I almost choked to death on pizza!

[A Vestigial Mote]

SO just "closer to perfection". Not perfect!

I asked you "So how would you define a "perfect" human being?".

This doesn't matter. What matters is whether or not we (any of us) would consider it "better" circumstances to not have to face death when doing something vital to ongoing survival. Would you consider it better not to have to worry about choking when eating a piece of food (a necessary activity)? I certainly would. And so... regardless what a "perfect being" is or any such nonsense, a perceived "better" situation is one in which the being having to complete some action to survive doesn't also face possible danger to its life at the same time. Right? I mean... it really is that easy.

Unless you think it "better" from your perspective that we have to face a danger to our lives in order to complete necessary survival actions? If that were "better" then you should just absolutely love something like an obstacle course of bullets whizzing through water while you attempt to swim from air pocket to air pocket just to get a breath. Wouldn't that be great?!

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am not a creationist, and I am sure they do dodge. God can not lie and truth doesn't contradict truth, amen. I am just beginning my investigation from within now rather than without is all, I used to be TE but then resigned as I saw the view came from without, so now I am in no-man's-land for the most part.

It appears to be a mistake to conflate death with corruption.

 

[Lain]

It appears to be a mistake to conflate death with corruption.

Why so? What is death but disintegration, breaking down, and separation of what was whole? At least that is what it is to Christians in various senses. It is a form of corruption at least. As St. Athanasius says whose work on this is certain:

"For He brought them into His own garden, and gave them a law: so that, if they kept the grace and remained good, they might still keep the life in paradise without sorrow or pain or care besides having the promise of incorruption in heaven; but that if they transgressed and turned back, and became evil, they might know that they were incurring that corruption in death which was theirs by nature: no longer to live in paradise, but cast out of it from that time forth to die and to abide in death and in corruption. Now this is that of which Holy Writ also gives warning, saying in the Person of God: 'Of every tree that is in the garden, eating you shall eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat of it, but on the day that you eat, dying you shall die.' But by 'dying you shall die,' what else could be meant than not dying merely, but also abiding ever in the corruption of death?"

But not only this but Scripture itself connects this with St. Paul saying: "But whenever this perishable body puts on incorruptibility and this mortal body puts on immortality, then the saying that is written will take place: 'death is swallowed up in victory.'"

Although I just noticed your atheist tag so I doubt it is of interest to you, I need to check those before I go quoting this and that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why so? What is death but disintegration, breaking down, and separation of what was whole? At least that is what it is to Christians in various senses. It is a form of corruption at least. As St. Athanasius says whose work on this is certain:

"For He brought them into His own garden, and gave them a law: so that, if they kept the grace and remained good, they might still keep the life in paradise without sorrow or pain or care besides having the promise of incorruption in heaven; but that if they transgressed and turned back, and became evil, they might know that they were incurring that corruption in death which was theirs by nature: no longer to live in paradise, but cast out of it from that time forth to die and to abide in death and in corruption. Now this is that of which Holy Writ also gives warning, saying in the Person of God: 'Of every tree that is in the garden, eating you shall eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat of it, but on the day that you eat, dying you shall die.' But by 'dying you shall die,' what else could be meant than not dying merely, but also abiding ever in the corruption of death?"

But not only this but Scripture itself connects this with St. Paul saying: "But whenever this perishable body puts on incorruptibility and this mortal body puts on immortality, then the saying that is written will take place: 'death is swallowed up in victory.'"

Although I just noticed your atheist tag so I doubt it is of interest to you, I need to check those before I go quoting this and that.

Perhaps you shouldn't read that literally. There are huge problems if you do. The Adam and Eve myth portray God as incompetent, evil, and unjust. If you do not think so you did not read it as written.

 

[Lain]

Perhaps you shouldn't read that literally. There are huge problems if you do. The Adam and Eve myth portray God as incompetent, evil, and unjust. If you do not think so you did not read it as written.

I was looking at the Skeptic's Annotated Bible earlier today to see what others think of the Scriptures, I believe it had the Garden incidents under "injustice," although reading it as wooden as possible I genuinely do not see the injustice. Why do you think it portrays God in this way? What I got from looking over it again was this:

"They abandoned the source of their life, submitted to another being, and now are dying in all forms." I fail to see the injustice of this, it's to me more analogous to getting burned when you put your hand in the fire, just a story of cause and effect really.

 

[Suave]

SO just "closer to perfection". Not perfect!

I asked you "So how would you define a "perfect" human being?".

I'd define a perfect human being as somebody who'd stop aging upon reaching age 25.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I was looking at the Skeptic's Annotated Bible earlier today to see what others think of the Scriptures, I believe it had the Garden incidents under "injustice," although reading it as wooden as possible I genuinely do not see the injustice. Why do you think it portrays God in this way? What I got from looking over it again was this:

"They abandoned the source of their life, submitted to another being, and now are dying in all forms." I fail to see the injustice of this, it's to me more analogous to getting burned when you put your hand in the fire, just a story of cause and effect really.

Then I would say that you did not understand it. Tell me, what was the tree that Adam and Eve supposedly ate from in the myth?

 

[firedragon]

I'd define a perfect human being as somebody who'd stop aging upon reaching age 25.

Would this human be happy, sad, without feeling or maybe something else?

 

[Suave]

Would this human be happy, sad, without feeling or maybe something else?

Twenty-five-year-olds are generally happy people, because they are the strongest at age 25 and are then the most attractive appealing to the opposite sex. A twenty-five-year-old's brain produces the peak level of euphoric causing chemicals.

 

[Lain]

Then I would say that you did not understand it. Tell me, what was the tree that Adam and Eve supposedly ate from in the myth?

The one of the Knowledge of Good and Evil planted in the midst of the Garden with the one of Life.

 

[firedragon]

Twenty-five-year-olds are generally happy people, because they are the strongest at age 25 and are then the most attractive appealing to the opposite sex. A twenty-five-year-old's brain produces the peak level of euphoric causing chemicals.

So they are happy. Bottomline. Thats what you are saying, and that's your standard for "perfect human".

 

[Suave]

So they are happy. Bottomline. Thats what you are saying, and that's your standard for "perfect human".

I would certainly consider happiness as definitely a key factor towards being a perfect human.

 

[firedragon]

I would certainly consider happiness as definitely a key factor towards being a perfect human.

See. The question is about "The factor" If there is any such thing.

So again, how would you define a perfect human being?

 

[Kenny]

So, who is there to tell the baby what to do, Ken? Who is there to inform the baby to chew a certain number of times each bite of food that enters its mouth? This IS pertinent to the discussion here... since you indicated that human understanding should necessarily augment the "intelligent design" of the human body. Who among the "designers" seems to have cared about the babies and how they might handle their solid foods in this respect, Ken?

Well, as I see it, babies are usually given to parents and, in our bible, it is clear that we should "train up a child in the way he/she should go".

God, in His wisdom, gave baby milk in the breasts of moms. God also gave wisdom to parents to puree food for older babies.

So... we have intelligent design with God creating breast milk and God gave intelligent design to parents to know to tell their children... "eat smaller bites and chew before your swallow".

Usually, we don't have babies without parents.

I believe the original poster's point was that, were the body designed differently (perhaps a little more intelligently?) we wouldn't have a concern like a piece of food obstructing our airway and potentially causing our demise. Your point about "being ignorant of the number of times one should chew" does not, at all, speak to the supposed flaw in the design. All it does is pass the responsibility on from the designer onto the one needing to utilize the design. And believe me, I understand why you have to do this... because the "designer" cannot, in any way, speak for himself/herself on the matter. I just (again) hope that you also understand why you have to do this on his/her behalf.

Yes, I read that. But it is easy to say "a better design" without offering a "better design". Quite frankly, I think it is the best design you can get.

I think the problem is that we are saying "we ate without chewing and choked therefore it is a bad design". There just might be a fallacy there IMO. It would be like saying "We crashed going a 150 miles per hour... it must be a design problem".

Just doesn't compute.

But just think of it this way... if I were to be given a bicycle that had no handle bars, and I learned to ride it that way, by balancing my weight to one or the other side to affect wide turns, and keep myself level otherwise, if I thought about it and realized that if I could control the front tire in some way I would have a much easier time of the whole ordeal, and then I were able to install handle bars and then ride that way (subjectively a much better experience) might I not look back on that earlier design as somewhat inferior? Perhaps even wonder why someone didn't think of this type of thing before? And all those times people would have crashed their initial bikes trying to learn to keep balance and control with their weight - we could, I suppose, blame all of those crashes on the user of the bike. But then, with the advent of handle bars, wouldn't some of those people look back and lament that if they only had the handle bars to begin with, then there wouldn't have been all that crashing and hurting happening all over the world? Is that such a crazy thought for a person to have in that situation? Not necessarily "blaming" the designer... but realizing that the design isn't "the best" it could be, and that if the "designer" is supposedly so very, very intelligent and amazing at his/her job, wouldn't one also then easily wonder why they, themselves, could think of a modification that would make it better? Is that so outlandish?

No problem here... have you come up with a better digestive system/breathing system design?

 

[exchemist]

As I said, show Patristic evidence that this is the case for your last claim, for I know they most certainly do not claim that physical death is not some form of corruption, and sex (in our mode) is a thing that came after the Fall, I can also provide evidence for this from them.

I recognize that many animals eat other animals and this is yet another sign of the world we ruined to me, or the death of plants also.

As for the history of the fossil record I know it doesn't show that simply due to the hierarchy of truths and sciences in the world.

Do you actually believe that no animals ate others before Man came along? Really?

 

[Lain]

Do you actually believe that no animals ate others before Man came along? Really?

Yes, it's like an octave. And perhaps it is due to the sin of other rational beings and not humanity (this is a possible thing), but still it is like an octave and the beginning is like the end, as they will be recapitulated in the end and be deathless then they were like in the beginning.

 

[Suave]

Well, as I see it, babies are usually given to parents and, in our bible, it is clear that we should "train up a child in the way he/she should go".

God, in His wisdom, gave baby milk in the breasts of moms. God also gave wisdom to parents to puree food for older babies.

So... we have intelligent design with God creating breast milk and God gave intelligent design to parents to know to tell their children... "eat smaller bites and chew before your swallow".

Usually, we don't have babies without parents.



Yes, I read that. But it is easy to say "a better design" without offering a "better design". Quite frankly, I think it is the best design you can get.

I think the problem is that we are saying "we ate without chewing and choked therefore it is a bad design". There just might be a fallacy there IMO. It would be like saying "We crashed going a 150 miles per hour... it must be a design problem".

Just doesn't compute.

I'm conceptualizing everybody as having two passage ways, one for air travelling from their nostrils directly to the lungs that'd facilitate breathing and another separate passage way for food travelling from the mouth to the stomach that'd facilitate the digestion of nutrients, this in contrast to the one-hole throat passage way used for part of the respiratory system in common with being used for part of the digestion system, which poses an obvious hazard of food blocking air from getting to the lungs causing bodily oxygen depravation and death. Also, I'd design humans beings with





No problem here... have you come up with a better digestive system/breathing system design?

Please let us conceptualize everybody as having two passage ways, one for air travelling from their nostrils directly to the lungs that'd facilitate breathing and another separate passage way for food travelling from the mouth to the stomach that'd facilitate the digestion of nutrients, this in contrast to the one-hole throat passage way used for part of the respiratory system in common with being used for part of the digestion system, which poses an obvious hazard of food blocking air from getting to the lungs causing bodily oxygen depravation and death. Also, please let us work towards future generations of humans having longer lasting teeth or regenerative teeth growth in order to replace damaged or replace missing teeth. This would enable people to better chew their food and consequently reduce the risk of them choking to death on food.

 

[Kenny]

Please let us conceptualize everybody as having two passage ways, one for air travelling from their nostrils directly to the lungs that'd facilitate breathing and another separate passage way for food travelling from the mouth to the stomach that'd facilitate the digestion of nutrients, this in contrast to the one-hole throat passage way used for part of the respiratory system in common with being used for part of the digestion system, which poses an obvious hazard of food blocking air from getting to the lungs causing bodily oxygen depravation and death. Also, please let us work towards future generations of humans having longer lasting teeth or regenerative teeth growth in order to replace damaged or replace missing teeth. This would enable people to better chew their food and consequently reduce the risk of them choking to death on food.

I like the idea of stem cells for teeth - a great intelligent design capacity...

tubes - one for eating and one for breathing... you get a cold, your nose is sooo stuffed you can't breath through it. Results, suffocation.

However, having a safety valve, breathing through the mouth... voila - you have saved a life.

We usually get colds and stuffy noses much more than we swallow a piece too big without chewing it first. Case in point... how often has it happened to you vs stuffed up nose.

 

[Suave]

I like the idea of stem cells for teeth - a great intelligent design capacity...

tubes - one for eating and one for breathing... you get a cold, your nose is sooo stuffed you can't breath through it. Results, suffocation.

However, having a safety valve, breathing through the mouth... voila - you have saved a life.

We usually get colds and stuffy noses much more than we swallow a piece too big without chewing it first.

Good point....I'm back to drawing board!

 

[Subduction Zone]

The one of the Knowledge of Good and Evil planted in the midst of the Garden with the one of Life.

And the implication is that Adam and Eve did not know right from wrong. Therefore they could not do anything wrong by eating off of the tree. That was a design flaw by God. It looks as if he set them up to fail. And it does not matter that God told them not to. They did not know that disobeying God was wrong in any way at all. Read the myth again. When did they realize that what they did was wrong? Only after eating the fruit. God set up a tree in the Garden without adequate precautions on his part, and then to make it worse he was the creator of "The Serpent" (which by the way was the only one that did not lie in the story) to tempt them. God failed big time in that myth and then to make it worse, he blamed his own creation for his failure.