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

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.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks REI,I have been out of town and out of pocket the last couple of days. I will attempt to address your concerns, after I research the material you have referenced.I will "see" you in a couple of hours...err make that tomorrow. My workout took far longer than I anticipated.Cheers[This message has been edited by Shimbabwe, 09-14-2003]

well that belongs in the book nook... I have never read it... but I think the reason People believe in it is Because. Its hard to picture for our minds something without a beginning.. or something just happening. In our little world everything is made so That means all things must be made... its this reasoning that makes creation go round

Message 83 of 90 09-12-2003 05:19 PM--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Re: 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.Shim: Hello REI,While Ed Babinski has posed some very interesting , albeit cynical, assertions on the referenced pages, none of these musings are a threat to creationism. I certainly don't have the time here to respond to each point. I will attempt to address the specific examples you have noted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Re: 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!Shim: This is certainly good news for the creationist, that these "genes" are still active. This fact presents a problem for Darwinian evolution. Here is a later quote/response by Ed himself which should give some insight as to the strength of his earlier propositions.Edward Babinski
Thursday, July 24, 2003
Subject: Whale Evolution and Hind Limb Rudiments
Subject: Are these classified as vestigial limbs, or vestigial pelvises on whales in the museum photos?Vestigial pelvises (hipbones) in modern day whales."I don't know whether the museum pics should be displayed as "vestigal hind limbs," Maybe the Baleen whale is a hipbone with a leg bone fused to it at an angle, but I can't tell. It could just be a pelvis with no vestigial hind limb. From the pics I've seen of whale pelvises, that's all it might be. The vestigial leg bone in Baleen whales is usually just an ovoidal bone, the pelvis reduced to an egg-shaped bone, and I don't see that in the photo. It's often overlooked according to one of those Japanese experts on vestigial whale hind limbs. And so that may be why it isn't hanging from the ceiling in the museum. But I can't prove that. All I can say is that the most you can safely say is that those whale skeletons show a vestigial pelvis.The photos of the hind leg rudiments, which are rarer, show more, even the Right Whale dissection diagrams show more, like pelvis, femur and tibia, which only the Right Whale has."Best, EdShim: The evolution from a vestigal femur and tibia "hidden in the whale's flesh" to a rudimentary pelvis would certainly be difficult to imagine, if not totally implausible.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Re: 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?)Shim: Pain certainly has its place; However, our bodies posess other equally important warning methods. i.e. fever, chills, lethargy, discoloration...and the list goes on.By the way, I don't think humans were intended for leech consumption.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: 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]Shim: Another example of the human body Shouting, "Hey you! Somthin' ain't right, here!"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: 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.Shim: I wish I were qualified to answer all of them. Perhaps, I will chose a few more on my next visit to this forum.[This message has been edited by Shimbabwe, 09-15-2003]

quote:

---

Thanks again, for your reply, Zephyr. My intention is not to sound arrogantly or ignorantly dogmatic.

---

You haven't yet - much appreciated.

quote:

---

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.

---

Hey. Welcome to the forum, by the way. My apologies for jumping on you like I did, and for being gone since Thursday. I had a three-day weekend and old friends visiting.Anyway... enjoy the discussion. In case you hadn't noticed, it can get rather heated If I have enough time, I'll get back into this thread, but I have a project at a critical phase and will be visiting the site all next week. Have fun!

quote:

---

Shim: The evolution from a vestigial femur and tibia "hidden in the whale's flesh" to a rudimentary pelvis would certainly be difficult to imagine, if not totally implausible.

---

You are completely misreading - he is not talking about whale evolution here (that discussion currently going on in another thread ). He is stating (quite correctly) that *modern* whales often have vestigal pelvises, and even leg bones concealed in the flesh (the latter quote was in reference to one particular museum piece which had a vestigal pelvis, but it was unclear whether there were vestigal leg bones). Do you know what atavisms are? It's the reason why occasionally humans are born with true tails, or genital features found only in other primates. It's because we have in our DNA, as whales have in theirs, inactivated genes for producing parts of the body that our not-long-distant ancestors had. Even chickens often have atavisms, including teeth and dinosaur-style claws (very different from mammal-style claws). Atavisms give you a nice look back in time along an evolutionary line (perfectly in accordance with *all* other records, from radiocarbon dating to fossil records); for example, you never find whales born with primate-style genital features, and you never find humans born with dinosaur-style claws; you only find the atavisms of our close relatives.If God created all creatures, why on Earth would he put the code for a pelvis and legs into whales, and why would he put the code for tails and primate genitals into humans, with the ability to randomly reactivate from mutations? What would be the logic in that?

quote:

---

Pain certainly has its place. However, our bodies posess other equally important warning methods

---

.That completely dodges the main points. I would like specific answers to:1) Why would God produce the unbearable pain of an inflamed pelvis, when throughout all of human history up to modern time, there was absolutely not a thing that a human could do about it, and it is relatively benign?2) Why do relatively worthless diseases like toothaches create long-term pain for humans, while serious (and deadly) diseases like cancer have, comparitively little warning signs - of *all* types? And that, especially before modern medicine, most "silent" diseases were caught too late to do anything about?3) Humans *are* drained of life-threatening amounts of blood by land leeches. Whether we were "meant" to be their food or not is irrelevant - it's another case of #2. And pain, nor any other sense apart from a chance sighting, works to warn us of the problem. Here's a description of these voracious creatures from a Sri Lankan travel guide:"The land leeches, which swarm in damp places and luxuriant grass, have no tendency to fly from man. On the contrary, the footfall of man or beast is as a welcome dinner-bell, at sound of which the hungry little creatures hurry from all sides; and as each is furnished with five pairs of eyes, they can keep a sharp look-out for their prey, which they do by resting on the tip of the tail, and raising themselves perpendicularly to look around. Then, arching their body head-foremost, and bringing up the tail, they rapidly make for their victim. Being only about an inch long, and no thicker than a stout pin, they contrive to wriggle through stockings, and commence their attack so gently that several may be feasting without attracting attention, till being gorged, and distended to about a couple of inches in length, and the size of a quill-pen, they cease sucking; but blood sometimes continues to flow till checked by a squeeze of lemon juice."Why did God create them, and why did he make our warning system defenseless against them (and many diseases, like cancer), while having our warning system make us suffer for things that we can do absolutely nothing about?

quote:

---

Another example of the human body Shouting, "Hey you! Somethin' ain't right, here!"

---

But you didn't address the issue: *Why* would God design the human body with such a patently obvious flaw? Yes, something ain't right - and that "something" is the design of the human body. It is an inherent problem that our quadraped siblings don't have. They have the blood vessels in the same place, but it only causes a problem with us because we switched to a vertical orientation. Why would God not put the blood vessels in a more reasonable location for a creature that walks upright?------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Hey. Welcome to the forum, by the way. My apologies for jumping on you like I did, and for being gone since Thursday. I had a three-day weekend and old friends visiting.
Anyway... enjoy the discussion. In case you hadn't noticed, it can get rather heatedIf I have enough time, I'll get back into this thread, but I have a project at a critical phase and will be visiting the site all next week. Have fun!-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Thank you,
This has been fun, so far.
I will continue to enjoy.

_______________________________________________________________________________________You are completely misreading - he is not talking about whale evolution here (that discussion currently going on in another thread ). He is stating (quite correctly) that *modern* whales often have vestigal pelvises, and even leg bones concealed in the flesh (the latter quote was in reference to one particular museum piece which had a vestigal pelvis, but it was unclear whether there were vestigal leg bones).
_______________________________________________________________________________________I quite clearly understand the conversation which I am referring to; I did not misread. I am aware of these examples, of which the author referenced photos in the article. I apologize if I seem to have taken the quote out of context. I will copy/paste the entire article in the future. My point is that the "theology" of Neo-Darwinists tends to dismiss any evidence which doesen't support the claims of evolution. i.e. nascent organs. Whenever the most meager "evidence" of a vestigal organ is discovered, it is quickly touted as "proof of evolution." Conversely, when a discovery, or lack therof is made, which doesn't seem to "work," it MUST by default, also fit the paradigm. I think this a clear example of the tail wagging the dog. I am not, however, saying that evolutionary theory is without merit. I am simply saying that Darwinism may not be the best model. Perhaps we should reconsider "punctuated equalibria."Now that I have defended myself, I will return, after some thought, to consider your other questions/challenges. I don't wish to skirt the issues by choosing blanket statements, as you have asserted.I could easily have answered in this fashion: "Because Adam/Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden, pain and disease came upon all human beings."REI,Whether you are genuinely interested in my perspective, or wish to make a mockery of a "creationist" is of no consequence. I am willing to take the challenge by answering your questions more "directly." Assuming the former, I will honestly consider your perspective on the issue of pain.Thank you for giving me reason to think about these "problems" by your excellent questions. After all, isn't the truth, however elusive, what we are searching for?Cheers

quote:

---

My point is that the "theology"...

---

Oh God! Not this crap again!

quote:

---

...of Neo-Darwinists tends to dismiss any evidence which doesen't support the claims of evolution.

---

If there were such evidence you might have more than a trivial point, and you'd definitely have some happy and instantly world famous scientists.

quote:

---

i.e. nascent organs.

---

Nascent organs aren't a problem. They are all nascent, at least potentially. The only way we'll ever know if they are actually nascent is to wait a few ten-thousand years. The creationist arguments are word games, but this isn't the thread.

quote:

---

I am simply saying that Darwinism may not be the best model. Perhaps we should reconsider "punctuated equalibria."

---

Exactly what is 'Darwinism' and how is it significantly different from 'punctuated equilibria.'------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Nascent organs aren't a problem. They are all nascent, at least potentially. The only way we'll ever know if they are actually nascent is to wait a few ten-thousand years.

---

Or we could consider the fossil evidence; a starting point. By the way, I should have used the word "structures" instead of organs to be more inclusive.

quote:

---

The creationist arguments are word games,

---

I'm sorry you feel this way.

quote:

---

but this isn't the thread.

---

Perhaps not.We have certainly strayed from the original topic. I am simply responding to direct questions by a fellow forum member. I will be happy to join you in completing this discussion in another thread.

quote:

---

Exactly what is 'Darwinism' and how is it significantly different from 'punctuated equilibria.'

---

I think you are being facetious here, but just in case...here is a reference.The essential features that make up Punctuated Equilibria are as follows:Paleontology should be informed by neontology.
Most speciation is cladogenesis rather than anagenesis.
Most speciation occurs via peripatric speciation.
Large, widespread species usually change slowly, if at all, during their time of residence.
Daughter species usually develop in a geographically limited region.
Daughter species usually develop in a stratigraphically limited extent, which is small in relation to total residence time of the species.
Sampling of the fossil record will reveal a pattern of most species in stasis, with abrupt appearance of newly derived species being a consequence of ecological succession and dispersion.
Adaptive change in lineages occurs mostly during periods of speciation.
Trends in adaptation occur mostly through the mechanism of species selection.Cheers

OK that PE, how is it not Darwinian was the question you were asked.

quote:

---

We have certainly strayed from the original topic. I am simply responding to direct questions by a fellow forum member. I will be happy to join you in completing this discussion in another thread.

---

I won't get around to starting a topic until tomorrow, but feel free to take the initiative.

quote:

---

The essential features that make up Punctuated Equilibria are as follows:

---

And the essential features of Darwinianism are... ?You seemed to have missed that it was a compare and contrast kinda question.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

You seemed to have missed that it was a compare and contrast kinda question.

---

Thanks for clarifying, John. I guess you WERE serious? I may start another thread in the Evolution forum, tomorrow.

quote:

---

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.

---

Thank you defenderofthefaith, for your support.(God knows I need it. )

I dont think life is special but i dont think it is common either, based on observations of planets in other solar systems it appears that not much life exists, might i add, i am an evolutionist

"it appears"I think it would be more correct to say we just don't know enough to make an estimate yet.