A flaw in God's creation?
- Thread starter daktaklakpak
- Start date
why, if we are in gods image, do we have unused caecum's (sp) that are small and almost irrelevant to the digestion process. rabbits have big ones because all they eat is grass. we don't eat grass or other toughies to digest like that. we then, do we have caecum's? god cannot have irrelevant parts to him self, why do we?
Playing the God's Advocate
A holograph piece contains the information of the holograph as a whole.
Consider that the image we are made in is not the physical form but the quantum process. Penrose and Hammeroff have suggested that conscousness is a quantum state. A superimposition of a dual state. One quantum, one physical.
One quantum function is that of the observer creating a response in the observed. Ever notice someone watching you??????
So if God was a process that projected that function onto man then is it not entirely possible that God is a superposition of consciousness onto the physical existance.
The whole being greater than the sum of the parts.
Would this not be how a God could be?
Without the literature. My God doesn't publish and refuses to be seen in public! I've warned him a million times about doing that.
A holograph piece contains the information of the holograph as a whole.
Consider that the image we are made in is not the physical form but the quantum process. Penrose and Hammeroff have suggested that conscousness is a quantum state. A superimposition of a dual state. One quantum, one physical.
One quantum function is that of the observer creating a response in the observed. Ever notice someone watching you??????
So if God was a process that projected that function onto man then is it not entirely possible that God is a superposition of consciousness onto the physical existance.
The whole being greater than the sum of the parts.
Would this not be how a God could be?
Without the literature. My God doesn't publish and refuses to be seen in public! I've warned him a million times about doing that.
This might appear so to those who are simple minded and have no real understanding of death.
The death of plant life, one of the simplest level of life, shows that it is a more orderly work of art than life, and although the death of fruits, seeds, and grains appear to occur through decay and dissolution, their death is in fact comprises an exceedingly well-ordered chemical reaction and well-balanced combining of elements and wise formation of particles; this unseen, orderly and wise death appears through the life of the new shoots. That is to say, the death of the seed is the start of life of the shoot; indeed, since it is like life itself, this death is created and well ordered as much as is life.
Moreover, the death of ruits and living beings and animals in the human stomach is the beginning of their rising to the level of human life; it may therefore be said "such a death is more orderly and created than their own life......"
In gods image
I believe it refers to our spiritual and not physical image.
I believe it refers to our spiritual and not physical image.
quote
"god cannot have irrelevant parts to him self, why do we?"
If the statements made by those who wrote the bible are to be used as fact then the truth must be that we are imperfect. Remeber there was that little rebellion in the 'Garden of Eden' man took the wrong fruit and punishment was death and imperfection. So if you take this as the whole truth then when man was created in the form of Adam he was perfect and immortal. We are now imperfect and mortal, therefore, how do we know we even look remotely like Adam? So again assuming the Bible writers were inspired by god and not just writing to make themselves famous, when god made Adam he was in god's own image. However since we are the imperfect offspring of Adam after his punishment how can we assume that we are actually anything like this Adam or God. This thereby allows for the imperfections and little problems that we see today in the world and as ourselves.
This however brings up another point of the missgivings in the bible. The writers of the bible state constantly that god is a just and loving being. Well assuming the bible is correct for the moment and we were created by a loving god. Would not all these years of imperfection and death be enough to make up for the one insubordinate act of eating the wrong fruit? After all the bible writers state that "the wages sins pay is death" Romans chap 6 verse 23. So after all these millenia of death and imperfection after Adam ate the wrong fruit should not that wage for his one sin be paid already?
One can argue that we have sinned ever since Adam but his punishment was our condition today, again assuming the bible is accurate. So why would a just and loving god punish his creation all this time for one little insurection so long ago? This again brings the question, were the bible writers inspired by god or were they just making a rule book so the people of their land would stay in line and not question them. Since the bible said certain kings were in place because god wanted them there and certain laws must be obeyed, this would be and still is in some ways of very good means keeping a population in line.
"god cannot have irrelevant parts to him self, why do we?"
If the statements made by those who wrote the bible are to be used as fact then the truth must be that we are imperfect. Remeber there was that little rebellion in the 'Garden of Eden' man took the wrong fruit and punishment was death and imperfection. So if you take this as the whole truth then when man was created in the form of Adam he was perfect and immortal. We are now imperfect and mortal, therefore, how do we know we even look remotely like Adam? So again assuming the Bible writers were inspired by god and not just writing to make themselves famous, when god made Adam he was in god's own image. However since we are the imperfect offspring of Adam after his punishment how can we assume that we are actually anything like this Adam or God. This thereby allows for the imperfections and little problems that we see today in the world and as ourselves.
This however brings up another point of the missgivings in the bible. The writers of the bible state constantly that god is a just and loving being. Well assuming the bible is correct for the moment and we were created by a loving god. Would not all these years of imperfection and death be enough to make up for the one insubordinate act of eating the wrong fruit? After all the bible writers state that "the wages sins pay is death" Romans chap 6 verse 23. So after all these millenia of death and imperfection after Adam ate the wrong fruit should not that wage for his one sin be paid already?
One can argue that we have sinned ever since Adam but his punishment was our condition today, again assuming the bible is accurate. So why would a just and loving god punish his creation all this time for one little insurection so long ago? This again brings the question, were the bible writers inspired by god or were they just making a rule book so the people of their land would stay in line and not question them. Since the bible said certain kings were in place because god wanted them there and certain laws must be obeyed, this would be and still is in some ways of very good means keeping a population in line.
Re: Re: A flaw in God's creation?
But what is death compares to killing? The existing of food chain is not about death. It's about killing and consuming. Man eats animal, and animal eats man. It's all about survial the fitest. Also, the killing skill has been extended by both man and animals to beyond hunting. Killing that's not for food or defense has been seen in both human society and animal kingdom. If that is not by god's design, then what is it?
If death is meant to happen orderly, then why man want to avoid death? Because they are on top of the food chain and not suppose to die? Man consume other life forms and effectively converting other bios mass into human bodies. The result is more hungry people. Why? Because there is only a finite amount of bios mass that can be used to construct lives on earth. If more of them are human, then less of them would be other life forms. That could mean less foods for man. Who's fault when man die in mass due to lack of food? Because man multiplies too fast? Wasn't that a feature the designer put in?
But what is death compares to killing? The existing of food chain is not about death. It's about killing and consuming. Man eats animal, and animal eats man. It's all about survial the fitest. Also, the killing skill has been extended by both man and animals to beyond hunting. Killing that's not for food or defense has been seen in both human society and animal kingdom. If that is not by god's design, then what is it?
Last edited:
Re: Re: Re: A flaw in God's creation?
Man should not fear death...Man doesn't fear sleep because he knows that he will wake up, and man fear death because he doesn't know what is next. Death to man is like being out of prison, the prison of our bodies. So our death results in us becoming higher beings in higher dimensions or very very lower beings in a much lower dimension if the content of our soul is unworthy.
Man should not fear death...Man doesn't fear sleep because he knows that he will wake up, and man fear death because he doesn't know what is next. Death to man is like being out of prison, the prison of our bodies. So our death results in us becoming higher beings in higher dimensions or very very lower beings in a much lower dimension if the content of our soul is unworthy.
Very rarely. Most of the ones I know have some serious nutritional deficiencies going. And I know a gal who regularly turns orange and starts to smell like sour milk due to vitamin A toxicity.
We are quite definitely omnivores. Our dentition, digestive system, and nutritional needs support this fact. Now, ideally (in contrast with the typical American diet) we should eat quite a bit more fruits and vegetables and most of our protein should probably come from insects but we are NOT herbivores, neither are we carnivores.
~Raithere
Re: Re: A flaw in God's creation?
Originally posted by Flores
This might appear so to those who are simple minded and have no real understanding of death.
Ah... the old "I have no proof or evidence, but know more then you about something I've never actually experience" argument.
The death of plant life, one of the simplest level of life, shows that it is a more orderly work of art than life
Now I know you probably had to do enviromental science labs... which should have included this. Death/decay is very random, and does not show 'order'.
and although the death of fruits, seeds, and grains appear to occur through decay and dissolution, their death is in fact comprises an exceedingly well-ordered chemical reaction and well-balanced combining of elements and wise formation of particles
Cough... and these chemical reactions are called... um... oh yeah... decay. They are no more 'well ordered' then any other chemical reaction. Even more so... EVERY chemical process that takes process after your death, takes process through your entire life as well. The only change is the quanitity.
That is to say, the death of the seed is the start of life of the shoot; indeed, since it is like life itself, this death is created and well ordered as much as is life.
non-sequiter
Moreover, the death of ruits and living beings and animals in the human stomach is the beginning of their rising to the level of human life; it may therefore be said "such a death is more orderly and created than their own life......"
Because humans are more orderly? To use your argument, it only appears so to the simple minded who don't understand thermodynamics. You are judging this 'order' on a macro level... which is not the whole picture.
Death to man is like being out of prison, the prison of our bodies.
If this is a prison, it must be a low-security US prison.
So our death results in us becoming higher beings in higher dimensions or very very lower beings in a much lower dimension if the content of our soul is unworthy.
One again, personal experience?
Originally posted by Flores
This might appear so to those who are simple minded and have no real understanding of death.
Ah... the old "I have no proof or evidence, but know more then you about something I've never actually experience" argument.
The death of plant life, one of the simplest level of life, shows that it is a more orderly work of art than life
Now I know you probably had to do enviromental science labs... which should have included this. Death/decay is very random, and does not show 'order'.
and although the death of fruits, seeds, and grains appear to occur through decay and dissolution, their death is in fact comprises an exceedingly well-ordered chemical reaction and well-balanced combining of elements and wise formation of particles
Cough... and these chemical reactions are called... um... oh yeah... decay. They are no more 'well ordered' then any other chemical reaction. Even more so... EVERY chemical process that takes process after your death, takes process through your entire life as well. The only change is the quanitity.
That is to say, the death of the seed is the start of life of the shoot; indeed, since it is like life itself, this death is created and well ordered as much as is life.
non-sequiter
Moreover, the death of ruits and living beings and animals in the human stomach is the beginning of their rising to the level of human life; it may therefore be said "such a death is more orderly and created than their own life......"
Because humans are more orderly? To use your argument, it only appears so to the simple minded who don't understand thermodynamics. You are judging this 'order' on a macro level... which is not the whole picture.
Death to man is like being out of prison, the prison of our bodies.
If this is a prison, it must be a low-security US prison.
So our death results in us becoming higher beings in higher dimensions or very very lower beings in a much lower dimension if the content of our soul is unworthy.
One again, personal experience?
not sure u get the idea here. caecums (sp) have a part in the process of digesting tough bio matter. why do humans have one is not explained buy your argument- we would not gain one because we are imperfect, we have no need of them, we don't use them. another reason why i dont belive in god is because we have parts that are irrelevant to us and human biological processes. this is not explained away by saying god is devious and is trying to trick us into not believing in him, god just doen't cut it. another example- why do whales have hip bones but no legs? they evolved from land to aquatic animals. god doesn't make any sense if you take the bible's account for things.
There are many assumptions over the apparent usage of the appendix. I no longer have one, so i damn well hope it doesn't have a use 
Further along these lines we could mention wisdom teeth, (which are now redundant), and goosebumps that i explained about on another thread....
Further along these lines we could mention wisdom teeth, (which are now redundant), and goosebumps that i explained about on another thread....
I was going to reply to that thread...
I don't think goose bumps are purposeless.
Don't think of them coming with the cold (which may have some purpose that is not completely understood).
They also come as a fear response.
Try to focus on that.
They are a mechanism that responds to external stimulus and alerts us to imminent danger.
The sensation puts our senses into a heightened state of awareness.
As far as i'm aware i did actually mention the "fear factor".
However, maybe it was early and i missed it.
The quick "extrusion", (perhaps that's a better term than 'standing on end'), of bodily hairs makes something look a lot bigger in size, and thus any enemy would be less likely to initiate attack.
The arrival of goosebumps is not generally when front to front faced with danger but when one "senses" the proximity of danger. Much like when you walk into a haunted house, you get goosebumps- before even seeing a ghost, simply as a pre-emptive "make yourself look bigger" precaution.
However, in this respect they still remain useless to a being with no hair, (minimal hair).
(just to note: when i say "no hair", i refer to our noticeable absence of hair in comparison to something like a monkey etc)
It is the brain which sends information to the body, not vice versa. The brain will "sense" proximity of danger, and as such warn the body to develop goosebumps. The body does not develop goosebumps in order to tell the brain they're in a dodgy area.
However, maybe it was early and i missed it.
The quick "extrusion", (perhaps that's a better term than 'standing on end'), of bodily hairs makes something look a lot bigger in size, and thus any enemy would be less likely to initiate attack.
The arrival of goosebumps is not generally when front to front faced with danger but when one "senses" the proximity of danger. Much like when you walk into a haunted house, you get goosebumps- before even seeing a ghost, simply as a pre-emptive "make yourself look bigger" precaution.
However, in this respect they still remain useless to a being with no hair, (minimal hair).
(just to note: when i say "no hair", i refer to our noticeable absence of hair in comparison to something like a monkey etc)
It is the brain which sends information to the body, not vice versa. The brain will "sense" proximity of danger, and as such warn the body to develop goosebumps. The body does not develop goosebumps in order to tell the brain they're in a dodgy area.
However, that does not render goodse bumps useless in the situation.
It is a physical manifestation of that not necessarily cognizantly recognizable trepidation and fear.
A tactile sensation that makes us sit up and take notice of something that we may not have noticed before.
A pre-cursor to fight-or-flight.
No?
It is a physical manifestation of that not necessarily cognizantly recognizable trepidation and fear.
A tactile sensation that makes us sit up and take notice of something that we may not have noticed before.
A pre-cursor to fight-or-flight.
No?
"The inner lining of the appendix produces a small amount of mucus that flows through the appendix and into the cecum. The wall of the appendix contains lymphatic tissue that is part of the immune system for making antibodies. Like the rest of the colon, the wall of the appendix also contains a layer of muscle." (MedicineNet)
Under the circumstances there would be 0 need for elevated body hair. The release of adrenaline would be a prominent enough wake up call, and that is its purpose. Ok we could argue that sometimes adrenaline itself seems faulty, (i.e for example when a train is rushing at you headlong and instead of diving out the way you get stuck on the spot), but to me that seems more like a "thought moment" where the brain decides which way is best to jump- sometimes too late
Goosebumps however seem to have a distinct physical purpose, (the extruding of bodily hair).
What i would question is why we then don't get these goosebumps every other time adrenaline is released into our system, and furthermore why they also appear at times of cold.
Looking at the other end of things, and not to suggest we were ever monkey's or not, but..
before times of fire and adequate shelter, mankind simply would have frozen to death unless he had a hell of a lot more hair then he does now
The logical suggestion for the remaining extrusion of hair would be a bygone requirement of human beings, serving several functions in order to prolong survival.It could be wrong, as everything else, of course.