 100% of everything... therefore it's just the same as creationism which doesn't have any evidence in it's favor and which it's own supporters can't even reconcile with their observation, instead pleading ignorance at the same time they continue to insist that despite the fact that they don't understand the first thing about how their idea fits with reality it's correct anyway?

Was that it?

Smilleyville, rabbits don't actually absorb the digested cellulose until they eat their own faeces. If you want to proove a human appendix has a function i guess you could always try eating your own....

Tough plant cells are broken down in the appendix (in animals where it still works) so that extra nutrients can be extracted. Not so that new nutrients will form.

Where exactly did I imply I thought new nutrients would form?

What use does any animal have for extracted cellulose?

Shall we return to the fact that Washington Irving started the myth that people thought thatthe world was flat?
I thought the Greeks were the first people to prove it was round? Before that I'm pretty sure people thought it was flat.

No mammal can digest cellulose. That's true. I'm not talking about that. The animals with a functioning appendix can get to nutrients within the cells of plants because the bacteria in the appendix breaks the cell walls effectively.
I could have sworn the bacteria was located in the stomach, not the appendix (why we can't have that sort of bacteria, our stomach is too acidic).

I'm siding with evolution because it fits all the available facts and predictions based on it are supported by later observations.

Such as...

Where exactly did I imply I thought new nutrients would form?

What use does any animal have for extracted cellulose?
What use does any animal have for extracted carbohydrates?

Yaga, your entire intestines have bacteria in them. The same as rabbit's intestines. There is no *one* place cellulose is broken down, so hence the appendix doesn't have it's *own* function.

you still have given no relevence to the two theories.
I don't understand your statement.

Where exactly did I imply I thought new nutrients would form?

What use does any animal have for extracted cellulose?
1 Sorry I may have misunderstood your question.

2 Cellulose is present in the cell walls of plants. To get at the nutricious stuff inside you have to break the cellulose walls. Teeth do that, but to be thorough, and you have to be thorough if you want to live off of an exclusively vegetarian diet, you need bacteria to break down any remaining walls, or cooking to do it for you.

Hey, I meant until you disprove it. We can prove that the world is round. We can prove that the earth is not the center of the universe. No one has disproved that God created everything, and no one can.

We can prove evoltion again and again i have given refeance to examples i have seen that PROVE IT.

HERES TWO GO LOOK THEM UP
The Peppered Moth in england.
and
MRSA the bateria thats out evoloving the antibotics.

How dose ID explain that, as both of these things have evoloved in the last 200 years.

I could have sworn the bacteria was located in the stomach, not the appendix (why we can't have that sort of bacteria, our stomach is too acidic).
Our digestive system is different from that of ruminants. They have all kinds of stomachs and pouches that we lack.

1 Sorry I may have misunderstood your question.

2 Cellulose is present in the cell walls of plants. To get at the nutricious stuff inside you have to break the cellulose walls. Teeth do that, but to be thorough, and you have to be thorough if you want to live off of an exclusively vegetarian diet, you need bacteria to break down any remaining walls, or cooking to do it for you.
*cough*andcelluloseismadeofglucose*cough*

Our digestive system is different from that of ruminants. They have all kinds of stomachs and pouches that we lack.
I realize that, but I'm still fairly sure that the bacteria for digesting cellulose is found in the stomach. Mind finding a source?

Such as...
One prediction is that if evolution were true, there should be a mechanism to pass on traits to the offspring that can cause those traits to be altered from generation to generation. This was predicted in Darwin's time, long before the discovery of DNA and genetic mutation bore it out.

Science is always skeptical!

And what point exactly did you think you were making here? Evolution has mountains of evidence in it's favor and can be completely reconciled with everything that we do know about the biological world, and provides massive explanatory power for the observations we make about that world... but we don't know absolutely 100% of everything... therefore it's just the same as creationism which doesn't have any evidence in it's favor and which it's own supporters can't even reconcile with their observation, instead pleading ignorance at the same time they continue to insist that despite the fact that they don't understand the first thing about how their idea fits with reality it's correct anyway?

Was that it?
That's exactly it. Many Evolutionists present evolution as fact, and rule out other explanations, which is wrong. As I continue to insist, Creationism cannot be supported by science, because it is not based on logic. It is based on faith. Everyone needs to stop insisting that Christians support their arguments with logic, and accept that we can't do it. Faith is not stupid, it's just different than logic, and is meant to explain different things.

I realize that, but I'm still fairly sure that the bacteria for digesting cellulose is found in the stomach. Mind finding a source?

im confused, are you stating that all bateria would die in the stomach?

Science is always skeptical!

And what point exactly did you think you were making here? Evolution has mountains of evidence in it's favor and can be completely reconciled with everything that we do know about the biological world, and provides massive explanatory power for the observations we make about that world... but we don't know absolutely 100% of everything... therefore it's just the same as creationism which doesn't have any evidence in it's favor and which it's own supporters can't even reconcile with their observation, instead pleading ignorance at the same time they continue to insist that despite the fact that they don't understand the first thing about how their idea fits with reality it's correct anyway?

Was that it?

Actually, with what you bring to the table, both are unsopported now what with Evolution's failing evidence.

Yaga, your entire intestines have bacteria in them. The same as rabbit's intestines. There is no *one* place cellulose is broken down, so hence the appendix doesn't have it's *own* function.

This might be because celluloise can't be broken down in the human body

That's exactly it. Many Evolutionists present evolution as fact, and rule out other explanations, which is wrong. As I continue to insist, Creationism cannot be supported by science, because it is not based on logic. It is based on faith. Everyone needs to stop insisting that Christians support their arguments with logic, and accept that we can't do it. Faith is not stupid, it's just different than logic, and is meant to explain different things.

Faith is the absense of reason.

Its simply opinion, reason is logic, and logic is immuteable.

im confused, are you stating that all bateria would die in the stomach?
Nope. Just that sort. Not adapted (hint hint) for the low pH of the stomach. (and fighting off our immune system)

Actually, with what you bring to the table, both are unsopported now what with Evolution's failing evidence.

Show me this failing evidence and ill give you an ice cream

A lot of people in this argument are lacking huge amounts of biological understand and a simple grasp of logic.

its exacerbating.

The word is "exasperating."

Evolution doesnt have *failing* evidence AND evolution is a fact. We know Evolution happens, it's the *exactly how* and the mechanisms that make it work that we are not sure on.

The word is "exasperating."
hahaha mr pedantic i ment what i said actually exacerbating, to make the situation or in this case arugment worse.

I really hate it when people start looking for gramtical and spelling errors when their arugments run dry.

We can prove evoltion again and again i have given refeance to examples i have seen that PROVE IT.

HERES TWO GO LOOK THEM UP
The Peppered Moth in england.
and
MRSA the bateria thats out evoloving the antibotics.

How dose ID explain that, as both of these things have evoloved in the last 200 years.
I never said that the mountain of evidence is wrong. I only said that not all the evidence is in, so don't rush to judgment, if you're basing your decision on logic. Now if you want to use a leap of faith, and go ahead and say that evolution has been proven, be my guest. Only by faith can you currently say that Evolution is right and everything else is wrong, just as it is only by faith that I can say that Creationism is right and everything else is wrong.

I realize that, but I'm still fairly sure that the bacteria for digesting cellulose is found in the stomach. Mind finding a source?
www.eng.auburn.edu/~wfgale/usda_course/section0_3.htm#ruminant
Near the end of the page, in italics appears the statement that follows.
Horses also make use of a single cecum that allows them to use part of the fibrous diet that they consume. Humans also have a cecum, though it is not used. You refer to it as your appendix, and since it is not used you can live without it as many people can attest to.

Faith is the absense of reason.

Its simply opinion, reason is logic, and logic is immuteable.

No, faith is believing in something that is supported.

That's exactly it. Many Evolutionists present evolution as fact, and rule out other explanations, which is wrong. As I continue to insist, Creationism cannot be supported by science, because it is not based on logic. It is based on faith. Everyone needs to stop insisting that Christians support their arguments with logic, and accept that we can't do it. Faith is not stupid, it's just different than logic, and is meant to explain different things.
Then don't try to teach it in science classes. Teach it in your churches.

I really hate it when people start looking for gramtical and spelling errors when their arugments run dry.
You know, Koroser wasn't arguing against you. You used the word "exacerbating" inh a manner where it looked like it should have been "exasperating", and Koroser tried to help you.

www.eng.auburn.edu/~wfgale/usda_course/section0_3.htm#ruminant
Near the end of the page, in italics appears the statement that follows.
Horses also make use of a single cecum that allows them to use part of the fibrous diet that they consume. Humans also have a cecum, though it is not used. You refer to it as your appendix, and since it is not used you can live without it as many people can attest to.
The appendix isn't the cecum, it's just part of it. Point taken however.

I never said that the mountain of evidence is wrong. I only said that not all the evidence is in, so don't rush to judgment, if you're basing your decision on logic. Now if you want to use a leap of faith, and go ahead and say that evolution has been proven, be my guest. Only by faith can you currently say that Evolution is right and everything else is wrong, just as it is only by faith that I can say that Creationism is right and everything else is wrong.

Leap of faith = complete foolishness.

Evey philiosophical bone in my body hates that try, its just litealy to turn away from all reason.

But really evolution has been proven, belive me it just woulnt not be on the british natioal critculm for A level, yes prehaps ideas in physics maybe considering thats a fairly theoretical science, and only theory we learn thats a bit dogey is global warning so another huge part of the corse *is* to examing all the other theories like ice age cycles.

Biology is not a largely theoretical science, not at all its deals soley with what we can observe through a mircoscope and other wise.

Give me an example where evolution falls short please, really. Dont talk about them show me.

Faith is the absense of reason.

Its simply opinion, reason is logic, and logic is immuteable.
Faith is not necessarily the absence of reason. That's a little too simplistic. It's just a belief in something for which you don't have all the facts, or have very few facts. It may have some real evidence thrown in, like, say, that we know Jesus was a real person, based on historical accounts of the time.

Also, logic is only immutable when it's based on all the evidence. When you don't have all the evidence, there's an element of doubt, a chance that some other piece of evidence could blow the whole thing apart. All proper scientific theories are based on logic, and many of those get disproved every day.

Then don't try to teach it in science classes. Teach it in your churches.
If you take that line, then you can't teach Evolution as the origin of life in science class either, because no one was there to observe the origin of life, and we can never be absolutely sure. I'm for only teaching hard science in science class, who's with me?

If you take that line, then you can't teach Evolution as the origin of life in science class either, because no one was there to observe the origin of life, and we can never be absolutely sure. I'm for only teaching hard science in science class, who's with me?

Where shall we teach it then our labartories.

Schools and universities are a place of learning,

Keep your faith to your churches.

If you take that line, then you can't teach Evolution as the origin of life in science class either, because no one was there to observe the origin of life, and we can never be absolutely sure. I'm for only teaching hard science in science class, who's with me?
Evolution is not a theory about the origin of life.

Leap of faith = complete foolishness.
Well that's where we'll have to agree to disagree, and that's fine.

If you take that line, then you can't teach Evolution as the origin of life in science class either, because no one was there to observe the origin of life, and we can never be absolutely sure. I'm for only teaching hard science in science class, who's with me?
1 Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, merely with the origin of new species.

2 Evolution is science. It's supported by all the available evidence. It's arrived at by making observations and using logic to figgure out what must be happening. It's testable, and it passes the test every time.

3 Where did you get the idea that science deals in absolute certainties? In science everything falls somewhere on a scale between 0 (absolutely false) and 1 (unquestionably true). Evolution is very close to 1.

Evolution is not a theory about the origin of life.
That's silly, of course it is. It supposedly explains how some proteins started moving around and growing. And how some bacteria eventually emerged from the goop.

That's silly, of course it is. It supposedly explains how some proteins started moving around and growing.
Nope. That's the theory of abiogenesis.

That's silly, of course it is. It supposedly explains how some proteins started moving around and growing.
You're wrong. Evolution is about how one form of life can gradually transform into another over many generations. It doesn't say a thing about where that original form of life came from.

If you take that line, then you can't teach Evolution as the origin of life in science class either, because no one was there to observe the origin of life, and we can never be absolutely sure. I'm for only teaching hard science in science class, who's with me?
Hear hear! I think we should only teach sciences that we can observe. Hmm.. ok, no more chemistry, biology, atomic physics, current gravitational theory, relativity or astronomy.

Hear hear! I think we should only teach sciences that we can observe. Hmm.. ok, no more chemistry, biology, atomic physics, current gravitational theory, relativity or astronomy.
What in the world are you talking about? We can observe and measure all those things, using various methods. Invent a time machine, and then tell me about the origin of life.

Nope. That's the theory of abiogenesis.
Ah, my mistake. In that case, let's quit teaching abiogenesis until we have invented a time machine.

What in the world are you talking about? We can observe and measure all those things, using various methods. Invent a time machine, and then tell me about the origin of life.

Actually a lot of physics infact most of it is extrapolated theory.

What in the world are you talking about? We can observe and measure all those things, using various methods. Invent a time machine, and then tell me about the origin of life.

Nope. We can only measure their effects. What if the stars are all illusions? We wouldn't know, if they were really good ones. We can't go out and poke a star.