if other Life is Discovered wouldn't this Pose a problem?

your Point is? this makes us better how?
as I said the Humans aren't better then other Species we just have something they don't. And they have things we don't. ours just happens to prove alittle more useful and it seems you pointed out more destructive.

RE: "If you believe that God loves and favors humans above all other creatures, why did he make our lower backs, knees, and air and food pipe construction such obvious weaknesses?"Is that all ya' got? hehehe...This same question could be asked of Darwinian evolutionists. Why would naturalism continue in its path to keep a single airway, and not choose multiple paths (Using your logic)? I would suspect that if this were a design flaw, a far superior mechanism would have evolved over the millions of years that were transversed by evolution from reptiles to mammals, for example. I think "things" have gone quite well ( I'm being facetious of course). As for the weak knees and lower back argument, I'll politely disagree. I am a powerlifter; I've seen those same "weak" knees and backs hoist over 1000 lbs.Regarding the aforementioned skull weakness; we're talking about the human body, not an artillery piece. After all, in a peceful world none of these apparent weaknesses would ever be exploited.Cheers

quote:

---

Is that all ya' got? hehehe...

​

This same question could be asked of Darwinian evolutionists. Why would naturalism continue in its path to keep a single airway, and not choose multiple paths (Using your logic)? I would suspect that if this were a design flaw, a far superior mechanism would have evolved over the millions of years that were transversed by evolution from reptiles to mammals, for example.

---

You suspect? That hardly makes it a central prediction of evolutionary theory. The fact is that sub-optimal body plans make far more sense if one accepts their evolutionary origin. Why? Because natural selection favors the best function available, not the best one possible. The ideal solution does not have to randomly occur. If the prevailing trait scores a D+, a C- will happily take its place. The fact that many of our systems and organs work just well enough argues against a perfect designer and leads one quite readily to the combination of mutation and selection.

quote:

---

I think "things" have gone quite well ( I'm being facetious of course). As for the weak knees and lower back argument, I'll politely disagree. I am a powerlifter; I've seen those same "weak" knees and backs hoist over 1000 lbs.

---

So your anecdotal evidence supersedes the stories of countless people who experience lower back pain simply due to living a normal life? All the people with daily knee pain from just doing what we normally do - walking and running? Perspective, my friend, will take you outside your own experience and into the larger realm of human life.

quote:
______________________________________________________________________If the prevailing trait scores a D+, a C- will happily take its place. The fact that many of our systems and organs work just well enough argues against a perfect designer and leads one quite readily to the combination of mutation and selection.
______________________________________________________________________This is certainly not a new argument, based on any ground breaking discovery. However, I will say, that IF "Darwinian Evolution" is the model which you employ, this could certainly make sense. By simple deduction, there could be no other way, hence our dilemna. But, I will argue (subjectively) that these C-'s look rather like A's to some.quote:
________________________________________________________________So your anecdotal evidence supersedes the stories of countless people who experience lower back pain simply due to living a normal life? All the people with daily knee pain from just doing what we normally do - walking and running? Perspective, my friend, will take you outside your own experience and into the larger realm of human life.
______________________________________________________________________Not at all. Certainly any joint may be overtaxed by stress. As powerlifters, we see far more shoulder injuries, because of the manner in which we chose to stress our bodies. i.e. bench press. This is a very unnatural position for mammals "designed" for fully erect bi-pedal locomotion. Genetics is certainly a factor, but can't accout for the numerous variables present, under these conditions.Yes, I agree that body parts degenerate over time. Evidence for a creator certainly can't be discounted for this reason. After all, a designer's intention may not have been "eternal" life.Thanks again, for your reply, Zephyr. My intention is not to sound arrogantly or ignorantly dogmatic. I have much to learn from evolutionists and creationists alike. BTW, I happen to be of the latter ilk. I'm certainly no expert in any field of study, and only wish to engage in dialogue from time to time.

Tell me, those power-lifters who dead-lift 1000 pounds, do they wear back supports when they do it? Why?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

No, we are not the dominant lifeform on this pal-blue-dot. Beatles are! There are TRILLIONS of them, and some of us eat some of them(Yeck!).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tell me, those power-lifters who dead-lift 1000 pounds, do they wear back supports when they do it? Why?
------------------Yes John, most do wear safety belts, along with other supportive gear. Some "raw" lifters don't use equipment. Consequently, their totals (three lifts) are usually lighter. I see your point; however, I won't concede just yet. The type of load were talking about greatly ( I would argue, unnecessarily) stresses the body and may not have been the intention of a designer. An omniscient creator certainly would have anticipated it though.BTW, no one has actually deadlifted 1000 lbs yet, my earlier quote notwithstanding. The world record is nearing 950lbs. The World record for squat is just over 1100 lbs.Cheers

So, perchance, you could help me Shimbabwe with a few questions that I've had. Have you read anything by Ed Babinski (a former creationist turned evolutionist)? He raises a number of interesting theological points that I would be interested in your take on, specifically, the "Why We Believe In A Designer" section.Introduction:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/4/part1.html
"Why We Believe In A Designer":
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/4/part2.html
Complete works:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/I'll quote a couple of them for you:Only a Designer would have had the infinite wisdom to design whales so that they all have a rudimentary pelvic girdle (hip bone) and femurs (thigh bones) that remain hidden within their flesh, unattached to their vertebral column. In fact, 1 in 400 Minke whales that have been examined have complete sets of hind legs, i.e., not just femurs but also tibias and fibulas, lying hidden within their flesh. Other species of whales have been photographed with muscular and bony protrusions that extend outside of their flesh in spots where rear legs would be in land-dwelling animals. Nice to know that the genes for such land-dwelling features as rear limbs, are still present and sometimes activated in modern day species of whales!And....Only a Designer would have had the infinite wisdom and compassion to create the sensation of pain not merely to "warn" us of danger (like the danger of touching a hot frying pan with your bare hands) but also created pain just for its own sake."It was no use feeling the pain of an inflamed appendix until modern surgical techniques were sufficiently advanced to remove it. And often the `warnings' appear ill-adjusted to the seriousness of the disease. Toothache kills few people, while sadly some forms of cancer give little pain in the early stages. So we are left with a large amount of pain that seems to serve no purpose and which is not far distant from torture." [C. S. Rodd "Questions People Ask: 4. The Problem of Evil and Suffering" in The Expository Times, Vol. 107, no. 2, Nov. 1995](Or take the land leeches of Sri Lanka that can bite a person painlessly and drain them of dangerous amounts of blood. If pain was the designer's "gift" to "warn" us of "life threatening dangers" then he let those damn leeches get by, didn't He?)And....Speaking of another flaw (albeit a minor one compared to the above), designed into the upright skeletal system of human beings are "two major blood vessels, going to the legs, that must cross a sharp promontory bone at the junction of two lower vertebrae in the spine. The organs in the pelvis exert great pressure on those two blood vessels. During pregnancy, this pressure may build up to such an extent that the vein is nearly pressed shut, making for very poor blood drainage of the left leg. This is the so-called `milk leg' of pregnancy. Four-legged animals experience no such problem." [Wilton Krogman, "The Scars of Human Evolution," Scientific American, 1951 - as cited in Timothy Anders' The Evolution of Evil]Your take on these (and others)? I just quickly pulled a few out - there are literally hundreds of these on the page that really deserve an answer.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Bah. It's the simplest thing in the world to destroy.Now, show me that humans have the capability to save the planet, particularly from ourselves, and you'll have my attention in an argument about human superiority.

quote:

---

I see your point; however, I won't concede just yet.

---

Our backs are very nearly the same as those of our near relatives, but in those animals the back connects the front and rear but doesn't carry much load. Most of the load is carried by the legs, or legs and arms if you prefer. Consider the structure of a leg. Mostly, it is rigid bone-- calf section and thing, for example. Joints connect the sections because they are required for locomotion. Those joints are also the weakest part of the leg. Now look at a spine, which in humans, carries a great deal of our weight. The spine is made up of short bones connected by fairly crude joints. In other words, the spine is dominated by the weakest link-- the joints.Grab a two by four and stand it on end. Imagine a weight sitting on top of it. Now consider what would happen to the strength of that board if you cut it into segments, and stacked them one on top of the other. It is much weaker, yes? Now, don't stack those segments directly on top of one another but stack them so as to form an S-curve. What happens to the strength now?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

if Other Life in the Universe is Discovered wouldn't this pose a Problem for the Bible? which seems to say the earth is the Center of the Universe. and if Intelligent Life is found(like us) wouldn't this Falsify us Being the most perfect creation?

---

We already know that the earth isnt the centre of the galaxy,
let alone the centre of the universe. Your right, it would
cause problems for the Bible, but not for belief in God.It is extremely likely there is life in this universe besides us.
Its very unlikely that that life would resemble us in any way, since
in terms of evolution life should adapt to the environments it is formed in.
For example, atmospheric gases related to respiration,
distance to the sun/related planetry mass and gravity,and its effect
upon skeletal structure. The effect of lower lifeforms upon the
evolution of sentient ones (i.e ancestor traits etc) See what I mean?What Im saying is that the type of life we encounter would make a large difference in the argument. Since if we find life forms that we can relate to in terms of language, physicality etc would suggest that they evolved in similar conditions to us, since the odds are, given evolutionist principles, that they would be completely different. Therefore if they evolved in similar conditions wouldnt this suggest that those conditions are the only means of forming intelligent life? (I say intelligent life because we are trying to extrapolate whether or not there
is any divine intention towards our creation, if this life is not intelligent it wouldnt displace us as a favoured creation) Also Id suggest that if there are definable conditions for forming
intelligent life, that the evolutionist argument on the matter would be invalid. Basically, the
point I'm trying to get across is that your statements validity would depend on the type of
lifeforms we encountered. It would however have definite implications towards current
interpretations of the Bible, as well as interpretations of the theory of evolution. Not evolution
itself, since that is proven fact.As for the debate on the design of human beings. I would accept the validity of this
argument. Infact I personally believe in evolution and that it offers more of an explanation up
to a point than certain scriptures. So, perhaps you prove God did not create man in the
'classical' Genesis sense. What does this achieve? All it proves is the infallible nature of
mans interpretation of God (ie the Bible.) Id like to see you however prove God doesnt exist.
Does God have to have created us personally in order to favour us, or love us any more?
This whole argument is similar to the 'Why does God let bad things happen?' situation.Anyway asides from this point, I'd be interested to see whether there is evidence to show
if an evolved descendent of a life form ever excelled the limitations set within that original
life-forms DNA. Basically, if all evolution has been subject to original genetic parameters,
that suggests there was an original 'plan' within molecular material. Indeed even with
small changes in DNA, man and a banana for example share upwards of 80% the same
genetic material. If such variation in organic life is possible from only a tiny percentage
difference of DNA, doesnt that suggest that the original ameoba or whatever else is said
to originate life had that potential based within it? If this isnt the case then did that ameoba
and subsequent animals exceed their genetic potential, go beyond what they were
supposedly capable of? I may have explained this is a confusing way, but if you are
on either side of this point, its hard to accept that all of this occured without some sort of
intervention..peace.------------------
..To the intelligent, every fact is an explanation.. ..To the ignorant, no explanation will suffice..

I won't say I don't believe in God and I won't say I do. (or think) I am talking about the bible Because most here are christens. But I agree finding other life wouldn't make God out of the question.

Shimbabwe, you deserve applause. You have a very good point there.Creation perspective:
God created everything perfect. Why do we have bad things? Because of man's sin and the resulting curse on the world. Read Genesis 3. You see that thorns and such only came about because humans' rebellion caused sin to enter the world.If joined food and air pipes are such a bad design, how come we humans didn't become extinct long ago because of the mutations and natural selection process producing better designs? Humans with stronger bones or choke-proof air/food pipes would out-perform Homo Sapiens. The only reason we have imperfections is because of the Curse. If Adam and Eve hadn't sinned, God's perfect design would never have been corrupted.

so when man first sinned(which if you read it you can see they really didn't but thats another subject) God changed his design to punish them? The reason we have survived is Because as we said it is good enough but still not great or as great as it could be if it where designed. And doesn't sin and evil also show bad design?[This message has been edited by DC85, 09-14-2003]

quote:

---

If joined food and air pipes are such a bad design, how come we humans didn't become extinct long ago because of the mutations and natural selection process producing better designs?

---

Mutation and NS don't produce better designs, necessarily. There are a lot of factors, but if something works, even if it doesn't work very well, it may hang around for a long time. For example, if there were a mutation in humans that resulted in a less-liable-to-choking windpipe then perhaps that design would take over. There is no guarantee that such a mutation will ever occur, and, if it did, there is the further consideration of selective pressure. If the selective pressure isn't strong enough, a better design may never prosper. An easy example is aging. Some people have lived to 120 or so, I can't remember the record off hand. Why don't we all live that long? It is obviously a 'better' design. Maybe so, but anything that effects the body past the reproductive age is irrelevant so far as evolution is concerned.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com