OK I seriously wanted to know this....

[Reckoning]

This is among the best advice ever given on SDN

Happy to help. Please drop a nickel in the can on your way out.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[leechy]

Happy to help. Please drop a nickel in the can on your way out.

I'll splurge and make that a dime. I'm ashamed that I promptly disregarded your sage advice after praising it, but I need to learn self restraint. This site is too addictive.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

We know there's a lot of apparently useless DNA in the human genome; it could very well be that periodically a segment of DNA gets replicated and "mistakenly" tacked on to the end of a genome, and as long as it doesn't adversely affect your functioning, it's not going to be selected against. Years later, a chance mutation may turn that extra segment into something useful (or not useful, but the not useful ones don't do as well). I have a particular example for this, but it escapes me at the moment. I think it was the myoglobin/hemoglobin family of proteins...



There are actually a lot of "simple" eyes in nature... take those little beady eyes on sea creatures, for example. (They always gross me out). These could have been altered and improved upon with time. Also, our eyes have flaws in them - we've actually got blood vessels running in front of our retinas. That doesn't seem to me the way an intelligent designer would make eyes, if he were doing it ex nihilio (though to the person of faith, God has His ways). It so happens evolution went down one path and could never correct itself so as to make the wiring optimal.

But all this isn't really significant. I'll weigh in with a more philosophical post in a few moments.

A creationist would say that myoglobin and hemoglobin are similar molecules, so it makes sense that God would create them using similar nucleotide sequences.

As for your eye argument, it sounds pretty silly to me. How do you know blood vessels running over retinas is an impairment? Apparently, if they were, it would get weeded out. Besides, these vestigial structure arguments are always stupid because after we've thymectomied, splenectomied, tonsilectomied, and appendectomied everyone, SUDDENLY, we realize that these organs actually do have crucial functions. We are always trying to "prove" that nature is somehow not logical and that that indicates that there couldn't be a creator, but it's always us who don't understand the world and make stupid assumptions and speculations about its "excesses."

 

[Reckoning]

I'll splurge and make that a dime. I'm ashamed that I promptly disregarded your sage advice after praising it, but I need to learn self restraint. This site is too addictive.

Hell, I'm posting just like the rest of the schleps. Pls carry on. I'm not a biology guy so I am learning from some of the arguments. Particularly from you, Brain, and neatoMD that I can remember off hand. Although this mercapto-Barmitzvah guy sounds like another life-sucker. Beware.

 

[CNU2020]

There are actually a lot of "simple" eyes in nature... take those little beady eyes on sea creatures, for example. (They always gross me out). These could have been altered and improved upon with time. Also, our eyes have flaws in them - we've actually got blood vessels running in front of our retinas. That doesn't seem to me the way an intelligent designer would make eyes, if he were doing it ex nihilio (though to the person of faith, God has His ways). It so happens evolution went down one path and could never correct itself so as to make the wiring optimal.

But all this isn't really significant. I'll weigh in with a more philosophical post in a few moments.

Sorry, my friends, you need to study up. The eye is a marvelous, extremely intricate organ in the human body that has been created perfectly for our needs. What you say is true, in fact. The eye does in fact have blood vessels running in front of the retina. That's not a flaw in your statement though. You error because you don't know the eye well enough. Let me start off by asking you if you have problems seeing due to your blood vessels. Answer: of course you don't have difficulties due to these vessels... or at least most properly developed eyes don't.

Why is that?

It's time for a little ocular anatomy course. The blood vessels of the inner retinal layers (inner nuclear through the inner limiting membrane) do travel through the retina. In your statement, you refered specifically to the superior and inferior temproal arcades that branch from the central retinal artery and veins are the ones you are specifically refering to. If you look into the eye, you'll notice these vessels entering the eye through the optic cup and then quickly heading either immediately superiorly or inferiorly. The reason for this is that the blood vessels of the eye are avoiding occulsion of the area of greatest visual acuity, the fovea (our central vision). In this portion of the retina, even the inner layers of the retina are displaced outward ...(to the side)... So, actually blood vessels, nor ganglion axons don't really cover up our important part of the retina. In this way, the human eye has been specifically developed for our distictive needs. We require a high resolution central picture, which come at the expense of our periferal vision. In all eyes throughout creation, there are always trade offs due to practicality issues... Ex. it would take a head the size of an entire elephant to have the ability for the brain to decode all our visual space with the same acuity as we have in the fovea. Do you really want a head that big? I know some people that act like it... but with a head that big on a body this small, we be extinct for sure.
Also, it should be realized that it is good to have vessels in the retinal for cooling purposes... otherwise your eye would "fry."

I could go on and on. In essence, the "wiring" is as optimal as possible... it's as good as it gets! In fact, it down right makes sense, except to the lesser informed. Just take my word on it, it's an amazingly developed organ. I sure couldn't come up with something that worked better... not in several million years, but maybe I'm just not as smart as you. Thus, our vision has been created perfectly for our needs.

I'm in finals week... I'd be happy to get back to this later... but for now it's study time.

 

[GuyLaroche]

I just spoke to God. He's asked me to ask you all to quit this silliness. In His words: "tell those fools to stop!"

 

[indo]

I just spoke to God. He's asked me to ask you all to quit this silliness. In His words: "tell those fools to stop!"

I overheard that conversation and I could swear he said something that started with, "I pitty da foo..."

 

[leechy]

A creationist would say that myoglobin and hemoglobin are similar molecules, so it makes sense that God would create them using similar nucleotide sequences.

As for your eye argument, it sounds pretty silly to me. How do you know blood vessels running over retinas is an impairment? Apparently, if they were, it would get weeded out. Besides, these vestigial structure arguments are always stupid because after we've thymectomied, splenectomied, tonsilectomied, and appendectomied everyone, SUDDENLY, we realize that these organs actually do have crucial functions. We are always trying to "prove" that nature is somehow not logical and that that indicates that there couldn't be a creator, but it's always us who don't understand the world and make stupid assumptions and speculations about its "excesses."

This is too sad. I'm not trying to disprove the existence a creator (not something science can do), just showing that evolution offers a valid explanation for the supposedly fatal flaws that Neato uncovered.

My point with myoglobin/hemoglobin was to offer a naturalistic explanation of how a lot more nucleotides / functioning genes could be added over time to an initially smaller genome. You're free to believe in a supernatural explanation of the origins of these molecules, if you wish. I'm just saying that science does just fine explaining how our genome is larger/different than our evolutionary ancestors'.

Correct me if I'm misinterpreted, but you seem to be implying that humans are optimally designed after all, and that we just can't see it in our current state of knowledge. See, this is where i think creationists place themselves in a dangerous position, in which if anything could ever be proved to be useless or vestigial (or even just seem like it is), it would threaten their entire worldview. And it's just really unfortunate to be making your religious beliefs contigent on the idea that the human body is perfectly designed, that nature's apparent inefficiencies must actually have some purpose that we have not yet divined. But more about this in my next post.

 

[leechy]

Sorry, my friends, you need to study up. The eye is a marvelous, extremely intricate organ in the human body that has been created perfectly for our needs. What you say is true, in fact. The eye does in fact have blood vessels running in front of the retina. That's not a flaw in your statement though. You error because you don't know the eye well enough. Let me start off by asking you if you have problems seeing due to your blood vessels. Answer: of course you don't have difficulties due to these vessels... or at least most properly developed eyes don't.

I could go on and on. In essence, the "wiring" is as optimal as possible... it's as good as it gets! In fact, it down right makes sense, except to the lesser informed. Just take my word on it, it's an amazingly developed organ. I sure couldn't come up with something that worked better... not in several million years, but maybe I'm just not as smart as you. Thus, our vision has been created perfectly for our needs.

I'm in finals week... I'd be happy to get back to this later... but for now it's study time.

Sorry I had to abbreviate your post in quoting. If the eye is perfect, why are we subject to macular degeneration, glaucoma, etc? I'm sure you can give the naturalistic source of these diseases, and then say that glaucoma etc is the tradeoff for having the eye made the way it is. But I'm saying, if God is omnipotent and made us ex nihilio, he wouldn't have to make any tradeoffs.
I lack the intelligence to design the human eye more efficiently, but God wouldn't. And I sure as heck know the human eye isn't optimally designed for human use, as my myopia proves.

The whole reason we need to become doctors is because the human body isn't optimally designed. Natural selection does a darn good job, but it's not perfect. The eyes of squid and octupi are more efficiently designed than ours in some ways... check out: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/change/grand/page05.html

 

[NEATOMD]

I lack the intelligence to design the human eye more efficiently, but God wouldn't. And I sure as heck know the human eye isn't optimally designed for human use, as my myopia proves.

The whole reason we need to become doctors is because the human body isn't optimally designed. Natural selection does a darn good job, but it's not perfect. The eyes of squid and octupi are more efficiently designed than ours in some ways... check out: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/change/grand/page05.html

If you took the time to understand what you are criticizing then you would know that Christianity says that the imperfections of human such as diseases are the result of sin. God did create them perfect. According to the bible, before Adam and Eve sinned, the human body WAS perfect. After the initial sin, God decreed that humans days would be numbered and that they would be subject to illness and the effects of aging. There are thousands of species with eyes designed differently than ours...Last time I checked, squids and octupi lived in the Oceans (water) the eye has to work differently in these situations. Furthermore there are monkeys that can see colors in the ultraviolet spectra that we humans don't see. This difference helps thems to identify ripe vegetation better. The human eyes are specifically tuned to what we use them for most often...

 

[leechy]

So I better hurry up and state that philosophical point that i keep talking about. Now, I'm more of an agnostic myself- which may discount what i have to say to the religious. But this is my point:

Creationism endangers religion. Were I an advocate for religion, I would say espousing Creationism (in the literal Genesis sense) is a sure way of shooting yourself in the foot. Ultimately, Creationism rests on the idea that evolution can't explain this or that feature of an organism; it rests on a hope that science is insufficient to explain the eye, the bacterial flagellum, the origin of life, you name it. Sadly, this makes every advance in scientific knowledge an occasion for Creationists to feel that their entire religious worldview is being threatened. It makes every advance in biology an argument against God, when you really don't need to be tying the two together like that.

A few weeks ago, I watched a program featuring William Dembski (prominent intelligent design theorist). He spoke about how he believes the bacterial flagellum proves intelligent design... but that he acknowledges natural selection may operate in the universe as well. That is, things plod along according to natural selection and the laws of physics, but every now and then a designer intervenes and whips up a flagellum or an eye or you name it. I found the talk depressing. Does he really like making his god into such a lowly tinkerer? It was sad.

 

[NEATOMD]

Which is more complex, a human or a can of Sprite?

I was wandering out in the woods the other day and I stumbled upon an unopened can of Sprite. Everything about this can was exactly identical to a store bought can. It even ended up tasting exactly the same. However, I knew this can was different. This can had not been made in a factory, but was instead the product of billions of years of particles interacting and joining to create what I found in a frenzy of fortunate chance events. I had significant evidence to back up this belief. Earlier in the day, I had seen a beer can sitting near the path. On previous trips out into the woods I stumbled upon partial cans that were very similar to this one. I could only assume that these cans were nature's failed attempts to create this can that I had somehow stumbled upon. You might wonder how I know this can was not made in a factory. Well, to my knowledge, no one else ever goes in those woods, or at least none that I've ever seen. Plus, I didn't make it or see it being made. So, I came to the the only logical conclusion that I could come to knowing I didn't put the can there: It must be the result of trillions of chance particle interactions in combination with forces of nature such as wind and rain that just happened to create this phenomenon or billions of years. I can just picture all those metal molecules colliding and coming together by chance, some forms of metal not even native to my region of the country. I was so intrigued that I went back and found the other cans which upon further study happened to be of similar molecular content and the designs were similar. Though faded on some of the cans, all of the Sprite cans I found had the same number printed near the bottom of them. Clearly, their origins are related. To say the least, nature must really favor that number for it to be so prevalent upon the Sprite cans I found in my woods. I told a friend about my discovery and he said I was wrong. As he did, you might argue that my belief is impractical and unrealistic... But I know the chances of my can just happening by chance are millions of times more likely than the chances of human evolving over time. The intricacies of a can of pop in no way compare to those of a working human body. Plus, who could honestly deny that my claims are accurate... I have scientific proof to back them up.

 

[SitraAchra]

neatomd - William Paley called....he wants his argument back

find any watches on the beach recently? nature makes those for us too.

 

[NEATOMD]

neatomd - William Paley called....he wants his argument back

find any watches on the beach recently? nature makes those for us too.

leechy - my high school biology teacher called... he wants his arguments back

find any life on the moons of Jupiter yet? the laws of evolution apply there too.

 

[leechy]

If you took the time to understand what you are criticizing then you would know that Christianity says that the imperfections of human such as diseases are the result of sin. God did create them perfect. According to the bible, before Adam and Eve sinned, the human body WAS perfect. After the initial sin, God decreed that humans days would be numbered and that they would be subject to illness and the effects of aging. There are thousands of species with eyes designed differently than ours...Last time I checked, squids and octupi lived in the Oceans (water) the eye has to work differently in these situations. Furthermore there are monkeys that can see colors in the ultraviolet spectra that we humans don't see. This difference helps thems to identify ripe vegetation better. The human eyes are specifically tuned to what we use them for most often...

So now you're agreeing that the human body isn't perfectly designed. Or at least, it's no longer perfect. So we can no longer claim the eye is optimally designed. It's not.

Human eyes are not specifically tuned for what we most need them for. Otherwise we wouldn't need glasses.

I think my patience has reached an all-time low, so I'm signing off... for a while.

 

[SitraAchra]

leechy - my high school biology teacher called... he wants his arguments back

find any life on the moons of Jupiter yet? the laws of evolution apply there too.

entire universe > our solar system > a pop can

i recommend you read a Carl Sagan book to get a better view of how large and complicated the universe is.

 

[NEATOMD]

So now you're agreeing that the human body isn't perfectly designed. Or at least, it's no longer perfect. So we can no longer claim the eye is optimally designed. It's not.

Human eyes are not specifically tuned for what we most need them for. Otherwise we wouldn't need glasses.

I think my patience has reached an all-time low, so I'm signing off... for a while.

Leechy...I feel for you...you never really pay attention to what I say. I said the eye WAS optimally designed. It is no longer perfect anymore as people are born with defects. The original design of the eye was perfect, but you keep looking at the eye in its current state and with its current uses through the eyes of one who believes in Darwinian evolution. Meanwhile, you refuse to consider that what the creationists view when accompanied by Christianity DOES make sense. According to the Bible, we wouldn't need glasses if no one had ever sinned. But, it says that we have sinned and therefore, we have imperfections and eventually die due to those imperfections. Thus, I will agree that not everyone has perfect eyes. I go further to say that no one has perfect eyes today. However, saying the eye is not perfect today in no way provides evidence to the idea that creation could not have happened. Niether does it prove evolution.

Plus, I find it somewhat interesting that you refuse to read the post that have addressed issues that you bring up and you continually ignore posts such as the one by CNU2020 when it is convenient to do so.

I can not debate with you when you don't play fairly.

 

[NEATOMD]

entire universe > our solar system > a pop can

i recommend you read a Carl Sagan book to get a better view of how large and complicated the universe is.

I'm already aquanted with that...The size and complexity of the universe: yet another reason to believe in creationism.

 

[Old_Mil]

sorry, but how can a person who understands enough about science to be a doctor really believe in creationism? enlighten me, ye christians.

Endosymbiotic theory, proclaimed as scientific truth in biology texts all over the nation, has no empircal proof whatsoever. Furthermore, most of the "science" that supposedly supports molecules-to-man evolution inevitably distills down into some varient of a philosophical contention that "similarity in structure must imply similarity of origin." This statement is only valid if you presuppose the validity of molecules-to-man evolution making the whole business quite circular. (For the creationist the statement "similarity of function implies similarity of structure" is accepted without extending this reasoning to a question of origins.) Finally, the paleoentological evidence for such evolution is challenged by a not insignificant body of archeological and historical evidence which indicates that man has actually interacted with living dinosaurs.

Neither creationists nor evolutionists challenge the concept of allele drift/change over time. What is up for debate is whether or not this known change can result in bacteria transforming themselves into birds, so to speak. Evolutionists accept this as fact. Creationists deny that this is possible, stating that a creator created distinct "kinds" of living beings and that allele change over time operates only within speciated boundaries.

http://www.answersingenesis.org if you'd like to know more.

 

[SitraAchra]

A link that uses the bible as a scientific book? Ouch. Copernicus played that one out a long time ago.

 

[CNU2020]

I lack the intelligence to design the human eye more efficiently, but God wouldn't. And I sure as heck know the human eye isn't optimally designed for human use, as my myopia proves.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/change/grand/page05.html[/url]

Myopia is not a designing issue/problem. That would be similar to saying that poking an eye out is a design error. It is instead a consequence of action taking (chosen) during the life of the organism. It is actually an example of how things are ordered such that the eye/ body has the most avaliable chances for normal existance. Research suggest that Myopia (near sightedness) is a developmental issue. Myopia has less of a genetic component than you may think. Before our culture's days of extreme near work, near sighted people were far and few in between. In today's American culture, a young person, while their eyes are still developing, will chose to do excessive near work ( I.E. TV, video games), causing the accomadative system (the lens) to work in excess. We know that myopia is most often due to excess length of the eye, causing a divergence insufficiency, because the lens cannot relaxed enough to focus the image. As the lens works beyond what it's normal capacity (or designed limit) it tires and causes a blurred image to form on the retina. This message is relayed to the brain which sends growth signal to the eye, causing it to grow in an attept to clarify the image. It is important to understand that this is a mechanism that is designed as an attempt to ensure quality of image, but will at some point fails with abnormal use/mis-use.

Eye have been designed intelligently. What you choose to do with them, say gouge them out or sit too close to the TV like granny had warned about, is your choice.

As you can infer, one could do this for each disease you've mentioned.
-- and around and around we go

 

[SitraAchra]

What about cancer? And not the kind you get by eating your orgo lab crystals. Is there really a creation-friendly explanation for each disease/defect of the body?

The circulatory system is not perfect...if we had two hearts we'd be kicking ass. How can you say any design is perfect? It's just a possibility of many different options...like the compound eye in a drosophila.

 

[VPDcurt]

Besides, these vestigial structure arguments are always stupid because after we've thymectomied, splenectomied, tonsilectomied, and appendectomied everyone, SUDDENLY, we realize that these organs actually do have crucial functions. We are always trying to "prove" that nature is somehow not logical and that that indicates that there couldn't be a creator, but it's always us who don't understand the world and make stupid assumptions and speculations about its "excesses."

Depends on your definition of crucial. The appendix is by no means crucial. Tonsil are not crucial and neither is the thymus (after sufficient development at least).

 

[DelAGator]

HUGHug

Honestly speaking, I personally don't know of any medical school that is disrespectul to fundamentalist Christians. It is quite difficult to generalize a particular school as being Christian/non-Christian friendly, especially because each medical school has different social clubs that focus on different religions. I believe that it would be worthwhile to both investigate and contact some of the different active Christian clubs/organizations at these medical schools. Speaking to chapter leaders or members will definitely give you a clearer understanding of how these groups are treated.

Just a thought..

 

[GuyLaroche]

Do you all really think some one's religious beliefs of possibly greater than twenty years are going to be changed on a pre-med internet forum? I don't. But I do see the value in responding to the OP's original question. So, PD, here's my take on the religious atmosphere of most of the schools. Many students I spoke with used their place of worship as a way to find friends outside of the medical environment. Sometimes these were community churches/synagoues/etc, sometimes they were affliated with the university across the school. At no place did I find any religion mocked in the slightest. Good luck in med school and keep your faith. I think we'll all need a little bit of something to get us through med school, residencies, fellowships, and the boards.

Well said Runmimi. However, I suspect you're not going to need any "something" to get through medical school as your achievements in this application cycle suggest you might have a direct line to God Himself or otherwise be Him.

 

[VPDcurt]

How come everyone here seems to be avoiding the issue regarding the fact that some structures are irreducibly complex? That is a major component of intelligent design.

I am also so sick of cladograms and other means of classifying organisms and their origins. People think that since animalsl use oxygen, have similar appendages, and eat similar foods that we are all related. That is absolutely ludicrous. Of course we are all very similar. We all must live on the same earth, use the same resources, and hence obtain those resources in a similar fashion. The only evolution that I think occurs in evolution within a species. I hate to crash the party, but we are not from monkeys.

 

[VPDcurt]

Well said Runmimi. However, I suspect you're not going to need any "something" to get through medical school as your achievements in this application cycle suggest you might have a direct line to God Himself or otherwise be Him.

She just said that she thinks we'll all need "something." She's included in "all."

 

[GuyLaroche]

She just said that she thinks we'll all need "something." She's included in "all."

Well, I said Runmimi is God-among-us. That's what I believe. Don't mock my faith.

 

[NEATOMD]

What about cancer? And not the kind you get by eating your orgo lab crystals. Is there really a creation-friendly explanation for each disease/defect of the body?

Yes, I already answered that a few posts back. Whether or not you agree with that explanation is a different story.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

What about cancer? And not the kind you get by eating your orgo lab crystals. Is there really a creation-friendly explanation for each disease/defect of the body?

The circulatory system is not perfect...if we had two hearts we'd be kicking ass. How can you say any design is perfect? It's just a possibility of many different options...like the compound eye in a drosophila.

As was mentioned before, cancer and other diseases are interpreted as consequences of sin. Thus, even if you have a gene mutation giving you cancer, that mutation, ultimately, was the consequence of original sin.

You may not find this a "scientific" argument, because it would imply that biological laws could change, but mutation rate is largely dependent on polymerase fidelity, and there's no reason why this could not have been different in the past.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

Depends on your definition of crucial. The appendix is by no means crucial. Tonsil are not crucial and neither is the thymus (after sufficient development at least).

VPDCurt, perhaps my words were exaggerated, but my point was merely that these organs DO have an (immunological function), and this function was not recognized until recently. In past years, the appendix was taken to be "useless" - the current knowledge tells us that it does have a function.

If you want to talk about "crucial" vs. "non-crucial" - well then I suppose we could live without our appendages, one kidney, one lung, one brain hemisphere, gonads, etc., but that's no argument as to the importance of these organs.

 

[Brain]

As was mentioned before, cancer and other diseases are interpreted as consequences of sin. Thus, even if you have a gene mutation giving you cancer, that mutation, ultimately, was the consequence of original sin.

You may not find this a "scientific" argument, because it would imply that biological laws could change, but mutation rate is largely dependent on polymerase fidelity, and there's no reason why this could not have been different in the past.

The original sin theory is based on a book that is nothing more than heresay. Do you know how many creation myths and holy books there are out there? Hundreds. How can you say that this one is correct and all others are wrong? I personally put no stock into a book that has people living inside of whales and living to be 900 years old and has the earth being 10,000 years old.

 

[Law2Doc]

Seems pretty obvious now why the moderators saw fit to close the OP's initial attempt at this post -- it has ceased to be a discussion of med schools many many pages ago and now has become a religious debate better suited for the lounge.

 

[Gut Shot]

I was wandering through my refrigerator the other day and I stumbled upon an unopened can of Natural Light. Believe me, as an M4 it has become a rarity to find an unmolested can of beer in my kitchen. I knew that it was not a produced by a factory, as we had killed off both cases the night before, just before 2 hours of Star Wars Battlefront followed by 11 hours of unconsciousness. I also noted several half-empty cans nearby, but realized that they were likely just party fouls that had been stashed in the cold.

Naturally, I began pondering this wonderous can of brew and how it could have come about on its own vs. something like religion. After all, which is more complex? Religion has three moving parts:

1. A presentation of truth (e.g. "Hey, I'm the Son of God, look at me.")
2. Potential consequences for not believing in 1. (e.g. "Camp Lake of Eternal Fire")
3. A method to avoid 2. (e.g. "salvation", or "getting to hang with Jerry Falwell and Pat Buchanan on a white cloud forever")

A can of Natural Light also has three moving parts:

1. The hinged tab
2. The finely perforated flap that dislodges upon pulling 1.
3. The sweet, sweet nectar that rushes down the user's eager gullet

The moving components of both religion and a can of Natural Light also each combine, in their own ways, to generate mechanisms of control. Religion acts to control the thoughts and actions of people by providing them with comfort, purpose and a sense of self-righteousness, thereby filling the coffers of the local church. Natural Light acts to fill the coffers of the Anheuser Busch Corporation (i.e. The First Church of St. Louis). That self-righteousness has an unintended byproduct whereby the user becomes unable to see any other viewpoint but their own, and thus becomes a real dick. Likewise, Natural Light may have unintended byproducts, such as soul-crushing hangovers, nights spent talking to Ralph on the big white phone, and the dreaded coyote morning.

Finding no clear evidence as to which is more complex, my mind turned to a different question: which is more useful? Both religion and alcohol have had their benefits but have also ravaged untold millions across history. Personally, I'd have to go with the Natural Light. It has at least provided me with some treasured memories. Religion has caused me nothing but trouble.

So now I worship George Carlin.
http://www.geocities.com/bobmelzer/gc10cx.html

P.S. Oh, and if anyone really wants to see NEATOMD's argument put to shame, just pick up a copy of "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins. Peace out.

 

[NEATOMD]

The original sin theory is based on a book that is nothing more than heresay. Do you know how many creation myths and holy books there are out there? Hundreds. How can you say that this one is correct and all others are wrong? I personally put no stock into a book that has people living inside of whales and living to be 900 years old and has the earth being 10,000 years old.

Such is your own loss...If I were you, I'd sure hate to wrong about the whole thing...

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

The original sin theory is based on a book that is nothing more than heresay. Do you know how many creation myths and holy books there are out there? Hundreds. How can you say that this one is correct and all others are wrong? I personally put no stock into a book that has people living inside of whales and living to be 900 years old and has the earth being 10,000 years old.

I personally put no stock into a theory that has the universe arising from big bad fireworks, life arising from lightning striking soup, and humans arising from slime molds billions and billions of years ago.

 

[UDbiochem]

I've enjoyed reading this thread... no seriously, I have.

It's like M. Night's movie Signs... you either see the world, marvel, and say "God's freakin' amazing"... or you see the world, marvel, and say "wow... all this from evolution and the Big Bang, who'd a thought?"

I personally adhere to the former, but it doesn't really matter in the long run. One of us is right, but science and medicine continues just the same. Except for a small number of controversial fields, both types of scientists can work together pretty well. (IMO.... )

 

[NEATOMD]

Oh, and if anyone really wants to see NEATOMD's argument put to shame, just pick up a copy of "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins. Peace out.

The argument that a Sprite can could just happen by chance IS wrong...so is the idea that life could just happen by chance. However, if Havarti666 understood creationism in the context of Christianity, he would also know that it would be unlikely that God would put that can there. Notice, I didn't say that I doubted he could. I said I doubted he would. Still, who am I to say that God would not do that?

Thus, if you want to see Havarti666's argument and "The Blind Watchmaker" (for that matter) put to shame...read the Bible with a truly open mind.

 

[VPDcurt]

The problem with the evolution theory is that something must have been created at some point. The "soup" didn't just appear. Who created the soup? Who created the large mass that allowed for the big bang to occur (if it even did occur)? The theory of evolution simply leaves too much to be desired.

 

[Gut Shot]

Thus, if you want to see Havarti666's argument and "The Blind Watchmaker" (for that matter) put to shame...read the Bible with a truly open mind.

Sure thing, buddy. Have a good time with that.

 

[Gut Shot]

The problem with the evolution theory is that something must have been created at some point. The "soup" didn't just appear. Who created the soup? Who created the large mass that allowed for the big bang to occur (if it even did occur)? The theory of evolution simply leaves too much to be desired.

In just five sentences you've managed to mix together the Big Bang, abiogenesis and evolution. Please, if you're going to invoke incredulity as basis for believing in God, at least get the things you don't believe in correctly partitioned. Thank you.

 

[Reckoning]

A can of Natural Light also has three moving parts:

1. The hinged tab
2. The finely perforated flap that dislodges upon pulling 1.
3. The sweet, sweet nectar that rushes down the user's eager gullet

The moving components of both religion and a can of Natural Light also each combine, in their own ways, to generate mechanisms of control. Religion acts to control the thoughts and actions of people by providing them with comfort, purpose and a sense of self-righteousness, thereby filling the coffers of the local church. Natural Light acts to fill the coffers of the Anheuser Busch Corporation (i.e. The First Church of St. Louis). That self-righteousness has an unintended byproduct whereby the user becomes unable to see any other viewpoint but their own, and thus becomes a real dick. Likewise, Natural Light may have unintended byproducts, such as soul-crushing hangovers, nights spent talking to Ralph on the big white phone, and the dreaded coyote morning.

Finding no clear evidence as to which is more complex, my mind turned to a different question: which is more useful? Both religion and alcohol have had their benefits but have also ravaged untold millions across history. Personally, I'd have to go with the Natural Light. It has at least provided me with some treasured memories. Religion has caused me nothing but trouble.

In the name of the Heiny, the Guiness, and the Pabst Blue Ribbon. Amen.

 

[VPDcurt]

In just five sentences you've managed to mix together the Big Bang, abiogenesis and evolution. Please, if you're going to invoke incredulity as basis for believing in God, at least get the things you don't believe in correctly partitioned. Thank you.

They are all directly related anyway.

 

[SitraAchra]

I'm choking on rhetoric. Please help me...

 

[sweatybrain]

How come everyone here seems to be avoiding the issue regarding the fact that some structures are irreducibly complex? That is a major component of intelligent design.

My appendix is really intelligently designed.

But really, everyone is entitled to their beliefs. For me, arguing for or against creationism has no point since it cannot be (scientifically) proven.
Essentially, all arguments for creationism have fallen along two categories:

i) we are damn complex. (and of course, there is NO OTHER THEORY but creationism that could explain this complexity).
ii) the bible said so. our sins are responsible our bad eye sights, cancer, acne, etc.

evolution as a theory is far perfect, and there are alternative theories such as the punctuated equilibrum theory advocated by Steven Jay Gould. I just think from the standpoint of *science*, there is much more evidence is support of evolution.

I'm signing out from this thread. Haven't learned anything new since the 7th page.

 

[leechy]

Leechy...I feel for you...you never really pay attention to what I say. I said the eye WAS optimally designed. It is no longer perfect anymore as people are born with defects. The original design of the eye was perfect, but you keep looking at the eye in its current state and with its current uses through the eyes of one who believes in Darwinian evolution. Meanwhile, you refuse to consider that what the creationists view when accompanied by Christianity DOES make sense. According to the Bible, we wouldn't need glasses if no one had ever sinned. But, it says that we have sinned and therefore, we have imperfections and eventually die due to those imperfections. Thus, I will agree that not everyone has perfect eyes. I go further to say that no one has perfect eyes today. However, saying the eye is not perfect today in no way provides evidence to the idea that creation could not have happened. Niether does it prove evolution.

Plus, I find it somewhat interesting that you refuse to read the post that have addressed issues that you bring up and you continually ignore posts such as the one by CNU2020 when it is convenient to do so.

I can not debate with you when you don't play fairly.

You and CNU2020 were using the apparent optimal design of the eye as evidence for creationism. (Direct quote from an earlier post: "The human eyes are specifically tuned to what we use them for most often..." Or CNU2020's statement that the wiring of the eye is "as optimal as it gets".) Now you acknowledge that the eye is no longer optimally designed. Therefore it can not be used as evidence for creationism.

The thing is, you don't have access to the eyes that WERE optimally designed, according to your beliefs - Adam's and Eve's eyes, pre-exile. So you have no proof for your position.

One of the problems for creationism as a scientific explanation is that it can't be disproven, unlike any other scientific theory. You use anything good in the body as proof of God or supernatural forces at work, and anything bad in the body as proof of original sin or natural forces at work. Your "theory" can't be disproven, and therefore it's empirically meaningless. Also, we may disagree about what in the human body is "good" or "bad", what is pathological or normal, what is a consequence of original sin, and what is proof of God's design. Example coming up...

Let's assume that a normal, healthy young human is as close as you can get to Adam and Eve's pre-exile bodies. There then arises this problem with creationism: the fact that many things in a normal, healthy human being aren't easy to reconcile with the idea of creation ex nihilio. They are neither good ("good" = evidence of creationism) or bad ("bad" = consequence of original sin). Why should a healthy 12-year old girl menstruate? Does God really intend for her to be able to reproduce? It doesn't seem like such a benevolent thing to do. If I were creating women, I wouldn't give them the ability to reproduce until at least the age of consent. So we must accept that menstruation is a consequence of original sin. But that contradicts our idea that the normal, healthy functionings of the human body and its organ systems can be used as proof of a creator. You can call in a naturalistic explanation, claiming that we weren't as well-fed back in the day, so we reached menarche later. And you'd be absolutely right. But that means God designed us to be able to reproduce earlier under conditions of abundance, and we're back where we started at.

Do you see why I think creationism does a grave disservice to religion? It turns every mundane detail of the human body and the natural world into a pissing contest between science and religion, fraught with theological meaning. Religion can't win that battle - it shouldn't be engaged in that battle. It has no need to be. Creationists are sadly and needlessly degrading religion.

 

[Rzarecta]

It's extremely funny to me that PD's original post was closed when he wasn't "pushing" his beliefs on anyone while other contraversial threads remain open. Funny, how people who work so hard for tolerance and open mindedness choose not to be tolerant or open minded about Christian beliefs. It's funny how so many people just want for others to listen to their point of view but rarely take the time to listen to others. It's funny how many times scientific views have changed over the course of the last 3,000 years and even more so over the most recent 100, while the Bible hasn't ever changed or been amended for nearly 2000 years and millions still believe it to be accurate to the last word. Funny how easy it is to be mean to Christians when you're not sitting face to face with them. That's all funny right??? I'm not laughing.

I am so fricking sick of the "poor me and my big majority being persecuted" bs!!!! No one is feeding you to Roman lions, so quit your bitching! You know that most people who put down Christianity are just spouting off against rabid fundamentalism (Pat Robertson) than at the moderate Christians who are much more tolerant and not as zealously preaching about Armageddon, eternal damnation, et al. If you are one of these intolerant Christians, then get used to the fact that people are going to hate on you.

 

[leechy]

Such is your own loss...If I were you, I'd sure hate to wrong about the whole thing...

Sure, a benevolent God would absolutely punish us eternally for failing to come to the right answer about his existence. Please...

 

[Gut Shot]

They are all directly related anyway.

Sure, everything is related to everything else in some manner. But if you had a truly inquisitive mind you might do a serious survey of the evidence supporting evolution, or you might dig up some of the expanding literature on theories of abiogenesis, or you might read up on the latest physics research concerning the Big Bang. Your response to this massive intellectual challenge? "It's too complicated to occur naturally, therefore I will defer to an invisible, all powerful man who sits in the sky and judges all our actions." If all of mankind maintained that approach we'd still be fearing lightning as God's wrath and sending the women to menstrual huts to bleed into bowls.

So yes, evolution is dependent on abiogenesis, and our universe is obviously the product of some seminal event. It is irrelevant, however, to the ongoing process of evolution how that actually occurred. I mean, my existence depends on my parents mixing genetic material in the 1970's. My development from fetus to 6'4" blonde freak, however, occurred regardless of whether this occurred in a test tube or the back of a Studebaker in Tijuana. See my point?

 

[leechy]

leechy - my high school biology teacher called... he wants his arguments back

find any life on the moons of Jupiter yet? the laws of evolution apply there too.

Who knows, there might be microbial life on the moons of Jupiter. Why do you want to bank your entire worldview on the hope that life will never be found anywhere else? You're placing your religion in this position where a discovery could entirely overturn it.

It's unfortunate the way in which you guys want to shoot yourself in the foot, theologically speaking. But I'm outta here.