Jump to content

Questions Questions Questions


Recommended Posts

I think this is simply a case of perceptual salience, and memorial bias, not evidential of your assertion. I really don't think the data supports your claim. Do you have anything objective to support your contention?

Have you learned nothing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is simply a case of perceptual salience, and memorial bias, not evidential of your assertion. I really don't think the data supports your claim. Do you have anything objective to support your contention?

 

Counting myself, I can think of seven female science forum members off the top of my head, only one of which I ever saw use a picture of a famous woman as her icon, but that same person also rotated her icons fairly often and used her own face as often as she did someone else's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any question relating to the imperfections of the 'creations' should be enough to embarass the creationists. For example : What idiotic creator would make humans with the opening to the gut (esophagus) and the opening to the lungs (trachea) side by side, with a lousy little piece of flesh to act as a valve between them?

 

Every year, untold thousands of humans die of choking (like Mama Cass with her chicken sandwich) by inhaling as they swallow. What a horrible piece of design, if it was the result of creation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or, my favorite, just punch him in the balls.

 

Good point. We have balls because sperm do not like it hot, and instead of having sperm that can withstand body temperature we have these hanging sacks of *it hurts ridiculously if you punch here* so they can be at a lower temperature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What idiotic creator would make humans with the opening to the gut (esophagus) and the opening to the lungs (trachea) side by side, with a lousy little piece of flesh to act as a valve between them?

 

I always thought that was ingenious streamlining! How would you separate the two, one or the other would have to be rerouted to another orifice. Doing so would greatly decrease the sense of taste..........

 

You just drew a parallel between eating and Russian Roulette.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

buttacup

Many other mammals have a better system. For example, cetaceans do not have our problem system. We have a perfectly useable set of nostrils, and a breathing passage that can lead directly from the nose to the lungs. It would require a widening of that passage, but that is simple engineering. The larynx and voice production would have to be within that passage, but again a mere detail.

 

The point is that evolution, being an imperfect means of development can lead to a breathing/swallowing system that is frequently lethal. A good design by a good bio-engineer would avoid that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Separate eating and breathing passages would dull our taste since much of taste is based on smell. And eating the wrong thing can be as deadly as choking. Also, we would need to have a different system to talk rather than mouth and tongue.

 

Lance: given the choice, would you rather have the small chance of probable death, or a cloaca? Just curious :D

 

(The cloaca has to be a -50 Awful on the good biology scale).

 

On the other hand, you wouldn't hear people arguing about which organ inserts where, would you? Isn't the cloaca a good weight saver though?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sayonara

I know you are being light hearted, and that is good. If the perfect creator created us with a separate breathing cloaca (fused nostrils?), the designer would also create us to appreciate the aesthetics of a handsome hole! Imagine the street corner scene.

"Whoooah, look at the cloaca on that one!!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To borrow an old engineering joke:

 

How do you know God is a civil engineer?

 

Because when designing the body, only a civil engineer would put a playground next to a sewage outflow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

buttacup

There are two kinds of eczema - contact and atopic.

 

Contact eczema, as you know, comes from touching something you are sensitive to. Usually, this shows by being very localised, since it flares up only where the contact has been made. Is your eczema localised in this way? If so, does the location on your body, and the shape of the rash give a clue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where did the designer come from?

 

Nope, that's no problem. God was never created and always existed (aka nothing caused God), so he doesn't need a cause. Incidentally, the same argument applies to the materialistic explanation for the origin of our universe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope, that's no problem. God was never created and always existed (aka nothing caused God), so he doesn't need a cause. Incidentally, the same argument applies to the materialistic explanation for the origin of our universe.

 

The "everything needs something which created it, except for the creator who just doesn't" argument always makes me smile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "everything needs something which created it, except for the creator who just doesn't" argument always makes me smile.

 

You mean everything that was created needs something that created it, except for the things that weren't created that just don't. If you tell me when God was created, I'll tell you what created him :)

 

Next thing I know, you'll want to know at what number the number line starts, who created mathematics, or where the Big Bang came from and where wherever the Big Bang came from, came from, or...

Edited by Mr Skeptic
rephrasing
Link to comment
Share on other sites

buttacup

There are two kinds of eczema - contact and atopic.

 

Contact eczema, as you know, comes from touching something you are sensitive to. Usually, this shows by being very localised, since it flares up only where the contact has been made. Is your eczema localised in this way? If so, does the location on your body, and the shape of the rash give a clue?

 

Actually I think it was caused by a mix of the cold weather we're having in Vancouver(my lips are pretty chapped too,) my gloves at work(which have a sanitary spray for longer use,) my hormone levels having changed(even more than what the Cyproterone had achieved) and God!>:D

 

No, really this being an E, M and E topic it's just another example of how we literally do it to ourselves............It's our will which drives us forward and we evolve and morph our exobiology to enjoy ourselves more or survive better, either/or. And God gave us the free will to do it, right?

 

Wouldn't a group of creators be a more efficient team than a single one?

 

I picture God like the ending scenes of the new Indana Jones movie. A quantum physical hive mind that manifests itself as greys inside of our universe but actually exists within inner space. I wonder if they use 'Squeezed Vacuum' technology?

 

Nope, that's no problem. God was never created and always existed (aka nothing caused God), so he doesn't need a cause. Incidentally, the same argument applies to the materialistic explanation for the origin of our universe.

 

Is there any going arguement for a finite reality.........my brain really hurts!:P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.