Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

Human Design

DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 2:38:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Are there any specifics of human anatomy that you think (A) imply the existence of an intelligent creator, or (B) imply the nonexistence of an intelligent creator?

For example, the mouth functioning as both the primary entries for oxygen and water seem to indicate careless design (if any) to me. Certainly, multipurpose parts of an invention can offer convenience to the user, but there are exceptions (ie, you wouldn't want the gas petal and brake petal to be one and the same in an automobile).
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 2:45:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/11/2013 2:38:59 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
Are there any specifics of human anatomy that you think (A) imply the existence of an intelligent creator, or (B) imply the nonexistence of an intelligent creator?

For example, the mouth functioning as both the primary entries for oxygen and water seem to indicate careless design (if any) to me. Certainly, multipurpose parts of an invention can offer convenience to the user, but there are exceptions (ie, you wouldn't want the gas petal and brake petal to be one and the same in an automobile).

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree..."
Origin of Species, CHAPTER VI
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 2:53:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/11/2013 2:45:31 AM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
At 2/11/2013 2:38:59 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
Are there any specifics of human anatomy that you think (A) imply the existence of an intelligent creator, or (B) imply the nonexistence of an intelligent creator?

For example, the mouth functioning as both the primary entries for oxygen and water seem to indicate careless design (if any) to me. Certainly, multipurpose parts of an invention can offer convenience to the user, but there are exceptions (ie, you wouldn't want the gas petal and brake petal to be one and the same in an automobile).

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree..."
Origin of Species, CHAPTER VI

So the human eye to you implies an intelligent creator? I do understand that; it is a very complex and effective tool. The human eye and the human brain would imply an intelligent creator to me, if any, above anything else.

You shouldn't cut Darwin off, though, when he has something to say. The continuation of your quote is as follows:

"When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 2:53:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Someone is bond yo bring up the apendix, which used to be used to show that evolution rather than god "created" man.

It has since been realized that the apendix actually does serve a purpose.

http://www.scientificamerican.com...
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 3:40:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/11/2013 2:38:59 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
Are there any specifics of human anatomy that you think (A) imply the existence of an intelligent creator, or (B) imply the nonexistence of an intelligent creator?

For example, the mouth functioning as both the primary entries for oxygen and water seem to indicate careless design (if any) to me. Certainly, multipurpose parts of an invention can offer convenience to the user, but there are exceptions (ie, you wouldn't want the gas petal and brake petal to be one and the same in an automobile).

what we think is careless design actually happens to be a balance of two things, I haven't heard of this idea before, but take for example the eye, there is a nerve which runs across the retina causing a blind spot in the corner of our vision which our brain fills in, many people use to believe that this was an example of dumb design, until it was found that it was necessary for another function, but lowered the usefulness of vision slightly, so there is a compromise. I learnt this stuff in science class recently, so don't think its fact or anything, I wouldn't put it past the textbooks to display inaccurate material, but its a good thought.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
j_lowe
Posts: 23
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 12:02:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/11/2013 2:38:59 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
Are there any specifics of human anatomy that you think (A) imply the existence of an intelligent creator, or (B) imply the nonexistence of an intelligent creator?

For example, the mouth functioning as both the primary entries for oxygen and water seem to indicate careless design (if any) to me. Certainly, multipurpose parts of an invention can offer convenience to the user, but there are exceptions (ie, you wouldn't want the gas petal and brake petal to be one and the same in an automobile).

On an ipod one click wheel controls everything... I think its a pretty good design.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 12:29:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/11/2013 2:45:31 AM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
At 2/11/2013 2:38:59 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
Are there any specifics of human anatomy that you think (A) imply the existence of an intelligent creator, or (B) imply the nonexistence of an intelligent creator?

For example, the mouth functioning as both the primary entries for oxygen and water seem to indicate careless design (if any) to me. Certainly, multipurpose parts of an invention can offer convenience to the user, but there are exceptions (ie, you wouldn't want the gas petal and brake petal to be one and the same in an automobile).

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree..."
Origin of Species, CHAPTER VI

Required viewing for creationists.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
j_lowe
Posts: 23
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 1:05:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/11/2013 12:29:30 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 2/11/2013 2:45:31 AM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
At 2/11/2013 2:38:59 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
Are there any specifics of human anatomy that you think (A) imply the existence of an intelligent creator, or (B) imply the nonexistence of an intelligent creator?

For example, the mouth functioning as both the primary entries for oxygen and water seem to indicate careless design (if any) to me. Certainly, multipurpose parts of an invention can offer convenience to the user, but there are exceptions (ie, you wouldn't want the gas petal and brake petal to be one and the same in an automobile).

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree..."
Origin of Species, CHAPTER VI

Required viewing for creationists.



I just watched the eye of the python. I had it muted, and played "eye of the tiger" at the same time on the stereo. It was eye opening.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 1:10:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/11/2013 12:02:01 PM, j_lowe wrote:
At 2/11/2013 2:38:59 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
Are there any specifics of human anatomy that you think (A) imply the existence of an intelligent creator, or (B) imply the nonexistence of an intelligent creator?

For example, the mouth functioning as both the primary entries for oxygen and water seem to indicate careless design (if any) to me. Certainly, multipurpose parts of an invention can offer convenience to the user, but there are exceptions (ie, you wouldn't want the gas petal and brake petal to be one and the same in an automobile).

On an ipod one click wheel controls everything... I think its a pretty good design.

I agree, it is not possible to completely kill your iPod when using the wheel....
j_lowe
Posts: 23
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 1:18:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/11/2013 2:38:59 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
Are there any specifics of human anatomy that you think (A) imply the existence of an intelligent creator, or (B) imply the nonexistence of an intelligent creator?

For example, the mouth functioning as both the primary entries for oxygen and water seem to indicate careless design (if any) to me. Certainly, multipurpose parts of an invention can offer convenience to the user, but there are exceptions (ie, you wouldn't want the gas petal and brake petal to be one and the same in an automobile).

I have not heard of any cases where a person drowned while drinking a glass of water.

Sure people drown but it is not due to using one shared orifice for two purposes.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 1:26:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/11/2013 2:38:59 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
Are there any specifics of human anatomy that you think (A) imply the existence of an intelligent creator, or (B) imply the nonexistence of an intelligent creator?

For example, the mouth functioning as both the primary entries for oxygen and water seem to indicate careless design (if any) to me. Certainly, multipurpose parts of an invention can offer convenience to the user, but there are exceptions (ie, you wouldn't want the gas petal and brake petal to be one and the same in an automobile).

Would have an intellegent designer mixed the entertainment system with the sewage system.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 1:32:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/11/2013 1:18:54 PM, j_lowe wrote:
At 2/11/2013 2:38:59 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
Are there any specifics of human anatomy that you think (A) imply the existence of an intelligent creator, or (B) imply the nonexistence of an intelligent creator?

For example, the mouth functioning as both the primary entries for oxygen and water seem to indicate careless design (if any) to me. Certainly, multipurpose parts of an invention can offer convenience to the user, but there are exceptions (ie, you wouldn't want the gas petal and brake petal to be one and the same in an automobile).

I have not heard of any cases where a person drowned while drinking a glass of water.

Sure people drown but it is not due to using one shared orifice for two purposes.

4600 people choke each year in the US.
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 1:43:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/11/2013 2:53:01 AM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
Someone is bond yo bring up the apendix, which used to be used to show that evolution rather than god "created" man.

It has since been realized that the apendix actually does serve a purpose.

http://www.scientificamerican.com...

The question isn't whether it has a purpose but whether it has a "designed purpose" or an "adapted purpose". According to evolution, many vestiges are repurposed for new uses. For instance, Whales have a hipbone, and some have pointed out that the hipbone aids birthing of whales, however to argue that the original 'purpose' of the hipbone was for something other than serving as a hip is untenable.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 2:12:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/11/2013 1:18:54 PM, j_lowe wrote:
At 2/11/2013 2:38:59 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
Are there any specifics of human anatomy that you think (A) imply the existence of an intelligent creator, or (B) imply the nonexistence of an intelligent creator?

For example, the mouth functioning as both the primary entries for oxygen and water seem to indicate careless design (if any) to me. Certainly, multipurpose parts of an invention can offer convenience to the user, but there are exceptions (ie, you wouldn't want the gas petal and brake petal to be one and the same in an automobile).

I have not heard of any cases where a person drowned while drinking a glass of water.

Sure people drown but it is not due to using one shared orifice for two purposes.

lol people die all the time because of that. It's called 'choking'. One of my great grandmothers died from inhaling a peanut. Pretty sh!tty design if you ask me.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 5:37:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/11/2013 2:38:59 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
Are there any specifics of human anatomy that you think (A) imply the existence of an intelligent creator, or (B) imply the nonexistence of an intelligent creator?

For example, the mouth functioning as both the primary entries for oxygen and water seem to indicate careless design (if any) to me. Certainly, multipurpose parts of an invention can offer convenience to the user, but there are exceptions (ie, you wouldn't want the gas petal and brake petal to be one and the same in an automobile).

I see your point but if you consider the options then maybe they're not so bad right where they are, especially when aesthetics is taken into account. Where would be a good place for an anus, for instance?? Putting it right next to a recreation area might seem like poor design, but at least it forces us to practice good hygeine.
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 5:43:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/11/2013 2:53:01 AM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
Someone is bond yo bring up the apendix, which used to be used to show that evolution rather than god "created" man.

It has since been realized that the apendix actually does serve a purpose.

http://www.scientificamerican.com...

Irrelevant. The appendix is still bad design. Without it, your body must work harder, with it, it can kill.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 5:44:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/11/2013 2:53:01 AM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
Someone is bond yo bring up the apendix, which used to be used to show that evolution rather than god "created" man.

It has since been realized that the apendix actually does serve a purpose.

http://www.scientificamerican.com...

and evolution doesn't prove or disprove god
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
natoast
Posts: 204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2013 5:51:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/11/2013 5:37:07 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 2/11/2013 2:38:59 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
Are there any specifics of human anatomy that you think (A) imply the existence of an intelligent creator, or (B) imply the nonexistence of an intelligent creator?

For example, the mouth functioning as both the primary entries for oxygen and water seem to indicate careless design (if any) to me. Certainly, multipurpose parts of an invention can offer convenience to the user, but there are exceptions (ie, you wouldn't want the gas petal and brake petal to be one and the same in an automobile).

I see your point but if you consider the options then maybe they're not so bad right where they are, especially when aesthetics is taken into account. Where would be a good place for an anus, for instance?? Putting it right next to a recreation area might seem like poor design, but at least it forces us to practice good hygeine.

That's not an answer. Aesthetics are subjective, so if every person had two orifices, for breathing and eating, it wouldn't look bad to us. But I think that this could be explained by the fact that in most cases, the nose is the primary breathing orifice and the mouth is secondary. Because breathing is more important than eating, it may be safer to have a backup breathing orifice in case our nose was clogged somehow. Although why god would clog our noses in the first place is a mystery.