Just Accidental?

[Hockeycowboy]

Fitting all the 'kinds' on the Ark is, of course, another problem.

You might find this interesting,I did.

Noah's Ark would have floated...even with 70,000 animals

 

[Deeje]

And the slightly less sensible design decisions?
The Babirusa, whose tusks will actually grow back and pierce it's own head if it doesn't grind them enough?

Handsome devil!

Shame about the tusks....

One source said...."But what are those tusks for? It’s actually a mystery. One hypothesis is that the males use their tusks during fights over females. It seems reasonable, until you look at how babirusas really fight. They don’t hook tusks, but stand up on their hind legs and “box” each other with their front hooves. Additionally, babirusa tusks aren’t built to withstand much pressure; they are brittle and easily broken, not at all suited for combat. It seems likely that the tusks serve a display purpose, perhaps signaling genetic fitness to females, but this is an idea that hasn’t been tested. For now, the purpose of those marvelous tusks is still a mystery."
The Creature Feature: 10 Fun Facts About the Babirusa

If the tusks are brittle and easily broken then they should have no trouble keeping them under control.

The Ichneumon, who doesn't feed on it's prey (it eats nectar), but instead paralyses them, impregnates them with eggs, with those eggs hatching to feed on the still alive host?

Here he is...

beautifully crafted for his role in waspdom no doubt.

Since there is no proof that many living things that are host to the young of others, feel pain or even any sentience, what does this prove? Predators and prey ensure the survival of life for many species on this planet for now. I do not believe that this will always be the case however, because the prophesies in Isaiah indicate that no harm will be caused to any creature in God's future plans. I believe that there is a reason why God gave humans permission to eat flesh, but only after a global catastrophe. He never told us why but we have been meat eaters ever since. It will be interesting to find out.

And then the dumb design decisions on otherwise more defensible creatures, such as humans and giraffes.
I mean...if you want to see a strange design decision, spend a few moments googling 'hyena clitoris'. That's always a fun one.

You really google such things?......deviate!

 

[Deeje]

Funny that you should post all that beauty -- and then trash it be saying "reduces humans to the level of animals." It's what we are -- as different from all those animals you pictured as they are from each other, but animals all the same. In every way.

Since I believe that humans are far superior to animals (or at least were meant to be originally) being created with the qualities and attributes of the Designer, I do not believe that animals are the same as us in anything but death. There is no superiority in death for any creature...it is a great leveler. (Ecclesiastes 3:19-20) The only thing that distinguishes humans from animals, is that we alone are promised a restoration of life in a resurrection. Animals were given no such promise. We all have the freedom to believe it or not.

 

[savagewind]

You might find this interesting,I did.

Noah's Ark would have floated...even with 70,000 animals

And everyone's food..........

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Handsome devil!

Shame about the tusks....

One source said...."But what are those tusks for? It’s actually a mystery. One hypothesis is that the males use their tusks during fights over females. It seems reasonable, until you look at how babirusas really fight. They don’t hook tusks, but stand up on their hind legs and “box” each other with their front hooves. Additionally, babirusa tusks aren’t built to withstand much pressure; they are brittle and easily broken, not at all suited for combat. It seems likely that the tusks serve a display purpose, perhaps signaling genetic fitness to females, but this is an idea that hasn’t been tested. For now, the purpose of those marvelous tusks is still a mystery."
The Creature Feature: 10 Fun Facts About the Babirusa

If the tusks are brittle and easily broken then they should have no trouble keeping them under control.



Here he is...

beautifully crafted for his role in waspdom no doubt.

Since there is no proof that many living things that are host to the young of others, feel pain or even any sentience, what does this prove? Predators and prey ensure the survival of life for many species on this planet for now. I do not believe that this will always be the case however, because the prophesies in Isaiah indicate that no harm will be caused to any creature in God's future plans. I believe that there is a reason why God gave humans permission to eat flesh, but only after a global catastrophe. He never told us why but we have been meat eaters ever since. It will be interesting to find out.

Couple of quick points...
At least on this occasion, I'm not using the wasp as proof of evil, or of a lack of benevolence. Simply poor design.
Similarly, whilst the babirusa can obviously cope with their ridiculous tusks, they are clearly poorly designed.

You really google such things?......deviate!

*laughs*

Not something I stumbled across via random web surfing, it's fair to say.
It pretty interesting though.

Here is a safe link;
The Painful Realities of Hyena Sex

 

[Deeje]

Thanks for again illustrating my point about this being a religious issue for you.

How do you separate creation from the Creator? Of course its a religious issue for me. I make no apology for being educated by my Creator, whom I believe to be the greatest scientist in existence.

Who created you? Not science. Like all of us, you were put together by a process that I believe was designed by a most supremely intelligent and powerful entity, who purposed that self perpetuating life would exist permanently on this planet without any intervention from him. I can believe that way more easily than assuming that everything is all just a series of million upon millions of fortunate accidents.

Right, exactly as I said. You have no problem with science, until they reach conclusions that conflict with your religious beliefs, at which point you reject those conclusions simply because they conflict with your beliefs.

Perhaps I have not made my point clear enough for you Jose Fly.....I reject the conclusions because they are based purely on conjecture, not real science. You seem to have difficulty distinguishing between real provable facts and unsubstantiated suggestion. My religious beliefs confirm what I see in the natural world. Your conclusions reflect that you have no belief in anything but what men of science can imagine.....but you are free to accept that if you wish.

Why would I attempt to explain something to you that you've already declared you won't accept? Let's be honest here....as long as a conclusion conflicts with your religious beliefs, you will reject it...period.

Why wouldn't you attempt to demonstrate to the readers here a valid explanation for why orchid wasps and their orchids can form a symbiotic relationship that benefits only the flower....leaving behind a very frustrated wasp.

I am sure we would all be very interested.....in layman's terms of course.
We are not all Einsteins you know.

Flat-earth geocentrists say the exact same thing.

'Flat-earthers' are free to believe whatever they like....just like you are....just as I am.

All of that, and you still didn't answer the question. And given that you just made even more authoritative assertions about science, that gives even more importance to the question....

How do you know? You have no background or experience in science, and you admit that the jargon is over your head. So how do you know what the evidence is and whether the related analyses and conclusions are valid?

I know as much about my beliefs as you do about yours. What makes you think science has to be right?

What I see makes me think that ID is the more reasonable conclusion to reach, given the actual evidence, rather than only the suggested stuff.

 

[Deeje]

Couple of quick points...
At least on this occasion, I'm not using the wasp as proof of evil, or of a lack of benevolence. Simply poor design.
Similarly, whilst the babirusa can obviously cope with their ridiculous tusks, they are clearly poorly designed.

Perhaps in the babirusa's world the design is really attractive...beauty and functionality are in the eye of the beholder...unless the tusks hit you first.

Who is to say that it is a bad design?

Not something I stumbled across via random web surfing, it's fair to say.
It pretty interesting though.

Here is a safe link;
The Painful Realities of Hyena Sex

Not sure I really want to investigate that subject

......I'm sure it is only really important to hyenas.

Whatever problems they have, it doesn't seem to affect the hyena population, but maybe it explains their disposition.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Perhaps in the babirusa's world the design is really attractive...beauty and functionality are in the eye of the beholder...unless the tusks hit you first.

Who is to say that it is a bad design?

Me. A design which includes a potentially self-killing tusk is a bad one, no matter how good it looks.
Just like corsets are a bad design.

Not sure I really want to investigate that subject

......I'm sure it is only really important to hyenas.

*laughs*
Fair enough. But it's important to both hyenas, and arguments on design.

Whatever problems they have, it doesn't seem to affect the hyena population, but maybe it explains their disposition.

It certainly DOES effect the hyena population. What you are saying is that the hyena population survives despite it, which is true. Doesn't make it a good design decision though. From a design point of view it is completely indefensible.

 

[Deeje]

A complete definition of 'kind' has been asked for several times, because you have offered your 'alternative' to the accepted ToE and that would be an essential part of it. Without a definition, your 'theory' cannot be tested.

As soon as my Creator gives me this definition (apart from the one in Genesis) I'll pass it on...OK?

It seems like a no-brainer to me. We can see with our own eyes what naturally mates with its own "kind" in nature. That is pretty easy to define isn't it?

Whatever is observed, can be explained by stretching or contracting 'kind' at will.

Science seems to have no trouble stretching its own imagination "at will". Look at all those diagrams and illustrations....

Based on what?
Certainly not evidence. Science can't tell a human from an ape because he can't tell when an ape is supposed to have become a human.

Did you evolve from these?....who said?

They are about as real as this bloke......

Fitting all the 'kinds' on the Ark is, of course, another problem.

Only for humans with a limited view of what the Creator is capable of doing. Since it was he who gave Noah the specification of the ark in great detail, we can assume that he knew what he was doing. It was also he who brought the animals to the ark, so it wasn't Noah who chose them. Nor does it specify that God did not bless the arrangement after the flood was over. Why do you want to place limits on a being who has none? He isn't human you know.

Then I guess all of science is "a little silly" to you because it works by posing clearly defined theories and then testing them. If you can't do that, you can't do science.

You can't be serious....."testing them"? By what means can science test evolution? It has tests for adaptation, that can be observed in a laboratory, but no test exists that documents a slow process of evolution from one living thing morphing into another over millions of years....all science has is guesswork based on imagined processes. There is no proof that these processes ever took place.

 

[Deeje]

Me. A design which includes a potentially self-killing tusk is a bad one, no matter how good it looks.
Just like corsets are a bad design.

I have to agree with the corset comment.....

Oh my goodness...what were they thinking?

Perhaps the tusks were meant for a different environment than what we see today?
The Bible indicates that this world is not what God planned for us in the beginning. Many things are not as they should be.
I believe that all will be rectified in the end.

*laughs*
Fair enough. But it's important to both hyenas, and arguments on design.

How would an evolutionist explain this then?

Surely this is a difficult one to gel with natural selection? Unless the "natural" in this case is an entirely different definition?

It certainly DOES effect the hyena population. What you are saying is that the hyena population survives despite it, which is true. Doesn't make it a good design decision though. From a design point of view it is completely indefensible.

It will be one of those questions I will have to ask when the topic arises in the new world.

How will I message you?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

How would an evolutionist explain this then?

Surely this is a difficult one to gel with natural selection? Unless the "natural" in this case is an entirely different definition?

Well...consider wisdom teeth in humans. In terms of modern society, they don't impact on reproduction. But there have been fossils found from as long ago as 30000 years (in China) which were missing their third molars. It's suspected that a mutation originally introduced this. Fast forward to the modern era, and Inuits have a higher rate of missing third molars than other racial groups. And they originated from?
It's pretty interesting actually. I'm shorthanding here, but see where these questions take you? Inuit dentistry and hyena clitoris'.

It will be one of those questions I will have to ask when the topic arises in the new world.

How will I message you?

Well...I don't know. But I presume you communicate with God via knee-mail at the moment...so...

 

[Deeje]

Well...consider wisdom teeth in humans. In terms of modern society, they don't impact on reproduction. But there have been fossils found from as long ago as 30000 years (in China) which were missing their third molars. It's suspected that a mutation originally introduced this. Fast forward to the modern era, and Inuits have a higher rate of missing third molars than other racial groups. And they originated from?
It's pretty interesting actually. I'm shorthanding here, but see where these questions take you? Inuit dentistry and hyena clitoris'.

Its a fascinating journey...I have learned so much about stuff I never would have looked up myself this afternnoon.....so thanks....I think.

Well...I don't know. But I presume you communicate with God via knee-mail at the moment...so...

Knee-mail eh? Is that similar to d-mail (doggy mail) when I take my dog for a walk I am sure she reads d-mail on every bush.

BTW my knees are not up to knee-mail.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

This is not an example of specation. You demand it should be for no reason.

Where did Deeje "demand" anything?
Is this a prevarication, perchance?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Funny that you should post all that beauty -- and then trash it be saying "reduces humans to the level of animals." It's what we are -- as different from all those animals you pictured as they are from each other, but animals all the same. In every way.

So you value your beloved pet dog over a human being who is a stranger?

If a fire broke out in a building and you could only save one, you'd rather save your pet animal and not the human?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Funny that you should post all that beauty -- and then trash it be saying "reduces humans to the level of animals." It's what we are -- as different from all those animals you pictured as they are from each other, but animals all the same. In every way.

So you value your beloved pet dog over a human being who is a stranger?

If a fire broke out in a building and you could only save one, you'd rather save your pet animal and not the human?

And where, in what I wrote, did I say that?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I claimed nothing more than to counter what the scientists said without backup of anything to substantiate what they suggested.
I saw no evidence for what they claimed. I only saw what came out of their biased interpretation of their "evidence".

Sure.

I absolutely agree, which is why I post pictures of real living things rather than diagrams and illustrations of dead things. The living things speak so much louder than the dead ones IMO.

Look at these "squarely in the face" and tell me that they are all just accidents of evolution......

*clears throat* They are the products of evolution. See? Easy.

I watched it, but it was little more than an instruction video on how to ridicule creationists and how to get rid of religion...its the only thing standing in the way of godless science apparently.

I had no idea that Americans were so religious! According to the presenter, 92% of them believe in God! Does that mean that only 8% believe in godless evolution?

If I was an American, I would be ashamed of the stats he presented. He painted the majority of the people in that nation as a bunch of superstitious, religious morons who can't see past their belief system to see the real "truth" of evolution.

Oh dear.

How embarrassing....the only way to "loosen the grip of religion" is to separate people from their religious beliefs....and the only way to do that is by "persuasion" apparently.
It appears that they are not doing a very good job.

But rather than see religion and science as opposing positions, it makes more sense to see if they can agree, after all, the creator of the universe is the creator of science and the designer of the human brain which allows man to even contemplate the many aspects of creation. It isn't an 'either/or' scenario in my estimations, but an adjustment in both erroneous arguments to meet somewhere in the middle. I can do that.

But did you make a video of your reaction and commentary? That ist he important part. I need more views on my youtube channel man and you were bound to be hillarious.

 

[metis]

Metis, are you serious?!! You know the Bible holds out the hope for future life! Deeje isn't fabricating anything.

Or did I misunderstand your quote of her post?

The issue was "hope", and my refuting of her allegation is her assumption that one has no hope unless one believes as she does. My hope goes in a somewhat different direction than hers, but that doesn't mean I have no hope. For her to imply that I have no hope because I question things is a bridge too far.

 

[viole]

Jesus did not choose educated men to be his apostles because he knew what knowledge can do to some people.

That was a wise decision.

To live and work in paradise conditions for all time to come as caretakers of this planet? Can man promise such things? NO! But the Creator can. Can you deny that collectively most of us want these things to be true?

No. And that is precisely why it is natural to expect that people will make up Gods that can promise those sorts of things.

Ciao

- viole

 

[metis]

To know the Creator is to know his personality.

That's quite an assumption, plus read what I quote from you next.

That reinforces an important aspect of faith I believe.....not that we know God, so much as he knows us.

Assumption.

If you have no hope beyond this life, then what personal hope do you have metis?

I hope to leave my little piece of this planet in at least somewhat better shape than when I was born so that others may enjoy it. My reward is trying to help others, and if there's nothing for me after I die, so be it.

The qualifications for life are right there. But it is up to the individual to accept or to deny this. (2 Peter 3:13)

Assumptions.

That is what make this life worth living.

For you, but you simply should not try and speak for others.

If, in order to be "saved", one must believe in Jesus, then God is one nasty deity. Today, there are probably a billion or more people who couldn't even give you a clue who Jesus was and what he taught. There are people in other religious faiths who are trying to live moral lives, and yet you basically judge them as not being worthy of "salvation".

You are assuming the role of being God, and I would suggest that a far better approach in the context of what Jesus' taught is to "judge ye not...". Why are you assuming that role? The Jewish sages never assumed that role because they well believed that there are righteous in all nations. They didn't feel that it was their jurisdiction to judge others. They didn't teach that to be "saved" one had to convert to Judaism or be Jewish.
IOW, let me recommend that you stop trying to be God or assuming that you can judge others. If you don't, then you are violating Jesus' teachings by trying to take over God's position.

 

[viole]

In the scientific world, what is usually debated are the details, not the validity of the subject itself. The debates always occur withing the parameters of the theory rather than outside of it...true? Science does not debate the science of evolution itself....so there is consensus.

Religious beliefs are just that...beliefs. But they are not unfounded or unsupportable. The natural world appears to be telling two stories and it is up to us to decide who is telling the truth and who is distorting the facts. Those removed from the natural world are often blinded by the science, where as those who live in more rural areas, tend to see God in nature everywhere....especially in the form of new life, and how abundantly food is supplied for all creatures.

Doesn't there come a time when you really have to open your eyes and see what has been made? If we had no senses to appreciate all this beauty, then what would be the point of it? Evolution is an empty belief that stifles hope and reduces humans to the level of animals.



It is indeed very different....the Bible says we actually live or die depending on belief in the Creator, so accepting that evolution is true, cancels out any future life prospects completely. For those who say there is no God, means that this life is all there is. Who could be truly happy believing that?...most especially when the twilight years are rapidly approaching?



Its a very emotive topic for some.



Interesting story....and I can see your point. Having said that, can you tell me what child is not exposed to the teaching of evolution in most levels of public education, and have been for many decades now? The same can't be said for religious belief, phased out of public education some time ago. If a household does not subscribe to a faith of any sort, then their children will never be exposed to belief in a higher power at all....except to perhaps know that religious beliefs exist, but they will most likely never want to explore something that they have been taught to view as nonsense.

You take care too.

This is also a sweety and beauty:

Absurd Creature of the Week: The Wasp That Enslaves Cockroaches With a Sting to the Brain

Now, if that was design, what is the ultimate purpose thereof?

More in general: what is the purpose of designing creatures in such a way that they can defend themselves from other creatures designed to eat the formers?

Let's design creature X so that it can escape predator Y. Well, then predator Y would die. Ok, let's improve the design of Y so that it can still break that defense. OH, but then X would die. Allright, let's improve its design of X so that it can defend itself better,.....

Your designer looks like that guy who likes to play chess against himself.

Ciao

- viole