PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Intelligent Design Flaws
       Human body design flaws

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Since I know we sometimes get heated in our debates, I just had to share this with you.  I found this while researching the appendix.

"Its major importance would appear to be financial support of the surgical profession."

Alfred Sherwood Romer and Thomas S. Parsons
The Vertebrate Body (1986), p. 389.


Come on, even debaters need a chuckle now and then.  

Anyhow, correct me if I am wrong (not a biologist), but I thought that the appendix was shown to establish and maintain the bowel-blood barrier for bacteria in the colon starting shortly after birth.  Any medical personnel that can help us with this one?

(Edited by EMyers 10/4/2005 at 6:07 PM).


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 6:01 PM on October 4, 2005 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That's a good one, alright.

I'm in a Human Anatomy class, so I'll ask my professor tomorrow morning about any proposed function during birth.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 10:22 PM on October 4, 2005 | IP
aspazija

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

 
 Not every woman has a small pelvis.
 
 If wisdom teeth are healthy and perfectly alligned, they dont cause any problems and can be a valuable asset to the mouth, in fact, not every person develop wisdom teeth

 Larynx too highly placed? In very SELDOM cases, yes. You have to look at the purpose of larynx in the body...obviously, it is there for a reason, right?
 


Posts: 6 | Posted: 01:01 AM on October 12, 2006 | IP
aspazija

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

 The function of the appendix according to SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN. COM is to expose white blood cells to the wide variety of antigens or foreign substances present in the gastrointestinal tract and so on...to be continiued on design flaws.
 


Posts: 6 | Posted: 01:30 AM on October 12, 2006 | IP
aspazija

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

    Large veins in the legs sure will cause a clot if you dont exercise and eat right...God didnt create us to stand or seat on our butts all day long. You gotta move, my dear to keep your blood going and keep ypur veins and arteries elastic and healthy. Kappish? To be continued!
 


Posts: 6 | Posted: 01:38 AM on October 12, 2006 | IP
aspazija

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

  Yeah, and about female urinary opening to close to the asshole...Where do you, FreeAmerican, suppose the poop has to come out from? my leg? i am a female and in my many years of pooping and peeing no infection has occured. Sorry for my, maybe, inappropriate,  language, but your flaws are funny to read.
 


Posts: 6 | Posted: 01:48 AM on October 12, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yeah, and about female urinary opening to close to the asshole...Where do you, FreeAmerican, suppose the poop has to come out from? my leg? i am a female and in my many years of pooping and peeing no infection has occured. Sorry for my, maybe, inappropriate,  language, but your flaws are funny to read.


It becomes dangerous if you haven't cleaned yourself up when giving birth. The anus also harbors many sexually-transmitted diseases which can easily move to the vagina and scrotum, where they would be transported to another body if the host is sexually active.

Large veins in the legs sure will cause a clot if you dont exercise and eat right...God didnt create us to stand or seat on our butts all day long. You gotta move, my dear to keep your blood going and keep ypur veins and arteries elastic and healthy. Kappish? To be continued!


I have experience with this very issue, and I can say you're flat-out wrong. During the summer, I took the time to observe a dermatologist who specializes in the treatment of malfunctioning leg veins. One of the four patients I watched him treat was a model. She exercised regularly. That didn't stop the valves in her leg veins from becoming varicose.

Not every woman has a small pelvis.

If wisdom teeth are healthy and perfectly alligned, they dont cause any problems and can be a valuable asset to the mouth, in fact, not every person develop wisdom teeth

Larynx too highly placed? In very SELDOM cases, yes. You have to look at the purpose of larynx in the body...obviously, it is there for a reason, right?


You admit that in some cases, the "design" is not perfect.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 10/12/2006 at 07:36 AM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 07:28 AM on October 12, 2006 | IP
aspazija

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

  No, no, hold a second, first you said that urinary opening is design to be too close to the anal area and THAT causes infections to happen...Now you say, IF a woman does not hygine herself properly, suposedly after giving birth, OR if people are too sexualy active ( you better believe they'll have STD - unsafe, rendom sex, yeahhh... they will have nasty deseases...than what personal hygine or mindless choises have to do with a design??? HAH?
 


Posts: 6 | Posted: 11:55 PM on October 12, 2006 | IP
aspazija

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

  And about models legs...if she all day long at the fotoshoot or on the runway on her high heels running back and forth, aha she'll have varicose veins, but not because of the poor design silly, but because she is fisicly abusing her body...didnt you know high heels are dengerous for women's legs, ha? And also, many many many models abuse drugs, drink too much coffee or abuse laxatives to stay slim and slender "gorgeous" and as a result damage to the body, to the skin, to the brain...you name it...so, you see before you debate about design you have to ask yourself a ? how such and such organ is functioning within the body and what are the purpose of it and so on? ok? work on it! God Bless!
 


Posts: 6 | Posted: 12:07 AM on October 13, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And about models legs...if she all day long at the fotoshoot or on the runway on her high heels running back and forth, aha she'll have varicose veins, but not because of the poor design silly, but because she is fisicly abusing her body...didnt you know high heels are dengerous for women's legs, ha?


From your response, it’s obvious you don’t even know what varicose veins are. Here’s a summary:



Unlike arteries, veins do not transport blood with the aid of the heart’s pumps. Instead, it’s all muscle contractions and movement. When transporting blood up a leg, against gravity, the task can be difficult. Veins stop blood from flowing back down to the bottom of your legs with valves. Note how in the left example, the valves are shut? However, those valves can malfunction, and when they do, blood stops flowing back to the heart and just sits down in the legs. Whether or not your valves function has nothing to do with how physically fit you are.

And also, many many many models abuse drugs, drink too much coffee or abuse laxatives to stay slim and slender "gorgeous" and as a result damage to the body, to the skin, to the brain...you name it...so, you see before you debate about design you have to ask yourself a ? how such and such organ is functioning within the body and what are the purpose of it and so on? ok? work on it!


You’re saying coffee and laxatives are going to make the veins in your legs stop closing…

No, no, hold a second, first you said that urinary opening is design to be too close to the anal area and THAT causes infections to happen


When did I abandon that idea?

Now you say, IF a woman does not hygine herself properly, suposedly after giving birth, OR if people are too sexualy active


There’s a difference between “proper” and “natural” hygiene. Back in the day with your Adam and Eve, they wouldn’t have been able to shower whatsoever. That makes for a horrible collection of pathogens in that area of the body.


(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 10/13/2006 at 07:42 AM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 07:34 AM on October 13, 2006 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The Flawed Human Eye

The human eye has some obvious design flaws most notably of which are the placement of the optical nerve fibers.  In humans and all other chordates the nerve fibers from the retinal cones and rods extend outward towards the chamber of the eye and source of light instead of inward towards the brain. The nerve fibes collect into a bundle, the optic nerve, inside the eye, and exit through a hole in the retina. Not only is light lost from having to pass through the array of nerve fibers and ganglia (especially the blood vessels that serve the optic nerve) but the eye is also blind where the optic nerve exits through its hole. Additionally, this jury-rigged system makes the vertebrate eye way more vulnerable to the problem of a detached retina than it would be if the nerve fibers formed the optic nerve behind the retina. To add insult to injury, the latter, more functionally sound arrangement is exactly what is found in the eye of an octopus and other cephalopods.
 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 10:51 AM on October 13, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And yet the eyes' (you have two of them) blind spots do not overlap so that you don't have an actual blind spot.  Clever design.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 11:57 AM on October 13, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And yet the eyes' (you have two of them) blind spots do not overlap so that you don't have an actual blind spot.  Clever design.


Oh, sure, until an eye for one reason or another malfunctions/dies.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 12:01 PM on October 13, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well a leg is pretty useless if the other one gets chopped off too.  Let's just try and use things in a way they weren't designed and then blame the design.  That makes sense.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 1:14 PM on October 13, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well a leg is pretty useless if the other one gets chopped off too.  Let's just try and use things in a way they weren't designed and then blame the design.  That makes sense.


Your point makes an excellent addition to the dangers in bipedal design. Not only are our backs relatively inflexible and easy to throw out, but neither of our legs are much good without the other. A centaur-like design (with or without the fur and hooves) would have been much more logical. It's almost as if our ancestors used to live in trees.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 4:04 PM on October 13, 2006 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And yet the eyes' (you have two of them) blind spots do not overlap so that you don't have an actual blind spot.  Clever design.


Compensation for "poor design" does not explain away the fact that the human eye would be better served if the optic nerve cluster was behind the retina.  Can you think of any advantages gained by placing the retina behind the nerve cluster?  
 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 6:12 PM on October 13, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You're joking, right?  You're not?  I thought you guys were pulling my leg.  You certainly aren't going to let a simple Christian like myself explain to you the reasons behind the design of the eye, are you?  I'll give you until Monday morning.  By then I'm sure one of the myriad scientific experts on this forum will have filled you in (or you'll admit you're being facetious).  If not, I'll try and put it in layman's terms for you.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 01:04 AM on October 14, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You're joking, right?  You're not?  I thought you guys were pulling my leg.  You certainly aren't going to let a simple Christian like myself explain to you the reasons behind the design of the eye, are you?  I'll give you until Monday morning.  By then I'm sure one of the myriad scientific experts on this forum will have filled you in (or you'll admit you're being facetious).  If not, I'll try and put it in layman's terms for you.


What are we missing? That the human eye requires the blind spot because there's no better way to avoid having to invert and flip the lens upside down? Give me a break. Cepholopod eyes aren't as zany as human eyes and are yet better designs. The question remains why God didn't give us Cepholopod eyes instead of the ones we have now.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 01:48 AM on October 14, 2006 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You're joking, right?  You're not?  I thought you guys were pulling my leg.  You certainly aren't going to let a simple Christian like myself explain to you the reasons behind the design of the eye, are you?  I'll give you until Monday morning.  By then I'm sure one of the myriad scientific experts on this forum will have filled you in (or you'll admit you're being facetious).  If not, I'll try and put it in layman's terms for you.


While it is true that the human eye might be more capable than the octopus eye in certain respects this should not be a surpise since octpuses are aquatic and humans are terrestrial.  Diverse environments require diverse functions.  From what I have read, however,  none of the human-eye "advantages" are dependent on the position of the retina.  If you have an on-line source that contradicts this, please post a link.


 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 09:53 AM on October 16, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

First and foremost, the blind spot that is created by the inverted eye does not reduce vision quality.  Not only does the other eye “overlap” the blind spot in question, the brain uses the information from the retina to construct the image, not to “see” it.  It fills in not only the so called “blind spot” but also sorts through shadows, reflections, poor lighting, spots, etc.  Ever noticed dirt on your glasses (or sunglasses for those lucky enough to not need eyeglasses)?  Ever noticed your brain ignores this information even though the dirt is directly in front of your eyes?

Ok, so the design isn’t a problem, but why is it the way it is you ask…. Well, it is well known that the retinal pigment epithelium lies behind the photoreceptors.  One of it’s functions is that the melanin in it absorbs light not captured by the retina which would otherwise reflect off the back of the eye back onto the retina which would impair eyesight.

Additionally, photoreceptors completely replace themselves every seven days or so.  Where does such a quickly depleted part of the body get its energy (oxygen? blood?) from?  From the choroid, which an inverted design puts them in close proximity to.  

Another problem, light is converted mostly into heat.  The photoreceptors and retinal epithelium we just talked about absorbs large amounts of light everytime our eyes are open.  How, then do we cool off the eyes?  Again, this is a job for the choroid, which is conveniently placed where it can do the most good.

There are more reasons for the design of the eye that shows how it all works together, but this should answer most of your arguments.  Remember, you can’t pick one part of a design and say it would work better “like this” without taking into account what other changes would have to be made to use your “superior” design.  I’m sure that moving your retina to the front of the eye would allow for superior vision, until of course you go blind or have to stay in the dark all day.  Funny how those cephalopods don’t spend much time on dry land.  Perhaps their eyes were designed to work best in their natural habitat.  Nah, that can’t be it.

P.S. Don't need an online resource.  Take any basic level opthamology course at any college in the country.  


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 11:50 AM on October 16, 2006 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

First and foremost, the blind spot that is created by the inverted eye does not reduce vision quality. Not only does the other eye “overlap” the blind spot in question, the brain uses the information from the retina to construct the image, not to “see” it. It fills in not only the so called “blind spot” but also sorts through shadows, reflections, poor lighting, spots, etc.  Ever noticed dirt on your glasses (or sunglasses for those lucky enough to not need eyeglasses)? Ever noticed your brain ignores this information even though the dirt is directly in front of your eyes?

You are explaining how the brain compensates.  Wouldn't it be better if the brain did not have to expend energy compensating (however minute that energy amount might be).  And even though we are talking about humans, what about the vertebrates that don't have binocular vision?

Ok, so the design isn’t a problem, but why is it the way it is you ask…. Well, it is well known that the retinal pigment epithelium lies behind the photoreceptors. One of it’s functions is that the melanin in it absorbs light not captured by the retina which would otherwise reflect off the back of the eye back onto the retina which would impair eyesight.

Wouldn't a better design have the pigment epithelium tissue as well as photo-receptor in front of all the nerve cells and blood vessels?  Is there something that prevents this more optimal arrangement?

Additionally, photoreceptors completely replace themselves every seven days or so. Where does such a quickly depleted part of the body get its energy (oxygen? blood?) from? From the choroid, which an inverted design puts them in close proximity to.

I still think you are justifying optimal compensation as opposed to optimal design. What prevents  the rods and cones layer along with the RPE and Choroid layers from being positioned in front of the neural layer?  I think evolution explains this better than design optimization.  In fact design optimization doen't explain it at all does it?

Another problem, light is converted mostly into heat. The photoreceptors and retinal epithelium we just talked about absorbs large amounts of light everytime our eyes are open. How, then do we cool off the eyes? Again, this is a job for the choroid, which is conveniently placed where it can do the most good.

I understand the advantages of having the Photo receptors, RPE and Choroid layers next to one another. What I am interested in is whether there is an advantage positioning the nerve layer in front of the these layers.  I am not suggesting that the nerve layer should be in between any of these layers...I am simply suggesting that an optimal design would place the nerve layer behind the three layers.

There are more reasons for the design of the eye that shows how it all works together, but this should answer most of your arguments. Remember, you can’t pick one part of a design and say it would work better “like this” without taking into account what other changes would have to be made to use your “superior” design. I’m sure that moving your retina to the front of the eye would allow for superior vision, until of course you go blind or have to stay in the dark all day. Funny how those cephalopods don’t spend much time on dry land. Perhaps their eyes were designed to work best in their natural habitat. Nah, that can’t be it.

I agree but, thus far I have not seen any evidence that suggests that by positioning of the nerve layer in front of the photoreceptor, choroid and RPE layers we have acheived a design that is more optimal than if the nerve layer was positioned behind.  Additionally I am not aware of any design contraints or anatomical constraints that prevent the more optimal position of the nerve layer while still having the current preferred  configuration of the RPE, choroid and photoreceptors.

P.S. Don't need an online resource. Take any basic level opthamology course at any college in the country.
I think you are joking as I doubt that there are any opthamology or optometry specific courses offered as "continuing ed" outside of  a graduate degree program.  And I seriously doubt I could get "Catbert" to approve it for tuition reimbursement.



 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 2:31 PM on October 16, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, as we've already stated placing the retina neural components in front of the photoreceptors does not cause any sight problems. The neural elements are separated by less than a wavelength of light. Ergo diffraction is minimized, and the light travels through this area as if it were virtually transparenct. In fact, to view these cells under a microscope one must use stains to better visualize the cell.

In the area which has the highest resolution, the central retina, the neurons in front of the photoreceptors are on the side so that light has a direct pathway to them. The high resolution macula uses cones that are more tightly packed to achieve high resolution color vision. The peripheral retina has lower resolution and consists of mostly rods for black and white vision.

In short, the design minimizes distractions by concentrating the clearest visual input on what you are focusing on.  But I'm sure you already knew this.

P.S.  You can always pick up a text book even if you don't want to pay for the class.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 11:24 AM on October 17, 2006 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, as we've already stated placing the retina neural components in front of the photoreceptors does not cause any sight problems. The neural elements are separated by less than a wavelength of light. Ergo diffraction is minimized, and the light travels through this area as if it were virtually transparenct. In fact, to view these cells under a microscope one must use stains to better visualize the cell.


But it does create a blind spot that the Brain must expend energy to compensate for.

In the area which has the highest resolution, the central retina, the neurons in front of the photoreceptors are on the side so that light has a direct pathway to them.


Hmmm...This reads like a compensation for poor design placement of the neurons.  I note that you still have not explained the advantages of having the neurons positioned in front of the photo receptors, RPE and choroid layers.

The high resolution macula uses cones that are more tightly packed to achieve high resolution color vision. The peripheral retina has lower resolution and consists of mostly rods for black and white vision.


And exactly how does this point support the "designed" placement of the neuron layer ?

In short, the design minimizes distractions by concentrating the clearest visual input on what you are focusing on.  But I'm sure you already knew this.


You still have not explained why this "design" requires the neuron layer to be positioned between the photoreceptors and the incoming light.  

P.S.  You can always pick up a text book even if you don't want to pay for the class.
 Are you kidding me?!!!  Now days textbooks...er...downloads/dvds...are more expensive than the classes.  
 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 12:32 PM on October 17, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Odd, I thought I'd explained fully how crucial it was to diffuse some of the light hitting the photoreceptors.  What purpose would be served to create an additional organ to do what can be done with already necessary parts? What part didn't you understand?  And it only cost me about a hundred bucks for my last text book, whereas the class (even classes at a CC) would cost a few hundred or more.  Also, I don't know who you work for, but I've never worked anywhere that offered tuition reimbursement that actually limited which classes you could take (only that you passed them).




-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 1:17 PM on October 17, 2006 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Odd, I thought I'd explained fully how crucial it was to diffuse some of the light hitting the photoreceptors.


No you actually posted...In the area which has the highest resolution, the central retina, the neurons in front of the photoreceptors are on the side so that light has a direct pathway to them.

Are you confusing the role of the neurons with a role you designated for the RPE or are you now claiming that the nerve fibers play a crucial role in diffusing light? Please provide a source so we can clarify what you are trying to say.

What purpose would be served to create an additional organ to do what can be done with already necessary parts? What part didn't you understand?
 Who said anything about a new organ? At any rate, I agree with you in principle--It really doesn't make sense that the same creator who developed cepalopod eyes would use a totally different design template to create very similar functioning eyes in various aquatic vertebrates and then turn around and use the fish-eye "template" to create terrestrial primate eyes.

And it only cost me about a hundred bucks for my last text book, whereas the class (even classes at a CC) would cost a few hundred or more.  Also, I don't know who you work for, but I've never worked anywhere that offered tuition reimbursement that actually limited which classes you could take (only that you passed them).


Hmm, it appears there are some holes in your understanding of opthamology...Maybe you should return the textbook and try to get your money back.

BTW:  Opthamology does not fit into the rather broad IT career path that I am  currently locked into...Since Catbert told me to "fry ice" when I tried to get her to pony up for a musical theory class, I'm pretty sure she would do the same for an opthamology course.
 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 04:43 AM on October 18, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

While I've already explained the positioning of all the parts in the eye, I will now try to explain this last piece to you...  If the photoreceptors were in front of the neurons, the blood supply would have to be either directly in the light path of the receptors, or to the side.  This would severely limit the number of photoreceptors available to see with.  By putting the neurons (nearly transparent) in front and the blood supply in back some diffusion of light occurs (which is helpful) and the blood is out of the way (which would be harmful).  Does this help?


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 09:39 AM on October 18, 2006 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

While I've already explained the positioning of all the parts in the eye, I will now try to explain this last piece to you...  If the photoreceptors were in front of the neurons, the blood supply would have to be either directly in the light path of the receptors, or to the side.  This would severely limit the number of photoreceptors available to see with.  By putting the neurons (nearly transparent) in front and the blood supply in back some diffusion of light occurs (which is helpful) and the blood is out of the way (which would be harmful).  Does this help?


The blood vessels that serve the neurons are in front of the photoreceptors.  After  the 'blind spot', the shadows cast by these blood vessels result in the most significant "design flaw" of the human eye.  With all else being equal, how would having just capilaries in front of the photo receptors be a less desirable set-up than having cappilaries AND nerve fibers?

With all due respect Ed, I think you are confused about this.  I guess I'm not doing a bang-up job of setting you straight either

http://www.2think.org/eye.shtml
 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 10:29 AM on October 18, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

As already stated a larger blood supply is used to supply the photoreceptors than the neurons.  What is it about putting even MORE opaque capilaries in front of the photoreceptors rather than transparent neurons that makes more sense to you?  I don't follow that logic at all.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 12:32 PM on October 18, 2006 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok...Now I see where you are coming from...You are getting this from Michael Denton's "The Inverted Retina: Maladaptation or Pre-adaptation?"  
While Denton does a decent job of explaining why the inverted "set up" works for warm blooded terrestrial vertebrates, he also concedes that in cold blooded vertebrates like fish, it is inferior to the cephalopod set up.  He explains away this dilemma by sugesting that this is part of the process of "directed evolution".  He invokes a term new to me in this context called "preadaptation"...In other words  God created vertebrates 600 million years ago with bad eyes knowing that when they evolved into warm-blooded terrestrial creatures he would be able to direct the evolution of their bad eyes into good eyes...HMMM not really a creationist argument...

So are you now a proponent of directed evolution  Ed?  Do you agree with Denton that humans evolved from fish?   If not, can you provide a better explanation for why the "designer" gave  fish  eyes that, according to Denton, are inferior to octopi eyes?
 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 11:16 PM on October 18, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I am not a proponent of directed evolution nor have I ever ready Michael Denton's work on the subject.  I've also only studied the workings of the human eye and can't begin to explain to you anything about the fish eye.  I've never studied veterinary science and won't pretend that I have.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 10:45 AM on October 19, 2006 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I am not a proponent of directed evolution nor have I ever ready Michael Denton's work on the subject.
 
Post your sources then Ed.  Maybe you didn't get your information directly from Denton but I bet if you checked again you will see his work is referenced.  I have yet to find an "eye expert" other than Denton who is making these claims.  To be fair, I haven't found a refutation of Denton's "technical" claims on the inverted eye either.  At any rate why don't you post your sources?

I've also only studied the workings of the human eye and can't begin to explain to you anything about the fish eye.

But you have studied Octopi eyes?

I've never studied veterinary science and won't pretend that I have.

I see...You were lecturing me about taking opthamology classes in community college and now you are claiming that you never came across any comparative anatomy studies using other vertebrates when you were "studying" the human eye?
Why don't you post some sources for your eye claims.  I will bet dollars to donuts that Michael Denton is the only eye expert out there making the claims that you are making about the human eye. This doesn't make the claims incorrect but it does bring into question some of the reasoning Denton used to reach his conclusions.



(Edited by fredguff 10/19/2006 at 3:35 PM).
 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 3:22 PM on October 19, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In that case, I'll bet a hundred doughnuts.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 09:18 AM on October 20, 2006 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In that case, I'll bet a hundred doughnuts.


I will donate $100 dollars to the charity of your choice provided you can provide a source or sources that abide by the following four rules:

1.  Denton's and your  basic premise is that the human eye could only function with its current capabilities in an inverted fashion because the vascualrity of the choroid layer prevents its placement between the neuron and photo receptor layers thus necessitating the neuron layers placement in front of the photo receptors--Your source must also be forwarding this premise with out any reference to Denton.

2. It goes without saying but all "expert" claims have to be backed up with sources or studies regardless of whether the claim is from an expert.  

3.  I must have access to all sources. If they cannot be accessed from the internet or found at a university library then they cannot be verified and do not count.

4. The sources used cannot be the exact same ones used by Denton.  







 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 11:24 AM on October 23, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Not ignoring you.  As I have never read any of Denton's work I'm trying to find the time to read through his stuff AND check out his references (of course if he referenced Gray's Anatomy I'm screwed).


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 3:12 PM on November 4, 2006 | IP
SalviaDivinorum

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sorry but most of you make me laugh. I find it hillarious that 1.) You evolutionists assume that intelligent design means that god "made" humans as if he just pointed a magical wand and "kaboom". ID has been twisted by idiots who believe in Religion(honestly some people think ID has to do with Jesus or something) or by foolish evolutionists who lie and manipulate wording. Intelligent Design(has many definitions) but usually refers to a conscious or being that has intelligence and has inputed laws(like the laws of physics or nature), created a system in which DNA would evolve, phenomena, and create a very complex world.
2) ID does not discredit evolution whatsoever. Most *intelligent* scientists believe in a creator or god, but acknowledge evolution is real. What ID does, is tell us that "yes" there is something that is intelligent enough to either "Start" the universe and put in the codes and laws and then let "CHAOS" and free will of both conscious and nature shape the world we live in.
3.) ID has nothing do with religion unless you twist it that way. Most people who concieved of a Universal conscious or intelligence didnt have this idea of Adam or Eve as there grounding.

Use your common sense. Use intelligence. Use your mind for crying out loud. Just because some scientist WHO IS GETTING PAID! and rely on their jobs, so meaning, they will do just about or say just about anything to slander their opponents, Just like the church did hundreds of years ago to people like Galielo. What sickens me is hearing people who are so hypocritical and so arrogantly blind.

Overall the majority of you taking whatever side are just trying to defend your own side instead of trying to come up with a conclusion to a debate that any 16 year old can sadly contribute to with answers like "There is evil in the world, therefore there is no God. We are not perfect, therefore God is not perfect and therefor evolution is real."

There is this thing called Free will.

Seriously, do some LSD or something and open your mind. Get this pathetic idea out of your mind that God and evolutoin contradict each other. You dont know what God is, and if your some religious nut, you have little evidence to back up anything but some book. God doesnt show Itself in writing. God shows itself in nature. Look around. Do you Really think all the things around you in your room, outside, and beyond just happened out of nothing and FOR nothing?

How many planets have conscious on them, along with hundreds of rescources, along with emotions, color, ecetera and all the other crazy things going on like on our planet. Dont you find it odd, that for some "CRAZY" reason, these resources just "Happen" to work in "Miraculous" ways.(Yeah, i can see how computers and cars and their resources to enginner them, make them work all just happened...uhuh...I can see it now, a thousand years from now some people will find a car, and proclaim it came out of nothing and has no designer to it! they will say"Where is this so called designer to those who think the car was "made" by "intelligence". Then they will mock the people who worship the creator of the car, cause this creator isnt showing it self) Just Cause your not getting the game of life, doesnt make you superior in knowledge. If you dont believe there is something beyond that is more intelligent than humans, then you are being more decieved than the religious folks and you will eventually learn in this life or another.

Have fun beating a dead horse.
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 10:07 PM on March 25, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Seriously, do some LSD or something and open your mind. Get this pathetic idea out of your mind that God and evolutoin contradict each other. You dont know what God is, and if your some religious nut, you have little evidence to back up anything but some book. God doesnt show Itself in writing. God shows itself in nature. Look around. Do you Really think all the things around you in your room, outside, and beyond just happened out of nothing and FOR nothing?

How many planets have conscious on them, along with hundreds of rescources, along with emotions, color, ecetera and all the other crazy things going on like on our planet. Dont you find it odd, that for some "CRAZY" reason, these resources just "Happen" to work in "Miraculous" ways.(Yeah, i can see how computers and cars and their resources to enginner them, make them work all just happened...uhuh...I can see it now, a thousand years from now some people will find a car, and proclaim it came out of nothing and has no designer to it! they will say"Where is this so called designer to those who think the car was "made" by "intelligence". Then they will mock the people who worship the creator of the car, cause this creator isnt showing it self) Just Cause your not getting the game of life, doesnt make you superior in knowledge. If you dont believe there is something beyond that is more intelligent than humans, then you are being more decieved than the religious folks and you will eventually learn in this life or another.


According to SalviaDivinorum:

Intelligent Designer = God but with a different name

It was really a nice shot, but you won't get anywhere when you disagree with your own claims. Try aiming the barrel away from yourself next time.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 3/25/2007 at 11:20 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 11:18 PM on March 25, 2007 | IP
SalviaDivinorum

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I guess you didnt read this part of what i wrote.

"Intelligent Design(has many definitions) but usually refers to a conscious or being that has intelligence and has inputed laws(like the laws of physics or nature), created a system in which DNA would evolve, phenomena, and create a very complex world. "

Sorry, but most people who know what "God" means, know that it is an intelligent creator of a world or something of higher being that has designed the cosmos. Geeze, i wonder what ID means.

Sorry EntwickelnCollin, but you either cant read, skipped most of what i said, assume too much(that im speaking for a religion, because thats not the case, and im pro-evolution), or your just blantly ignorant.

Your comment about shooting my self...

What are you talking about? Its people like you and the rest of the people on this forum who have got way off topic.

First off. im not going to debate with children like you who use some horrible joke that has nothing to do with im talking about.

Second. This whole forum is messed up. Its not Creationism vs evolution. ITs CREATIONISM VS EVOLUTION THEORY. Sorry children, but there is a difference, and when you become less ignorant, you will figure that out. Second off, proving flaws of human organisms does not proof or disproof ID. If you want to talk about how bad the human anatomy can be or is, make another thread somewhere else, because this is about ID.

Yes, ID = God. Its another way of saying "Cosmic force", "Intelligent Force" and so on. It has many different names. Most people who use ID, are not religious, but are non-religous people who believe in a higher force. Sorry, but just because some christians stole the name, which has been used long before, and they put a bad spin on it, doesnt mean everyone who believes in God or ID is on the same team.

Brother, your shooting your self in the foot and you address me with a pathetic comment. You have proven that you and the rest have no idea what your debating about. Are completly igorant about the term "GOD" and the term "ID". You dont even know the difference between Evolution and Evolution theory, which are two completly different things.(Or at least the person who created this site for Ranting adolescents, doesnt get the politically correct way. They must think evolution has only to do with Natural selection..WRONG)

Read this thread please, honestly, read it then look at the title. about 90% of this thread has nothing to do with the flaws of ID, but are about HUMAN and ANIMAL anatomy. ID doesnt have to do with the fact that you broke your arm, and therefor ID is false because everything isnt perfect or because you "think" you could create a better world...sure...you try and learn computer programming and create a perfect video game, with AI and make them all happy, and never ignorant of what they are or never let anything bad happen to them... Why not just take away chaos and free will, what a great world that would be.

If anyone is making theirselves look like idiots, it is you, Entwickeln and the rest of the people debating about something entirely different than what the thread is suppose to be about.

"It was really a nice shot, but you won't get anywhere when you disagree with your own claims. Try aiming the barrel away from yourself next time."

Where have i disagreed with my own claims? What are you talking about? you and just about every other idiot on this thread take things way off subject, have little intelligence that contributes to the purpose of the discussion and really dont even know what your trying to say.

Im terribly sorry my child, but God is not synonymous with Jesus or "God but with a different name" which im guessing your implying that i believe ID has something to do with a God from a religion. Contrary to what you may believe that when people talk about God, that they are automatically talking about Religion, because this is not the Case(Though i swear, you talk to an athiest about God, and they automatically think your a religious nut, or that you love Jesus or something...NOT the CASE!)

I have practiced Buddhism for a while, and let me tell you one thing, ITS A RELIGION. There IS NO GOD in Buddhism. NOT all Religion has to do with ID OR GOD.

Entwick, try evolving your brain for once. Try and quote me correctly and explain what your saying instead of giving a dumb answer that doesnt make any sense.

Either way, you can respond with any immature, irrational and misleading comments here after, because i only created this name and posted this to set things right because most of you have no idea what your talking about. I will not post anything else. The only reason this site caught my attention was because i was watching something about The hobbit off of Flores on tv, and when i did a Google search about Linear flaws in Human evolution(thats what the video was suggesting, and im an evolutionist my self), i found this thread. I read some of your off topic answers, and tried to set it straight by explaining in an intelligent way why your arguments are not coherent to what ID is. Good luck with your life and your pathetic arguments, which will not give you any intelligence or USEFULL knowledge. The internet is full of unresoucful sources and Teenage punks who have nothing better to do and think they are Superior in knowledge, so they can hide behind a computer and debate over the dumbest things. I really hope some of you see the light. Cant say i didnt try, and this is the last and only time i will try and communicate with someone i cant even meet, and who are probably some nerd who hates life and has no friends. Good day.
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 4:25 PM on March 26, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Intelligent Design(has many definitions) but usually refers to a conscious or being that has intelligence and has inputed laws(like the laws of physics or nature), created a system in which DNA would evolve, phenomena, and create a very complex world. "

Sorry, but most people who know what "God" means, know that it is an intelligent creator of a world or something of higher being that has designed the cosmos. Geeze, i wonder what ID means.


That is exactly my point. You have failed to show a difference between the two.

Second. This whole forum is messed up. Its not Creationism vs evolution. ITs CREATIONISM VS EVOLUTION THEORY. Sorry children, but there is a difference


No one here made the title of the forum. Complain to the admins, not us.

Most people who use ID, are not religious, but are non-religous people who believe in a higher force. Sorry, but just because some christians stole the name, which has been used long before, and they put a bad spin on it, doesnt mean everyone who believes in God or ID is on the same team.


I would seriously like to see your numbers on this one. The vast majority (I mean vast) of ID’ists are indeed Christian, and that makes them religious. For every non-religious website you find in support of ID, I’ll find ten more with direct religious ties.


Brother, your shooting your self in the foot and you address me with a pathetic comment. You have proven that you and the rest have no idea what your debating about. Are completly igorant about the term "GOD" and the term "ID". You dont even know the difference between Evolution and Evolution theory, which are two completly different things.


Please quote the passages in which any of us have misused “evolution” in place of “evolution theory.”

(Or at least the person who created this site for Ranting adolescents, doesnt get the politically correct way. They must think evolution has only to do with Natural selection..WRONG)


Evolution is more often than not the abbreviated form of the “Theory of Evolution,” which indeed involves the words “natural selection.” The “evolution” referred to in this context is the same one. I’m sure even the admins who came up with the forum name were knowledgeable of the fact that “evolution” has several definitions in the English dictionary.

Read this thread please, honestly, read it then look at the title. about 90% of this thread has nothing to do with the flaws of ID, but are about HUMAN and ANIMAL anatomy. ID doesnt have to do with the fact that you broke your arm, and therefor ID is false because everything isnt perfect or because you "think" you could create a better world...sure...you try and learn computer programming and create a perfect video game, with AI and make them all happy, and never ignorant of what they are or never let anything bad happen to them... Why not just take away chaos and free will, what a great world that would be.


If evidence of perfection can support ID, as all ID’ists (including you) allege, evidence of imperfection can therefore falsify ID.

If anyone is making theirselves look like idiots, it is you, Entwickeln and the rest of the people debating about something entirely different than what the thread is suppose to be about.


Oh dear. It appears the Master of Maturity has finally reared his horse. Only a matter of time until he steps down to Earth now, surely…

Im terribly sorry my child, but God is not synonymous with Jesus or "God but with a different name" which im guessing your implying that i believe ID has something to do with a God from a religion.


Your guess is incorrect. Thank you.

Contrary to what you may believe that when people talk about God, that they are automatically talking about Religion, because this is not the Case(Though i swear, you talk to an athiest about God, and they automatically think your a religious nut, or that you love Jesus or something...NOT the CASE!)


Please quote the passages where I equate all mention of “God” to religion.

I have practiced Buddhism for a while, and let me tell you one thing, ITS A RELIGION. There IS NO GOD in Buddhism. NOT all Religion has to do with ID OR GOD.


Please quote the passages where I equate all mention of “religion” with God.


Entwick, try evolving your brain for once. Try and quote me correctly and explain what your saying instead of giving a dumb answer that doesnt make any sense.


The fact is that you worded your argument very poorly and contradicted your own claims. You said:

“You dont know what God is, and if your some religious nut, you have little evidence to back up anything but some book. God doesnt show Itself in writing. God shows itself in nature. Look around. Do you Really think all the things around you in your room, outside, and beyond just happened out of nothing and FOR nothing?”

All entirely religious sentiment, which you rave against in the first place.

Either way, you can respond with any immature, irrational and misleading comments here after, because i only created this name and posted this to set things right because most of you have no idea what your talking about. I will not post anything else.


Goodbye. Your superiority complex won’t be missed.

Cant say i didnt try, and this is the last and only time i will try and communicate with someone i cant even meet, and who are probably some nerd who hates life and has no friends. Good day.


Oh yes, that’s me. I’m just a loser mock trial champion. You got me.





-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 12:09 AM on March 27, 2007 | IP
Bombardier-Beetle

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

All I have to say about defects is INCEST!! The 100% cause.

We are not here to live forever something has to kill us anyway.



 


Posts: 7 | Posted: 4:24 PM on October 3, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

All I have to say about defects is INCEST!! The 100% cause.

ridiculous!  Can you support this ludicrous claim?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:59 PM on October 3, 2007 | IP
mrlittleguy

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Responding to the original topic (sorry if i'm repeating anything, the topic is very interesting, but very long, so I only skimmed over the replys...)

Barring supernatural interference, all humans die, whether it be at birth or 100 years later. This seems obvious evidence that human beings are not "perfect"; you don't need a list to prove that.

According to a literal translation of the Bible, Adam and Eve were created perfectly. Since death was a consequence of eating from the tree of knowledge, it can be assumed that had they not eaten from it, they would never have died. I would imply from this that their bodies would never have decayed, and that the body could repair any small problems that arose. I realise there may be different ideas about a "perfect" human, but I think a human body that never dies or decays is a good definition.

Someone mentioned that if we were created perfectly, we would never have sinned. I would say that sinning has nothing to do with the physical body. We were created with free will, which meant we had the option to sin if we so chose. The normal analogy is that if we didn't have free will, we would be like robots. In the modern world, free will is typically considered a good thing.

When Adam and Eve ate the fruit, sinned, disobeyed God, yielded to Lucifer, that's when things started decaying. They rebelled against god, giving Lucifer power over them.

I can't do justice to the "why there is suffering" question, but it comes down to us having rebelled against god.

EDIT: Sorry to bring up a year-old topic, I got to it from a search engine and didn't realize the dates.

(Edited by mrlittleguy 4/18/2008 at 11:43 AM).
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 1:58 PM on April 17, 2008 | IP
lpdm

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

what do you beleive in if not creationism like me????


-------
I'm always right,...... except when I'm wrong.
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 09:20 AM on April 18, 2008 | IP
lpdm

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If it's the Big Bang crap I don't find any proof that it happened. evolution cannot be proven and you evolutionists think that everything happened by accident. whatever you cannot deny what I say >


-------
I'm always right,...... except when I'm wrong.
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 09:27 AM on April 18, 2008 | IP
lpdm

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from fredguff at 10:51 AM on October 13, 2006 :
The Flawed Human Eye

The human eye has some obvious design flaws most notably of which are the placement of the optical nerve fibers.  In humans and all other chordates the nerve fibers from the retinal cones and rods extend outward towards the chamber of the eye and source of light instead of inward towards the brain. The nerve fibes collect into a bundle, the optic nerve, inside the eye, and exit through a hole in the retina. Not only is light lost from having to pass through the array of nerve fibers and ganglia (especially the blood vessels that serve the optic nerve) but the eye is also blind where the optic nerve exits through its hole. Additionally, this jury-rigged system makes the vertebrate eye way more vulnerable to the problem of a detached retina than it would be if the nerve fibers formed the optic nerve behind the retina. To add insult to injury, the latter, more functionally sound arrangement is exactly what is found in the eye of an octopus and other cephalopods.



Whatever God wants to do he does he didn't have to make us perfect. In fact we don't really deserve it.


-------
I'm always right,...... except when I'm wrong.
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 09:30 AM on April 18, 2008 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If it's the Big Bang crap I don't find any proof that it happened. evolution cannot be proven and you evolutionists think that everything happened by accident. whatever you cannot deny what I say >


First of all, what proof do you have that disproves the Big Band and evolution?  Without providing some reasonable counter arguements your words carry no weight.  

Evolution doesn't happen just by accident.  Although I would certainly agree that there is a large measure of chance involved in what path it takes.  

Let me elaborate.  Given a planet with the same conditions as existed on the early earth, I would suspect that life would have a good chance of beginning.  Given that, evolution will occur.  Now, whether that evolutionary path leads to an intelligent species capable of rational thought (such as homo sapiens) is largely given to chance.  But since we don't have any other life-inhabiting planets to compare ours to, that last statement would have to speculative.  But, nevertheless, I would say it's a reasonable assumption to make.

Am I saying that Homo sapiens is here by accident and luck?  Yes, that does seem to be the case.  Is evolution an accident?  No.  Given the right conditions for life to appear, evolution will follow.  But what path it takes is largely a matter of chance and circumstance.

That's not a pretty picture for someone who wants to believe in the Bible, or even for those who want to believe that we were put here for a purpose by God.

But that's where the evidence points to.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 4:21 PM on April 18, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from lpdm at 08:27 AM on April 18, 2008 :
If it's the Big Bang crap I don't find any proof that it happened.


Where did you look?  Honestly.





-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 7:57 PM on April 18, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

According to a literal translation of the Bible, Adam and Eve were created
perfectly.


Were they really human beings like us then?  I mean, our very physical nature is imperfect.  Our upright posture is a poor modification of a quadruped and because of this we suffer from mumerous back problems.  Our airway combines with our throats so the danger of choking is always present.  So if Adam and Eve were human like us, before they sinned, they were NOT perfect physically.

I realise there may be different ideas about a "perfect" human, but I think a human body that never dies or decays is a good
definition.


So it was a magical body!  That explains everything!  God did it!  

Someone mentioned that if we were created perfectly, we would never have sinned. I would say that sinning has nothing to do with the physical body.

What did Adam and Eve's physical body look like?  If it was the same as ours, it couldn't have been perfect (unless it was magical).


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:37 PM on April 20, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from lpdm at 09:27 AM on April 18, 2008 :
If it's the Big Bang crap I don't find any proof that it happened. evolution cannot be proven and you evolutionists think that everything happened by accident. whatever you cannot deny what I say >


Simply because you do not wish to find any proof. You're not here to debate the issue, find facts, research or educate yourself. You're just here to rant.

 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 12:05 AM on April 22, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If it's the Big Bang crap I don't find any proof that it happened. evolution cannot be proven and you evolutionists think that everything happened by accident. whatever you cannot deny what I say >

Could you show us where any scientist says everything happens by accident....  This is a common creationist falsehood, evolution doesn't happen by accident and only those who don't know what they're talking about make this claim.  So, back up your statement or withdraw it!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:48 AM on April 22, 2008 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There is only one flaw in the human body, the human body can be damaged, and when it does it creates pain that prevent the body from continuing in situation that it is necessary for the body to continue.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 02:41 AM on April 27, 2008 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.