God's single greatest creation (Pornstars aside) - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

CSflim · 06-29-2003, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by oldtimer
Which brings us to back to another question, "Who created God?" or how did the starter of our life (Earth) as well as possibly others come to be? One thing that I have a problem with your "something out of nothing" theory is we were given useless parts to our bodies and some are still unexplainable.

Like the appendix? Surely the fact that we have useless parts of our body would go more aginst an "intelligent" designer? Why would a designer waste time giving us useless features? The appendix is more than likely an evolutionary relic. i.e. it once served a purpose, but no longer does, but it still remains in our genetic code, as it does not harm to us.

Quote:

Nipples. Of course for women to do their duties but why for men? I'm sure if there's an answer it's gene related.

Again, why would an intelligent designer give men nipples? It is actually relitively late on in our embryonic development that our bodies "decide" to be built as male or female. By this stage, the "seed would already have been sewn" for male nipples. It is more effiecient for males and females to be as physically alike as possible in this sense.

Quote:

What about the construction of our bodies period?

Yes what about it?

Quote:

Did we have to have two eyes?

Two eyes always us to percieve depth. With only a single eye we would only see things in two dimensions. We would not be able to tell how far away that hunting tiger is. Surely this is advantageous?

Quote:

Did we have to have 5 fingers?

Why this exact number? Who knows? If we had four would you ask the same question? How about six? Presumably this number is due to an equilibrium found by evolution. Too few, and we would not be dexteretous enough to properly weild tools. Too many, and they would just get in the way.

Quote:

Why do we have fingernails (for a greater purpose than to pick and scratch our body)?

I presume you mean that "picking and scratching our body" is a worthless edeveaur, picturing a lazy fat ass in his underwear in front of the tv. Yet, to primitive man, picking and scratching his body was a very benificial thing. It got rid of ticks and various parasites, and was also a source of food. I would imagine that fingernails are also the remnants of claws, which of course have their obvious advantages. And besides, even to this day fingernails are usefull. They give our finger hard tips.

Quote:

Why is my nose in the center of my face instead of on my forehead? Ridiculous you say! What's normal until you see the first human being?

I fail to see where you are going with this argument. Obviously, what we percieve is normal, is what we see everyday! Surely that is the very definition of normal? Again this is like the five fingers question...even if we did have noses on our foreheads, you could equally likely have asked, why not in the middle of our face? It has to go somewhere. But bear in mind, that we didn't always have "foreheads" as such. The forehead is the result of a larger skull to accomodate a larger brain. there is no advantage to MOVING the nose, to this newly created patch of skin. Where it currently is, is far more useful. It is easier to sniff the ground/anything else, and it is right above our mouths, allowing us to smell things before we decide to eat them (could be very advantageous) plus it is close to the mouth so that it is easier for the two to be connected.

Quote:

So if we saw a human with the characteristics I described you could not deem that impossible soley because if you believe that is impossible then you must believe that "someone" designed you with a picture in mind? Still waiting on the gene/DNA answer though.......

Again, lost in your argument. I don't believe anyone designed me with a picture in mind.

Conclamo Ludus · 06-29-2003, 03:42 PM

Free Will for sure. At least the illusion of it.

CSflim · 06-29-2003, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by oldtimer
It's true I don't always look at things from a scientific approach but my "design" rant was trying to establish that an evolution theory (creation from a single celled ameba to what we have today) is unlikely rather than impossible. I stated in that rant things, not too complex, but things that weren't complex enough in the first place to be considered "complex". I'm sure skin, hair, bone, and "nipples" couldn't have all "evolved" from an ameba. Some refer to this as ignorance but this truly could be beyond comprehension.

"I'm sure skin, hair, bone, and "nipples" couldn't have all "evolved" from an ameba."
How are you so sure of this? The real thing you should say is that you find it difficult to comprend. Me too buddy! But you have to remember the time scale we are dealing with...BILLIONS of years.

To give you an idea, I'll describe a demonstration by Richard Dawkins:

He reaches his arm outstretched to one side.
"From the tip of my nose, down along my arm up my forefinger, to the very tip of my fingernail, represents the life time of our planet"
He then takes a nail file, an flakes a minute dust-like piece off his nail.
"I have now erased all of human history. The great empires of Rome and Greece. The egyptians and their pharoahs. Destroyed all existence of early man"

That is the sort of mind boggling time scale we have to deal with. Which, in my mind, is a lot of the reason why people have such objections to evolution.

Anyway, to address your original question oldtimer, I would point you to the seminal book by Richard Dawkins: The Blind Watchmaker. Its an incredibly well written book. It conveys evolution with amazing clarity (the reason why I have been shameless whoring it on this board), and after reading it, whatever your views are, they certaintly won't be down to ignorance of the facts.

CSflim · 06-29-2003, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CountChocula7
And yo, I ain't a creationist.
Evolution is fine, DNA and genes are the way things work.
But that picture isn't entirely clear or finished yet.
All I'm saying is that you guys don't have the full picture.

I didn't claim that I had a full picture. I will be the first to admit that science doesn't know everything. Hell, there is a hell of a lot that science doesn't know. My point is, that just because we don't know it, doesn't mean its unknowable. And just because something is unknowable, does not mean that there is no explanation exists.

To elaborate: We know that life has evolved over billions of years, from a single celled organism. But where did this single celled organism come from? This is an example of something that we do not know. That's not to say we will never know. There are numerous hypotheses around trying to explain it. I already posted one. (Quantum Evolution)
We also know, that the universe came into existence from the Big Bang. But where did this incredibly dense particle, this singularity, come from? Well, we don't know. There are many hypothesis, many involved with higher dimensional physics, but ultimately we don't really have any idea. But, just because we don't know does not mean that an explanation does not exist.

Quote:

Why in the hell would random molecules start copying themselves?

Check out my above link.

Quote:

You guys have your theories and hypotheses, and they form your religion. You call it the modern scientific viewpoint. But you're no less biased or ignorant as me or anyone else. There are questions that you can't answer, and there are some questions that I can't answer.

Wrong! Science is not a religion. Science is built on the concept of fallibility. Religion is based on infallibility. The most important thing about science, is that when it makes a claim, it has proof. I consists of experiments which are repeatable. Scepticism is one of the most important virtues in science. In Christianity it is a damnable offence (literally). When science says something, it is not expecting you to take it on faith. You can go and recreate the evidence for yourself. You can see the proof with your very own eyes.
A two thousand year old book, full of inconsistent ramblings is not my idea of proof. A nut job running around, ranting on about "visions" is not my idea of proof.

Quote:

And snowflakes are Chaos, aren't they?
Fractals anyone?

Yes, snowflakes, are an example used to explain chaos theory. Under magnification, you can see intricate patterns, made out of the ice particles that make up a snowflake. It is "obvious" that the random jostling of water particles around in a cloud, could not possibly have resulted in such beautiful patterns. It is obvious that snowflakes, were in fact, created.

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 supposed to be used for removing ticks and parasites? Surely someone would have to create them 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.

CSflim · 06-29-2003, 05:48 PM

I mean no offense to you when I say this, but I don't believe that you have a fundamental understanding of the theory of natural selection. Take my advice, and read The Blind Watchmaker.

Your point is, as far as I can tell, basically that we could be built differently. I fully agree with you on that one. But, my question, is how does this prove or disprove evolution?

Man could be improved upon. Yes thats true. Stick a man into a room alongside a tiger, and see who comes out "top of the food chain".

"Pretty much every creature on this planet was some kind of "experiment" until perfection was acheived with humans." - I would really take you up on that statement! Nobody is claiming humans to have reached perfection! In evolutionary terms, no creature that is alive today is "better" than another. I would admit, that humans, are probably the most sucessful creatures at altering the environment to their will.

oldtimer · 06-29-2003, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CSflim
"Pretty much every creature on this planet was some kind of "experiment" until perfection was acheived with humans." - I would really take you up on that statement! Nobody is claiming humans to have reached perfection! In evolutionary terms, no creature that is alive today is "better" than another. I would admit, that humans, are probably the most sucessful creatures at altering the environment to their will.

Exactly! Though I forgot to mention that as humans are deemed the "perfection" of all species, this in my eyes is not true, there are other species far more "intelligent", even if all they do is "sleep, lick their face and shit", often said by others who won't accept a smarter species. Thanks, for following me up on that, and yes, unluckily I do not know everything you do and I will take you up on reading "The Blind Watchmaker". Just trying to make sure you aren't throwing everything out just because it isn't scientifically correct.

To say how a different body structure could disprove evolution (for me) is that the traits I described in my posts say that this could not be done by a single celled organism, alone. Though I have limited understanding of the concept of evolution, I don't see even over billions or millions of years how you can create something as sophistically complex as us, even through all that time arranging and rearranging itself to form a "human".

I take no offense. I can admit I do not know all the answers. But when I propose ideas like these I feel I can stir up good answers if even but for a second.

zfleebin · 06-29-2003, 07:18 PM

I was thinking cheese when I came in here but women are good too. Then there is sliced cheese. HMMM

papermachesatan · 06-29-2003, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by oldtimer
It's true I don't always look at things from a scientific approach but my "design" rant was trying to establish that an evolution theory (creation from a single celled ameba to what we have today) is unlikely rather than impossible. I stated in that rant things, not too complex, but things that weren't complex enough in the first place to be considered "complex". I'm sure skin, hair, bone, and "nipples" couldn't have all "evolved" from an ameba. Some refer to this as ignorance but this truly could be beyond comprehension.

So if there's no easy explanation for how all this formed, there must be no explanation at ALL? That's entirely the product of your ego- because you can't comprehend or explain it, you think no one else can.

It would be impossible for skin, hair, bone, and nipples to evolve from amoeba. However the things that they did evolve from were far from amoebas after millions of years of evolution.

papermachesatan · 06-29-2003, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by oldtimer
To say how a different body structure could disprove evolution (for me) is that the traits I described in my posts say that this could not be done by a single celled organism, alone. Though I have limited understanding of the concept of evolution, I don't see even over billions or millions of years how you can create something as sophistically complex as us, even through all that time arranging and rearranging itself to form a "human".

These one cell organisms randomly developed parts that proved to be very useful. These modified one cell oraganisms survived pretty well so the trait was passed onto future generations. These one cell organisms randomly developed into a multi-cell organism. These modifed one cell organisms survived because they were well equiped. The multi-cell trait was passed on.
continue on and on and then you eventually get us. Existing traits mutated but were useful and remained. These new, jury rigged traits were passed onto future generations:

Quote:

Symptoms of jury-rigged design
Consider the following pieces of evidence supporting the theory that biological organisms are the result of trial and error, jury-rigged, evolutionary design rather than deliberate, "intelligent" design:

We were cobbled together from previous designs. Analysis of the human genome shows that every single piece of our genetic code is either a direct copy of other animals' codes, or a very minor modification upon said codes. Of course, by sheer coincidence, these animals just happen to be the ones that have been identified as our evolutionary precursors.

Dangerous design flaws. Because mammals evolved from the Devonian lungfish (Osteolepiformes) which swallowed air to breathe, we have inherited a respiratory system in which we use the same tube to breathe and swallow. A piece of food lodged in this double-duty windpipe can cause death! In real life engineering, the duplication of a dangerous design flaw from a previous design is considered an example of serious incompetence. In fact, if we imagine that an engineer had designed apes and then separately designed humans, he probably would have lost his license for negligently duplicating a serious, known design flaw!

Poor design aspects. For example, the human eye is wired backwards. Our photoreceptors face the wrong way, so that the side which connects to the nerve fibres is on the inside of the eye rather than the outside. This means that the nerve fibres actually "get in the way", and it also means that the eye has a hole in the back, through which these fibres must be bundled and passed through in order to reach the brain! This design increases the length of wiring for no good reason, decreases visual acuity, and creates a blind spot! A creationist would no doubt claim that God had a very good reason for doing it this way, but if so, then why did he design cephalopods (squids and octopi) with eyes wired correctly?

Failure to copy design corrections/improvements If a GM engineer discovered and corrected an intake manifold design flaw that restricts airflow for no good reason, it's a safe bet that this correction would make its way not only into future versions of that particular car, but every other GM vehicle which suffers from the original design flaw, irrespective of product line. However, the properly wired eyeballs of cephalopods were never incorporated into the vertebrate evolutionary branch. In other words, we share a poor design with all other members of our evolutionary branch. A better design exists, but only on another evolutionary branch! If this was the result of "intelligent design", then it begs the question: what kind of idiot would confine design improvements to a particular product line? Why don't humans incorporate the best design aspects of every animal species which preceded us, irrespective of evolutionary lineage? <Gasp!> Could it be that we have descended from one particular family of animals?

Poor manufacturing yields. Creationists take great pleasure in pointing out how precise our biological systems are. They love to cite, over and over, the fact that even the most miniscule alteration of certain parameters would cause the entire system to fail. However, any engineer familiar with basic quality control theory would consider such a design totally unacceptable. It is not "robust", meaning that it cannot withstand even the most minor alteration to optimal conditions. This leads to extremely low yields: out of millions of sperm in a typical ejaculation, fewer than 1,000 even reach the fallopian tubes, at which point half of them will go into the wrong tube. Only one will fertilize the egg, and the majority of fertilized eggs will not successfully implant in the uterine wall. Moreover, even successful fertilizations and implantations do not necessarily go to term; many pregnancies end in miscarriage, sometimes so early that the female may not even realize she was pregnant. We are talking about manufacturing yields below 0.0001%, people! By any engineering standard, this is awful! But by the standard of ruthless "survival of the fittest", it makes perfect sense.

Tendency to modify instead of add. Also known as "transformed organs". When a component of a design is modified to perform some new function at the expense of its original function, engineers generally describe the result as "jury-rigged". Nature is full of examples of such jury-rigging (eg. insect mouth-parts that used to be legs, dolphin fins that contain a full set of finger bones), but the best example is your arms. We have two arms and two legs because we are bipedal, but bipedal locomotion is ridiculously inefficient (for example, a typical dog can easily outrun a human despite its short legs). Worse yet, we are horribly inefficient runners even for bipeds (compare a human's running speed to the land speed of an ostrich or any other landed bird). Our poor speed and our lack of natural defenses make us easy prey for predators, so if not for our ability to make weapons, we would have been the footstool of the animal world. Even today, people are regularly killed by wild animals because they can't run quickly enough to get away. So why were we "designed" this way? Why would a competent engineer cripple us in this manner, rather than giving us four legs and two arms? This question is difficult to answer with "intelligent design", but it's easy to answer with evolution: we evolved from creatures with four legs, and two of those legs were transformed into our arms. The evolutionary advantage was presumably reproductive: we could carry food, so we could shelter our mates and our young in protected caves while we foraged.

Creationists open a dangerous can of worms when they suggest that we consider biological structures as engineered designs. Any engineer can examine the entire "product line" and see widespread evidence of massive, inexplicable incompetence. Dangerous, potentially lethal design flaws are mindlessly propagated through entire product lines, design improvements are mysteriously confined within product lines, manufacturing yields are horrendous, and every design has been cobbled together from previous designs, and new features are often jury-rigged from old ones instead of being added as genuinely new systems. Any engineer who takes a serious look at biological organisms from an engineering standpoint (as opposed to mindlessly accepting creationist propaganda about its "perfection") will have no choice but to conclude that there was no intelligence whatsoever behind it.
the source

oldtimer · 06-30-2003, 07:09 AM

Good. But I'm going to stick with trial and error. We were the experiments that made it the farthest. Who knows maybe we couldn't accept the "improvements" we were supposed to have and had to settle for less. Ex: They could've used too much energy and in the long run were not beneficial to our life.

oldtimer · 06-30-2003, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by papermachesatan
So if there's no easy explanation for how all this formed, there must be no explanation at ALL? That's entirely the product of your ego- because you can't comprehend or explain it, you think no one else can.

It would be impossible for skin, hair, bone, and nipples to evolve from amoeba. However the things that they did evolve from were far from amoebas after millions of years of evolution.

I wasn't trying to give an easy explanation. I was trying to throw everything out there but instead I seemed to jam too many emotions and ideas into one post. I am a little confused when I go back and read it. But I did state, this COULD be beyond our comprehension. Make no doubt about it I didn't say we were incapable of finding the answer indefinently.

Of course the amoebas evolved (described in your stages to a multi-celled organism) but how into something as complex as hair, bone and skin and why so specifically? Did it sample something? How come we didn't end up with a dead cell structure for a body? Could we not have been covered in wood? Maybe this is ignorance speaking again, and if it sounds like a sermon, I didn't mean for it to be. But I have to consider the other possibilities for why this didn't happen and why this did happen.

papermachesatan · 06-30-2003, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by oldtimer
Good. But I'm going to stick with trial and error. We were the experiments that made it the farthest. Who knows maybe we couldn't accept the "improvements" we were supposed to have and had to settle for less. Ex: They could've used too much energy and in the long run were not beneficial to our life.

so god, the not-so-intelligent designer, fucked up?

papermachesatan · 06-30-2003, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by oldtimer
I wasn't trying to give an easy explanation. I was trying to throw everything out there but instead I seemed to jam too many emotions and ideas into one post. I am a little confused when I go back and read it. But I did state, this COULD be beyond our comprehension. Make no doubt about it I didn't say we were incapable of finding the answer indefinently.

It's inapropriate to attribute the unexplainable phenonema to the supernatural. You get things like astrology and bleeding in medical practice, the salem witch trials, faith healing, etc. etc. when you do that.

Quote:

Of course the amoebas evolved (described in your stages to a multi-celled organism) but how into something as complex as hair, bone and skin and why so specifically? Did it sample something?

The multi-celled organisms began to develop into a larger and larger species. Some cells began to specialize. Soon you had many multi-celled organisms with cells specializing in different areas. Changes are small but cumalative. After millions and millions of years, you get multi-cell organisms that have a great deal of cell specialization. Some of the cells specialize in being bones, in being skin, and in being hair.

You're operating under the false assumption that we had to turn out the way we did. We came out the way we did because of chance mutations which passed the trial of surviving in the wild and later allowed future generations of that new species to flourish.

Quote:

How come we didn't end up with a dead cell structure for a body?

Your outter layer of skin is composed of dead skin cells.

Quote:

Could we not have been covered in wood?Maybe this is ignorance speaking again, and if it sounds like a sermon, I didn't mean for it to be. But I have to consider the other possibilities for why this didn't happen and why this did happen.

Because our ancestors(way way way way back when they weren't much more than amoebas) didn't develop any traits that would later be built upon through evolution resulting in an outter layers of wood.

oldtimer · 06-30-2003, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by papermachesatan
so god, the not-so-intelligent designer, fucked up?

No, but necessarily having all superior qualities in a human should have some sort of drawback. If we could fly, be able to breathe underwater, see with the sharpest of eyesight, and have the strength of the most destructive creature, could we survive better/longer? We'd kill off all prey and consume too many resources to live any longer. So I say, it was purposeful for the way we are, not just a "fuck up". I leave it at that.

papermachesatan · 07-04-2003, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by oldtimer
No, but necessarily having all superior qualities in a human should have some sort of drawback. If we could fly, be able to breathe underwater, see with the sharpest of eyesight, and have the strength of the most destructive creature, could we survive better/longer? We'd kill off all prey and consume too many resources to live any longer. So I say, it was purposeful for the way we are, not just a "fuck up". I leave it at that.

Not if he similiary improved upon our prey.

Quote:

Good. But I'm going to stick with trial and error. We were the experiments that made it the farthest. Who knows maybe we couldn't accept the "improvements" we were supposed to have and had to settle for less. Ex: They could've used too much energy and in the long run were not beneficial to our life.

And more so, if we weren't capable of accepting the intended improvements, God still fucked up.

oldtimer · 07-05-2003, 07:05 AM

Hey. Can't change your mind here and you certainly aren't going to change mine.

My opinion stands: We were created with intelligence, who, must have been another being.

Yours: We were just creatures with no creator who over billions of years evolved into humans.

I really do appreciate your thoughts, CSFilm's even more so, but I have grown tired of defending my position. You have science and I have sheer belief. Go figure.

papermachesatan · 07-05-2003, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by oldtimer
You have science and I have sheer belief. Go figure.

I can respect that. I additionally appreciate that you acknowledge that your position is based on faith. There are quite a few people who would try to suggest that their religion has some sort of scientific basis. It's good to see a sensible, honest person.

oldtimer · 07-05-2003, 10:11 PM

In addition, I would like to say, how much I like how this thread has evolved, much less debated half of the sense behind the mystery of our existence.

grayman · 07-07-2003, 07:12 PM

Wow, This thread sure got a little more serious than I think the thread starter intended.

AppleSauceMcGee · 07-07-2003, 09:23 PM

himself

oldtimer · 07-07-2003, 09:23 PM

You can say that again. Watch what you post in Tilted Philosophy, they'll debate and debate and debate and debate.........Well, you get the idea.

I still stand by the women answer. God, yes! And let's not forget my video games.

papermachesatan · 07-07-2003, 09:40 PM

hehe I looove to debate..

I can't help myself :P

guypunkr · 07-07-2003, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ganon
love is the greatest creation

Of the many miracles of life, I would not call love one of them. I'll just happily refer you to my post on the Love portion of the Tilted Philosophy Board: Love is a joke with no punch line.

By the way, I consider God's greatest creation: Jesus. 'Cause he's the man, lol.

Also, CSflim, that was a most excellent job of answering peoples' questions. But I personally believe that Christ built me piece by piece in the womb of my mother, with a picture and plan in mind.

papermachesatan · 07-07-2003, 10:15 PM

Christ = DNA?

guypunkr · 07-07-2003, 10:25 PM

Christ= Jesus, my lord and brother, savior and servant, father and son, my friend and follower, my God, Jesus Christ.

User Name · 07-07-2003, 10:27 PM

CountChocula7, how do you know if God is a woman? You seem to use the pronoun "she" when referring to him, her, it, or them.

oxymorphone · 07-07-2003, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by papermachesatan
in fact, many parts of body appear to badly done modifications of previously existing parts. i.e. backwards wired eyes, the shared entry way of air and food creates a choking hazard, etc. the "miracle of life" was a poorly thought out endeavour taken by your "intelligent designer".

True enough, the human body is far from the most effecient engine for life that could exist on this planet. If you look closely at it you'll find it's much more aesthetic than practical which makes me think that the whole thing was designed intentionally.

dtheriault · 07-08-2003, 02:39 AM

since we are creatures of schema it's difficult for us to know or define without an opposite. rather than one greatest creation i throw out the following.

1. death (without death life has no meaning and would turn into one long procrastination of doing anything)
2. self-awareness (otherwise this conversation is mute)
3. pussy (might be #1 depends on how long it's been since the last... my friends and i number one saying in college was "pussy is god." so maybe the question should be "what is pussy's greatest creation?" which would be answered: bliss

06-29-2003, 03:42 PM	#42 (permalink)
Conclamo Ludus Modern Man Location: West Michigan	Free Will for sure. At least the illusion of it. __________________ Lord, have mercy on my wicked soul I wouldn't mistreat you baby, for my weight in gold. -Son House, Death Letter Blues

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..

06-29-2003, 05:48 PM	#46 (permalink)
CSflim Sky Piercer Location: Ireland	I mean no offense to you when I say this, but I don't believe that you have a fundamental understanding of the theory of natural selection. Take my advice, and read The Blind Watchmaker. Your point is, as far as I can tell, basically that we could be built differently. I fully agree with you on that one. But, my question, is how does this prove or disprove evolution? Man could be improved upon. Yes thats true. Stick a man into a room alongside a tiger, and see who comes out "top of the food chain". "Pretty much every creature on this planet was some kind of "experiment" until perfection was acheived with humans." - I would really take you up on that statement! Nobody is claiming humans to have reached perfection! In evolutionary terms, no creature that is alive today is "better" than another. I would admit, that humans, are probably the most sucessful creatures at altering the environment to their will. __________________ Last edited by CSflim; 06-29-2003 at 05:52 PM..

06-30-2003, 07:09 AM	#51 (permalink)
oldtimer Addict	Good. But I'm going to stick with trial and error. We were the experiments that made it the farthest. Who knows maybe we couldn't accept the "improvements" we were supposed to have and had to settle for less. Ex: They could've used too much energy and in the long run were not beneficial to our life. __________________ 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.

07-05-2003, 07:05 AM	#57 (permalink)
oldtimer Addict	Hey. Can't change your mind here and you certainly aren't going to change mine. My opinion stands: We were created with intelligence, who, must have been another being. Yours: We were just creatures with no creator who over billions of years evolved into humans. I really do appreciate your thoughts, CSFilm's even more so, but I have grown tired of defending my position. You have science and I have sheer belief. Go figure. __________________ 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; 07-05-2003 at 07:07 AM..

06-29-2003, 07:18 PM	#48 (permalink)
zfleebin Addict	I was thinking cheese when I came in here but women are good too. Then there is sliced cheese. HMMM

07-05-2003, 10:11 PM	#59 (permalink)
oldtimer Addict	In addition, I would like to say, how much I like how this thread has evolved, much less debated half of the sense behind the mystery of our existence. __________________ 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.

07-07-2003, 07:12 PM	#60 (permalink)
grayman you can't see me Location: Illinois	Wow, This thread sure got a little more serious than I think the thread starter intended. __________________ That's right - I'm a guy in a suit eating a Blizzard. F U.

07-07-2003, 09:23 PM	#61 (permalink)
AppleSauceMcGee Tilted Location: universe	himself __________________ "The Church says the Earth is Flat, But I know that it is Round, For I have seen the Shadow on the Moon. And I Have more faith in a shadow Than in the Church." - Ferdinand Magellan

07-07-2003, 09:23 PM	#62 (permalink)
oldtimer Addict	You can say that again. Watch what you post in Tilted Philosophy, they'll debate and debate and debate and debate.........Well, you get the idea. I still stand by the women answer. God, yes! And let's not forget my video games. __________________ 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.

07-07-2003, 09:40 PM	#63 (permalink)
papermachesatan Psycho Location: Texas	hehe I looove to debate.. I can't help myself :P

07-07-2003, 10:15 PM	#65 (permalink)
papermachesatan Psycho Location: Texas	Christ = DNA?

07-07-2003, 10:25 PM	#66 (permalink)
guypunkr Loser Location: Newport News, VA	Christ= Jesus, my lord and brother, savior and servant, father and son, my friend and follower, my God, Jesus Christ.

07-07-2003, 10:27 PM	#67 (permalink)
User Name Banned Location: Urf	CountChocula7, how do you know if God is a woman? You seem to use the pronoun "she" when referring to him, her, it, or them.

07-08-2003, 02:39 AM	#69 (permalink)
dtheriault Psycho Location: maybe utah	since we are creatures of schema it's difficult for us to know or define without an opposite. rather than one greatest creation i throw out the following. 1. death (without death life has no meaning and would turn into one long procrastination of doing anything) 2. self-awareness (otherwise this conversation is mute) 3. pussy (might be #1 depends on how long it's been since the last... my friends and i number one saying in college was "pussy is god." so maybe the question should be "what is pussy's greatest creation?" which would be answered: bliss __________________ "Remember, it takes two to lie. One to lie and one to listen." -Homer Unless you are the freakin Highlander, what is the point in learning how to fight with a sword?