• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
  • We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Intelligent Design

Status
Not open for further replies.

AnEmpiricalAgnostic

Agnostic by Fact, Atheist by Epiphany
May 25, 2005
2,740
186
51
South Florida
Visit site
✟26,987.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
How could anyone take their favorite supernatural entity and attribute life to their “design”? If their supernatural entity did exist I think it would be an insult to call what we see his/her best handiwork.
TalkOrigins said:
In parthenogenetic lizards of the genus Cnemdophorus, only females exist. Fertility in these lizards is increased when another lizard engages in pseudomale behavior and attempts to copulate with the first lizard. These lizards evolved from a sexual species so this behaviour makes some sense. The hormones for reproduction were likely originally stimulated by sexual behaviour. Now, although they are parthenogenetic, simulated sexual behaviour increases fertility. Fake sex in a parthenogenetic species doesn't sound like good design to me.
TalkOrigins said:
In African locust, the nerve cells that connect to the wings originate in the abdomen, even though the wings are in the thorax. This strange "wiring" is the result of the abdomen nerves being co-opted for use in flight. A good designer would not have flight nerves travel down the ventral nerve cord past their target, then backtrack through the organism to where they are needed. Using more materials than necessary is not good design.

In human males, the urethra passes right through the prostate gland, a gland very prone to infection and subsequent enlargement. This blocks the urethra and is a very common medical problem in males. Putting a collapsible tube through an organ that is very likely to expand and block flow in this tube is not good design. Any moron with half a brain (or less) could design male "plumbing" better.

Perhaps one of the most famous examples of how evolution does not produced designed, but "jury-rigged" traits is the panda's thumb. If you count the digits on a panda's paw you will count six. Five curl around and the "thumb" is an opposable digit. The five fingers are made of the same bones our (humans and most other vertebrates) fingers are made of. The thumb is constructed by enlarging a few bones that form the wrist in other species. The muscles that operate it are "rerouted" muscles present in the hand of vertabrates (see S.J. Gould book "The Panda's Thumb" for an engaging discussion of this case). Again, this is not good design.


Brandon Miller said:
Top 10 Vestigial Appendages:
Brandon Miller said:
The Wings on Flightless Birds
In 1798, sixty years before Charles Darwin’s first book was published, a French anatomist, Étienne Geoffroy St. Hilaire, traveled to Egypt with Napoleon where he witnessed and wrote about a flightless bird whose wings appeared useless for soaring. The bird that Hilaire described was an ostrich, but he described it as a "cassowary", a term used back then to describe various birds of ostrich-like appearance. Ostriches and cassowaries are among several birds that have wings that are vestigial. Besides the cassowary, other flightless birds with vestigial wings are the kiwi, and the kakapo (the only known flightless and nocturnal parrot), among others. In general, wings of a bird are considered complex structures that are specifically adapted for flight and those belonging to these flightless birds are no different. They are, anatomically, rudimentary wings, but they could never give these bulky birds flight. The wings are not completely useless, as they are used for balance during running and in flagging down the honeys during courtship displays.

Hind Leg Bones in Whales
Biologists believe that for 100 million years the only vertebrates on Earth were water-dwelling creatures, with no arms or legs. At some point these “fish” began to develop hips and legs and eventually were able to walk out of the water, giving the earth its first land lovers. Once the land-dwelling creatures evolved, there were some mammals that moved back into the water. Biologists estimate that this happened about 50 million years ago, and that this mammal was the ancestor of the modern whale. Despite the apparent uselessness, evolution left traces of hind legs behind, and these vestigial limbs can still be seen in the modern whale. There are many cases where whales have been found with rudimentary hind limbs in the wild, and have been found in baleen whales, humpback whales, and in many specimens of sperm whales. Most of these examples are of whales that had only leg bones, but there were some that included feet with complete digits. It was reported recently that whales and hippos were distantly related.

Erector Pili and Body Hair
The erector pili are smooth muscle fibers that give humans “goose bumps.” If the erector pili are activated, the hairs that come out of the nearby follicles stand up and give an animal a larger appearance that might scare off potential enemies and a coat that is thicker and warmer. Humans, though, don’t have thick furs like their ancestors did, and our strategy for several thousand years has been to take the fur off other warm looking animals to stay warm. It’s ironic actually that an animal, sensing danger is near, would puff up its coat to look scarier, but the human hunter would see the puffier coat as a warm prize, leaving the thinner haired weaker looking animals alone. Of course, some body hair is helpful to humans; eye brows can keep sweat out of the eyes and facial hair might influence a woman’s choice of sexual partner. All the rest of that hair, though, is essentially useless.

The Human Tailbone (Coccyx)
These fused vertebrae are the only vestiges that are left of the tail that other mammals still use for balance, communication, and in some primates, as a prehensile limb. As our ancestors were learning to walk upright, their tail became useless, and it slowly disappeared. It has been suggested that the coccyx helps to anchor minor muscles and may support pelvic organs. However, there have been many well documented medical cases where the tailbone has been surgically removed with little or no adverse effects. There have been documented cases of infants born with tails, an extended version of the tailbone that is composed of extra vertebrae. There are no adverse health effects of such a tail, unless perhaps the child was born in the Dark Ages. In that case, the child and the mother, now considered witches, would’ve been killed instantly.

The Blind Fish Astyanax Mexicanus
In an experiment designed by nature, the species of fish known as Astyanax mexicanus, dwelling in caves deep underground off the coast of Mexico, cannot see. The pale fish has eyes, but as it is developing in the egg, the eyes begin to degenerate, and the fish is born with a collapsed remnant of an eye covered by flap of skin. These vestigial eyes probably formed after hundreds or even thousands of years of living in total darkness. As for the experiment, a control is needed; and luckily for us, fish of the same species live right above, near the surface, where there is plenty of light, and these fish have fully functioning eyes. To test if the eyes of the blind mexicanus could function if given the right environment, scientists removed the lens from the eye of the surface-dwelling fish and implanted it into the eye of the blind fish. It was observed that within eight days an eye started to develop beneath the skin, and after two months the fish had developed a large functioning eye with a pupil, cornea, and iris. The fish were blind, but now they see.

Wisdom Teeth in Humans
With all of the pain, time, and money that are put into dealing with wisdom teeth, humans have become just a little more than tired of these remnants from their large jawed ancestors. But regardless of how much they are despised, the wisdom teeth remain, and force their way into mouths regardless of the pain inflicted. There are two possible reasons why the wisdom teeth have become vestigial. The first is that the human jaw has become smaller than its ancestors’ and the wisdom teeth are trying to grow into a jaw that is much too small. The second reason may have to do with dental hygiene. A few thousand years ago, it might be common for an 18 year old man to have lost several, probably most, of his teeth, and the incoming wisdom teeth would prove useful. Now that humans brush their teeth twice a day, it’s possible to keep one’s teeth for a lifetime. The drawback is that the wisdom teeth still want to come in, and when they do, they usually need to be extracted to prevent any serious pain.

The Sexual Organs of Dandelions
Dandelions, like all flowers, have the proper organs (stamen and pistil) necessary for sexual reproduction, but do not use them. Dandelions reproduce without fertilization; they basically clone themselves, and they are quite successful at it. Look at any lawn for the proof. If dandelions were to revert to sexual reproduction, they might not retain whatever traits they have that allow them to be pests to gardeners everywhere. If flowers can begin reproducing in this manner, does that mean animals, even humans could too? Asexual reproduction can be a good strategy in an environment that is constant if a species is well suited to those conditions. It doesn’t take a scientist to figure out that humans wouldn’t last long if the condition set forth was no sexual contact with others. Therefore, the human sexual organs are probably in no danger of becoming vestigial.

Fake Sex in Virgin Whiptail Lizards (Vestigial Behavior)
Only females exist in several species of the lizards of the genus Cnemidophorus, which might seem like a problem when it comes time to propagate the species. The females don’t need the males though, they reproduce by parthenogenesis, a form of reproduction in which an unfertilized egg develops into a new individual. So basically, the females don’t need the males; they just produce clones of themselves as a form of reproduction. Despite the fact that it is unnecessary and futile to attempt copulation with each other, the lizards still like to try, and occasionally one of the females will start to “act like a male” by attempting to copulate with another female. The lizards evolved from a sexual species and the behavior to copulate like a male -- to engage in fake sex -- is a vestigial behavior; that is, a behavior present in a species, but is expressed in an imperfect form, which in this case, is useless.

Male Breast Tissue and Nipples
The subject of male nipples is a sensitive, and maybe confusing, topic to many. Those who wish to invalidate evolutionary theory might pose the question, “Was man descended from woman?” The answer, of course, is no. Both men and women have nipples because in early stages of fetal development, an unborn child is effectively sexless. Nipples are present in both males and females; it is only in a later stage of fetal development that testosterone causes sex differentiation in a fetus. All mammals, male and female, have mammary glands. Male nipples are vestigial; they may perform a small role in sexual stimulation and a small number of men have been able to lactate. However, they are not fully functional and, because cancer can grow in male or female breast tissue, the tissue can be dangerous.

The Human Appendix
In plant-eating vertebrates, the appendix is much larger and its main function is to help digest a largely herbivorous diet. The human appendix is a small pouch attached to the large intestine where it joins the small intestine and does not directly assist digestion. Biologists believe it is a vestigial organ left behind from a plant-eating ancestor. Interestingly, it has been noted by paleontologist Alfred Sherwood Romer in his text The Vertebrate Body (1949) that the major importance of the appendix “would appear to be financial support of the surgical profession,” referring to, of course, the large number of appendectomies performed annually. In 2000, in fact, there were nearly 300,000 appendectomies performed in the United States, and 371 deaths from appendicitis. Any secondary function that the appendix might perform certainly is not missed in those who had it removed before it might have ruptured.
 

AnEmpiricalAgnostic

Agnostic by Fact, Atheist by Epiphany
May 25, 2005
2,740
186
51
South Florida
Visit site
✟26,987.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
(Cont'd)

FreeAmerican said:
Human design flaws

1. Female pelvis too small for the human baby's head making birth difficult and prone to perinatal injuries to the baby.

2. Retinal arteries/veins lying on and in front of the retina of the eyes. Many causes of blindness come from this defective design.

3. Wisdom teeth (already noted) with secondary abscesses, occasionally dissecting up into the cranium -> brain abscess, meningitis, epidural empyema.

4. Larynx too highly placed, leading to common choking deaths.

5. A bony projection, called the Odontoid Process, an extension of the C2 vertebral body lie a long finger, up to the end of the brainstem. It can easily fracture, especially in rheumatoid arthritis. That leads to death or paralysis of all extremities and inability to breathe without a mechanical ventilator. A simpler rotatory ball-socket joint would be better and safer.

6. Semi-soft disc material between vertebrae and just anterior to the spinal cord, were suited well to quadrupeds. But in humans the upper body weight compresses these and can cause herniations with mild to moderate trauma. There are 6 of these (none at C1-2) in the neck, 12 in the thoracic spine, 5 (rarely 6) in the Lumbar spine. That is 23 flaws or accidents waiting to happen.

7. Hip joints perfectly suited to support human weight if there were four of them or 4 supporting limbs. In a biped, the stress causes extremely common hip degeneration, femoral neck fractures in women and older people. How often do you hear of that in a dog or horse?

8. Knees similarly are not strong enough with the tibial cartilage in two legs for human weight, jumping down, and running. If we had 4 legs it would not be so bad. How often do you see cats with knee problems?

9. Foot and ankle bones are badly designed. Most quadrupeds walk on their toes or the balls of the feet. This puts more weight on flexible tendons, ligaments and several bending joints spreading the stress. In the human food, we are walking on essentially our leg "wrists" and balls of the foot with an arch that is traumatised by walking and standing. When it falls it has an additional problem of severe foot pain. (see 10).

10. In those fallen arches, the plantar nerves are badly placed. Instead of weaving between or over top of bones to their skin sensory receptors, these course "under" the ankle bones, under the arch to the metatarsal joints. When the arch slowly gives way it stretches those nerves and eventually compresses them. This never happens in dogs or cats.

11. Human wrist must extend to provide maximum finger flexion; a major human task is to hold things in our hands. So the wrist flexes a thousand times a day. Problem is that the median nerve runs through a bony trough covered by tough ligaments, the Carpal Tunnel. With every wrist flexion the median nerve is pulled in and out of that canal. The canal is easily narrowed by minor injuries or repetitive use. The nerve is injured causing pain, finger numbness, and weakness in thumb opposition.

12. The Elbow flexes and extends, but an important nerve, the Ulnar Nerve mostly motor to the muscles of the forearm and hand. It unfortunately does not go in front of the elbow in the safer soft tissue. It courses behind the elbow which is fine in horses, but human flex the arm at the elbow that pulls and stretches the ulnar nerve in a long course behind the elbow in an "ulnar groove" and additionally a human sitting often rest elbows on a table, and that compresses the ulnar nerve. Dogs and cats don't do that.

13. The Brachial Plexus is a cluster of the nerves to the arm that travels through a triangle with the first rib being the bottom, the collar bone in front, and the scalene muscles behind. Also in the triangle is the brachial artery to supply blood to the arm. Poor posture, hanging by exercise bars from the hands, or throwing balls, cause the triangle to compress either or both structures. This is Thoracic Outlet Syndrome, the Neuronal form when the plexus is injured and vascular form when the brachial circulation is impaired.

14. Female urinary opening (urethra), vagina, and rectum all located in a close row so that rectal infection of the urethra/bladder/kidneys, or the vagina is risky. The old joke is why is the recreational park located at the sewage outflow pipes?

15. Appendix is a seemingly useless relic of evolution that often gets infected and ruptures in a life threatening peritonitis unless removed quickly. A few postulate that it might have bacterial that make certain vitamins. That is unproven.

16. Large veins in the legs, progressively dilating from standing, walking, run the risk of blood clotting when the human sits for a period of time. These veins send those clots north to the heart's right ventricle and directly into the lungs causing pulmonary emboli (clots and lung infarction) that is often fatal.) Quadruped animals rarely die of this. Many humans do.

17. Venous Cavernous Sinuses at the skull base on left and right are large draining veins from the brain. But inside of the vein there is the carotid artery taking blood into the brain, and several important nerves: III, IV, VI that control all eye movements, pupillary diameter, and lens focusing, and V-1, V-2, and V-3 that supply sensation to the eye and face. This venous structure packed with these important structures is infected by sinus infection or pustules in or on the nose. Infection causes the blood to clot (thrombosis) that injures the nerves, makes the eye bulge and swell, and can cause spreading thrombosis into the brain which can be rapidly fatal.

18. Other cranial sinuses such as the transverse are located next to the middle ear that frequently gets infected in kids. The infection spread to the venous sinus and causes thrombophlebitis, the major effect is increased fluid pressure in the brain, venous strokes, and seizures. If all of those venous drainage pipes were internally situated, there would not be such a risk. (17 and 18).

19. Congenital birth defects caused by structures found only in primitive animals (but still in our genes): gills in our embryonic stage may have some left over at birth and a baby may have a partial gill (technically called a branchial cleft cyst.) These can cause pain as the person grows, or develop abscesses. Another is a chordoma, tumour composed of notochord tissue only otherwise found in ancient animals like Pikaea and Amphioxus. It preceded the evolution of the bony spine. We have one in our early embryo stages but absorb it. Sometime absorption is incomplete and notochord tissue grows (tumour) unfortunately in the clivus at the base of the brain.

20. Our abdomen. It houses our stomach, our liver, our spleen, great vessels (aorta) small bowel, and colon. In quadripeds it is underneath. An attacker cannot easily get to it. The predator has to attack the tougher back and spine. But in the human the belly is sticking out there for some clawed or toothed predator or knife wielding human criminal to take a swipe and eviscerate us.
 
Upvote 0

random_guy

Senior Veteran
Jan 30, 2005
2,528
148
✟3,457.00
Faith
Christian
The biggest backfire to the ID movement, if it ever gets taught in school is that the designer's designs will be judged. Could you imagine an architecture class or anthropology class where the makers of buildings or tools could not be discussed?

I see two things coming from this movement, we will begin to question how intelligent the designer is, and we will also end up with multiple designers. Why else would some creatures be made just to feast on another in a vicious way (like that flesh eating catepiller)?
 
Upvote 0

dcyates

Senior Member
May 28, 2005
1,513
88
60
Calgary, AB.
✟2,162.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
There is at least two mistakes being made within these objections to intelligent design. One is presumptive, the other is semantic. The presumption is that the primary intention of the ID movement is to point us toward the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition. This simply isn't so. This may be the indirect, secondary intention of some, but in the end that is really neither here nor there. Rather, its primarily intention is to posit the suggestion, based entirely on scientific observation, that invoking an intelligent designer, of whatever sort, provides greater explanatory power than does the materialistic naturalism of the theory of Darwinian evolution. There is good reason why a Darwinian fundamentalist and militant atheist like Richard Dawkins would assert at the beginning of his book The Blind Watchmaker, "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose," and then requires an additional 300 pages to argue why this design is only an appearance and not actual.

This brings me to the semantic mistake being made above. The objections to ID above are using the word 'intelligent' in a manner quite different than how it is intended by its advocates. They take it to imply that the word denotes 'optimal' design. This is not how ID proponents are using the word. They use to simply indicate that, according to all the evidence observed, it is more likely there exists an intelligent agent behind it all, than that there isn't. It says nothing about that intelligence. It may a beneficent, all-knowing, perfect intelligence. It may even be a maleficent, limited, relatively stupid intelligence (although relative to what exactly, I'll leave to you). In an instance such as this, however (and I honestly mean no personal offense to anyone in particular), to paraphrase an old saying, in my opinion, perfection is the gadfly of the narrow, and closed-minded.
 
Upvote 0

nvxplorer

Senior Contributor
Jun 17, 2005
10,569
451
✟35,675.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Others
dcyates said:
There is good reason why a Darwinian fundamentalist and militant atheist like Richard Dawkins would assert at the beginning of his book The Blind Watchmaker, "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose," and then requires an additional 300 pages to argue why this design is only an appearance and not actual.
What is this good reason you speak of?

Here's the problem. We can break down the biological features and functions of a human being, and we can assign purpose to these individual features as they relate to the human. What we cannot do is assign purpose to the human being as a whole. I could perhaps suggest that humans serve the purpose of being the occasional meal for sharks, tigers and crocodiles, but this would be a stretch.

We can perform the same exercise with a Lincoln Continental, ascribing purpose to each individual part of the vehicle, which when taken together serve as a functioning automobile. The Lincoln was intelligently designed because it was constructed for a specific purpose - transportation. Additionally, we have evidence of the auto's creators, something we lack in assuming intelligently designed biological entities.

Observing the Lincoln and a human side by side, we notice that one must have been created. Without even searching for purpose in the automobile, we can deduce that it could not have been assembled by natural forces. The human, on the other hand, can be and has been explained using natural forces.

As a side note, only the naive among us will blind themselves to the true objective of ID. That objective most certainly includes God, and it involves bypassing US constitutional prohibitions against teaching religious belief in public schools.
 
Upvote 0

MartinM

GondolierAce
Feb 9, 2003
4,215
258
44
Visit site
✟5,655.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Engaged
dcyates said:
The presumption is that the primary intention of the ID movement is to point us toward the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition. This simply isn't so. This may be the indirect, secondary intention of some, but in the end that is really neither here nor there. Rather, its primarily intention is to posit the suggestion, based entirely on scientific observation, that invoking an intelligent designer, of whatever sort, provides greater explanatory power than does the materialistic naturalism of the theory of Darwinian evolution.

No, the primary intention of the ID movement is to point us toward the Christian God while giving the outward appearance of suggesting, based on entirely scientific observation, that invoking an intelligent designer of whatever sort provides greater explanatory power than does the 'materialistic naturalism' of the theory of Darwinian evolution.

Thankfully, they're failing abysmally on both counts.
 
Upvote 0

random_guy

Senior Veteran
Jan 30, 2005
2,528
148
✟3,457.00
Faith
Christian
dcyates said:
There is at least two mistakes being made within these objections to intelligent design. One is presumptive, the other is semantic.

If you want a scientific objection to ID, then it's easy, it's not scientific. There exists a problem with the designer. Who designed the designer? This is one question no IDist will answer, as many believe it's God.

How do you detect design or the where the designer inserted himself. Scientists have showed possible pathways for IC structures to form. If that's the case, how do you know a designer twiddled to make that structure vs. evolution building it. Did they knock out our vitamin C gene? Did they form the flagella? Did they create the first life, or did they just create the first amino acids? None of these questions are answerable or testable.
 
Upvote 0

nvxplorer

Senior Contributor
Jun 17, 2005
10,569
451
✟35,675.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Others
random_guy said:
Scientists have showed possible pathways for IC structures to form.
A study using computer simulation has shown that IC systems can evolve. This is not the equivalent of empirical evidence, but the study does show that complex structures are not prohibited from evolving.

An article was published in the journal Nature. (I cannot find specifics as to which issue. You may have better luck. I believe it was an issue from 2003.)
 
Upvote 0

random_guy

Senior Veteran
Jan 30, 2005
2,528
148
✟3,457.00
Faith
Christian
nvxplorer said:
A study using computer simulation has shown that IC systems can evolve. This is not the equivalent of empirical evidence, but the study does show that complex structures are not prohibited from evolving.

An article was published in the journal Nature. (I cannot find specifics as to which issue. You may have better luck. I believe it was an issue from 2003.)

I think the original idea of IC structures were that it would be impossible to evolve. However, after scientists gave plausible ways an IC structure such as blood clotting could form, Behe had to revise his definition.

Anyway, IC structures as support for an ID is a horrible argument. Why would an ID use an IC? My company is full of intelligent people, but we modify existing code to make things work, sometimes even programming ourselves into a dead end. However, since this program occupies such an important niche, we can't just tear it down and start over (although sometimes I wish a meteor would take it out so I could).
 
Upvote 0

nvxplorer

Senior Contributor
Jun 17, 2005
10,569
451
✟35,675.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Others
random_guy said:
I think the original idea of IC structures were that it would be impossible to evolve. However, after scientists gave plausible ways an IC structure such as blood clotting could form, Behe had to revise his definition.

Anyway, IC structures as support for an ID is a horrible argument. Why would an ID use an IC? My company is full of intelligent people, but we modify existing code to make things work, sometimes even programming ourselves into a dead end. However, since this program occupies such an important niche, we can't just tear it down and start over (although sometimes I wish a meteor would take it out so I could).
Yes, perhaps a weak but relevant parallel is the class structure of C++ and other modular computer languages.
 
Upvote 0

RightWingGirl

Well-Known Member
May 12, 2004
971
28
36
America
✟23,794.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
random_guy said:
If you want a scientific objection to ID, then it's easy, it's not scientific. There exists a problem with the designer. Who designed the designer? This is one question no IDist will answer, as many believe it's God.

How do you detect design or the where the designer inserted himself. Scientists have showed possible pathways for IC structures to form. If that's the case, how do you know a designer twiddled to make that structure vs. evolution building it. Did they knock out our vitamin C gene? Did they form the flagella? Did they create the first life, or did they just create the first amino acids? None of these questions are answerable or testable.

The designer is all-mighty, eternal, the beginning and the end. With him there was no beginning. He was not created, he is the creator. He has always been.

The world we see now is flawed, imperfect. Nature is "Red in tooth and claw". We see hurricanes, deformities, man killing man, animals killing each other. The earth was not created like this. When God created he said it was good. There was no death, no suffering, but when man sinned man brought disease, sin, killing, death, deformities and all kinds of ill into the world. For six thousand years the world has been getting wore and worse. This accounts for some of your "Design flaws" but not all of them. I haven't much time, so I'll cover as many as I can.


1. Female pelvis too small for the human baby's head making birth difficult and prone to perinatal injuries to the baby.
Ahem. This is utter nonsence. Could I have a soruce for this?

2. Retinal arteries/veins lying on and in front of the retina of the eyes. Many causes of blindness come from this defective design

Qoute by Dr George Marshall obtained an M.Med.Sci. from Sheffield. He then worked at the University of Manchester before taking up a post at the University of Glasgow in 1988. He obtained his Ph.D. in Ophthalmic Science at Glasgow in 1991 and was elected to chartered biologist (C.Biol.) status and to membership of the Institute of Biology (M.I.Biol.) in 1993. He is now Sir Jules Thorn Lecturer in Ophthalmic Science.

The light-detecting structures within photoreceptor cells are located in the stack of discs. These discs are being continually replaced by the formation of new ones at the cell body end of the stack, thereby pushing older discs down the stack. Those discs at the other end of the stack are ‘swallowed’ by a single layer of retinal pigment epithelial (RPE) cells. RPE cells are highly active, and for this they need a very large blood supply—the choroid. Unlike the retina, which is virtually transparent, the choroid is virtually opaque, because of the vast numbers of red blood cells within it. For the retina to be wired the way that Professor Richard Dawkins suggested, would require the choroid to come between the photoreceptor cells and the light, for RPE cells must be kept in intimate contact with both the choroid and photoreceptor to perform their job. Anybody who has had the misfortune of a hemorrhage in front of the retina will testify as to how well red blood cells block out the light.




3. Wisdom teeth (already noted) with secondary abscesses, occasionally dissecting up into the cranium -> brain abscess, meningitis, epidural empyema.




Orthodontist John W. Cuozzo, DDS, MS, from New Jersey in the United States, says wisdom teeth are definitely not evidence for evolution. He says that from the vast amount of research he has done on Neanderthal children's fossils, the problem seems to be that human jaws are shrinking as time goes on.

'Based on my Neanderthal research and current studies', Dr Cuozzo says, 'it seems as if human jaws are becoming smaller over time. This has made the space in the back of the jaws smaller and smaller for the eruption and proper positioning in the bite for third molars, also known as wisdom teeth.'

Dr Cuozzo believes the reason this is happening is that children are maturing much faster today than in the past.

An excavation in 1990 of some graves in Griswold, Connecticut, dated from the late 1600s-1700 seems to confirm his research. There were children's remains discovered. Only one was found with initials on the wood of the coffin. It read N.B. — age 13 and was written in brass tacks.

When the teeth of the lower jaw were examined at the Armed Forces Insititute of Pathology (AFIP) in Washington, D.C., the root and crown development indicated that, by today's standards, these teeth should have belonged to a female child of 9 1/2 years, or a male child of 10 years, yet the child was 13.

'This means', Dr Cuozzo says, 'that three or four hundred years ago a child took 13 years to reach the stage that our children today do in 9° to 10 years. This points to a rapid maturation today.'

Dr Cuozzo duplicated all of the dental x-rays and photographs of these children at AFIP in 1992.

He says wisdom teeth need more space than can develop in our shortened jaw growth period. Children are taller today, and mature earlier, probably because of improved early nutrition (not evolutionary improvement). But the facial bones need more than nutrition — they need time. 'It's time we don't get any more.'

It is this fact, that the wisdom teeth are trying to erupt into a jaw space too small for them, which causes many of the problems. He says that there are other problems also with the eruption of wisdom teeth, and that many people do not even develop wisdom teeth today.

'This is not from a process of evolution, but devolution', he says. 'The degeneration and reduction of complexity of the human body is what is really happening.





4. Larynx too highly placed, leading to common choking deaths.

Again, very ood. source please?



O.K. I'm running out of room, so one last one;



The Appendix



1997 Encyclopædia Britannica, you would think of your appendix this way:
The appendix does not serve any useful purpose as a digestive organ in humans, and it is believed to be gradually disappearing in the human species over evolutionary time.

In 1976 medical textbooks were beginning to admit the appendix uses:

The appendix is not generally credited with significant function; however, current evidence tends to involve it in the immunologic mechanism.

And in a 1995 medical textbook, the authors are emphatic about the function of the appendix:

The mucosa and submucosa of the appendix are dominated by lymphoid nodules, and its primary function is as an organ of the lymphatic system.

Despite this, many public school texts still continue indoctrinating people in the idea that the appendix is great evidence that man evolved.

Why then can it be removed without ill effects?

Our body has been brilliantly designed, with plenty in reserve, and the ability for some organs to take over the function of others. Thus there are a number of organs which everybody agrees have a definite function, but we can still cope without them. Some examples:

  • Your gall bladder has a definite function—it stores bile from the liver, and squirts it into the intestine as required to help with the digestion of fat. However, it can be removed and the body will cope—for instance, by secreting more bile continuously.
  • You can cope with having a kidney out, because there is still enough kidney tissue left in the other one. (In the same way, a part of the Gut Associated Lymphoid Tissue, which includes the appendix, can be removed, and the remaining lymphoid tissue will usually be enough to carry on the total function). You won’t suffer from having your thymus out (if you’re an adult), because this extremely important gland, which ‘educates’ your immune cells when you are very young, is then no longer required. This is likely to be very relevant to the appendix.
From Creation magazine Volume 20 Issue 1
 
Upvote 0

Electric Sceptic

Well-Known Member
Dec 4, 2004
3,063
80
63
✟3,622.00
Faith
Atheist
RightWingGirl said:
The designer is all-mighty, eternal, the beginning and the end. With him there was no beginning. He was not created, he is the creator. He has always been.

The world we see now is flawed, imperfect. Nature is "Red in tooth and claw". We see hurricanes, deformities, man killing man, animals killing each other. The earth was not created like this. When God created he said it was good. There was no death, no suffering, but when man sinned man brought disease, sin, killing, death, deformities and all kinds of ill into the world. For six thousand years the world has been getting wore and worse. This accounts for some of your "Design flaws" but not all of them. I haven't much time, so I'll cover as many as I can.
That's all very nice...but completely irrelevant to science, which is what ID masquerades as.

RightWingGirl said:
1. Female pelvis too small for the human baby's head making birth difficult and prone to perinatal injuries to the baby.
Ahem. This is utter nonsence. Could I have a soruce for this?
Are you kidding? I mean, surely you don't really think that this is 'utter nonsense'?
 
Upvote 0

RightWingGirl

Well-Known Member
May 12, 2004
971
28
36
America
✟23,794.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Electric Sceptic said:
That's all very nice...but completely irrelevant to science, which is what ID masquerades as.

I know, I know, but you said that ID's never answerd that question, so I did. It's not science, but it is the answer. :cool:
 
Upvote 0

Nathan Poe

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2002
32,198
1,693
51
United States
✟41,319.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Democrat
AnEmpiricalAgnostic said:
How could anyone take their favorite supernatural entity and attribute life to their “design”? If their supernatural entity did exist I think it would be an insult to call what we see his/her best handiwork.

Well, my favorite supernatural entity is Iggy the Magic Elf, and the Iggist Scriptures do say that Iggy designed life within a two-week timespan -- The Sacred 13 days.

However, the Iggist Scripture also notes that during that time, Iggy went on a three-day Tequila bender, which may have adversely affected some of his work.

All "intelligent" designs must then be categorized into: pre-bender, bender, and post-bender (hangover) designs.

Seen in this, the proper context, it all makes perfect sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MidnightBlue
Upvote 0

dcyates

Senior Member
May 28, 2005
1,513
88
60
Calgary, AB.
✟2,162.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
dcyates: There is good reason why a Darwinian fundamentalist and militant atheist like Richard Dawkins would assert at the beginning of his book The Blind Watchmaker, "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose," and then requires an additional 300 pages to argue why this design is only an appearance and not actual.


nvxplorer: What is this good reason you speak of?

The 'good reason' it took Dawkins an additional 300 pages to support his opinion that design is only apparent rather than actual is due to the fact that intelligent design provides greater explanatory force than that of purely unaided Darwinian evolution to account for biological life. I thought I already said that.

nvxplorer: Here's the problem. We can break down the biological features and functions of a human being, and we can assign purpose to these individual features as they relate to the human. What we cannot do is assign purpose to the human being as a whole. I could perhaps suggest that humans serve the purpose of being the occasional meal for sharks, tigers and crocodiles, but this would be a stretch.

This is delving into the realms of philosophy and metaphysics, not science. I impression was that we were supposed to stick to science here.

nvxplorer: We can perform the same exercise with a Lincoln Continental, ascribing purpose to each individual part of the vehicle, which when taken together serve as a functioning automobile. The Lincoln was intelligently designed because it was constructed for a specific purpose - transportation. Additionally, we have evidence of the auto's creators, something we lack in assuming intelligently designed biological entities.
Observing the Lincoln and a human side by side, we notice that one must have been created. Without even searching for purpose in the automobile, we can deduce that it could not have been assembled by natural forces. The human, on the other hand, can be and has been explained using natural forces.

Well, this is the very issue at hand, isn't it? Someone such as yourself believes we lack the scientific evidence necessary to assert the existence of an intelligent agent that ultimately lies behind the origin and subsequent development of biological entities. Someone such as myself thinks otherwise.

nvxplorer: As a side note, only the naive among us will blind themselves to the true objective of ID. That objective most certainly includes God, and it involves bypassing US constitutional prohibitions against teaching religious belief in public schools.

This is probably an issue for another forum altogether, but nevertheless I have to declare that I couldn't disagree more. Some school boards have very modestly suggested that students should know that Darwinian evolution is not the only theory about the origin and development of life. What they presumably want students to know is an indisputable fact. There are other theories supported by very reputable scientists, including theories of evolution other than the established version to which students are presently bullied into giving their assent. On any question, the rational and scientific course is to take into account all pertinent evidence and explanatory proposals. We can know that the quasi-religious establishment of a narrow evolutionary theory as dogma is in deep trouble when its defenders demand that alternative ideas must not be discussed or even mentioned in the classroom. Students, school boards, and thoughful citizens are in fully justified rebellion against this attempted stifling of intellectual inquiry.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.