Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

[PsychoSarah]

Chickens don't wear shoes

-_- unless a person constantly wears shoes that are absolutely atrocious, wearing them in and of itself would not destroy the arches of our feet. Furthermore, because of having 10 fewer bones than our feet do, unless you made the shoes to inflict pain or forced a very young bird to wear them constantly, you wouldn't warp the chicken's feet.

-_- plus, ever wondered why we need to wear shoes at all? Why are our feet so darned soft and easy to damage compared to those of birds? As hunter gatherers we had to run after animals quite frequently, but sharp stones easily cut into our feet, even if they are very calloused.

, sit in chairs all day,

Sitting in chairs, unless they are particularly terrible or the person has terrible posture, is not the source of back problems. Heck, try gardening a couple of hours every day (which YHWH supposedly made humans to do, tend gardens and worship) and see how your back feels.

work 8 hours a day.

How very American of you, but back problems are something prevalent in all populations of our species, regardless of lifestyle. A problem of both peasants and kings, workaholics and couch potatoes. Even among people that don't wear shoes at all.

Go ahead, do a study and put shoes on chickens feet for a few hundred years. I'm willing to bet by the end of the study they have back problems too.

XD what kind of denial is this? Shoes were invented around 1600 BC, yet we find fossil evidence much older than that of spinal and foot problems related to our bipedal movement. We are pretty much the only mammal that spontaneously fractures vertebrae for a reason. We can even easily demonstrate how weight is distributed on the spine and quickly note that the lower back is bearing way more weight than it does on an equally sized quadruped. It's not simply a matter of human behavior, dude, this is a real problem all human bodies have.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

-_- unless a person constantly wears shoes that are absolutely atrocious, wearing them in and of itself would not destroy the arches of our feet. Furthermore, because of having 10 fewer bones than our feet do, unless you made the shoes to inflict pain or forced a very young bird to wear them constantly, you wouldn't warp the chicken's feet.

-_- plus, ever wondered why we need to wear shoes at all? Why are our feet so darned soft and easy to damage compared to those of birds? As hunter gatherers we had to run after animals quite frequently, but sharp stones easily cut into our feet, even if they are very calloused.



Sitting in chairs, unless they are particularly terrible or the person has terrible posture, is not the source of back problems. Heck, try gardening a couple of hours every day (which YHWH supposedly made humans to do, tend gardens and worship) and see how your back feels.

But you weren't designed to wear shoes, nor were you designed to be a hunter gatherer, nor were you designed by Jehovah to even be a farmer. You were designed to eat from the fruit of trees and take care of the other animals. Remember, it is "after" the fall when man had to labor to get his food (become a farmer and hunter gatherer). Cant blame no one else but us for our back problems. Before the fall we never had to eat of the plants of the field. Fruit was waiting on trees to be easily plucked.

17 And to Adam he said,

“Because you have listened to the voice of your wife
and have eaten of the tree
of which I commanded you,
‘You shall not eat of it,’
cursed is the ground because of you;
in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;
18 thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you;
and you shall eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your face
you shall eat bread,
till you return to the ground,
for out of it you were taken;
for you are dust,
and to dust you shall return.”

How very American of you, but back problems are something prevalent in all populations of our species, regardless of lifestyle. A problem of both peasants and kings, workaholics and couch potatoes. Even among people that don't wear shoes at all.


XD what kind of denial is this? Shoes were invented around 1600 BC, yet we find fossil evidence much older than that of spinal and foot problems related to our bipedal movement. We are pretty much the only mammal that spontaneously fractures vertebrae for a reason. We can even easily demonstrate how weight is distributed on the spine and quickly note that the lower back is bearing way more weight than it does on an equally sized quadruped. It's not simply a matter of human behavior, dude, this is a real problem all human bodies have.

Of course we do, because we do things we were not designed to do. It's part of the curse.... not a bad evolutionary design....

 

[PsychoSarah]

Of course we do, because we do things we were not designed to do. It's part of the curse.... not a bad evolutionary design....

-_- most of our back pain stems literally from walking because of how our spines twist as we do. Not walking with a slouch, not picking up objects the wrong way. Normal human walking. Explain exactly how all of humanity "walks wrong".

 

[Justatruthseeker]

-_- most of our back pain stems literally from walking because of how our spines twist as we do. Not walking with a slouch, not picking up objects the wrong way. Normal human walking. Explain exactly how all of humanity "walks wrong".

Because we were designed to run. How else you gonna care for all the animals in the garden if you walk all day. Of course evolutionists apply that design to evolution. Par for the course.

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/health/27well.html

"Mr. McDougall makes the case that running isn’t inherently risky. Instead, he argues that the commercialization of urban marathons encourages overzealous training, while the promotion of high-tech shoes has led to poor running form and a rash of injuries.

“The sense of distance running being crazy is something new to late-20th-century America,” Mr. McDougall told me. “It’s only recently that running has become associated with pain and injury.”"

 

[PsychoSarah]

Because we were designed to run. How else you gonna care for all the animals in the garden if you walk all day. Of course evolutionists apply that design to evolution. Par for the course.

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/health/27well.html

"Mr. McDougall makes the case that running isn’t inherently risky. Instead, he argues that the commercialization of urban marathons encourages overzealous training, while the promotion of high-tech shoes has led to poor running form and a rash of injuries.

“The sense of distance running being crazy is something new to late-20th-century America,” Mr. McDougall told me. “It’s only recently that running has become associated with pain and injury.”"

-_- you do know that the opposite arm/leg going out thing applies to running as well, right? People would not cease to have back problems if they ran everywhere as opposed to walking.

Furthermore, have you ever considered the fact that we would need to learn how to move optimally is stupid? For example, what human actually lifts heavy objects off the ground naturally the way that is best for the human back? Practically no one. We aren't picking those objects up in painful ways because we don't want to pick them up the better way; we don't instinctively know the better way. What other animal has to be taught not to hurt itself in how it moves?

-_- also, really, New York Times? Try this: https://bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12862-015-0336-y

 

[Justatruthseeker]

-_- you do know that the opposite arm/leg going out thing applies to running as well, right? People would not cease to have back problems if they ran everywhere as opposed to walking.

Furthermore, have you ever considered the fact that we would need to learn how to move optimally is stupid? For example, what human actually lifts heavy objects off the ground naturally the way that is best for the human back? Practically no one. We aren't picking those objects up in painful ways because we don't want to pick them up the better way; we don't instinctively know the better way. What other animal has to be taught not to hurt itself in how it moves?

-_- also, really, New York Times? Try this: https://bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12862-015-0336-y

Maybe YOU should have read it.

"Together, these results suggest that human vertebrae with Schmorl’s nodes are closer in shape to chimpanzee vertebrae than are healthy human vertebrae.

Conclusions

The results support the hypothesis that intervertebral disc herniation preferentially affects individuals with vertebrae that are towards the ancestral end of the range of shape variation within H. sapiens and therefore are less well adapted for bipedalism. This finding not only has clinical implications but also illustrates the benefits of bringing the tools of evolutionary biology to bear on problems in medicine and public health."

So I agree, those that have spines less well adapted to bipedalism and have spinal problems (those closer to chimpanzees or the ancestral end, under your theory) - have more spinal problems. So those further from the chimpanzee, under your theory, and more suited to bipedalism - have healthier spines.

Which blows out of the water all your past claims about bipedalism being the cause since they found it was those more closely related to the chimpanzee spine (less advanced under your theory) and less suited to bipedalism that had the problems.....

EDIT: So in accord with your theory, those fossils found in the past that had back problems, would be because they also were closer evolutionary wise to the chimpanzee spine. Not because of bipedalism, but a less developed spine less suited to it.

Of course in reality the study is junk, but arguing even under your own theory rules out bipedalism as the cause. Since those with spines better suited to bipedalism had less problems.

The solution I guess is to tell people with back problems to stop walking like a human and walk like their “cousins” instead.

Sorry, couldn’t help that one

 

[xianghua]

What dna evidence confirms evolution with the fossil record?

i dont think that we can prove evolution at any level. we also have evidence for design in nature (see my signature linke for instance).

 

[PsychoSarah]

Maybe YOU should have read it.

"Together, these results suggest that human vertebrae with Schmorl’s nodes are closer in shape to chimpanzee vertebrae than are healthy human vertebrae.

Conclusions

The results support the hypothesis that intervertebral disc herniation preferentially affects individuals with vertebrae that are towards the ancestral end of the range of shape variation within H. sapiens and therefore are less well adapted for bipedalism. This finding not only has clinical implications but also illustrates the benefits of bringing the tools of evolutionary biology to bear on problems in medicine and public health."

So I agree, those that have spines less well adapted to bipedalism and have spinal problems (those closer to chimpanzees or the ancestral end, under your theory) - have more spinal problems. So those further from the chimpanzee, under your theory, and more suited to bipedalism - have healthier spines.

Which blows out of the water all your past claims about bipedalism being the cause since they found it was those more closely related to the chimpanzee spine (less advanced under your theory) and less suited to bipedalism that had the problems.....

EDIT: So in accord with your theory, those fossils found in the past that had back problems, would be because they also were closer evolutionary wise to the chimpanzee spine. Not because of bipedalism, but a less developed spine less suited to it.

Of course in reality the study is junk, but arguing even under your own theory rules out bipedalism as the cause. Since those with spines better suited to bipedalism had less problems.

The solution I guess is to tell people with back problems to stop walking like a human and walk like their “cousins” instead.

Sorry, couldn’t help that one

-_- wow, congratulations on not understanding that modern humans still have spinal structures a little too close to being like the chimp shape. And the chimpanzee spine is not less advanced, it is equally advanced to our own, we are both modern species, after all.

You also quote this part, but I'm going to change what is bolded.
"Together, these results suggest that human vertebrae with Schmorl’s nodes are closer in shape to chimpanzee vertebrae than are healthy human vertebrae.

Say, what do you think Schmorl's nodes are? Do you think they are rare or something? Because about 75% of autopsied modern humans have them, with a higher frequency in men. It's also highly heritable. Oh, what do you know, people with afflicted vertebrae are WAY more common than people without them. I am not shocked that a species that became upright so recently in its evolutionary history so commonly (either through inheritance or wear and tear) ends up with a distorted spine less suitable for being upright.

-_- I would think that if humans were designed to walk upright from the start that this condition would afflict a minority of people.

 

[Ophiolite]

-_- I would think that if humans were designed to walk upright from the start that this condition would afflict a minority of people.

And if the designer were competent that minority would be zero.

 

[AV1611VET]

-_- I would think that if humans were designed to walk upright from the start ....

They were.

Ecclesiastes 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

Notice evolution is referred to as an "invention," not a "discovery"?

 

[Aman777]

And if the designer were competent that minority would be zero.

God is competent and those He creates are perfect, live in perfect bodies and live forever. Some prefer to remain "dead" to God so they are never born again spiritually. In the end, they are known as the "lost". I'm sorry.

 

[PsychoSarah]

They were.

Ecclesiastes 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

Notice evolution is referred to as an "invention," not a "discovery"?

-_- the word evolution isn't in that bible quote (which is so vague that you could make it out to mean plenty of dissimilar things), but please, do explain why most humans would end up with at least 1 vertebra looking nearly indistinguishable from that of a chimp before they die?

 

[AV1611VET]

... but please, do explain why most humans would end up with at least 1 vertebra looking nearly indistinguishable from that of a chimp before they die?

Ontological reduction.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Ontological reduction.

Yet the differences, when known, are extraordinarily obvious and shows no evidence for the assertions of any enemy.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Ontological reduction.

-_- reduction of being doesn't make sense, especially if you want to include your religious perspectives on it, because this isn't a less common condition in heavily Christian countries.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yet the differences, when known, are extraordinarily obvious ...

Ontological uniqueness.

 

[AV1611VET]

-_- reduction of being doesn't make sense, especially if you want to include your religious perspectives on it, because this isn't a less common condition in heavily Christian countries.

Divide the entire cladogram by the number of elements in the periodic table and see how large a quotient you get.

Can you name me two animals that ever existed that were made up of completely different elements?

If not, two words come to mind: ontological reduction.

 

[Ophiolite]

Divide the entire cladogram by the number of elements in the periodic table and see how large a quotient you get.

Can you name me two animals that ever existed that were made up of completely different elements?

If not, two words come to mind: ontological reduction.

Divide the number of post you have made by the number of excuses to be found in Creationist literature and see how large a feeling of indifference you experience.

Can you name me two Creationist misinterpretations that ever existed that were made up of completely sound arguments.

If not, two words come to mind. No, really. Just the two. Chronosynclastic Infundibulum.

 

[AV1611VET]

*

Brilliant -- just brilliant.

One word comes to mind: Suskind.

 

[Ophiolite]

Brilliant -- just brilliant.

One word comes to mind: Suskind.

For sure. I sussed your kind out a long time ago.