Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - God's single greatest creation (Pornstars aside)

oldtimer · 06-29-2003, 05:27 PM

Earlier, when I stated that some body parts were useless. I meant to phrase that another way but could not formulate one in my mind. But it surely wasn't my intention to go against an "intelligent" designer, who in my eyes is not necessarily of flesh and bone. What I did mean to say rather than useless was unique. (But by this age's standards still remain useless) Given, these body parts had a function at one time, or as you said were apart of the genetic code and could not be shaken. Onto the smaller things, fingernails, who could say they were <b>supposed</b> to be used for removing ticks and parasites? Surely someone would have to create <b>them</b> for fingernails to be of use. Also when I was talking about noses, I could've used anything as an example but it seemed easier to me. I was trying to point out that in our construction, Why were we not shaped differently? These parts could have been put in numerous places and still worked just as fine. Your not looking at what I say hard enough. Two eyes, ok for the obvious reason of 2-D, yes, but, have you taken spiders into account? Trying to stay with my topic, they have numerous eyes, 8, if memory serves me right. So does this not grant the spider with better vision? Wouldn't two eyes in the front of our head and two in the back be more "advantageous"? You see you can't rule out what I say simply because it has never been experienced before, so there is room to say that it could be beneficial. Pretty much every creature on this planet was some kind of "experiment" until perfection was acheived with humans. Yet each still have their special ability to fly (Birds), swim (Fish), burrow (Moles)... it goes on. But then again someone would just say that is a creature adapting to its environment over enough time. Not in all cases...but some.

06-29-2003, 05:27 PM	#45 (permalink)
oldtimer Addict	Earlier, when I stated that some body parts were useless. I meant to phrase that another way but could not formulate one in my mind. But it surely wasn't my intention to go against an "intelligent" designer, who in my eyes is not necessarily of flesh and bone. What I did mean to say rather than useless was unique. (But by this age's standards still remain useless) Given, these body parts had a function at one time, or as you said were apart of the genetic code and could not be shaken. Onto the smaller things, fingernails, who could say they were <b>supposed</b> to be used for removing ticks and parasites? Surely someone would have to create <b>them</b> for fingernails to be of use. Also when I was talking about noses, I could've used anything as an example but it seemed easier to me. I was trying to point out that in our construction, Why were we not shaped differently? These parts could have been put in numerous places and still worked just as fine. Your not looking at what I say hard enough. Two eyes, ok for the obvious reason of 2-D, yes, but, have you taken spiders into account? Trying to stay with my topic, they have numerous eyes, 8, if memory serves me right. So does this not grant the spider with better vision? Wouldn't two eyes in the front of our head and two in the back be more "advantageous"? You see you can't rule out what I say simply because it has never been experienced before, so there is room to say that it could be beneficial. Pretty much every creature on this planet was some kind of "experiment" until perfection was acheived with humans. Yet each still have their special ability to fly (Birds), swim (Fish), burrow (Moles)... it goes on. But then again someone would just say that is a creature adapting to its environment over enough time. Not in all cases...but some. __________________ Slowly but surely getting over the loss of TFP v. 3.0. Where the hell am I?.... Showering once a month does not make you a better person. "The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy." Martin Luther King, Jr. Last edited by oldtimer; 06-29-2003 at 05:31 PM..