4 legged ducks, 6 legged pigs.. a question.

[SnakeLord]

You know, it has always puzzled me from an 'if god exists' perspective as to why humans would sometimes be born with tails, or extra nipples or something similar and equally bizarre.

To this however the theist has an explanation that is good enough for me personally.. It's because mankind are bad, nasty bastards and that due to sin these things happen.

This indeed can be evidenced given the biblical gods; "I will punish the child for the sins of the father" speeches when kids are born with webbed fingers and similar things, (this generally occurs when a person is bonking their sister/cousin).

So I will accept that and move on. Mankind grow tails and what not because god is showing them that their actions will not go unpunished. Mess with me, grow a tail kinda attitude.. I can dig it.

However...

Why? I can only seemingly come up with 2 explanations from an 'if god exists' perspective:

A) god made a f*** up somewhere along the lines or

B) god purposely wanted the occasional pig or duck or whatever to grow extra limbs, extra heads, extra nutsacks.. whatever.

My question is to the more fundamentalist theist, (IAC etc).

Which of A and B is the more apparent answer? Can you explain why in either case? If neither, do you have another suggestion that I have missed?

It seems apparent we can't say that ducks are all sinners.. If so what happened? Father duck swam too fast which is a sin and so therefore baby duck was born with extra legs?

Let us for a second consider some guy that is rather ignorant of both science and religion. A scientist comes up and explains about evolution and mutation which show why a duck or pig would grow extra limbs out of it's ass. Later on a theist comes up and explains that god is perfect and created everything.. What does he say to the man when it comes to explaining the ducks condition?

Many thanks

P.S Would it not seem overly apparent given that we're quite hairy, get goosebumps, have wisdom teeth and sometimes grow tails that we have an original trail from some kind of monkey like creature? Or would it be more apparent to state that god did it for kicks? Based upon this argument alone, how would you - the theist - persuade someone that is ignorant of both religion and science?

 

[NDS]

You bring up a very significant topic, SnakeLord.

I have heard of human tails before, but I completely forget about the concept in discussing macroevolution. It is pretty clear that humans growing tails, especially ones with vertebrae, proves or strongly suggests evolution from a creature which possesed a tail.

Why else would a tail gene be present in humans? LOL.

Oh, wait, I know why! Satan somehow planted the tail gene in humans to trick us into believing in evolution. No, no, no, God wouldn't let him do that. God gave humans the tail gene to trick us into believing macroevolution is true so as to test our faith. That must be it.

The existence of true human tails is unfortunately quite shocking for many religiously motivated anti-evolutionists, such as Duane Gish, who has written an often-quoted article entitled "Evolution and the human tail" (Gish 1983; see also Menton 1994; ReMine 1982). Solely based on the particulars of a single case study (Ledley 1982), these authors have erroneously concluded that atavistic human tails are "nothing more than anomalous malformations not traceable to any imaginary ancestral state" (Gish 1983). However, their arguments are clearly directed against pseudo-tails, not true tails. Gish claims these structures are not true tails for several reasons: (1) they lack vertebrae, (2) they are not inherited, and (3) the resemblance to tails is "highly superficial" and simply an "anomalous malformation". Menton further claims that (4) all true tails have muscles and can move, whereas human tails cannot. Each of these arguments are factually false, as explained above and as well-documented in the medical literature. Vertebrae and cartilage have occasionally been found in human tails. However, contrary to the claims of Gish, Menton, and ReMine, vertebrae are not a requirement for tails. M. sylvanus is a prime example of a primate whose fleshy tail lacks vertebrae (Hill 1974, p. 616; Hooten 1947, p. 23). Several cases are known where human tails have been inherited. Furthermore, we now know the genes responsible for the development of tails in mammals, and all humans have them. Inheritance of the tail structure per se is unnecessary since the developmental system has been inherited but is normally inactivated in humans. The "resemblance" to non-human tails is far from superficial, since all true human tails are complex structures composed of symmetrical layers of voluntary muscle, blood vessels, specialized nerves and sensing organs, and they can indeed move and contract.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html

 

[SnakeLord]

You bring up a very significant topic, SnakeLord.

At least someone else here also thinks so In honesty however I knew no christian would go near it.

They can't agree with my A and can't explain the B. I was hoping someone would try though.

 

[one_raven]

I was waiting for IAC to toss some insignificant, innane, seven-word remark about goo and syngameons.

 

[Nickelodeon]

Banned

 

[one_raven]

Really?
For how long?
I've been pretty much ignoring him lately, and didn't even notice.

 

[wsionynw]

There was a fascinating piece in a recent issue of New Scientist about atavisms such as human tails, hind limbs on snakes and cetacaens, polydactyl animals, etc, all linked to the evolutionary past of present day species. I'd love to scan it in and post it on the biology forum.

Yet more evidence for the likes of IAC to dismiss.

 

[SnakeLord]

wsionynw: I am a subscriber to New Scientist.. Would you like me to provide details concerning it here?

 

[wsionynw]

wsionynw: I am a subscriber to New Scientist.. Would you like me to provide details concerning it here?

Cheers Snake but I still have the copy of the issue (I'm not throwing that one away just yet), I often pick up a copy of New Scientist, Amercian Scientific, Focus, National Geographic, amongst others if I see an artical that interests me.
Do you know if the New Scientist website shows details on previous issues and how to get back issues?

 

[SnakeLord]

Well, you can search through old issues, yes. I am unsure how you could actually get back issues.

 

[KennyJC]

As usual the 'punishment' explanation by a theist doesn't fit. Genetic mutations are predetermined for all life - sin or no sin. And if we are going to punish people for being naughty, why not do it in such a way that we know we are being punished and not in a way that is because of a poor design.

Same goes for natural disasters... Earthquakes would happen if there was no life on this planet. So just because a million people may die in a natural disaster, does not indicate punishment as many people are shallow enough to want to think.

 

[Cyperium]

You know, it has always puzzled me from an 'if god exists' perspective as to why humans would sometimes be born with tails, or extra nipples or something similar and equally bizarre.

To this however the theist has an explanation that is good enough for me personally.. It's because mankind are bad, nasty bastards and that due to sin these things happen.

This indeed can be evidenced given the biblical gods; "I will punish the child for the sins of the father" speeches when kids are born with webbed fingers and similar things, (this generally occurs when a person is bonking their sister/cousin).

So I will accept that and move on. Mankind grow tails and what not because god is showing them that their actions will not go unpunished. Mess with me, grow a tail kinda attitude.. I can dig it.

However...

Why? I can only seemingly come up with 2 explanations from an 'if god exists' perspective:

A) god made a f*** up somewhere along the lines or

B) god purposely wanted the occasional pig or duck or whatever to grow extra limbs, extra heads, extra nutsacks.. whatever.

My question is to the more fundamentalist theist, (IAC etc).

Which of A and B is the more apparent answer? Can you explain why in either case? If neither, do you have another suggestion that I have missed?

It seems apparent we can't say that ducks are all sinners.. If so what happened? Father duck swam too fast which is a sin and so therefore baby duck was born with extra legs?

Let us for a second consider some guy that is rather ignorant of both science and religion. A scientist comes up and explains about evolution and mutation which show why a duck or pig would grow extra limbs out of it's ass. Later on a theist comes up and explains that god is perfect and created everything.. What does he say to the man when it comes to explaining the ducks condition?

Many thanks

P.S Would it not seem overly apparent given that we're quite hairy, get goosebumps, have wisdom teeth and sometimes grow tails that we have an original trail from some kind of monkey like creature? Or would it be more apparent to state that god did it for kicks? Based upon this argument alone, how would you - the theist - persuade someone that is ignorant of both religion and science?

Well, what do you think? Perhaps God has a purpouse with them, or perhaps we aren't perfect, and the animals aren't perfect either. We are on this imperfect world for a reason, if the animals are a part of that reason, I don't know. Perhaps some are. You know that a imperfect world cannot produce perfect animals don't you?


The thing is, I've pondered this many times, things seem to happen for a reason, even if the reason is so hard to see it is impossible for us. Sometimes you can get a glimpse of this and I've realised from time to time that there is a "string" through all this, that maybe every single little event that takes place have a place in this grand meaning, or plan if you like. So even if you see something ridiculous (like a bird with 4 legs) it might not be as ridiculous as you thought it were (it got into the news for example, have people perhaps questioning their faith, etc.), there are probably those that think that God made us perfect, but rather than God made us perfect, He made us and saw that it was good. Perhaps we were perfect humans at the beginning but as we ate the fruit of knowledge we became imperfect? This are of course things I can't know, but there are other options than simply stating that "God doesn't exist", also you seemed to have a image that we are perfect while in fact we aren't and the Bible recognises that, so what's the argument?

Oh, and what's this noise about evolution anyway?

 

[SnakeLord]

Well, what do you think?

I am a man of science, not a man of gods. In saying, I cannot provide my own answer to the questions I posed. You'll see the questions work on the basis of 'if a god exists... then why..", and how would you, a theist, explain these things to someone ignorant of religion.

I get the feeling that all the "perhaps/perhaps not" etc will do more to confuse this person than help.

You know that a imperfect world cannot produce perfect animals don't you?

That's a hard one to answer because there is no absolute understanding of "perfect". I would personally consider great whites as 'perfect' for what they do, but most likely that level of 'perfect' will be disputed by you. So, what exactly is "perfect"?

there are probably those that think that God made us perfect, but rather than God made us perfect, He made us and saw that it was good.

Not all that good from what most theists tell me.

but there are other options than simply stating that "God doesn't exist", also you seemed to have a image that we are perfect while in fact we aren't and the Bible recognises that, so what's the argument?

A) I didn't anywhere in this thread say god doesn't exist. Indeed it worked on the principal that a god does exist.

B) I didn't mention or imply anything concerning perfection. I merely asked what explanation a theist would give for pigs having legs grow out of their rectums.

C) There was no "argument", it was a question, (a few), as witnessed in the title of this thread.

I would kindly ask that you read the original post again until you understand it. Thanks.

 

[Godless]

Seems it all come down to interpretation and perception. Look at the above statements of Cype, what SL wrote, and what Cype interpreted, are so vastly different SL kindly asked for him/her to re-read what was stated.

Truly when it comes down to religious rhetoric, it apparently is how the individual chooses to interpret that which is written, in their holy texts. If all interpreted the bible the same, there would only be one Christian denomination, but apparently that is not the case.

Thus what say of interpreting a being, who is "perfect" to create us in his image thus making us like him, but we are not perfect! Can this mean that god is not perfect then? Why would he/she/it create something in his own image and not be perfect? Can the conclusion be then that god is created by men, and not the other way around?

 

[Cyperium]

I am a man of science, not a man of gods. In saying, I cannot provide my own answer to the questions I posed. You'll see the questions work on the basis of 'if a god exists... then why..", and how would you, a theist, explain these things to someone ignorant of religion.

I get the feeling that all the "perhaps/perhaps not" etc will do more to confuse this person than help.

"perhaps/perhaps not" is used because it would be better for the person to find his own answer, since I can't give him (you) the actual truth of this, and my own belief of this is subject to change. Through my reasoning you should get an idea of how this subject could be accepted into my framework though, and that was what you really asked for wasn't it?

That's a hard one to answer because there is no absolute understanding of "perfect". I would personally consider great whites as 'perfect' for what they do, but most likely that level of 'perfect' will be disputed by you. So, what exactly is "perfect"?

Well, from the question at hand we can gather the definition of "perfect" as having no flaws to the structure or function.

What I was saying is that you seemed to think that there shouldn't be any flaws in a animal if God existed (in other words, it being perfect if God existed, which we know isn't so, and not surprising then if some specimen of animals (or humans) are less perfect than other specimen (of that same animal) even with too many limbs or less limbs or limbs at wrong places).

Not all that good from what most theists tell me.

Only God is good, but He made us and saw that it was good. What that means to you is your interpretation.

A) I didn't anywhere in this thread say god doesn't exist. Indeed it worked on the principal that a god does exist.

B) I didn't mention or imply anything concerning perfection. I merely asked what explanation a theist would give for pigs having legs grow out of their rectums.

C) There was no "argument", it was a question, (a few), as witnessed in the title of this thread.

I would kindly ask that you read the original post again until you understand it. Thanks.

A&C: Sure you can say that you only were curious and wouldn't use your question as a argument against the existance of God, but be honest with me, it would be a illusion on your part too.

Oh, and the "if God exist.." is actually unneeded as we understand that this is what you mean anyway (and actually this is pretty normal understanding in any conversation dealing with ANY subject of disbelief). If I tell you "how would santa make it all around the world in one hour?" that doesn't mean that I believe in santa.

B: If you didn't imply anything concerning perfection, then what is the cause of "curiousity"?


This is from your post:

A) god made a f*** up somewhere along the lines or

Which is implying that God creates everything perfect (how would you otherwise define "f*** up")? You do realise that even though God governs the living force within all change and structuring, the structuring itself is let happening according to the rules and laws of the world. So if there are a structural change in the form of a extra limb, then it is because of the chain of events that defines that change.

While we are here in this world, then we have to conform to the rules of this world in the concern of our physical body.





The SIMPLE answer would be that those things happen, since the world isn't perfect enough to produce perfection. If there are a reason behind the imperfection is not something that we can easily know of (and perhaps don't need to know of).

 

[Cyperium]

Seems it all come down to interpretation and perception. Look at the above statements of Cype, what SL wrote, and what Cype interpreted, are so vastly different SL kindly asked for him/her to re-read what was stated.

Truly when it comes down to religious rhetoric, it apparently is how the individual chooses to interpret that which is written, in their holy texts. If all interpreted the bible the same, there would only be one Christian denomination, but apparently that is not the case.

There should only be one denomination, however that we interpret it differently is expected, and which was why Jesus talked in synonyms (so that they would hear but not understand).

Thus what say of interpreting a being, who is "perfect" to create us in his image thus making us like him, but we are not perfect! Can this mean that god is not perfect then? Why would he/she/it create something in his own image and not be perfect? Can the conclusion be then that god is created by men, and not the other way around?

No, however our understanding of Him is not perfect. We are not perfect, as everything below God has imperfection, and there can only be one God (the Bible says that God see imperfection even in His angels).

To make perfection might not be the only reason to make something, perhaps He made us because of love? Perhaps a human is fundamentally imperfect, because otherwise it wouldn't be the same human. Perhaps life is preparing for a more perfect state?

All these are "could-be" reasons for why we aren't perfect, so you can see that there are other ways to see it instead of just saying that He doesn't exist and that He was made by us.

 

[Bowser]

All these are "could-be" reasons for why we aren't perfect, so you can see that there are other ways to see it instead of just saying that He doesn't exist and that He was made by us.

Evolution of the soul...perhaps. Thanks for the posts, C. Not a rant and thoughtful, too.

 

[SnakeLord]

Through my reasoning you should get an idea of how this subject could be accepted into my framework though, and that was what you really asked for wasn't it?

I asked for other people to provide an explanation for why a pig would grow legs out of it's bum under the premise that a supposedly perfect being created them along with genes etc etc. And furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, how you would go about explaining these occurrences to someone ignorant of both religion and science.

In this instance science would give you an answer. You would say "find your own answer". Perhaps it's just me, but the latter has never sat well with me when used in the context that "whatever you think is true is good enough".

If we were to go through the OT we would see this gods demands concerning sacrifice and how only the perfect animals could be killed for him. No defects were allowed - including bruised testicles. The whole affair seems to imply that this god has no say in the matter with regards to genetical defects.

What I was saying is that you seemed to think that there shouldn't be any flaws in a animal if God existed (in other words, it being perfect if God existed, which we know isn't so, and not surprising then if some specimen of animals (or humans) are less perfect than other specimen (of that same animal) even with too many limbs or less limbs or limbs at wrong places).

Any flaws? I'll accept for the sake of discussion that one pig might be uglier than another pig and that is beyond the scope of god, but legs growing out of the rectum? When do we forget "perfection" and just move onto plain idiocy? I shall forego progeria, lung cancer and those bizarre South American cat fish that swim up the end of your penis... These have use, (I suppose). Up until now I fail to see one for a pig having legs grow out of it's butthole. Of course maybe that's just me, which is why I asked.

Only God is good, but He made us and saw that it was good. What that means to you is your interpretation.

Well forgive me, but if only god is good and yet he saw that what he made was good, then what he made, (i.e us), is also good - unless he's lying to himself. Therefore "only god is good" must be a moot statement?

Sure you can say that you only were curious and wouldn't use your question as a argument against the existance of God, but be honest with me, it would be a illusion on your part too.

As far as a god is concerned there's nothing to argue. Everyone knows that, even theists. They will completely dismiss Zeus without even blinking. I do the same with one more god than they do and that's that. However, the question was an honest one in that it (should) get people to think regardless to my lack of belief in gods.

Oh, and the "if God exist.." is actually unneeded as we understand that this is what you mean anyway

Some understand, many don't - which is why I added it. I've forgotten to include it in the past only to be set upon by ardent theists with the "ah! so you believe in god" speech.

B: If you didn't imply anything concerning perfection, then what is the cause of "curiousity"?

I am hardly in a position, (not knowing any gods), to say whether pigs having legs grow out of their rectums is 'perfect' or not. Maybe there's a perfectly acceptable explanation that would show me that pigs in this position are hunky dory. If I don't ask I'll never know.

This is from your post:


“ A) god made a f*** up somewhere along the lines or ”

Which is implying that God creates everything perfect (how would you otherwise define "f*** up")?

The way I a non-theist sees it, that was one of only two explanations I could personally think of. If there is a better one I want to hear it.

You do realise that even though God governs the living force within all change and structuring, the structuring itself is let happening according to the rules and laws of the world.

How would I realise that? I haven't even got to the "a god exists" stage, (and never will). How much further than that must one get before they have the ability to say what god does and doesn't do? In saying, I must ask them when I have a question.

 

[draqon]

Once again.

There is no God.

Mutations occur, so do wars, this world is never meant to be Perfect, but lets all try to make it a better place to live in.

 

[Godless]

There should only be one denomination, however that we interpret it differently is expected, and which was why Jesus talked in synonyms (so that they would hear but not understand).

And this is your spiritual leader? A man who has come to deceive.

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother...
-- Matthew 10:34-35 (AV)