Reborn Outcast Posted February 2, 2003 Share Posted February 2, 2003 Originally posted by C'jais Why would it do this? You haven't explained why, yet. Stop making the assertion that a day in the Bible context is meant to be a single unit of time. A day meant time has passed. Genesis 1:3 And God siad, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he seperated the light from darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness He called 'night." AND THERE WAS EVENING, AND THERE WAS MORNING - THE FIRST DAY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted February 2, 2003 Share Posted February 2, 2003 Originally posted by Reborn Outcast Genesis 1:3 And God siad, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he seperated the light from darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness He called 'night." AND THERE WAS EVENING, AND THERE WAS MORNING - THE FIRST DAY Night and day are relatives. To the Inuits, half the year is one big day, and the other half is one big night. It's flat out impossible to state that "When there's light, it's day - when there's darkness it's night". To God, whom I assume hovers in orbit of Earth, there'd be no night and day. To the Inuits, it'd make no sense to speak of night and day since their days and nights are pretty damned long to say the least. There's always light as long as the stars are here, and there's always darkness as long as something blocks that light. Which means the concepts of day and night are as relative as they can possibly get. Just as God can't label "Light is good", because light actually kills certain lifeforms, and oxygen is toxic to others as well. Conclusion: Either God is an abstract invented by tribespeople, or He seriously has no clue WTF he was talking about at that time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pnut_Man Posted February 2, 2003 Share Posted February 2, 2003 No offense to you C'jais, but do you find discussing "God" comical? You say you assume he hovers above the Earth in Orbit, that sounds like a joke. I have a few friends who are athiests, we argue alot, I know the deal..just wondering.. And um, what do you mean by God has no clue as to what he is talking about? Do you mean the people who wrote that section of the Genesis have no clue what they're talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted February 2, 2003 Share Posted February 2, 2003 Originally posted by Pnut_Master No offense to you C'jais, but do you find discussing "God" comical? You say you assume he hovers above the Earth in Orbit, that sounds like a joke. I meant it in all seriousness. Where else would he be? Hiding in the grass? And um, what do you mean by God has no clue as to what he is talking about? Do you mean the people who wrote that section of the Genesis have no clue what they're talking about? Read what I just wrote one more time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master_Keralys Posted February 2, 2003 Author Share Posted February 2, 2003 Cjais, you're still missing the point of this. We respect your belief that evolution is true. It is a belief, because you simply cannot prove that humans evolved from amoebas. I think we can all agree on that, right? And you still haven't explained irreducible complexity. Next point: If there is a design, a very carefully crafted universe that is, by all appeareance, specifically engineered to support life. Now, take into account things like the known fact that the Big Bang, however, whenever it happened, had happened at a rate less than one percent faster than it did - we wouldn't be here. The universe would have expanded to fast for anything to ever form from gravity and the like; motion would have simply been too great. Less than one percent slower, and we wouldn't be here either: the universe would have collapsed back in on itself almost instantaneously. And there are thousands of other variables just as critical to the existence of any life - much less life as fragile as that of humanity. That's called the anthropic principle, and everyone knows it exists - not just Christians. So what we ultimately come down to is that, regardless of how God created us, He clearly did. I personally cannot see that you've proved evolution more than anything else. Isometric dating is reliable in that it agrees with what we want it to. And those "dating constructs" you're so fond of referring to aren't just constructs. Remember the hoaxes - the ones that they dated as being thousands, some of them millions of years old - and proved to be wrong. Those weren't Christians trying to disprove anything; those were evolutionists trying to date what they thought was a real fossil. So how is it that when Christians do it, it is a giant conspiracy, but when evolutionist scientists get crazy dates, it's just a mistake in the dating sytem that one, random time? Unless we invent a time machine (which is extraordinarily improbable), we cannot know conclusively either way. It still comes down to what you believe. I happen to beleive that Genesis is right; you can't prove it's not. Just as I cannot conclusively prove you wrong. Which is where this went wrong; it should have been a rational debate and instead has turned into a mud-throwing argument. If we are going to continue, let's do it right. No more "get the **** out". Which I know most of us haven't done, but you get the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RpTheHotrod Posted February 2, 2003 Share Posted February 2, 2003 I'm trying REEALY hard not to think of yourself as stupid here. I'm not saying the BIble proves itself...I'm SAYING, since you are taking the scripture and saying a day was a million years, since YOU ARE TAKING THE SCRIPTURE, THE SCRIPTURE IS SAYING the evening and the morning which means an actual DAY. Now you will say "but a day could be one FRILLION GAZILLION years" but since you are working with your "infallible" science, it is IMPOSSIBLE for the eart to have a "frillion gazillion years" day...because how do we have days? The earth orbits the sun, correct? Now....if a day lasted 43769269247643786034986734076892470689402376734890670238496743843753482596564642123421651074523745753806723769743689734967354967849367590837402896740389679437634768342672231233612125214356426754628754697423896723406734126873754628754697423896723406734126873678496789376138967849036784967823769743689734967354967849367590837402896740389679437634768342675462875469742389672340673412687367849678 hours of standing still....don't you think the earth is going to be screwed up, and pulled into the sun by gravity? What keeps the earth from getting pulled in, that's right, the ORBIT......having days and nights! I'm saying, according to ITSELF (The Bible), since you are taking something from it and saying something about it, the 6 days it took to created was.... SIX days. man..I don't get why it's so hard to understand such elementary concepts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted February 2, 2003 Share Posted February 2, 2003 Originally posted by Master_Keralys It is a belief, because you simply cannot prove that humans evolved from amoebas. I think we can all agree on that, right? I can prove we descended from a common ancestor to apes. I can prove all life didn't exist simultaneusly at one point in history. I can prove evolution happens on a daily basis right now. I can prove the earliest forms of life were very primitive and gradually evolved to the currents forms. Now, take into account things like the known fact that the Big Bang, however, whenever it happened, had happened at a rate less than one percent faster than it did - we wouldn't be here. The universe would have expanded to fast for anything to ever form from gravity and the like; motion would have simply been too great. Less than one percent slower, and we wouldn't be here either: the universe would have collapsed back in on itself almost instantaneously. And there are thousands of other variables just as critical to the existence of any life - much less life as fragile as that of humanity. That's called the anthropic principle, and everyone knows it exists - not just Christians. What is this meant to prove? That the chance that we're here is very slim indeed? I agree on that. Give me a link to the site you got this from. Isometric dating is reliable in that it agrees with what we want it to. It obviously does not. You think scientists are specifically "crafting" the numbers they get? That they invent the results? And those "dating constructs" you're so fond of referring to aren't just constructs. Why don't you show me one that isn't. Show me one I haven't refuted by now. Remember the hoaxes - the ones that they dated as being thousands, some of them millions of years old - and proved to be wrong. Such talk again. Similar to "the fact" that human footprints are found alongside dinosaur ones? These footprints never happened - it's a myth. but when evolutionist scientists get crazy dates, it's just a mistake in the dating sytem that one, random time? Yet it obviously is, when it's possible to date with several different methods and achieve the same result. And not just radioactive dating methods, glacial and wood dating gives the same result. Fantastic. What's even more remarkable, is that it's possible to predict the results that these several different dating methods spit out, based on which layer and where it was found. So state once again with certainty that these one-time occurances somehow invalidates the entire principle of isotope dating. Which is where this went wrong; it should have been a rational debate and instead has turned into a mud-throwing argument. If we are going to continue, let's do it right. No more "get the **** out". Which I know most of us haven't done, but you get the point. And while you're still whining how this debate is going down the drain with each post you make, I'm trying hard to get it back on track. Why don't you present some positive proof of the Genesis, and get to work on the questions I still need answered (some posts back). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted February 2, 2003 Share Posted February 2, 2003 Originally posted by RpTheHotrod I'm trying REEALY hard not to think of yourself as stupid here. Thank you. And I'm trying reeeeally hard not to think of you as deliberately trying to steer away from my unanswered questions and logic. I'm not saying the BIble proves itself...I'm SAYING, since you are taking the scripture and saying a day was a million years Stop right there. I never said that. I said the exact opposite. Very well, continue if you must. the evening and the morning which means an actual DAY. And by stating this, you also claim that the years on the poles consists of fewer days than ours, since winter is one long night where the sun never rises, and the summer is one long day where it never sets. Now you will say "but a day could be one FRILLION GAZILLION years" Hold on. I never said that either. I'm now stating once again that I said the exact opposite, but since you're so convinced, quote me. Now....if a day lasted [Humongous number edited out] hours of standing still....don't you think the earth is going to be screwed up, and pulled into the sun by gravity? Ahh - I think I get it now. So when I said that Inuits and whatnot have days that last longer than we've ever experienced outself, you assumed I meant the earth was standing still. Am I right? Clearly, your understanding of basic astronomy fails you here, as you don't even know what causes days and nights, and how they're completely dependant on where you are on the earth. I'm saying, according to ITSELF (The Bible), since you are taking something from it and saying something about it I am taking something from it and saying something about it? Errr.... And why does this make me open to illogical attacks on my intelligence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RpTheHotrod Posted February 2, 2003 Share Posted February 2, 2003 You said "No, the Bible cannot prove itself." and now you just said "Stop right there. I never said that. I said the exact opposite." You're changing what you say. Make up your mind already What causes our "evening and mornings"? The orbit around the sun. Sun goes up, sun goes down, sun goes up, sun goes down. Now, if the Bible's "day" was a million years, the earth would have to had STOPPED turning (well, xtremely slowed down, without any change noticable except for maybe a few feet per 5,000 years?)...but it showes in itself the day was in fact, a day by showing and evening and the morning. Go outside, look at the sun go up, look at the sun go down...it doesn't change. Now, if the sun were to go up, and stay up for the rest of yoru life...well...you're life wouldn't be that long because in order for the sun to stay in "position", the earth would actually stop rotating totally. Could you imagine what would happen to the earth if that happened for even a few months (ignoring the fact that gravity would drag the earth away first)? The light side would be scorched, and the dark side would have no sunlight and die off....so saying "evening and the morning" was a million years is out of the question. Re-cap...what makes an evening and the morning? The earth rotating and orbiting around the sun. True, some evenings and mornings may LOOK different than other places on the earth, but they still have the same evening and morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted February 2, 2003 Share Posted February 2, 2003 Originally posted by RpTheHotrod You said "No, the Bible cannot prove itself." and now you just said "Stop right there. I never said that. I said the exact opposite." You're changing what you say. Make up your mind already Ooooh... quoting out of context - how I just love that. No. I said the Bible could not prove itself, because that'd be circular reasoning. And now I'm saying you quoted me out of context (more than once) with regards to me saying the days should be taken for years. Now, I understand the rest of what you posted, but as I said before, it makes no sense to see the "days" as literal days. When I said it should be taken as a period of time having passed, I meant it. Let's see - how would a few tribespeople try to condense the history of the world as they knew it into laymen's terms? By writing -"A few days passed and God made the animals." How on earth could you get the idea that it meant literal days? That's nonsense, much as you can see it's equally moronic if I write "3 days passed and I made all the killer whales on earth. Then, 5 days after that, I made all the water on the planet for them to live in". If people start believing in that horsedung, they should get a psychic treatment, fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RpTheHotrod Posted February 2, 2003 Share Posted February 2, 2003 because it said "and the evening and the morning were the first day" the earth doesn't suddenly speed or nor slow down "everyonce in awhile" If it just said "It was the first day", I understand what you're saying, but it gives you a window of time...an evening and a morning. An evening and a morning doesn't change. It may look different at differnt parts of the world, but it does not change. The earth simply could not survive with pure darkness / pure light over a long period of time. Put it this way, do you actually think a morning is a week long? Btw, in the Biblical times, people were quite intelligent, they weren't "cavemen", as some people think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted February 2, 2003 Share Posted February 2, 2003 Originally posted by RpTheHotrod The earth simply could not survive with pure darkness / pure light over a long period of time. Put it this way, do you actually think a morning is a week long? Go live on the North Pole for a year. Btw, in the Biblical times, people were quite intelligent, they weren't "cavemen", as some people think. I never said cavemen - I said tribespeople. Tribespeople who couldn't fathom the idea that the earth was bigger than they could see. People who thought the earth was flat, because they had no way to tell otherwise. I'd be stupid living in that age as well, not having modern science at my disposal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reborn Outcast Posted February 2, 2003 Share Posted February 2, 2003 Originally posted by C'jais Go live on the North Pole for a year. And notice that the North Pole is what... wait... its all ice? What no life can live there on its own without bringing thousands of pounds of gas for heat? Hmmm... Originally posted by C'jais I never said cavemen - I said tribespeople. Tribespeople who couldn't fathom the idea that the earth was bigger than they could see. People who thought the earth was flat, because they had no way to tell otherwise. I'd be stupid living in that age as well, not having modern science at my disposal. Umm C'jais, technically, everyone in the world right now fits in as a tribesmen. Does that make us stupid? I think not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted February 2, 2003 Share Posted February 2, 2003 Evidence the creator of all life wasn't very "Intelligent" at all: First off, why oh why did he make something as malevolent as viruses and HIV and not even tell the people at that time in the Bible? Better yet, why didn't he tell him that HIV would evolve thousands of years after their time? Human embryos have tails and gill slits. Why would a creator make them this peculiar way? Why do we have vestigial, but non-functioning remains of tails? Why does the hair at the back of our necks stand up when we're scared, similar to other fur-covered animals? Cats and dogs use it as a warning sign of aggresion, but on us, it's completely useless in that regard. Wisdom teeth. Why would a creator give us more teeth than could fit in our jaw? Our little toes. They're useless. We don't use them in walking, and if we lost them, they wouldn't hinder our mobility in any way. Kids notice right away that monkeys really have four hands . A fifth digit is pretty useful if you're scrambling through branches (and secondarily manipulating objects). Our little fingers are truly useful and probably in no danger of disappearing. But we quit climbing in trees with our rear "hands" and they became feet - which explains why they have useless fifth digits. Ever notice the thing hanging down your dog's, cat's or tiger's leg? It's called a dewclaw, and is completely useless, much as our little toes. In fact, it's sometimes so much in the way that it's removed. What could it possibly mean except a useless fifth toe in the process of being naturally selected out, and getting smaller and smaller to the point where it won't even be there anymore? We have five fingers. So do all other mammals. Curious. All other mammals have five digits per limb, or the vestigial remains thereof, or we can trace the gradual shrinkage and loss of digits through the fossil record (as with horses). But the principle remains: Mammals have five digits- even when there's no good reason. Why should whales have the bones of exactly five digits buried in their flippers? Why should bats have wings seeming awkwardly stretched over exactly five fingers? Same old song: the commonality of five digits among the mammal family makes sense only if we are all descendants of a five-digited ancestor. Why do snakes have useless remains of hips? If hemoglobin were designed by God, it was designed to have far too much affinity for carbon monoxide. This great affinity has resulted in countless deaths. Carbon monoxide is a colorless and odorless gas. This is, if anything, an even nastier bit of "design." At the very least, carbon monoxide could have been given a smell to help warn us (unless the Designer was constrained by the laws of chemistry--surely no impediment). It remains one of life’s traps for the unwary, with its victims often being infants in poorly ventilated winter homes. Or perhaps it is just one of evolution’s quirks, a chance attraction which natural selection has not eliminated because there is too little selection pressure against it. Evolution can play seemingly malicious tricks (think about it: the possibility of carbon monoxide poisoning is such a recent development in our evolutionary history that we have acquired no ability to detect it), but could a Perfect Designer? Why do dolphins have genes that code for smell receptors? They have no noses, they cannot smell. Perhaps they were once descendants of a land-living species that returned to the sea? Why do we need to have vitamin C in our diet when dogs can make it themselves? Surely God could have done the same for humans. The Plantaris muscle. In the monkey it is a useful muscle which causes all the digits to flex at once, and thus is useful in swinging from trees by the feet. In the human it is atrophied, may be absent, and does not even reach the toes, but disappears into the Achilles tendon. There is no sensible reason for its existence in the human, except a common ancestry with monkeys. Now, get to work and answer this. Just some of it, though. I can always give you more if you're interested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted February 2, 2003 Share Posted February 2, 2003 Originally posted by Reborn Outcast And notice that the North Pole is what... wait... its all ice? What no life can live there on its own without bringing thousands of pounds of gas for heat? Hmmm... Try Greenland instead. The same day-night dilemma, slightly better living conditions. People have lived on Greenland for thousands of years now. They don't need gas to survive. Umm C'jais, technically, everyone in the world right now fits in as a tribesmen. Does that make us stupid? I think not. Technically, you haven't presented any logical inference that we fit in as tribesmen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pnut_Man Posted February 2, 2003 Share Posted February 2, 2003 I've gotta admit C'jais, the "Evidence the creator of all life wasn't very "Intelligent" at all" post had alot of nice information.. How it proves that the "Creator of all life" isn't intelligent is beyond me. I see that post as a great way to prove that evolution is a fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted February 2, 2003 Share Posted February 2, 2003 Originally posted by Pnut_Master I see that post as a great way to prove that evolution is a fact. Thank you. I remember now, you're one of the cool Christians - one of those who feel evolution doesn't invalidate or violate the concept of God and the Bible, right? All the more power to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reborn Outcast Posted February 2, 2003 Share Posted February 2, 2003 Originally posted by C'jais Technically, you haven't presented any logical inference that we fit in as tribesmen. Here is the definition for tribe: 1. A unit of sociopolitical organization consisting of a number of families, clans, or other groups who share a common ancestry and culture and among whom leadership is typically neither formalized nor permanent. 2. A political, ethnic, or ancestral division of ancient states and cultures, especially: Any of the three divisions of the ancient Romans, namely, the Latin, Sabine, and Etruscan. Any of the 12 divisions of ancient Israel. A phyle of ancient Greece. 3. A group of people sharing an occupation, interest, or habit: a tribe of graduate students. 4. Informal. A large family. Sounds a lot like humans nowadays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted February 2, 2003 Share Posted February 2, 2003 Originally posted by Reborn Outcast Sounds a lot like humans nowadays. That's abusing the word. The point is not that they were tribespeople dammit - the point I was desperately trying to make is that they were ignorant compared to us. No way around it. And FFS, stop practicing these linguistic acrobatics - how would you feel if I blatantly ignored the point of your post and blasted your out-of-context quotes to hell and back for not making it clear enough, when I knew full well that I got it? Gah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pnut_Man Posted February 2, 2003 Share Posted February 2, 2003 Unforunately it seems as if this thread has gone way off topic The name of this thread: "History of the Universe" is so freaking vague, was it meant to be that way O_o? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted February 2, 2003 Share Posted February 2, 2003 Originally posted by Pnut_Master Unforunately it seems as if this thread has gone way off topic The name of this thread: "History of the Universe" is so freaking vague, was it meant to be that way O_o? The title is vague, yes, but I think people have got the gist of what it's about now It's not off topic yet, but certain people are working their way towards it. I've presented two minor Redwings of unrefuted facts and evidence. I'm willing to go on with this, if we drag the topic back to refuting theories instead of arguing about the oh-so-apparent uselesness of this thread and how none of us are going to win. Come on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RpTheHotrod Posted February 2, 2003 Share Posted February 2, 2003 I never said that you called them cavemen...there you go again, picking up stuff that isnt there and discussing it. Why did He do all of that? Because He can? Why do I like vanilla coke, and I like Cherry Dr. Pepper, but I don't like Cherry Coke that much, and I hate Vanilla Dr Pepper? Makes no sense to you maybe, but I do it. Nothing you stated proved or disproved anything, and according to what that other person said (no me), it's spam. actually, it was quite pointless to post all of that. yes, look at the north/south pole...I don't see a massive civilizaton or anything up there. Quite cold, ice. I don't see why you're trying to prove my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted February 2, 2003 Share Posted February 2, 2003 Originally posted by RpTheHotrod Nothing you stated proved or disproved anything, and according to what that other person said (no me), it's spam. actually, it was quite pointless to post all of that. It's evidence of evolution. Powerful evidence, since the best you can come up with, is the tired old "God did it because he could". Since you don't think this disproves an "Intelligent" creator, go ahead and tell me why it is not evidence of evolution. yes, look at the north/south pole...I don't see a massive civilizaton or anything up there. Quite cold, ice. I don't see why you're trying to prove my point. Not a massive civilization, but the point is there people up there. And that the concepts of night and day has a completely different meaning to them than to those who apparently got the message from God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psydan Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 You asked for answers, well here are some... Originally posted by C'jais Evidence the creator of all life wasn't very "Intelligent" at all: [...] Why do we have vestigial, but non-functioning remains of tails? Well, if you look at any good anatomy book, you'll notice that there IS a purpose for these "non-functioning remains of tails". The "tailbone" has many important muscles attached to it that allow such things as going to the bathroom and giving birth, and we kind of need those things, so I'm guessing it's good that we have them.(Don't ask for a website, I got this out of my Bio book and from my Bio teacher) Originally posted by C'jais [...] Why do dolphins have genes that code for smell receptors? They have no noses, they cannot smell. Perhaps they were once descendants of a land-living species that returned to the sea? [/b] YEAH!!! That makes perfect sense!!! All of the land mammals just jumped into the water, and those that didn't drown decided that it was a good place to live, so they sprouted fins, (like all animals are able to do if they wish really hard) and changed into dolphins! That sounds plausible, and a lot more likely than God (I'm being sarcastic, so don't quote me on this!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RpTheHotrod Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 Originally posted by C'jais Evidence the creator of all life wasn't very "Intelligent" at all: First off, why oh why did he make something as malevolent as viruses and HIV and not even tell the people at that time in the Bible? Better yet, why didn't he tell him that HIV would evolve thousands of years after their time? Human embryos have tails and gill slits. Why would a creator make them this peculiar way? Why do we have vestigial, but non-functioning remains of tails? Why does the hair at the back of our necks stand up when we're scared, similar to other fur-covered animals? Cats and dogs use it as a warning sign of aggresion, but on us, it's completely useless in that regard. Wisdom teeth. Why would a creator give us more teeth than could fit in our jaw? Our little toes. They're useless. We don't use them in walking, and if we lost them, they wouldn't hinder our mobility in any way. Kids notice right away that monkeys really have four hands . A fifth digit is pretty useful if you're scrambling through branches (and secondarily manipulating objects). Our little fingers are truly useful and probably in no danger of disappearing. But we quit climbing in trees with our rear "hands" and they became feet - which explains why they have useless fifth digits. Ever notice the thing hanging down your dog's, cat's or tiger's leg? It's called a dewclaw, and is completely useless, much as our little toes. In fact, it's sometimes so much in the way that it's removed. What could it possibly mean except a useless fifth toe in the process of being naturally selected out, and getting smaller and smaller to the point where it won't even be there anymore? We have five fingers. So do all other mammals. Curious. All other mammals have five digits per limb, or the vestigial remains thereof, or we can trace the gradual shrinkage and loss of digits through the fossil record (as with horses). But the principle remains: Mammals have five digits- even when there's no good reason. Why should whales have the bones of exactly five digits buried in their flippers? Why should bats have wings seeming awkwardly stretched over exactly five fingers? Same old song: the commonality of five digits among the mammal family makes sense only if we are all descendants of a five-digited ancestor. Why do snakes have useless remains of hips? If hemoglobin were designed by God, it was designed to have far too much affinity for carbon monoxide. This great affinity has resulted in countless deaths. Carbon monoxide is a colorless and odorless gas. This is, if anything, an even nastier bit of "design." At the very least, carbon monoxide could have been given a smell to help warn us (unless the Designer was constrained by the laws of chemistry--surely no impediment). It remains one of life’s traps for the unwary, with its victims often being infants in poorly ventilated winter homes. Or perhaps it is just one of evolution’s quirks, a chance attraction which natural selection has not eliminated because there is too little selection pressure against it. Evolution can play seemingly malicious tricks (think about it: the possibility of carbon monoxide poisoning is such a recent development in our evolutionary history that we have acquired no ability to detect it), but could a Perfect Designer? Why do dolphins have genes that code for smell receptors? They have no noses, they cannot smell. Perhaps they were once descendants of a land-living species that returned to the sea? Why do we need to have vitamin C in our diet when dogs can make it themselves? Surely God could have done the same for humans. The Plantaris muscle. In the monkey it is a useful muscle which causes all the digits to flex at once, and thus is useful in swinging from trees by the feet. In the human it is atrophied, may be absent, and does not even reach the toes, but disappears into the Achilles tendon. There is no sensible reason for its existence in the human, except a common ancestry with monkeys. Now, get to work and answer this. Just some of it, though. I can always give you more if you're interested. You just said all of that is powerful evidence... Those are questions, not evidence. There you go again stating things that simply arn't true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.