Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Humans of the future?
Steen
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 82 (120213)
06-30-2004 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by tubi417
06-27-2004 2:12 AM


quote:
But through evolution, organisms have become much more complex.
Sometimes. Othertimes, the complex organisms die out and more "simple" organisms take over.
quote:
If every living thing evolved from a single cell, then obviously because of evolution things have become more complex.
Is one species of single-celled organism more "complex than another species of single-celled organism? And how would you determine this? Your claim really is not as universally applicable as you want to make it.
Or, if we look at it another way, is an Elephant more complex than a tiger moth?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by tubi417, posted 06-27-2004 2:12 AM tubi417 has not replied

  
Steen
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 82 (120226)
06-30-2004 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by tubi417
06-27-2004 3:09 AM


quote:
We are pretty well designed though-
Then we wouldn't have any doctors, our hips would be a lot more stable, our eyes would be about 500-1000 times stronger and we would handle varying climated much better, our lungs would not be as succeptible to toxins, our hearts wouldn't so easily be infected with bacteria and so on and so on. We have LOTS of things that really don't work, lots of things we function DESPITE rather than because.
Take our eye, f.ex. We have all sorts of stuff stacked in front of the retina, we have nerves, rods, cones, vessels and so on, and also a large blind spot where those nerves then have to run back through the retina. It is a LOUSY "design." If we were so well-designed, if we were the peak of "creation, why don't we have an eye like the hawk, light flowing uninterrupted onto the retina because all the nerves are behind the retina rather than in front? And why don't we have much greater density of rods and cones, so our visual resolution would be so much stronger?
And what is that with the pityful nose we got? Things have to just about rot under our nose before we can smell it? You call that "well-designed"?
quote:
we have many complex systems working together. If just one small thing goes wrong we cannot function properly which often results in death-
But if we are "well-designed," why do we all get so sick, why do hospitals and drug companies make so much money? if it was a good 'design" we really shouldn't get sick, and 70 % of fertilized eggs shouldn't fail implantation because of genetic defects. So how is that a good "design"?
quote:
its obvious that we could not be "jury rigged, patched and full of bondo, held together with spit and lots of duct tape."
Actually, it is obvious. Otherwise, we wouldn't need doctors or technology. remember that we are then supposed to be the top of the heap, the ultimate goal of "design," right? Yet we have all those problems. Hmm....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by tubi417, posted 06-27-2004 3:09 AM tubi417 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by custard, posted 06-30-2004 3:38 AM Steen has replied
 Message 25 by coffee_addict, posted 07-07-2004 1:12 AM Steen has replied
 Message 27 by mike the wiz, posted 07-11-2004 4:18 PM Steen has replied
 Message 28 by tubi417, posted 07-12-2004 5:48 PM Steen has replied

  
Steen
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 82 (120348)
06-30-2004 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by custard
06-30-2004 3:38 AM


quote:
Wait... wait... I sense a 'that proves the devolution/corruption of man' argument coming...
Hmm, but really, as this is a trait that has always been present in our species. We are not getting a worse eye but just never started out with a great one, implantation rates do not seem to have changed?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by custard, posted 06-30-2004 3:38 AM custard has not replied

  
Steen
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 82 (123763)
07-11-2004 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by coffee_addict
07-07-2004 1:12 AM


LOL. And they think that a natural law of energy flow somehow applies outside of its parameters?
Well, I am not surprised. I just wonder how they will set up the mathematical formula to show this

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by coffee_addict, posted 07-07-2004 1:12 AM coffee_addict has not replied

  
Steen
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 82 (124104)
07-12-2004 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by mike the wiz
07-11-2004 4:18 PM


quote:
quote:
But if we are "well-designed," why do we all get so sick,
  —"Steen"
Aren't you forgetting the sicknesses you alone have had? And the sicknesses that your body alone has fended off?
  —"mike"
Eh? Aren't you forgetting to actually answer the question? Could it be because you really don't have a good answer? let me ask you again. Is human illness a sign of a "good" design, or is God incompetent when looking at I.D> as a valid hypothesis?
quote:
I'd sure like to see my motorbike make itself a new tyre when it goes flat.
Funny how your tricycle is NOT a biological organism. Amazing how creationists always try for that nonsense when they are cornered. I see your red herring of diversion for what it truly is, an inability to justify human illness if we supposedly are designed by God as the ultimate biological entity.
quote:
Also; we have to consider that we are a bit like a race-car.
No, we are not, your inane comparison nonewithstanding.
quote:
If God foresaw our downfall, then wouldn't he also foresee that we would only need our present natural bodies, for a "race-period".
Given that medical science has doubled our lifespan, either God was wrong in the original "design," or God has decided that we need a longer race. Is God a poor designer, or is God just lousy at predicting what race/lifespan humans are set to complete? Your arguments are painting God as an INEPT FOOL! Is that truly your goal?
quote:
I mean, I'd love to fill my bike with fuel and have it run for more than half a century, with it fending off problems for itself.
And no doubt, you would love for your bike to have babies, sing lullabies and whatnot. Any particular reason why you push the dishonest comparison with an inanimate object here?
quote:
Now surely the heart's efficient aswell? How long does it pump without a service? My own one's pumped for a while.
Given the rampant heart disease in modern society and the more rampant need for blood pressure medications, the weakness and poor design of the heart should be noted. How does that fit in your argument?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by mike the wiz, posted 07-11-2004 4:18 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by mike the wiz, posted 07-12-2004 8:35 PM Steen has replied
 Message 78 by kingzfan2000, posted 02-02-2005 12:10 PM Steen has not replied

  
Steen
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 82 (124105)
07-12-2004 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by tubi417
07-12-2004 5:48 PM


quote:
Why would we need better eyes, a better sense of smell, a better anything?
Why do we need inferior eyes? Are you saying that we are NOT the pinnacle of creation? That we are some second-rank cheap model, that God skimped on the crown jewel of creation? That God didn't make us well, just made us "good enough"? That God was so poor a designer that we needed medical science to double our lifespan?
Funny, but sofar, I have never seen any creationist claim that God makes slipshot work. God is supposed to be all-powerful, yet creates us as a lemon, a second-rate model?
quote:
If you look at humans compared to any other animal in the world, we've succeeded pretty well-
Ah, but we are SUPPOSED to be "better" than the animals, aren't we?
quote:
probably because of our better brains that most other animals don't have. We've been able to get rid of and treat diseases that could kill us- unlike other animals which don't have large enough brians to develope technology to fight other diseases.
Given that medical science has taken Natural Selection more or less out of the human race, we have ailments accumulating at a rate much greater than in other populations. Other animal populations do not have that high degree of sick individuals among them. So exactly WHAT have we "gotten rid off"? We merely have become better at keeping ourselves alive DESPITE being sick from this alleged "design" that frankly is quite poor.
quote:
Humans are a lot better off than pretty much everything else.
In comfort, perhaps, but not in strength and health of the population.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by tubi417, posted 07-12-2004 5:48 PM tubi417 has not replied

  
Steen
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 82 (126782)
07-22-2004 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by mike the wiz
07-12-2004 8:35 PM


quote:
Well, it's only your premise that we are the ultimate biological entity,
Rather, that is the assertion of the Bible and of Creationists.
MY premise is that we have evolved and are just one of the many species who are adapting to our environment, each along our own niche of specialization.
quote:
as if you had read properly you would see that I wrote that he foresaw our downfall. And therefore we are only made for a race period.
Please point to the evidence of this "downfall" that you claim exists. Certainly, we do continue to IMPROVE through evolution, so that claim ALSO doesn't make a lick of sense.
quote:
As for human illness, it is quite easily explained in Genesis that the ground would be "cursed".
Ah, so we should ALL be living on cursed ground, of course. Now, if you claim that is equivalent to having illnesses, then that (1) is a major, unsubstantiated stretch, and directly contradicted by Jesus actually curing people (Guess you are claiming that part of the Bible to be a lie, then?). And (2) we should ALL be sick, which is not the claim. As such THAT line of reasoning ALSO is pure nonsense.
quote:
Also, Adam lived for nearly a thousand years, therefore that would also fit the degenerative picture.
Really? So you insist that the Bible is literal in that, but not in other things? Amazing this picking and choosing what is right and what is wrong in the Bible. Presumably you have a system for determining this? Or is it the simple system of the Bible being right when agreeing with you, and wrong when it doesn't? I hope not, as such narcissistic misuse of the Bible would be the height of blasphemy.
And even if that is not the case, it also doesn't match reality, as human lifespan has doubled over the last century. Are we now LESS cursed suddenly? Or did God change impression of humans, finding us more obedient and adherent to Christian dogma now and thus worthy of less curse?
quote:
quote:
Given that medical science has doubled our lifespan,
What??? Obviously you have never read Genesis. Now just what are your excuses for assuming that I would incorporate YOUR worldly mindset?
Ah, the worldly mindset of claiming that humans live twice as long as we did a century ago? Hmm, so now that also is a lie, this directly observable FACT, merely because it contradicts your dogma? That really is a very lame argument you are making.
quote:
quote:
Given the rampant heart disease in modern society and the more rampant need for blood pressure medications,
Which is caused by what? Please don't tell me that you expect me to believe that it is the human body at fault here. So that's another none-answer to my brilliant post.
You ARE kidding, I hope? It very much IS the human body's frailty that causes our deaths, which if designed would be a sign of poor design. And also of inconsistent design, as some people NEVER get heart disease. Guess they never were cursed, then?
That aside, certainly, poor functioning of the human body causes our early death, while sanitation and public health efforts have caused a substantial increase in life-span. So frankly, your argument is pure nonsense, ALL of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by mike the wiz, posted 07-12-2004 8:35 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by mike the wiz, posted 07-22-2004 10:26 PM Steen has replied

  
Steen
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 82 (126784)
07-22-2004 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by mike the wiz
07-12-2004 8:59 PM


quote:
And thorns "began to grow".
Only a fool would think that we get ill, therefore illness is meant for us from God. Isn't it clear from the scriptures, that Christ cast out illness? Are you saying that God gives us illness Jar?
What a load of dishonest double-speak. YOU are the one making the claim of the "cursed" Earth causing illnesses. And YOU are the one claiming that God created the Earth just like that. So you ARE claiming that God caused our illness, a claim you now try to deny.
That's not just dishonest nonsense, the bearing of False Witness, but is also stark cowardice. You are beginning to disgust me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by mike the wiz, posted 07-12-2004 8:59 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-23-2004 12:53 AM Steen has not replied

  
Steen
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 82 (126817)
07-23-2004 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by mike the wiz
07-22-2004 10:26 PM


quote:
quote:
That aside, certainly, poor functioning of the human body causes our early death, while sanitation and public health efforts have caused a substantial increase in life-span. So frankly, your argument is pure nonsense, ALL of it.
Ahahahaha.... 1000 years to under a hundred, is that an increase?
ROFLMAO
Yes, you persist in your LIES, you scoundrel, you bearer of false witness, you dishonest, sorry excuse for a Christian. I pointed out that one century ago, lifespan was half of now. THAT has changed, or are you going to claim that sin is only half as bad now as one century ago?>
Nope, that's not what you are saying, instead trying desperately and pathetically to deflect from the REALITY of recent increases in lifespan. As such, your dishonesty disgusts me even more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by mike the wiz, posted 07-22-2004 10:26 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-23-2004 12:50 AM Steen has replied

  
Steen
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 82 (127618)
07-26-2004 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Hangdawg13
07-23-2004 12:50 AM


quote:
Our lifespan has increased in recent times due to unnatural causes.
Indeed. So certainly, if GOD had "designed" us, then it was a flawed design, if we are ourselves able to improve that design and expand our lifespan. That is a strong argument against this creationist derivative of "design."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-23-2004 12:50 AM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-27-2004 1:41 PM Steen has not replied

  
Steen
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 82 (127619)
07-26-2004 2:01 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Hangdawg13
07-23-2004 1:19 PM


quote:
We created modern medicine and modern sanitation devices. If we hadn't, our life spans would be back to where they were before.
There's nothing sinful at all about this.
I'm just saying the recent increase in lifespan is attributable to Man's inventions.
So God did a lousy job to begin with, if we were designed." Are humanity a "lemon"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-23-2004 1:19 PM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024