It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is there any better argument against intelligent design that the human mouth/teeth?

page: 13
21
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


It's funny how, because the bee is small, it's often overlooked by most. Something as seemingly mundane as an insect in your garden could give you such a huge clue on the age old question of "was it all an accident" Who knows, i'll just live with my half full glass. And not because it's easier to do so. I think it's a lot more difficult to look at the world and think it was just "luck"..... But that's me.




posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Wide-Eyes
 


Couldn't you count wisdom teeth as replacement teeth? I think that before the advances in dentistry, there was probably not too many people afflicted with impacted wisdom teeth. They have plenty of room to come in when you lose other teeth.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by MrConspiracy
 


think i'll go create a thread, make the topic about something i disagree with in evolution and then spend the rest of the conversation pretending most of the people posting are not worthy of a response and instead, post insulting videos in which the participants erect strawmen to shoot down and laugh at. sounds intellectually honest!

eh, what am i saying. i'll just go listen to movie soundtracks and relax.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Donkey_Dean
reply to post by Wide-Eyes
 


Couldn't you count wisdom teeth as replacement teeth? I think that before the advances in dentistry, there was probably not too many people afflicted with impacted wisdom teeth. They have plenty of room to come in when you lose other teeth.


this entire argument is predicated on the idea that we only have 2 options to pick from -- 1) the original position of the catholic church on the subject (before even they became evolutionists) or 2) evolutionary theory is 100% infallible fact, precisely as it is stated.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Monger
 


What do you mean too small to fit all of our teeth? That's an argument for evolution.. we are evolving past needing some of our back teeth because we aren't crushing bone and other hard things. My wisdom teeth came in and fit though.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by MrConspiracy
 


"I fear your idea of believing in intelligent design requires you to be a "religious" fanatic troubling."

What I fear is having to share this rock with people who are so entrenched in their archaic beliefs that they will ignore scientific evidence as to the nature of their reality.
That's scary, as there is no telling what people of such willful ignorance are capable of.


"To think something happened on purpose for life to exist"

Not discounting that, we could be some advanced inter-dimensional beings biology dissertation project.
Unfortunately since there is no evidence to support that hypothesis & is plenty of evidence to support evolution, I'm gonna go with evolution.
Now if you want to insist that we're the science project with no evidence to support that claim then yes you would need to be fanatical in your belief to continue that ideological idiocy.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 09:24 PM
link   
double post
edit on 23-2-2013 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by aethertek
 





Not discounting that, we could be some advanced inter-dimensional beings biology dissertation project.


yes there is evidence to support that, but the rules of what is considered evidence changes depending who's at the helm at the moment. these types of arguments are circular, because they tend to need to appeal to the most extreme opposite position in order to bolster their accuracy rating. it's certainly easy to depict 1000 year old church science, as inferior to modern science, particularly science from the dark ages. that's a no-brainer but it is not the only position you can hold, and it's not the only position many people hold. to suggest these are our only options is not us putting ourselves in that box, but you. if you want a discussion, talk to the individual not the perceived notions about the individual, based on stuff some guy said a millenia ago, before even the advent of archaeology, much less geology and etc.

in effect, the straw man has no straw left. if you'll notice, we have unique names, avatars and ideas. address the person not the stereotype. thank you and have a nice day
edit on 23-2-2013 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by MrConspiracy
 



I don't think anyone doubts Micro-evolution. It's the fact there's no solid evidence, that i'm aware of that proves Macro-evolution.

Do i believe in intelligent design? Yes. Will an adaptation of a species over time alter this? Nope.

The only people making claims about micro and macro evolution are creationists. Evolutionists do not see anything of that nature.

Macro and micro are the same. The difference is the time scale.

Do I believe in ID? No. There is no goal or design to evolution as can be seen when looking at reality.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 09:32 PM
link   
Is there any better argument against intelligent design that the human mouth/teeth?

Yes. The contents of this thread.

edit on 23-2-2013 by adipocere because: .



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 09:36 PM
link   
While the OP's summary of human history has some rather sizable flaws, the overall point is sound.

However, the BEST argument against intelligent design is not the teeth, but the male nipple. It is utterly useless. (Well, it is theoretically possible to stimulate a male nipple to lactate, if you give it several months, but I very much doubt it is the result of natural selection)

It's just silly when you think about it - winning this argument is laughably easy.
edit on 23-2-2013 by Son of Will because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 09:45 PM
link   
Its been said many times evolution and creation arent at odds. Evolution could be the means to a end.

I think of god as a master computer programmer, he wrote the code, compiled it and hit the enter key and sat back and watched.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Son of Will
While the OP's summary of human history has some rather sizable flaws, the overall point is sound.

However, the BEST argument against intelligent design is not the teeth, but the male nipple. It is utterly useless. (Well, it is theoretically possible to stimulate a male nipple to lactate, if you give it several months, but I very much doubt it is the result of natural selection)

It's just silly when you think about it - winning this argument is laughably easy.
edit on 23-2-2013 by Son of Will because: (no reason given)


it's only laughably easy if you insist on suggesting the human being was never anything but a mammal. but that's not what the texts of most ancient religions say so it's a straw man that's so beaten up its missing all its straw. in other words, if you approach the argument from the position that the mammal body was the original, un-nerfed, body of the adam, then yeah, you gotta point. otherwise, no you don't have a point and the king has no clothes.
edit on 23-2-2013 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Well so much that says nothing.
Please do provide the evidence I'm sure we will all be intrigued.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Monger
reply to post by Wide-Eyes
 


I've always envied the sharks for their teeth. One gets lost someplace, in a fish or in a diver's leg or whatnot, and there's always another one right there to fill it's place.


Don't envy them. If it was the same way with humans, you would REALLY complain about our mouths being too small for all those teeth.

Back before the flood, people lived a lot longer than they do nowadays. For someone who lived hundreds of years, a few new molars would have been kind of handy eventually. Plus, people were much taller back then, which means they had bigger heads, which means there was more room for all those teeth. It wasn't until after the flood that people began to get smaller and smaller (watch the Hovind Theory on Youtube to find out why).

And believe it or not, some people still do eat tubers and roots today. They're called potatoes, beets, carrots, turnips, rutabagas, parsnips, and a bunch of others I cant think of right now.

I just thought how sad it is that a LOT of people's teeth are in bad shape before they get out of their 30s these days, yet people lived hundreds of years back in those days, and all they needed was just a few extra teeth. Kind of testifies to how bad the average diet is now.

I wonder what the deal is with all the many people I have heard of who never had any problems with their wisdom teeth! My wife being one of them, and she just turned 28 yesterday. And on a different not: I remember my first grade teacher still actually had some of her baby teeth. Isn't that odd?

I wonder how many people would never have had any problems with their wisdom teeth, had the dentistry industry made us all believe that all wisdom teeth must be removed or nothing but serious problems will ensue. I think it's funny how just because most people get their wisdom teeth removed, all of a sudden it's assumed our mouths are too small for them.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by aethertek
reply to post by undo
 


Well so much that says nothing.
Please do provide the evidence I'm sure we will all be intrigued.


it's right in the text of genesis. how is it you can claim the adam is an imperfect copy of his original perfect self and call it a logical train of thought, particularly when everybody and his uncle knows that micro evolution does indeed occur! it's right in the text. if he's not perfect, then something changed eh? i mean it's logic. it's not logical to argue that an imperfect body is an imperfect body and here's the proof. no sheit sherlock.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


I don't think there is ANY religion which says that human beings were ever non-mammalian while still being considered "human" in any way shape or form. Even if they did - some words in a book are not evidence. They are stories.

Many of them describe the "spiritual" nature of man as going through stages. But you aren't going to find an instance where humans were still humans, while male nipples had a function. It's a truly bizarre argument, and not just because there isn't a shred of evidence to even suggest it.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 

"it's right in the text of genesis"

LOL So you have no evidence, just your belief, more of nothing.
Believe whatever nonsense you wish but don't claim it as truth.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Son of Will
reply to post by undo
 


I don't think there is ANY religion which says that human beings were ever non-mammalian while still being considered "human" in any way shape or form. Even if they did - some words in a book are not evidence. They are stories.

Many of them describe the "spiritual" nature of man as going through stages. But you aren't going to find an instance where humans were still humans, while male nipples had a function. It's a truly bizarre argument, and not just because there isn't a shred of evidence to even suggest it.


the text of genesis does. the word adam didn't mean mammal originally. the word adam is a plural that applied to both males and females who were copies of the elohim, which was also a plural word. they were not procreative. there's no evidence they were mammals or even looked like we do today. it was not until the fall narrative, where the addition of mammalian procreation was spliced into the adam males and females, described in the text as the tree of knowledge. the word knowledge meant to have sex with. adam knew his wife, and she gave birth. so the tree of knowledge was mammalian procreation and we are the evidence of that.

the tree of life, was dna that regulated eternally regenerating bodies, that were copies of the elohim. when mammalian reproduction was added some things changed, such as the male and female adam, now called the adam and the mother (eve), realized that their naked bodies were fun to look at... et al, sex drive. anyway, right after this, the other elohim, have a big pow wow and decide the genome needs to be nerfed because procreative sentient mammals was not acceptable, presumably we would do thing like over populate the planet and so on and so on. i mean read the text. use strong's concordance to help with original word translations. there's even a strongs concordance online for free.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by aethertek
reply to post by undo
 

"it's right in the text of genesis"

LOL So you have no evidence, just your belief, more of nothing.
Believe whatever nonsense you wish but don't claim it as truth.


no, this is my point: you can't say "hey your teeth are weird, so are evidence that you are not designed by an intelligent designer" when the text where the intelligent designer is discussed says the intelligent designer
nerfed us. lol
it's like telling me, "undo, your body isn't perfect! which is evidence god didn't create you!"
and i would look at you and think....
of course it's not perfect. doh. the adam genome was nerfed thousands and thousands of years ago.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join