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: 14
21
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Son of Will
 


However, the BEST argument against intelligent design is not the teeth, but the male nipple. It is utterly useless.

Well that's an interesting point. I suppose it is a better point than the teeth.

I would hardly say it's useless though.

Male nipples have nerve endings. They're sexually gratifying when stimulated.




posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by Son of Will
 


However, the BEST argument against intelligent design is not the teeth, but the male nipple. It is utterly useless.

Well that's an interesting point. I suppose it is a better point than the teeth.

I would hardly say it's useless though.

Male nipples have nerve endings. They're sexually gratifying when stimulated.


i was going to mention that, and even if they are left overs, they are only evidence they are left overs from prior
adaptation of the mammalian species, which the adam race was not a part of until it was spliced in.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 10:43 PM
link   
Wow, this thread sent me on a rabbit trail. Years ago I read the book Buried Alive by Jack Cuozzo, and, upon reading this thread, I remembered him mentioning that the human face continues to grow well into old age. I wanted to make sure my memory was correct, so I looked the book up on Google books, and presto: there it was! If you search the book for skull growth, you'll find that he cites numerous sources stating that the skull continues to grow as the body ages.

Which makes me wonder: if we, perchance, originally had longer lifespans, would wisdom teeth have had someplace to go?

That's all conjecture, of course. I don't know enough about teeth and the human skull to assess the validity of my thoughts. Perhaps someone more enlightened on this topic can throw in their two cents? Having my tenuous speculation completely dashed wouldn't particularly bother me.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 10:43 PM
link   
p.s. if we're gonna talk about an intelligent designer, both sides get to employ the concepts behind it, pro or con. to suggest i can't use it, while you can, is not a discussion.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Monger
 


Actually there are more reasons to argue against creationism than teeth... there are good reasons to argue for intelligent design too... but I doubt it's an all or nothing proposition. I'd guess the reality is intelligence and chance. This universe is rarely black or white... but very grey.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Donkey_Dean
 


Yes, my wisdom teeth came through fine as I'd already had the farthest back teeth removed by the dentist. I always thought that was the purpose of wisdom teeth too. Star for you.
I just wish the rest of my teeth would regrow.

edit on 23-2-2013 by Wide-Eyes because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 11:02 PM
link   
Genesis 1:27 So Elohim created adam in his [own] image, in the image of Elohim created he him; male and female created he them.

translators assumed elohim was singular so inserted "his" and "he him" and "he them". but elohim is plural and so is adam. so really that verse should read

So The Gods created the adam race in their own images, in the images of the Gods created they them, male and female created they them.

at this point the adam is not a single man but rather copies of the elohim, males and females. et. al, they were elohim clones / copies. not human mammals.

now if you could prove the text says our bodies today are still the same species we started off as, based on the text, then you could say the intelligent designer idea is messed up based on the texts own claims, but in fact, the text even says, when the adam had knowledge from the tree of knowledge (dna for procreation), they were later blocked also from the tree of life (dna for eternally regenerating bodies), which was the real big nerf. with loss of that feature and addition of procreative mammalian features, we started having all kinds of physical drawbacks.

think about this:

the mother suddenly had pain in childbirth, as if to say she had children before that but it wasn't painful?
why? i think the answer is because cloning doesn't hurt, whereas vaginal delivery does. and vaginal delivery was what made her the eve (mother), and no longer a female adam (clone). i suspect it wasn't painful even after the mammalian procreation but became so when the tree of life nerf was applied, cause things were no longer self repairing. new teeth didn't grow when old ones fell out, etc

p.s. moses wrote most of the books of torah, and he was raised an egyptian in the house of pharaoh (ahmose). so the adam is likely another way of saying the atum, which is the egyptian god of creation and also a plural word. remember some of noah's descendants settled in egypt after the black sea flood so took the sumerian stories with them to egypt.

the reason why the atum are significant is, because the gods (elohim) and the atum are the same thing. the adam were named after their creators. moses appears to have went with the sumerian name for the gods (alulim - a plural word) while discussing the creation of the adam, and the egyptian name for the creation that were identical copies of the gods, et, al, the atum, to keep; the ideas separate, et,al, that one group were the creators and the other group the created even if they were identical.

so when it says the woman was taken out of the adam, it's just describing the creation of female adam by cloning them from dna taken from the atum, same as adam. same same same.
edit on 23-2-2013 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 11:02 PM
link   
The antibiotics we take to combat illness are, in fact, proof of evolution.

Case closed.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrperplexed
The antibiotics we take to combat illness are, in fact, proof of evolution.

Case closed.


sigh. there's no argument against antibiotics, micro evolution or even some forms of macro evolution, and resistance.
oh good grief, please read the thread.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 11:41 PM
link   
As mentioned, creationists do not accept logic/rational argument. so this is pointless



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by cartesia
As mentioned, creationists do not accept logic/rational argument. so this is pointless


where is my argument irrational?



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 11:52 PM
link   
I would like to remind people Intelligent Design and Creationism are not necessarily the same. More importantly, there are instances when they are not. Creationism typically implies a particular, and specified, religious view about the origin of humans andor existence. Various religions and various religious views. However, Intelligent Design is not restricted in this way! There is no reason someone cannot believe there was 'Intelligent Design' behind Nature's mechanisms. I would even argue you couldn't prove that was not the case. Lets keep the discussion open to all flavors.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
I would like to remind people Intelligent Design and Creationism are not necessarily the same. More importantly, there are instances when they are not. Creationism typically implies a particular, and specified, religious view about the origin of humans andor existence. Various religions and various religious views. However, Intelligent Design is not restricted in this way! There is no reason someone cannot believe there was 'Intelligent Design' behind Nature's mechanisms. I would even argue you couldn't prove that was not the case. Lets keep the discussion open to all flavors.


do you have a theory on intelligent design?
is it based on anything in particular, if so?



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


I have theories and beliefs yes. I am a Deist and so believe in a 'Creator' 'God' 'Prime Mover' whatever term preferred. My position is that I believe it's more likely than not. I don't claim absolute truth. I'd rather expand on what I believe in another thread
As far as it pertains to the OP I do not in any way view this as a rational and conclusive argument against 'Intelligent Design' when appreciating the scope of what 'Intelligent Design' could mean. Against specific religious beliefs there is argument.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 12:26 AM
link   
I only read about 25% but I didn't see anyone with this answer yet:

No, it's not a good argument against intelligent design.

IN FACT FROM A DESIGN POINT IT WAS ALMOST PERFECT.

Humans had back teeth when they needed them. When they didn't, it coincided with medical advancements that allowed for the removal of teeth.

If someone did want the human race to flourish, they did a pretty good job - the proof is in the results.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 





Against specific religious beliefs there is argument.



doesn't seem like there's an argument as far as what the text of genesis says. a nerf is a nerf.
we use to regenerate everything, we were nerfed and stopped regenerating everything. that's clear
in the text. so to say, hey why don't we regenerate teeth and so forth, clearly not intelligent design,
when it is explained right in the text that we weren't just designed, we were also nerfed after we were designed. it's like a redundant argument as far as genesis is concerned, anyway.
edit on 24-2-2013 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 12:43 AM
link   
People who think teeth are a good argument back two incorrect assumptions:

1. Whoever or whatever designed humans so there would be no difficulties in life.
(so not true)

2. The designer wouldn't use the same basic building blocks of animals.
They probably made the animals. Even if the animals were created by evolution first, they probably would use
the same blue print to make us compatible. (or just took an animal and helped the evolution along).



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by freedomlover79
Hello, I'm a new user and I'm a confirmed believer in intelligent design. You say that the human mouth is too small for all of our teeth, but what do you consider "too small"? Is your mouth so cramped that you cannot comfortably chew your food? Last time I checked evolution was indeed still a theory and not a fact. Other users can talk down to believers in intelligent design and people of faith all they want, but it still takes a certain degree of faith to believe in evolution. Evolution has never been proven, otherwise it would be called "evolution fact" and not "evolution theory". When did evolution stop? Has anyone been witness to a species evolving before their eyes? Before anyone posts any negative responses, know that I respect your beliefs, whatever they may be, and I'm not trying to troll this thread. I just thought I would post from the point of view of the intelligent design side because the OP asked for confirmed believers. Thanks for reading.


Ive no interest to get into an argument with you. Because winning it, would be like winning the special olympics... you know the saying. I just had to facepalm, but hey. It was my fault to read past the part were you say you are a believer. Only me to blame. But maybe, I can teach you one little thing from science which you please remember. The term THEORY means HYPOTHESES that have withstood many attempts of FALSIFICATION. In science there are NO FACTS. In science you cannot PROVE anything, but you can only prove something wrong. A Hypothesis can be tested. If it cannot, than it isn't even that. The believe that we were created cannot be tested. So it isnt even a hypothesis. It is a guess, but not even a sophisticated one. Just so you see where your believe stands compared to the theory of evolution in science. If the theory gets a premium class A, your believe gets a lousy D or whatever. Not much more than hearsay.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 05:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Monger
 


As a confirmed believer in intelligent design I can confirm you don't KNOW the mind of GOD:

1.) Why should God The Creator design everything perfectly, to last forever with no downside?

After all, we know God The Creator makes us suffer so we feel more pleasure. God says we learn through our suffering. God The Creator wants us to be good and pure but he also wants us to have free will - thus we must SUFFER PHYSICALLY sometimes, in different ways for different DESIGN TYPES.

2.) God The Creator needs to be accepted DESPITE CONTRARY EVIDENCE.

After all how would God The Creator know we are sincere if we had not overcome our DOUBT of his all powerful existence. God The Creator has strewn fossils in the ground and 'bad design' all around so that WE, those made in HIS IMAGE, accept HIM despite the -ve evidence - or GO TO HELL

3.) God The Creator may like a joke.

After all, who said God The Creator had to make everything 'normal'? Why should God The Creator NOT have a SENSE OF HUMOUR, a sense of 'Art for art's sake', a sense of FUN, a sense of CREATIVE BARRIER BREAKING?

4.) Who are we, mere mortals, to judge what is 'INTELLIGENT DESIGN'?

After all we are not ALL SEEING, ALL KNOWING so we often miss the subtle reasoning behind God The Creator's methodology and call it madness, nature or even EVILUTION...

5.) God The Creator LOVES CREATING so Evolution appears.

After all, as an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER God the Creator REUSES and BUILDS UPON his OLD DESIGNS, over time. He loves tinkering and loves his creations.

......

As even the most DUMBED DOWN SCIENTIST can now see GOD is THE INTELLIGENT CREATOR. Amen

As I say, I am an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER - some people have told me my designs are intelligent and a few designs have even been awarded a grade towards a qualification, or have been bought by others.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 05:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by freedomlover79
Hello, I'm a new user and I'm a confirmed believer in intelligent design. You say that the human mouth is too small for all of our teeth, but what do you consider "too small"? Is your mouth so cramped that you cannot comfortably chew your food? Last time I checked evolution was indeed still a theory and not a fact. Other users can talk down to believers in intelligent design and people of faith all they want, but it still takes a certain degree of faith to believe in evolution. Evolution has never been proven, otherwise it would be called "evolution fact" and not "evolution theory". When did evolution stop? Has anyone been witness to a species evolving before their eyes? Before anyone posts any negative responses, know that I respect your beliefs, whatever they may be, and I'm not trying to troll this thread. I just thought I would post from the point of view of the intelligent design side because the OP asked for confirmed believers. Thanks for reading.


Technically, gravity is still a theory...but we don't see you jumping from the roof of any building now do we?

reply to post by PrivateSi
 


You obviously have no Idea what you are talking about.
edit on 24-2-2013 by Griffo515 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join