Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
Adam and Eve seemed pretty prone to sin even before the fall, since they did it as soon as they had the chance.
I'd say that was more down to curiosity, and I certainly couldn't fault them for it.
I mean, you're given a life where you can do absolutely anything you want except eat this one fruit.
They're not told specifically why they're not allowed to eat that fruit, they're just told that they're not allowed. In a world where you can do anything else, they were bound to've had a little nibble to see what all the fuss was about.
Yet, God was allegedly powerful enough to've known they'd do it before he even built the place. He was allegedly powerful enough to know what would happen when they did, and I honestly don't see why an all-powerful, all-loving God would put such a tree there, when he specifically knew what would happen. If he writes the rules, then why would he include one rule that he knew would be broken, and condemn the creation he apparently loves so much to all the evil in the world, today?
The same logic means that god wants abortions. After all, everything is gods will, thousands of abortions occur each year, therefore abortions must be gods will!
Unfortunately religion has little to do with logic.
Religion has little to do with "human logic."
We have limited minds and thereby percieve the world around us in limited capacity, wheras God sees things from an eternal perspective.
Many of us aren't humble enough to realize this sometimes.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
This is a good example, but one that will be unconvincing to any die-hard creationist. Any flaw in any animal or design can be explained with the simple phrase, "God wanted to do it that way."
I don't understand the atheist thinking that goes: If (your) God is perfect, why didn't he make us perfect?
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To ask this question would imply that you have no idea what true love is. If God did away with free will He too would do away with true love in place of programmed love. You can program a computer to say “I love you”, but can it really mean it? Of course not. The point most of us are missing is that this is only a small part of a larger picture. God did make a perfect creation, and if we don’t stop trying to justify our lifestyles by denying God’s existence, then we are going to miss what God has planned. It’s never been put into words better than, “If you love something let it go, and if it comes back to you, it’s yours.” God let us go in this creation and if we come back to Him, we are His, and those who don’t will be forever lost. Those of us who do, will see perfection.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Last edited by loveiseverywhere; 5th October 2009 at 04:03 PM.
First of all, some other 'bad design' arguments have since been explained, eg. the inverted retina and the pseudo-thumb of the panda. We just have to wait for more understanding, the laryngeal nerve like most other nerves, is complex, and is little understood via current medical knowledge, but who's to say this will be so in the future?
Where is the evidence that the RLN is suboptimal, and that a shorter path would be better? Surely, without knowing the mechanics of someone else's work, it is easy to say that their method would work more efficiently if they only did it 'our way'. How wrong we, as mere humans, can be.
The only way this can be tested is to get a surgeon to reroute the nerve so that it complies with what it supposedly 'should' look like, according to the proposed argument. Who's to say that unforeseen, catastrophic things might not happen? A purposeful delicate balance might be upset. The RLN might have much to do with timing, I quote from a post citing various ID proponents:
"The vagal nerve splits off early to provide some innervations to the larynx. This is called the superior laryngeal nerve (left and right). After looping around the aorta, the recurrent laryngeal nerve comes back up and also innervates the larynx. I thought that these were going to different areas, but there is much more to it.
The superior and recurrent laryngeal nerves reconnect in what is called Galen’s anastomosis. This is odd in the sense that there are nerves that split off early and provide direct innervations while there are others that are taking the circuitous route. Neuroanatomists describe the innervation of the larynx as “complicated” and they are still trying to work out exactly what the specific targets are of the nerves. Apparently there is also some overlap.
I had strongly suspected that there were developmental reasons for the circuitous route. There still may be, except now I am suspicious that there are some potential benefits in an overlapping sensory and motor innervations with some of the nerves being slightly longer. I would even go out on a limb to predict that when we find out what is really going on with the laryngeal innervation, there will be a phenomenal necessity for the slightly longer route for the nerve.
Here is something that is odd. With superior laryngeal nerve paralysis (this is the one that comes off and is not circuitous) people have difficulty increasing loudness and getting a high pitch. They also have vocal fatigue and an inability to sing. The vocal folds lack their normal tone and will not lengthen sufficiently. In contrast, paralysis of the recurrent nerve results in a weak voice that can sound like Mickey Mouse.
and
The answer relates to its developmental history. Check a human embryology text book for a detailed answer.
It’s been argued that the looping spermatic chord (ductus deferens) is overly long as well, although descent from its point of origin in the abdomen appears to be the reason. Likewise, the recurrent nerve, part of the vagus bundle looping under the posterior sides of the aorta may have a similar cause, since the heart descends during late embrogenesis, bringing the nerve bundle with it.
But there may be other reasons for its placement, i.e. auxiliary functions: (from Gray’s Anatomy, Henry Gray and Henry Carter
“As the recurrent nerve hooks around the subclavian artery or aorta, it gives off several cardiac filaments to the deep part of the cardiac plexus. As it ascends in the neck it gives off branches, more numerous on the left than on the right side, to the mucous membrane and muscular coat of the esophagus; branches to the mucous membrane and muscular fibers of the trachea; and some pharyngeal filaments to the Constrictor pharyngis inferior.”
So according Henry Gray’s description, nerve filaments emanate along its length from the cardiac plexus to the esophagus, which if accurate might well dictate its positioning.
Whether due to a requisite embryogenic sequence, for optimal nerve routing, or even an evolutionary carryover, it is a workable routing in all mammals, and therefore lacks substance as an argument against design.
My thoughts on the topic. Albeit from a non-expert, and before I was aware that its gives off filaments to the heart, to the mucous membranes and to the
muscles of the trachea. It provides multiple functions, not just one.
The new school has the front loading being the genetic algorithm embedded in/ on the DNA and other cellular components.
That’s why there’s all this talk of “active information” and “intelligent evolution”. Then there’s fractals and the fractogene concept. But personally I would think that a limited set of components would need to be explicitly predefined. Otherwise I would presume you’d run into the same problems of gradually traversing indirect pathways.
Also, even if we presume that evolution via algorithms is not true we at least know that in modern creatures that complex morphological features are constructed algorithmically. Like plants and the repeating pattern of the leaves (the name for that escapes me at the moment). I’ve read that nerve and blood vessel growth in limbs is supposedly derived algorithmically. Darwinists will also cite the anterior and recurrent laryngeal nerves of the giraffe as an example of “poor design” since it loops ~15 feet around the neck and back from the brain to the larynx, presumably resulting in ~13 feet of “waste” (although I should note that there’s potentially other functional reasons for this design I’m not aware of). Well, sure, that does not seem to make sense if it’s body plan was statically defined like blueprints for a house. But it makes perfect sense if it’s partially defined algorithmically in order to compensate for variations in body shape [or size]."
I'm sure that, before the Fall, the Laryngeal Nerve was just fine --- (not to mention 'perfect').
It got "damaged" when sin entered the universe and started messing with the gene pool.
Funny how sin "damaged" the laryngeal nerve in a way to make it look like it supports Common Descent....
__________________ “The biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense." -Bishop John Shelby Spong
"It is not the obligation of the State to reconcile various faiths with reality. Do it yourself." -Atomweaver
"We have designed our civilization based on science and technology and at the same time arranged things so that almost no one understands anything at all about science and technology. This is a clear prescription for disaster."
- Carl Sagan (Demon Haunted World)
They're not told specifically why they're not allowed to eat that fruit, they're just told that they're not allowed.
"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." (Genesis 2:17)
To ask this question would imply that you have no idea what true love is. If God did away with free will He too would do away with true love in place of programmed love. You can program a computer to say “I love you”, but can it really mean it? Of course not. The point most of us are missing is that this is only a small part of a larger picture. God did make a perfect creation, and if we don’t stop trying to justify our lifestyles by denying God’s existence, then we are going to miss what God has planned. It’s never been put into words better than, “If you love something let it go, and if it comes back to you, it’s yours.” God let us go in this creation and if we come back to Him, we are His, and those who don’t will be forever lost. Those of us who do, will see perfection.
We're not talking about love or our lifestyles. We're talking about the alleged "design" of a specific nerve in the human body and how it is not optimal (or, at least, how it indicates evolution rather than direct design).
This nerve is but one example of less-than-optimal "design" in living organisms. If God created all organisms, he did so in an imperfect way. Hence, He cannot be perfect, because a perfect being would make things perfectly.
__________________ "I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day." - Douglas Adams
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?" - Douglas Adams
"Skaloopdidit" - Keeping Skaloop as the first cause until science can rule him out. "I'd be a theist if it weren't for God." - Me
The RLN might have much to do with timing, I quote from a post citing various ID proponents:
Linear Mode
