tarekabdo12
Active Member
Yes, I know this test but that actually doesn't occur except if you do it this way, if you close one eye you won't notice that anything disappears.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What did god have against dinosaurs?
- Thread starter idav
- Start date
Yes, I know this test but that actually doesn't occur except if you do it this way, if you close one eye you won't notice that anything disappears.
tarekabdo12
Active Member
We-humans- haven't discovered all the knnowledge of the world, we still miss many things. We can't consider something totally wrong unless we know everything about everything and this is not true.Expirements are still coming and being done, this might change our considerations later on greatly. what I am trying to do is to disclose the curtain of many things that our minds didn't catch but I ca never know everything about everything.
tarekabdo12
Active Member
Panda thumb:
Having a thumb which is expansion of one of the wrist bones is actually an advantage not the contrary.
Having a thumb which is expansion of one of the wrist bones is actually an advantage not the contrary.
tarekabdo12
Active Member
The human opposable thumb would actually NOT be a good design to accommodate 12 hours/day of scraping leaves from bamboo branches (which is what pandas do) however the panda's thumb can accomplish this function without a problem. A study published in Nature used MRI and computer tomography to analyze the panda's thumb and concluded the following: "The radial sesamoid bone and the acessory carpal bone form a double pincer-like apparatus in the medial and lateral sides of the hand, respectively, enabling the panda to manipulate objects with great dexterity."
(Hideki Endo, Daishiro Yamagiwa, Yoshihiro Hayashi, Hiroshi Koie, Yoshiki Yamaya, Junpei Kimura, "Role of the giant panda’s pseudo-thumb," Nature, Vol: 347:309-310, January 28, 1999, emphasis added).) The authors go on to marvel at the functionality of the panda thumb saying, "[t]he way in which the giant panda .. uses the radial sesamoid bone -- its 'pseudo-thumb' -- for grasping makes it one of the most extraordinary manipulation systems in mammalian evolution." That doesn't sound like "poor design" to me and I think the "panda's thumb is poor design"
Is the Panda's Thumb a "Clumsy" Adaptation that Refutes Intelligent Design?
This shows that it's not a defect, it helps the panda to eat without great fatigue of the joints and muscles and humans can do so in a proficient way like the panda.
(Hideki Endo, Daishiro Yamagiwa, Yoshihiro Hayashi, Hiroshi Koie, Yoshiki Yamaya, Junpei Kimura, "Role of the giant panda’s pseudo-thumb," Nature, Vol: 347:309-310, January 28, 1999, emphasis added).) The authors go on to marvel at the functionality of the panda thumb saying, "[t]he way in which the giant panda .. uses the radial sesamoid bone -- its 'pseudo-thumb' -- for grasping makes it one of the most extraordinary manipulation systems in mammalian evolution." That doesn't sound like "poor design" to me and I think the "panda's thumb is poor design"
Is the Panda's Thumb a "Clumsy" Adaptation that Refutes Intelligent Design?
This shows that it's not a defect, it helps the panda to eat without great fatigue of the joints and muscles and humans can do so in a proficient way like the panda.
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
Once you have formed a hypothesis, made a prediction with it, and found that prediction to be wrong, your hypothesis has been shown to be incorrect. New information won't make it more correct. (Unless your prediction is very general.)
camanintx
Well-Known Member
Which scientists are those?
tarekabdo12
Active Member
Primate dietary requirement for vitamin C
Apes and humans require vitamin C in their diets... which is rather odd, because most mammals synthesize their own. Yet although we humans cannot; we do have the same gene for this that they do... but it is broken! And it is rendered non-functional by precisely the same mutation in all the great apes. Coincidence? And how loving of the creator to give people without adequate diets scurvy!
Due to the difference in dietary habits of various animals, most primates and humans eat a lot of fruits rich in Vit.C as well as other vegetables. This vitamin has a toxicirty if excels a certain level. If they synthesize this vit., they'd enter into toxicity following eating such food. and if they don't eat them, they'd lose other nutrients and functions given by these fruits and vegetables like tomato, cauliflower, orange , lemon,etc. These types of food contain fibers as well as other precious nutrients.
Apes and humans require vitamin C in their diets... which is rather odd, because most mammals synthesize their own. Yet although we humans cannot; we do have the same gene for this that they do... but it is broken! And it is rendered non-functional by precisely the same mutation in all the great apes. Coincidence? And how loving of the creator to give people without adequate diets scurvy!
Due to the difference in dietary habits of various animals, most primates and humans eat a lot of fruits rich in Vit.C as well as other vegetables. This vitamin has a toxicirty if excels a certain level. If they synthesize this vit., they'd enter into toxicity following eating such food. and if they don't eat them, they'd lose other nutrients and functions given by these fruits and vegetables like tomato, cauliflower, orange , lemon,etc. These types of food contain fibers as well as other precious nutrients.
tarekabdo12
Active Member
Cellulose digestion
What's more, ungulates can only get the little nutrition they do from grass because of the millions of bacteria and protozoa in their guts that break down the cellulose that makes up the plant cell walls. Enzymes are readily apparent in animals to break down other foodstuffs. Surely the designer could have given plant-eaters an enzyme or two for this for themselves -- after all, 'mere' bacteria can do it!
So, what's the problem? God provides sustenance for all creatures. It's the symbiotic relation between living creatures that God created. It's present in many other living creatures including humans in may forms and sites as skin and intestine. Flora also aid immune defenses.
What's more, ungulates can only get the little nutrition they do from grass because of the millions of bacteria and protozoa in their guts that break down the cellulose that makes up the plant cell walls. Enzymes are readily apparent in animals to break down other foodstuffs. Surely the designer could have given plant-eaters an enzyme or two for this for themselves -- after all, 'mere' bacteria can do it!
So, what's the problem? God provides sustenance for all creatures. It's the symbiotic relation between living creatures that God created. It's present in many other living creatures including humans in may forms and sites as skin and intestine. Flora also aid immune defenses.
tarekabdo12
Active Member
Mammalian foetal blood circulation
There's two problems here. Firstly, in the mammalian foetus, the lungs are not yet functional, and the oxygen and carbon dioxide exchange takes place in the placenta. Here, oxygenated blood coming into the foetus mixes with deoxygenated blood that has already circulated. This is very inefficient, as it means much of the foetal body receives only partially oxygenated blood. In adults, the deoxygenated blood goes directly to the lungs for oxygenation before circulation to the rest of the body; the mixing does not happen because of the closed connection between the heart and the lungs.
Secondly, to make this rather circuitous circulation possible, there is a hole between the chambers in the foetal heart (the foramen ovale), and foetal blood vessels (eg the ductus arteriosus). These need to close off at birth for the transition to adult circulation. Sometimes they don't, leading to two relatively common, and sometimes fatal, birth defects -- so-called 'hole-in-the-heart' babies.
Could the designer have done it better? Sure! If the umbilical cord were inserted at the chest, rather than the belly, it would solve several of these problems, because the umbilical vein and umbilical artery could connect to the pulmonary vein and pulmonary artery. If this doesn't take a genius to work out, where does that leave the designer?
As the developing pulmonary vessels can't withstand such high pressure.
There's two problems here. Firstly, in the mammalian foetus, the lungs are not yet functional, and the oxygen and carbon dioxide exchange takes place in the placenta. Here, oxygenated blood coming into the foetus mixes with deoxygenated blood that has already circulated. This is very inefficient, as it means much of the foetal body receives only partially oxygenated blood. In adults, the deoxygenated blood goes directly to the lungs for oxygenation before circulation to the rest of the body; the mixing does not happen because of the closed connection between the heart and the lungs.
Secondly, to make this rather circuitous circulation possible, there is a hole between the chambers in the foetal heart (the foramen ovale), and foetal blood vessels (eg the ductus arteriosus). These need to close off at birth for the transition to adult circulation. Sometimes they don't, leading to two relatively common, and sometimes fatal, birth defects -- so-called 'hole-in-the-heart' babies.
Could the designer have done it better? Sure! If the umbilical cord were inserted at the chest, rather than the belly, it would solve several of these problems, because the umbilical vein and umbilical artery could connect to the pulmonary vein and pulmonary artery. If this doesn't take a genius to work out, where does that leave the designer?
As the developing pulmonary vessels can't withstand such high pressure.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
That's a total non-answer that completely avoids the entire point of the data. Humans cannot synthesize vitamin c, even though we have the genes for it. We can't synthesize it because the last gene in the synthetic pathway has a "stop" sequence right in the middle of it. Well guess what? Other primates have this exact same "stop" sequence in exactly the same spot, also preventing them from synthesizing vitamin c.
Other organisms also can't make vitamin c even though they have the genes for it (e.g. guinea pigs, trout), yet they have entirely different disabling mutations in their vitamin c genes.
Now, under evolutionary common descent, this makes perfect sense. Humans and other primates inherited their disabling mutation (the "stop" sequence) in the vitamin c genes from a common ancestor. Guinea pigs and trout, being more distantly related, acquired their disabling mutations independently.
How exactly does creationism explain this data? God didn't want humans, primates, guinea pigs, and trout to be able to make vitamin c, but for some reason he disabled the ability in exactly the same way in humans and other primates, but in an entirely different way in the other organisms?
Tarekabdo, you're doing the same thing you were doing in the other thread (BTW, are you done with that?), i.e. posting stuff you copied from some creationist source that either has false information, or it misses the point of the data entirely. It seems your only criterion here is to have posted something in reply, regardless of its validity or accuracy. As long as you've replied, that's all that matters.
Make the ubilical cord a smaller diamerter. Better still, make multiple umbilicals.
Maybe tarek is just terrible at designing things too. This would explain his inabillity to see obvious flaws.
He claims to be studying medicine, I just hope he doesn't specialize in brest enhancement surgery. He'd probably make em' worse!
Hey Tarek, could you just post the link to this site instead of just copy/pasting?
I want to read what other treasures I can find there. Im in the mood for a good laugh.
outhouse
Atheistically
really LOL
I gues we have zero proof of this other then religious beliefs?????
god must love creation since he has done it a few times according to the flood story's.
Have you heard of fossil fuels?
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
Why not just magic them into existence? Killing umpteen trillion dinosaurs is just wasteful.
Not as wasteful as how we use them.
outhouse
Atheistically
We've found more efficient fuels but they sure are doing the trick while its lasting.
outhouse
Atheistically
there only doing the trick because the oil industry owns the world and wont allow for change.
tarekabdo12
Active Member
really LOL
I gues we have zero proof of this other then religious beliefs?????
god must love creation since he has done it a few times according to the flood story's.
I wasn't trying to give evidence during this thread.