Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 24
21
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Monger
 



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


Yes, vestigial leg bones in whales, or the vestigial tail of humans...both are pretty decent arguments for evolution.

However, I don't think evolution and intelligent design are necessarily mutually exclusive...how can we know whether or not the mechanisms for evolution were intelligently designed, for example? I'm not saying a Christian God or any other, just that the mechanisms could certainly have been intelligently designed and put into place...for all we know.




posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Remind me when exactly intelligently designed started to mean perfectly designed? Our smartphones were intelligently designed by us. It doesn't mean the phone is perfect. Oh, you weren't expecting that response were you?



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 05:31 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Monger

Take wisdom teeth, for example. Evolutionarily, they would have served a function as extra grinding teeth for our distant ancestors who had much larger mandibles. For us, though, all they really do is cause a lot of grief. They can get impacted, they can get infected, but mostly they just get intensely painful.



This is a good subject, although I am not sure it has anything to do with religion or God. Personally I have never seen anything in the Bible that states Evolution is false. I was and am still very much into Science. Anyhow I broke a tooth a few years back and it was my rear upper molar. I had it removed because I didn't want to pay a fortune for it to be fixed. It would have required a root canal plus whatever else they do. Then it could need more work in the future etc...

It really worried me, then my wisdom tooth came in and replaced it. Its very interesting to have a tooth come in at my age. Anyhow it is snug up against the tooth the older one was up against and now functions as a proper tooth replacing the one that was taken out. In fact it worked so well I had the other one removed instead of saving it and am now experiencing the same on the other side. Hurts but I know its a brand new tooth God has given me and it will be better then the old.

Sorry had to tell the funny story of my perfectly functional wisdom teeth. Sorry yours did not work out so well. So I guess my post is really a question. Why must Evolution be anti religion?



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by AllGloryIsGods
 


What has been explained to me is that the bible describes creation in a way and order that evolution disagrees with. It also makes man an animal and not separate from other animals. Also, evolution states that creation is an ongoing process happening even today. It removes the need for a creator for all of the things we see alive today.



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
What has been explained to me is that the bible describes creation in a way and order that evolution disagrees with.


You wrote this well. I would agree although I would need to look over the literal theory of Evolution if you will. However the theory is not perfect. Going back to the Scientific Method I believe it can always be modified. Wouldn't it be boring if everything stayed the same forever though? If everything remained the same there would be no purpose of living, no free will. The fact that Evolution happens is only evidence to me of free will.



Originally posted by stereologist
It also makes man an animal and not separate from other animals.


I am guessing you are talking about Evolution still correct? I will assume so please correct me if I am wrong. I would point you to the Neocortex in this case.



The neocortex ratio of a species is the ratio of the size of the neocortex to the rest of the brain. A high neocortex ratio is thought to correlate with a number of social variables such as group size and the complexity of social mating behaviors. Humans are thought to have a large neocortex as a percentage of total brain matter when compared with other mammals. For example, there is only a 30:1 ratio of neocortical gray matter to the size of the medulla in the brainstem of chimpanzees, while the ratio is 60:1 in humans.



In all mammals, it is involved in "higher functions" such as sensory perception, generation of motor commands, spatial reasoning, conscious thought and language.

en.wikipedia.org...

That should be self explanatory. We are conscious and know the difference between right and wrong, good and evil. We learn this from the story of Adam and Eve and the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It is reflected in Science in the Neocortex.



Originally posted by stereologist
Also, evolution states that creation is an ongoing process happening even today. It removes the need for a creator for all of the things we see alive today.


I see no reason why it removes the need for a creator. None whatsoever. I would say the chicken came before the egg. We were created before we were instructed to go forth and multiply. Again it would be boring if everything stayed the same forever. If everything was always the same there would be no testing of man, no need of an earth. There would be no free will.

It takes me a little while to respond as I actually go and research things people say. Sorry for taking apart your post it was hard for me to answer the paragraph directly you put a lot into a little. I like to learn and this is helping me learn more about the Bible and Science. Thank you.
edit on 6-4-2013 by AllGloryIsGods because: I am far from perfect.



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by vasaga
Remind me when exactly intelligently designed started to mean perfectly designed? Our smartphones were intelligently designed by us. It doesn't mean the phone is perfect. Oh, you weren't expecting that response were you?


There's a difference between intelligently designed and utterly stupidly designed. There are plenty of human features that make no sense from a HUMAN intelligent standpoint, yet we're supposed to believe that a being MORE INTELLIGENT than us did it? Oh please. Intentional design makes zero sense in any aspect of human existence or universal existence. You won't find vestigial circuits or buttons in a smart phone. Everything has a purpose. That's part of how we know it was designed by humans. Instruction manual, computer coding, and a functional interface; all tangible and verifiable. They didn't create intentional bottlenecks and extra pieces for the fun of it.
edit on 8-4-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


Obviously, the more advanced something is, the higher the chance for mistakes. Not to mention it's a self-regulating system, which we have a lot of trouble creating. You're talking about stupidly designed, but, when exactly have we created anything even remotely resembling say, a brain? Or hell, take something more simple, our arteries closing themselves after being injected with a needle, like if a pipe gets a leak, the pipe plugging and sealing itself itself. And you call that stupidly designed? Noting that the brain is only one component of any creature, and is more advanced than we can even begin to comprehend, how can you even begin to say that our whole bodies are stupidly designed? You have to try really really REALLY hard, to blind yourself from all the amazing things our bodies are capable of, and to somehow think it does stupid things compared to our standards. Even when ironically, those thoughts you're having are, according to your own materialistic view, coming from your own body. If you're able to think of something that surpasses your body, you've already gone into something that transcends materialism. Nice way to debunk your own views right there.

And that is all assuming we actually have vestigial organs. I would argue that we don't have (so many of) them, and that it's just another biased view towards supporting the idea that we got here randomly. If you wish, you can list all the so-called vestigial organs, and I'll tell you what their function is, or is supposed to be. You're acting as if we have a whole list of vestigial organs, but that number is EXTREMELY limited, compared to all the things that actually do have a function. There might be a few vestigial organs, but, again, the whole vestigial organ thing is from the perspective that things should be perfectly designed if it was intelligently designed, which is a flawed perspective.
edit on 9-4-2013 by vasaga because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 06:40 AM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 


You say that people are incapable of manufacturing things like the brain. That is true today.

What about the heart. A mathematical proof has been worked out showing that the heart has a major fault in it that allows things like young healthy athletes to die of heart attacks. Humans as you point out can't make a brain, yet they are smart enough not to design a heart with a built in defect. Wow.

If the heart is designed as some people would claim, it seems that at least in one instance the designer was not as smart as people.

Then again I don't subscribe to the designer faith. I just see the heart defect as the sort of thing that happens when evolution is involved. Defects happen.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


If you put a power supply under more stress than it's supposed to handle, it's gonna burn. Or if you let a pump have a too heavy load for long periods of time, it's gonna fail. Just because you're healthy doesn't mean your heart is indestructible. I'm just saying. And do we really have the capability of building a failproof heart? Like, really?

Yeah.. You don't subscribe to the designer 'faith'. You just subscribe to the idea that randomness can somehow create intelligence. Oyeah, we just need to add the little miracle worker called natural selection. which is unfalsifiable.
edit on 10-4-2013 by vasaga because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 



If you put a power supply under more stress than it's supposed to handle, it's gonna burn. Or if you let a pump have a too heavy load for long periods of time, it's gonna fail. Just because you're healthy doesn't mean your heart is indestructible. I'm just saying. And do we really have the capability of building a failproof heart? Like, really?

Yeah.. You don't subscribe to the designer 'faith'. You just subscribe to the idea that randomness can somehow create intelligence. Oyeah, we just need to add the little miracle worker called natural selection. which is unfalsifiable.

Not talking about a heart failing due to a high workload. A heart can fail under low workload due to a design failure in which the signals between the parts of the heart lead to a state where the heart fails to beat properly.

It is a falsehood to suggest that evolution is solely randomness. And I see you know a little about that. Computer programs that apply randomness and selection work well.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by vasaga
Obviously, the more advanced something is, the higher the chance for mistakes.

Say what? How does that make the least bit of sense? Our medical technology is far more advanced today and you're claiming the the older technology 100 years ago made less mistakes? Just because they weren't aware of all the mistakes, doesn't mean they didn't make them. The more advanced or intelligent something is the LESS LIKELY it is to make a mistake. Just look at SAT scores and other tests of intelligence. Smart people make less mistakes, and it should be assumed that any being capable of creating a lifeform or altering DNA is much more advanced than ourselves.. but the results go against it.


Not to mention it's a self-regulating system, which we have a lot of trouble creating. You're talking about stupidly designed, but, when exactly have we created anything even remotely resembling say, a brain?


singularityhub.com...


Or hell, take something more simple, our arteries closing themselves after being injected with a needle, like if a pipe gets a leak, the pipe plugging and sealing itself itself. And you call that stupidly designed?

I call that NOT designed. I mean why have the reproduction system and the waste system combined into one? Look how many disease can be caused because of that? If I were designing a city, I wouldn't put a park in the middle of the sewer system. Why are certain foods bad for you and certain foods good? Sounds very inefficient to me. Our flesh is soft and weak, not attuned to wilderness survival any more. We can die very easily. We can go blind very easily plus our eyes are weaker than a lot of other lesser life forms. In fact all of our senses are weaker except possibly touch. That doesn't make the least bit of sense for a designer. Aging, liquid blood that's easy to loose, same tube for breathing and eating, leads to choking and death. We have main arteries that aren't even protected minimally. You could slip cut the neck and you're dead in 5 minutes tops.


Noting that the brain is only one component of any creature, and is more advanced than we can even begin to comprehend, how can you even begin to say that our whole bodies are stupidly designed? You have to try really really REALLY hard, to blind yourself from all the amazing things our bodies are capable of, and to somehow think it does stupid things compared to our standards.

Our bodies are amazing, but they weren't designed; it evolved and it's obvious. If we were designed it was a bang up job done by somebody who didn't really have a firm grasp on what they were doing. It is certainly not created by an all powerful being for the reasons above.


Even when ironically, those thoughts you're having are, according to your own materialistic view, coming from your own body. If you're able to think of something that surpasses your body, you've already gone into something that transcends materialism. Nice way to debunk your own views right there.

You're a funny guy, I have to admit. You must not scrutinize your arguments, or just like to keep it simple. OMG he's thinking about a higher intelligence! That MUST MEAN DESIGN. Evolution's WRONG!!!



And that is all assuming we actually have vestigial organs. I would argue that we don't have (so many of) them, and that it's just another biased view towards supporting the idea that we got here randomly.

There's that random word again. It's a shame people only stick to catch phrases like that instead of actually explaining what science says. Oh, it was just random, end of story. I hate to burst your bubble but evolution is not random, despite how desperately you want it to be. Well gee, you must have just debunked you're own argument there.


If you wish, you can list all the so-called vestigial organs, and I'll tell you what their function is, or is supposed to be. You're acting as if we have a whole list of vestigial organs, but that number is EXTREMELY limited, compared to all the things that actually do have a function. There might be a few vestigial organs, but, again, the whole vestigial organ thing is from the perspective that things should be perfectly designed if it was intelligently designed, which is a flawed perspective.

Why would there be a few vestigial organs? Or even just one? Please by all means, explain from a design perspective why that would happen? Why a tailbone? I understand that some people believe in genetic modification of early evolved hominids, but saying we were designed from scratch or that all life was holds no merit whatsoever.


Oyeah, we just need to add the little miracle worker called natural selection. which is unfalsifiable.

Now I know you're joking around. That is flat out false. It's been observed many many times.
edit on 10-4-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 08:45 PM
link   
I'm not gonna bother replying to everything.


Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by vasaga
 


It is a falsehood to suggest that evolution is solely randomness. And I see you know a little about that. Computer programs that apply randomness and selection work well.

Computer programmers know all too well that the random they program is not really random. It's pseudo-random.


Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by vasaga
Obviously, the more advanced something is, the higher the chance for mistakes.

Say what? How does that make the least bit of sense? Our medical technology is far more advanced today and you're claiming the the older technology 100 years ago made less mistakes? Just because they weren't aware of all the mistakes, doesn't mean they didn't make them. The more advanced or intelligent something is the LESS LIKELY it is to make a mistake. Just look at SAT scores and other tests of intelligence. Smart people make less mistakes, and it should be assumed that any being capable of creating a lifeform or altering DNA is much more advanced than ourselves.. but the results go against it.
So it's more likely to make mistakes while building a paper airplane than a real one? Right...



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 



Computer programmers know all too well that the random they program is not really random. It's pseudo-random.

Only when the values are PRN generated.

It appears that you don't understand the difference in the implications between random and pseudo-random numbers.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Gazrok
 


Yes in the real world people will always be able to reach a point beyond current understanding and say "LOOK you cant say THAT wasn't where (random magic being) interfered".

But really how much progress is made when there is an appeal to something outside of reality? When has that ever helped, beyond manipulation.



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by vasaga
So it's more likely to make mistakes while building a paper airplane than a real one? Right...


Really? That's your argument? That folding a piece of paper is easier than engineering a 747?
Not if you intend the thing to fly more than 10 seconds. Holy apples to oranges, batman!

You claimed that the more advanced something is the easier it is to make mistakes, which is false and only works if you apply it selectively. I gave you the example of modern medicine which disproved that statement. Do you honestly believe that science makes more mistakes today, than they did 100 years ago? Engineers, biologists, geneticists, etc all make more mistakes today than they did when they were less advanced with less knowledge. This is your claim.

If you do not have advanced knowledge and technology, you do not have airplanes, bottom line. If you have intelligent experts who know every detail of every phase of building or designing an airplane, you are less likely to make mistakes. If you have a bunch of guys who kind of understand it, but still don't quite grasp the engine mechanics or understand all of the details, there WILL be more mistakes made most of the time. More knowledge = less mistakes. It has nothing to do with how advanced something is. Something might SEEM advanced to one group of people, but could be basic fundamentals to another. Obviously if the 2 groups of people both tried to build an airplane, the more advanced people would make less mistakes. You can bury your head in the sand, but that's a fact of reality. Complex or 'advanced' is relative depending on who you are and how deep your knowledge is.

edit on 11-4-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 04:43 PM
link   
It's funny how I have to explain the same concept a billion times, because you people are so closed-minded that you have a complete inability to understand very simple ideas, independent from whether you agree with them or not. All I get in return is red herring arguments. Your minds are too tainted with the idea that you are some sort of police that needs to shut down anyone who does not join your anti-"anything that's not 'science'"-club. Which is why, again, I will be leaving this thread, due to this not being a discussion, but an act of violence.

Not that you will understand what I mean with what I said above. All I'll get in return is me being a superstitious creationist that spouts nonsense blah blah, because that's the only thing your minds allow. I'm tired of playing defense all the time with the same retarded old arguments. Find someone else to bully. The inability to crawl out of your little box is quite sad. And spare me the comments about me being the same. I have gone beyond the current paradigm, while you're still in the old religion vs science battle that started in the beginning of the 19th century.
edit on 11-4-2013 by vasaga because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 05:21 PM
link   
How about "Sex" as the argument For Intelligent Design?



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 





Human Beings are now being born without wisdom teeth


You mean, the wisdom teeth don't grow out during the time of a child's teething, right? Mine grew out in my 20's and they hurt like hell!
edit on 4/11/2013 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Monger
 


Because humans don't eat the food they are intended, you blame the "blueprint"?

Dr Weston Price found that
ethnic groups who ate a good variety of natural foods had wide faces and good teeth. When their relatives or children started eating refined foods they had teeth problems. Unfortunately, these groups are not the norm.

Humans have a certain amount of freedom of choice, which they mostly misuse.





new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join