Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: RunningWolf

"For example, the perception of the bony structures in the whales anatomy that give his flippers strength and rigidity as 'feet'"

Look at the feet on the back end of the whale. Those ARE clearly feet.

If we were "intelligently designed" then:

Why do we have a pancreas?

Why do we have an appendix?

Why does the Octopus have a far superior eye?

Why do we have wisdom teeth?

Our design is remarkably inefficient. If I were to design a something, why would I add useless parts? Why are we designed so badly?

"The use of the word 'synthetic' should always have a caveat added and that word is 'yet' Just because nylon and other 'man-made' products have not been seen in nature does not mean they are not already there at places we have not detected or in forms we have not detected or in compounds that are similar but better 'designed' LOL."

So now you won't even accept that nylon wasn't around before 1935? You need to take basic chemistry.

By your reasoning humans should be able to digest hydrochloric acid. (we don't have a problem with hydrogen in water!)


492 posted on 12/20/2006 12:19:03 AM PST by LiberalGunNut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 488 | View Replies ]


To: LiberalGunNut
The very lame athiest "Argument from Imperfection":

"If I were to design a something, why would I add useless parts? Why are we designed so badly?"

I'm not sure how some "Creation-God" believers would answer this, I can only speak for myself. But are you aware that in Christian theology, the physical world is not regarded as being in a state of perfection, but rather existing in a state of significant corruption and degradation? This concept is very rudimentary Christian theology and long pre-dates Darwin and is not, therefore some anti-Darwinian "dodge."

We don't know why we have an appendix, it's very possible that at one time it provided some purpose or enhancement. It's demise and apparent vestigal condition says absolutely nothing about original intent or design.

Historic Christian theology explicitly endorses the idea of loss of function in the biological world. It presents no impediment to Christian belief, indeed, its evidences substantiate, or at least harmonize with Christian theology. --and this is a very ancient view.

494 posted on 12/20/2006 1:00:47 AM PST by cookcounty (The "Greatest Generation" was also the most violent generation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 492 | View Replies ]

To: LiberalGunNut
You ask several intriguing questions on human anatomy, and then state that you can do much better in the design department. You got any prototypes going on the drawing board?

The Octopus has a far superior eye? Well I guess for the octopus application that is correct. The octopus and cuttlefish are damn clever little creatures (esp for invertebrates) and they will exploit to the max whatever they have

For the rest I think you are mis-interpreting what I said, and also projecting your reasoning onto me.

W.
586 posted on 12/20/2006 9:59:30 PM PST by RunningWolf (2-1 Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 492 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson