Stab yourself in the arm to prove evolution.
- Thread starter alexb123
- Start date
The underside of the arm may have less skin for a reason, one being the cooling of blood, well I didn't need to think much to figure that out, and it's probably wrong, but that doesn't matter, that it took so little time to think out just shows that there is probably a better theory than I have thought of.alexb123 said:
Even in evolution things have a cause, and honestly is the 'improvement' such a great benefit for us? We wouldn't get the same sense of close contact when hugging someone either. Sensitive areas of the skin is actually very good for intimacy. I would rather keep that, than having thick skin overall. Also, I as I am now wouldn't feel comfortable with equal skin overall, it's a matter of human design and I like it.
There are many mysteries for us theists too.(Q) said:
Allthough God has made it all, we don't know it all, and there is much that we don't know of (as there is much that you don't know of).
We do care. It's astonishing to study things like relativity and quantum theory, how everything is symmetric, heisenbergs uncertainty principle (fascinating much because it is a principle that seemingly is stopping us from know everything about something, as if it were the purpouse, how could there be a purpouse prohibiting knowledge in a universe stated by scientists to have no actual knowledge?). There seems to be purpouse to principles! Actual purpouse!
So what is the purpouse of the heisenberg uncertainty principle?
Or is it that I treat the principle as something seperate? Still it is a principle, even if embedded in the natural cause of things.
Also it's very interesting for me to study holograms, functioning of the brain, the mere size of things and quantity of things.
Philosophy can also be really interesting as it can give answers to things that we cannot reach.
water said:
Or rather, does it expose the motivation and perhaps, unrealistic expectation of the person assigning the dissapointment?
Isn't a "flaw" the disspointment of an expectation or hope?
Perhaps perfection is, and it's the assertion of "flaws" that exposes an inability to comprehend perfection.
Or..
Perhaps the notions of "flaws" and "perfection" can only be really asserted in the case of known, purposeful human parameters - and the term is far too often utlized outside of useful parameters.
If you have a rebuttal to the "bad" argument regarding the specialization of tissues which has been brought up a number of times here by myself and others, please go ahead.alexb123 said:
It is not a matter of opinion that certain areas of the skin have specialized functions.
Emptyforce is right, of course, if the inner arm needs to be thick, it will adapt to circumstance, as will muscles and tendons.
An interesting question for Darwin was, are these aquired traits passed on to the next generation?
An interesting question for Darwin was, are these aquired traits passed on to the next generation?
wesmorris said:
Certianly so. Those who argue against intelligent design, and base their counterarguments on the premise that humans are flawed --
these people certainly have a particular idea of how humans *should be*, *if* they were to be the product of intelligent design.
So I am calling them on it, I want them to explain what their criteria for proof of intelligent design are. Because if they don't have those criteria, they cannot meaningfully argue neither for nor against intelligent design.
I think the issue is very very context-dependent. For example, very dark skin could be considered perfect if one is living somehwere where there is a lot of insolation. The same trait, however, can be redundant, or even detrimental if one lives somewhere with little insolation (as the production of certain vitamins is lessened; but metabolism can adapt, and physiological functions are strongly interconnected, so it is questionable to point out just one cause for a certain effect).
Bottomline, what can be a mark of perfection in one context, can be a mark of redundance or flaw in some other context.
I myself have no idea how to set the criteria for perfection, in and of itself, independent of context. So the argument for/against perfection seems moot to me.
I am willing to be surprised though.
Cause it proves to be more than we thought!SnakeLord said:
When we find such a mystery the "world opens" for us, we see everything in a different way. Everything is the same, but still everything is new cause we see it in a different light. Oftentimes you cannot do much more than you could before, but sometimes new ways opens and you do things differently, do new things that you had never thought of.
God has hidden things for kings to find.
Also.
Sometimes we get to see wisdom in the making, how everything works out, and, it's like a hand moving destiny to make things right, you see one thing, marvels, then another thing and multitudes of things working together and the pleasure knows no limits. Cause you know that, now finally, everything is going to be fine again.
What you perceive as sadness can then be for us a lasting trust.
Last edited:
alexb123 said:
There is no reason whatsoever that God should create everything perfectly, especially if it was his first attempt at creating a world. Everything takes practice!
Evolution is designed to correct mistakes and assist species adapt accordingly to a changing environment, some do this better than others.
Why do you assume all designs should be perfect, you assume far too much.
If God is a being of sorts then he is susceptible to things that beings are susceptible to, bad days, good days, good ideas, bad ideas, lol
This is funny thread
A "being" being a being doesn't necessarily imply that it has human characteristics. The God being may not even be susceptible to "days" at all. Our idea of days was created by our perception of the sun going up and down. A being who lived on the sun wouldn't have solar days, or years and might not assign its sense of "time" to the objects floating around it. Its idea of a day could be the time it takes some other star system to "rotate" through the "sky".Theoryofrelativity said:There is no reason whatsoever that God should create everything perfectly, especially if it was his first attempt at creating a world. Everything takes practice!
Evolution is designed to correct mistakes and assist species adapt accordingly to a changing environment, some do this better than others.
Why do you assume all designs should be perfect, you assume far too much.
If God is a being of sorts then he is susceptible to things that beings are susceptible to, bad days, good days, good ideas, bad ideas, lol
This is funny thread
P.s. I know, I just thought it would be interesting to use the word "being" three out of four words in a row.
cole grey said:
Don't take my posts too literally Coley
just putting my point this way, because for some reason Athiests who deny existance of God seem to have a pretty CLEAR idea of what he's like! Contradiction there somewhere ay?
I understand you are just having fun and pondering things, and throwing out ideas to discuss. It is good to step the conversations at sciforums down from fighting levels since these questions are a bit unanswerable. Alexb said this before, when his theory was unfortunately thrown in as an unanswerable along with an otherwise great statement he made about these larger questions remaining up for debate.Theoryofrelativity said:Don't take my posts too literally Coley