100 Weird Facts About the Human Body - And How they Discredit Intelligent Design
Budikka666
http://tinyurl.com/yt6tlh
Relatively new blogger Karen Ventii refers us to a list of 100 weird
facts about our body. I'm always a little suspicious of such lists
when they offer no references, and evidently this one is rather sloppy
in places, but if the list is largely kosher, it's not only
interesting, but also a huge indictment of creation.
For example, the beginning section on the brain seems to be accurate
in the relative size of the brain to body mass, the energy consumption
and also the storage capacity (although something like that is a
little hard to nail down!).
This begs the question as to why the designer couldn't do a better
job.
When humans design storage systems, they use RAID:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID
so that if one section goes down, the other sections can pick up the
slack and nothing is lost. The human brain wasn't designed this way.
It *can* recover lost function, but it takes a long time, and all-too-
often if there's damage, it's not only permanent, but can be extremely
debilitating.
Why wouldn't an *intelligent* designer distribute the brain throughout
the body and make it redundantly functional instead of putting all his
eggs in one basket? (The same applies to the heart - why only one?!)
It doesn't make a lot of sense to have the signal indicating foot pain
travel the whole length of the body and back again in order for you to
remove your foot from the source. Why not have a local processor for
this, which immediately afterwards notifies the brain?
If autistic savants can do wonders with memory, math, music, etc., why
can't we all? Clearly the brain has this capacity, yet the designer
somehow screwed up by only letting a few have it and all-too-often
robbing them of capacity in other regards in order that they might
excel in one.
And what's with the communication system he designed? Humans have
started putting wireless communication into widespread use only a
century or so after we discovered how to produce radio frequencies,
yet the creator apparently couldn't put a wireless system into humans
to allow them to communicate without having to speak!
I wonder how creationists will explain #16: "There are as many hairs
per square inch on your body as a chimpanzee."
It's a little hard to explain why a designer made our hair more or
less largely invisible, yet chose to give us the same number of hairs
as a chimpanzee. Or is this for no other reason than that there's no
intelligent design at work at all, and we're descended from the same
ancestor as a chimpanzee?
And how about #26: "You get a new stomach lining every three to four
days. The mucus-like cells lining the walls of the stomach would soon
dissolve due to the strong digestive acids in your stomach"
An intelligent designer designed this? According to wikipedia, "The
acid itself does not break down food molecules, rather, the acid
provides an optimum pH for the reaction of the enzyme pepsin", so this
is triply screwed-up.
First the designer creates an enzyme which apparently can only work
well in a strong acid, then has to put this strong acid inside
delicate tissue, which then has to be renewed regularly - and all in
order that we can digest the very food the designer purportedly
created especially for us! There's intelligence at work there? Not
bloody likely!
So we have all these issues and that's just from a quick skim of the
first quarter of the list! LoL!
So-called intelligent so-called design fails again.
(and if you think this is simply to show that I didn't *have* to stop
the "Why There's No Design" series at 200 items, you're absolutely
right!)
Budikka
adman
"Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:14eeab9d-5423-4edb...@60g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
| at www.scienceblogs.com/sciencetolife:
| http://tinyurl.com/yt6tlh
| Relatively new blogger Karen Ventii refers us to a list of 100 weird
| facts about our body. I'm always a little suspicious of such lists
| when they offer no references, and evidently this one is rather sloppy
| in places, but if the list is largely kosher, it's not only
| interesting, but also a huge indictment of creation.
|
| For example, the beginning section on the brain seems to be accurate
| in the relative size of the brain to body mass, the energy consumption
| and also the storage capacity (although something like that is a
| little hard to nail down!).
|
| This begs the question as to why the designer couldn't do a better
| job.
|
| When humans design storage systems, they use RAID:
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID
| so that if one section goes down, the other sections can pick up the
| slack and nothing is lost. The human brain wasn't designed this way.
| It *can* recover lost function, but it takes a long time, and all-too-
| often if there's damage, it's not only permanent, but can be extremely
| debilitating.
|
| Why wouldn't an *intelligent* designer distribute the brain throughout
| the body and make it redundantly functional instead of putting all his
| eggs in one basket? (The same applies to the heart - why only one?!)
Would you like to be twice your current size in order to accommodate the
redundantly of major systems in the body? Or would you like to spend a life
time repairing these secondary systems due to their locations in
relationship to minor injuries? Or would you like to have three hearts to
supply enough blood to these systems, and, when one of the hearts fail or
get injured, the other two are not adequate enough to supply the necessary
blood do the other systems, so they start to shutdown?
On the bright side, we do have some important redundant features. The eyes,
the ears, 2 legs, two arms, two sets of teeth, 10 fingers and toes. Our
blood vessels can reroute themselves, our immune system has several
redundancies. The list is long.
Or is it that you wish to live forever? Maybe you wish to be android. You
can live forever, try turning to the God that created you.
| It doesn't make a lot of sense to have the signal indicating foot pain
| travel the whole length of the body and back again in order for you to
| remove your foot from the source. Why not have a local processor for
| this, which immediately afterwards notifies the brain?
When you trip and injure your ankle with a sprain, (far more common then a
head injury), and that injury knocks out the node for that specific section
of the body, then what? Do you do without your foot for the rest of your
life? The CPU has its name for a reason. It is the "central processing unit"
for the machine. Likewise the brain is the central processor for the body. A
computer does not have a CPU for each small part of the machine and neither
should humans.
When the designers of RAID can make a CPU "self aware" as we are with our
CPU (the brain), then get back to me on God's poor design mkay?
<cut nonsense>
Ips-Switch
> at www.scienceblogs.com/sciencetolife:
> http://tinyurl.com/yt6tlh
> Relatively new blogger Karen Ventii refers us to a list of 100 weird
> facts about our body.
yup the woman is using blogs as science. a new low for the budikaka.
Mark K. Bilbo
TT9yj.3974$rE5....@bignews5.bellsouth.net, "adman" <72...@hottmail.et>
wrote:
> Would you like to be twice your current size in order to accommodate the
> redundantly of major systems in the body?
You're already twice half your size and you're okay with it aren't you?
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the
conquest of the land ..."
-- George Grant, "The Changing of the Guard"
Paul Hands
> "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in message
Adman, you remain a clueless fuckwit. There was no design because
there is no designer.
Also as RAID is a storage technology, the designers wouldn't be
looking at CPU design at all. Once again, you show that nothing is so
dangerous as a little knowledge, and you clearly have very little
knowledge indeed.
Mark K. Bilbo
TT9yj.3974$rE5....@bignews5.bellsouth.net, "adman" <72...@hottmail.et>
wrote:
> When the designers of RAID can make a CPU "self aware" as we are with
Um... WHAT?
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
“There's really no point to voting. If it made any
difference, it would probably be illegal”
- H. L. Mencken
adman
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gm...@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message
news:602o95...@dialup-4.231.35.48.Dial1.Houston1.Level3.net...
| On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 04:05:57 -0600 in
| TT9yj.3974$rE5....@bignews5.bellsouth.net, "adman" <72...@hottmail.et>
| wrote:
|
| > Would you like to be twice your current size in order to accommodate the
| > redundantly of major systems in the body?
|
| You're already twice half your size and you're okay with it aren't you?
IOW you have nothing intelligent to say, and usually never do.
adman
"Paul Hands" <jph...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2f0a454d-e2e8-4dc8...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
You cannot understand sarcasm, you are also an idiot.
Budikaka said the brain should be like RAID, i was being scarastic back.
Try reading glasses, you need them. Ape Boi
David V.
> You can live forever, try turning to the God that created you.
Name one person that has lived forever by worshiping the
christian gods.
--
Dave
You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents,
not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
- Abbie Hoffman
Budikka666
[snipped repeated material]
> Would you like to be twice your current size in order to accommodate the
> redundantly of major systems in the body?
Would you like to explain why it is that you limit your god so? That
you admit right here in this one sentence that even *you* think your
god is thoroughly incompetent and/or short-sighted and/or clueless?
Do you really, honestly admit right here and now that your god could
not have done better? because that's what you're doing right here.
>Or would you like to spend a life
> time repairing these secondary systems due to their locations in
> relationship to minor injuries?
Again, thanks for admitting that your god could not have done any
better even though human engineers do better every day.
> Or would you like to have three hearts to
> supply enough blood to these systems, and, when one of the hearts fail or
> get injured, the other two are not adequate enough to supply the necessary
> blood do the other systems, so they start to shutdown?
Again, thanks for admitting that your god could not have done any
better even though human engineers do better every day.
Now when you can present some science to support your juvenile idiotic
claims for a creation on par with the ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY SOLID
YEARS OF SCIENCE THE EVOLTUIONISTS HAVE PRESENTED and can find the
guts to face me in a formal one-on one debate on the topic, please do
post again. Until then, you're nothing but a waste of DNA. End of
story.
Budikka
Budikka666
> "Mark K. Bilbo" <gm...@com.mkbilbo> wrote in messagenews:602o95...@dialup-4.231.35.48.Dial1.Houston1.Level3.net...
> | On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 04:05:57 -0600 in
>
> |
> | > Would you like to be twice your current size in order to accommodate the
> | > redundantly of major systems in the body?
> |
> | You're already twice half your size and you're okay with it aren't you?
>
> IOW you have nothing intelligent to say, and usually never do.
Nice example of *not* turning the other cheek, and predictably
hypocritical from a cowardly liar who has RUN from every challenge
I've ever presented you with. LoL! Do you have even the first clue
as to how pathetic you're looking right now in these public world-wide
fora in front of your peers? LoL!
Thanks for dancing to my tune, you pathetic little puppet.
Budikka
Budikka666
> Budikka666 wrote:
> > atwww.scienceblogs.com/sciencetolife:
If you ever find you have a point to make, please do make it. Until
then you're really quite as boring as you are evidently clueless.
If we were to take you at your word, then no one would ever be able to
talk about science unless they did it in a peer-reviewed paper! LoL!
Are you saying that the brain doesn't consume 20% of our oxygen intake
for no other reason than that a blog says it *does*?
You seem to confuse actual science with reporting and discussion of
the science. When you get yourself straightened out and have
something useful or interesting to say, please do post again. I'm not
holding my breath.
Budikka
Paul Hands
> "Paul Hands" <jpha...@gmail.com> wrote in message
You're the one arguing with the deranged boudikka. That makes you the
idiot. Like I said : "Not even wrong". Adman, you are a pillock.
Mike Painter
>
> Would you like to be twice your current size in order to accommodate
> the redundantly of major systems in the body? Or would you like to
> spend a life time repairing these secondary systems due to their
> locations in relationship to minor injuries? Or would you like to
> have three hearts to supply enough blood to these systems, and, when
> one of the hearts fail or get injured, the other two are not adequate
> enough to supply the necessary blood do the other systems, so they
> start to shutdown?
There would be no need for twice the size and no need for the ability of a
single heart to supply all needed functions. It's a redundant system we
want, something a designer would do. You are describing what evolution would
have done.
Odd that below you mention the fingers being redundant. I can pick up a cut
off finger, put it in a bag and transport it to the hospital. A surgeon can
reattach it 30 minutes or more later and will probablu regain full function.
If not, it's no big deal.
Finger - no blood for 30 minutes and it lives.
Heart - no blood for eight minutes and you are dead. No blood to part of it
for that same period and that section does *not* regrow.
Pretty much the same for the brain.
Heart and brain cells die real fast. Clever design.
I'd not design multiple hearts. I'd build one that could regrow and use the
arteries in a peristaltic motion to supply blood while regaining function.
Then there's the container the brain is in. Bump your head and die from a
minor problem because the brain has no overpressure valve.
It's also interesting to note that, as mentioned, the brain has no feelings,
yet the loving designer gave people migraines
<snip>
>
> When you trip and injure your ankle with a sprain, (far more common
> then a head injury), and that injury knocks out the node for that
> specific section of the body, then what? Do you do without your foot
> for the rest of your life? The CPU has its name for a reason. It is
> the "central processing unit" for the machine. Likewise the brain is
> the central processor for the body. A computer does not have a CPU
> for each small part of the machine and neither should humans.
> > <cut nonsense>
Apparently your ignorance of the body is matched by that of your ignorance
of computers, especially modern ones.
I note that as with the bible you self reference things. The CPU is the CPU
because it is the CPU. You ignore it's ability to hand off work to other
processors.
Oddly enough, the heart gets a lot of the work it does handed off to it.
A good designer would make sure it could handle the load for long periods
all by itself, but sadly it tends to go into the crapper under such
conditions.
You and Earl should spend some time together. He has some inane idea on the
subject also.
David Flechard
>
> There was no design because
> there is no designer.
How can you know?
--
David Flechard
adman
ROFLing!!
All of this bloveating yet you did not answer ANY OF MY ORIGINAL POST!
Stupid is as stupid does Forrest Budikka-Gump
adman
Gee a whole 150 years!!! And every other year science revises itself because
it was WRONG the first time.
When your science actually BUILDS a human better then the humans we see
today, get back with me ok?
Because as it stands now, science can not make any part of the human body to
behave as well as the ORIGINALLY DESIGNED PART that GOD created.
SMILE
adman
YOU use a BLOG as evidence and you say HE confuses science with discussion
of science?
BWAgagagagagag!!!! cough choke choke...hahahahahahaha!!!!
You are too funny!! BUTikka
SMILE
adman
"Mike Painter" <mddotp...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:hbgyj.6589$Mh2...@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
No more inane then this post.
|
|
Ips-Switch
"Ips-Switch" <Ips...@spamnot.com> wrote in message
news:pOayj.1499$1_.431@trnddc02...
She kicked your butt 10 ways from Sunday every time you tangled with her
Antonio. She made you crawl like a dog and kiss her feet.
Kathy
>
> You're the one arguing with the deranged boudikka. That makes you the
> idiot. Like I said : "Not even wrong". Adman, you are a pillock.
Why do you say Budikka is deranged?
adman
"David Flechard" <david_f...@invalid.invalid.nowhere.com> wrote in
message news:79KdnUq8Kt3oC1Ta...@bt.com...
| Paul Hands wrote:
|
| >
| > There was no design because
| > there is no designer.
|
| How can you know?
They can't and don't
|
| --
|
| David Flechard
adman
"David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6IudnREN_5PB6lTa...@sti.net...
| adman wrote:
| > You can live forever, try turning to the God that created you.
|
| Name one person that has lived forever by worshiping the
| christian gods.
|
Moses, Elijah and Jesus were all reported by eye witnesses to have returned
and spoken.
adman
What does that have to do with using a BLOG as scientific evidence?
|
Free Lunch
>Paul Hands wrote:
>
>>
>> There was no design because
>> there is no designer.
>
>How can you know?
There is no evidence for a designer. The null hypothesis still stands.
Free Lunch
"adman" <72...@hottmail.et> wrote in
<XTgyj.4205$rE5...@bignews5.bellsouth.net>:
Again, you misrepresent what science does. It improves the theory
because the prior theory was a less perfect approximation. In one sense
it was wrong, but not in the sense you are trying to sell.
>When your science actually BUILDS a human better then the humans we see
>today, get back with me ok?
Your ignorant hubris is noted.
>Because as it stands now, science can not make any part of the human body to
>behave as well as the ORIGINALLY DESIGNED PART that GOD created.
Where is your evidence that any gods had anything to do with this. You
keep repeating a claim that you not only cannot prove, but have no
ability to support at all.
>SMILE
You sell evil.
Syd M.
> "Paul Hands" <jpha...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Because he won't believe what he says without question.
PDW
adman
"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:5rajs3pg2m11hl4tg...@4ax.com...
null to fools
ken
> "Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
>
> news:5rajs3pg2m11hl4tg...@4ax.com...
> | On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 17:46:30 +0000, in alt.atheism
> | <79KdnUq8Kt3oC1TanZ2dneKdnZydn...@bt.com>:| >Paul Hands wrote:
>
> | >
> | >>
> | >> There was no design because
> | >> there is no designer.
> | >
> | >How can you know?
> |
> | There is no evidence for a designer. The null hypothesis still stand
>
> null to fools
You should know, F O O L
adman
"Richard Anacker" <1...@taunus-biker.de> wrote in message
news:m5ieo0v8...@news.fahrschule-anacker.de...
| adman , 03.01.2008:
|
| > When your science actually BUILDS a human better then the humans we see
| > today, get back with me ok?
|
|
| > Because as it stands now, science can not make any part of the human
body to
| > behave as well as the ORIGINALLY DESIGNED PART that GOD created.
|
| Asshole. I mean, something else than hot air out of your mouth.
|
| Can you please produce something, I mean just a little tiny thing that
| is not empty, hollow, hot air, has content, something that could show
| that you are more intelligent than ... let's say ... peanut butter
| (sorry to all peanut butters)?
Face the facts and you will see that i am right.
Free Lunch
"adman" <72...@hottmail.et> wrote in
<8whyj.4228$rE5....@bignews5.bellsouth.net>:
Just as I "can't and don't" know there is no Santa Claus or Easter Bunny
or Tooth Fairy or Hogfather.
Free Lunch
"adman" <72...@hottmail.et> wrote in
<2yhyj.4229$rE5....@bignews5.bellsouth.net>:
Nope. There are no eyewitness claims about any of them.
Elmer
> (snip)
> When your science actually BUILDS a human better then the humans we see
> today, get back with me ok?
> Because as it stands now, science can not make any part of the human body to
> behave as well as the ORIGINALLY DESIGNED PART that GOD created.
Then why does the human body breakdown so much?
I vote for a recall with free repairs.
Kathy
"Syd M." <pdwri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:67225991-ea09-44fa...@p43g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Oh, must be another fundy........... *sigh* Thanks.
>
> PDW
Ips-Switch
"adman" <72...@hottmail.et> wrote in message
news:8whyj.4228$rE5....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
How can you know there is? You can't and you don't.
>
>
> |
> | --
> |
> | David Flechard
>
>
Ips-Switch
What do you need a designer for? What good are they?
>
>
>
Free Lunch
"adman" <72...@hottmail.et> wrote in
<v_iyj.4283$rE5....@bignews5.bellsouth.net>:
So you throw out logic because logic doesn't fit into your religious
dogma.
Free Lunch
"adman" <72...@hottmail.et> wrote in
<41jyj.4285$rE5....@bignews5.bellsouth.net>:
The facts show that you are wrong. They also show that you repeatedly
tell lies.
Ips-Switch
LOL!!!!!!!!!! They were zombies? The walking dead? ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Give us a friggin break.
Christopher A. Lee
Ips-Switch
What facts? Where's your evidence, your proof little man?
>
>
>
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 14:30:07 -0600, in alt.atheism
You don't understand, on their planet a personal lie used as an ad
hominem is legitimate rebuttal.
But they're too stupid to understand that all we see is their lie and
their running away.
MarkA
> at www.scienceblogs.com/sciencetolife:
> http://tinyurl.com/yt6tlh
> Relatively new blogger Karen Ventii refers us to a list of 100 weird
> facts about our body. I'm always a little suspicious of such lists
> when they offer no references, and evidently this one is rather sloppy
> in places, but if the list is largely kosher, it's not only
> interesting, but also a huge indictment of creation.
>
> For example, the beginning section on the brain seems to be accurate
> in the relative size of the brain to body mass, the energy consumption
> and also the storage capacity (although something like that is a
> little hard to nail down!).
>
> This begs the question as to why the designer couldn't do a better
> job.
>
> When humans design storage systems, they use RAID:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID
> so that if one section goes down, the other sections can pick up the
> slack and nothing is lost. The human brain wasn't designed this way.
> It *can* recover lost function, but it takes a long time, and all-too-
> often if there's damage, it's not only permanent, but can be extremely
> debilitating.
>
> Why wouldn't an *intelligent* designer distribute the brain throughout
> the body and make it redundantly functional instead of putting all his
> eggs in one basket? (The same applies to the heart - why only one?!)
>
The thing that is really screwed up about the heart and brain is this: no
collateral circulation!! Nerve and muscle are the two tissues that are
the first to die when deprived of blood supply. Most everywhere in the
body, tissues get blood from multiple sources. If one artery is occluded,
there is perfusion from a different one. Not so for the two most
critical, blood-flow dependent organs in the body! Occlude ONE artery to
the heart, and you have just killed a portion of your heart muscle.
Occlude ONE artery to your brain, and you just had a massive stroke.
Real intelligent, eh?
> It doesn't make a lot of sense to have the signal indicating foot pain
> travel the whole length of the body and back again in order for you to
> remove your foot from the source. Why not have a local processor for
> this, which immediately afterwards notifies the brain?
>
Nerve signals travel fast enough, and humans are small enough, that having
an accessory brain wouldn't be much help. Besides, many reflexes DO have
"local processing": the sensory signal triggers an immediate motor
response in the spinal cord itself, without having to be processed in the
brain.
> If autistic savants can do wonders with memory, math, music, etc., why
> can't we all? Clearly the brain has this capacity, yet the designer
> somehow screwed up by only letting a few have it and all-too-often
> robbing them of capacity in other regards in order that they might excel
> in one.
>
> And what's with the communication system he designed? Humans have
> started putting wireless communication into widespread use only a
> century or so after we discovered how to produce radio frequencies, yet
> the creator apparently couldn't put a wireless system into humans to
> allow them to communicate without having to speak!
>
No only that, but we have to eat, breathe, and speak all using the same
hardware. Hence the problems of choking, aspiration, sleep apnea, having
milk come out your nose, etc.
> I wonder how creationists will explain #16: "There are as many hairs per
> square inch on your body as a chimpanzee."
>
Despite the 98% correlation in our DNA, humans and chimps are not the same
"kind."
--
MarkA
Chairman, EAC Dept of Incompetent Cryptography
Vs lbh pna ernq guvf, jr unir n wbo sbe lbh!
Frank Mayhar
> On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 04:05:57 -0600 in
> TT9yj.3974$rE5....@bignews5.bellsouth.net, "adman" <72...@hottmail.et>
> wrote:
>> When the designers of RAID can make a CPU "self aware" as we are with
> Um... WHAT?
He just proved he knows as little about computers as he does about
biology.
--
Frank Mayhar fr...@exit.com http://www.exit.com/
Exit Consulting http://www.gpsclock.com/
http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/
http://www.zazzle.com/fmayhar*
David Flechard
>>> There was no design because
>>> there is no designer.
>> How can you know?
>
> There is no evidence for a designer. The null hypothesis still stands.
A null hypothesis does not stand on its own without evidence, it is
merely a presumption.
"I know something doesn't exist" is not a null hypothesis, it is a
statement about a state of knowledge.
Therefore, how can you know?
--
David Flechard
Doc Smartass
news:TT9yj.3974$rE5....@bignews5.bellsouth.net:
> W</dev/null>
Lighten up, Francis.
--
Doc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Heckling
aa # 1939
"Whenever preachers appeal to hellfire as a way
of reinforcing injunctions, you can bet they have
failed to make a persuasive moral argument."
- James Carroll (Boston Globe)
Father Haskell
> atwww.scienceblogs.com/sciencetolife:http://tinyurl.com/yt6tlh
> Relatively new blogger Karen Ventii refers us to a list of 100 weird
> facts about our body. I'm always a little suspicious of such lists
> when they offer no references, and evidently this one is rather sloppy
> in places, but if the list is largely kosher, it's not only
> interesting, but also a huge indictment of creation.
>
> For example, the beginning section on the brain seems to be accurate
> in the relative size of the brain to body mass, the energy consumption
> and also the storage capacity (although something like that is a
> little hard to nail down!).
>
> This begs the question as to why the designer couldn't do a better
> job.
>
> When humans design storage systems, they use RAID:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID
> so that if one section goes down, the other sections can pick up the
> slack and nothing is lost. The human brain wasn't designed this way.
> It *can* recover lost function, but it takes a long time, and all-too-
> often if there's damage, it's not only permanent, but can be extremely
> debilitating.
>
> Why wouldn't an *intelligent* designer distribute the brain throughout
> the body and make it redundantly functional instead of putting all his
> eggs in one basket? (The same applies to the heart - why only one?!)
Why isn't the brain housed in the chest instead of the fragile,
thinly armored skull? A biologist could answer this one
better than a creationist.
> It doesn't make a lot of sense to have the signal indicating foot pain
> travel the whole length of the body and back again in order for you to
> remove your foot from the source. Why not have a local processor for
> this, which immediately afterwards notifies the brain?
Actually, that's how it works. Afferent and efferent branches from
the spinal cord form feedback loops, so you've already recoiled
your foot from the curb by the time you feel it. Brains process
information too slowly here to be of any use.
> If autistic savants can do wonders with memory, math, music, etc., why
> can't we all? Clearly the brain has this capacity, yet the designer
> somehow screwed up by only letting a few have it and all-too-often
> robbing them of capacity in other regards in order that they might
> excel in one.
Development simply halts at some point, probably, leaving
the whole of the brain for the use of a small handful of aptitudes.
> And what's with the communication system he designed? Humans have
> started putting wireless communication into widespread use only a
> century or so after we discovered how to produce radio frequencies,
> yet the creator apparently couldn't put a wireless system into humans
> to allow them to communicate without having to speak!
Can't be harder than dolphins or bats, which he'd already
created by Thursday.
Father Haskell
> Would you like to be twice your current size in order to accommodate the
> redundantly of major systems in the body? Or would you like to spend a life
> time repairing these secondary systems due to their locations in
> relationship to minor injuries? Or would you like to have three hearts to
> supply enough blood to these systems, and, when one of the hearts fail or
> get injured, the other two are not adequate enough to supply the necessary
> blood do the other systems, so they start to shutdown?
My DNA is already redundant by a factor of 50 billion. The rest
can't be that hard.
Free Lunch
It's a silly argument that theists make that points out even further
that they have absolutely no evidence to support the god they claim to
worship.
I don't say that I have evidence that there are not gods, but I
cheerfully point out that all claims about gods are completely without
foundation or supporting evidence. I'm perfectly willing to agree that
the failure of theists to overcome the null hypothesis that there is no
god does not prove that gods do not exist to the extent that I am
willing to agree that the failure of people to overcome the null
hypothesis that there is no Easter Bunny is not proof that there is no
Easter Bunny. Right now, gods, Easter Bunnies, Santa Claus, tooth
fairies, leprechauns, Hogfather and Cohen the Barbarian are equally
unsupported by the evidence.
For those who insist on arguing that God exists because it has not been
disproven, they _must_ equally agree that Odin, Thor, Loki, Coyote and
_all other gods_ also exist.
Ips-Switch
"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:emjjs3dun0cumbbft...@4ax.com...
The little shits call it theocratic warfare strategy. Others call it lies
for god.
Jenny6833A
> "Budikka666" <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> |
> | Why wouldn't an *intelligent* designer distribute the brain throughout
> | the body and make it redundantly functional instead of putting all his
> | eggs in one basket? (The same applies to the heart - why only one?!)
>
> Would you like to be twice your current size in order to accommodate the
> redundantly of major systems in the body?
How silly! The "Designer" could have consulted Intel.
> Or would you like to spend a life
> time repairing these secondary systems due to their locations in
> relationship to minor injuries?
How silly! The "Designer" could have built a Mil-spec drop-resistant
case. Dell does.
> Or would you like to have three hearts to
> supply enough blood to these systems, and, when one of the hearts fail or
> get injured, the other two are not adequate enough to supply the necessary
> blood do the other systems, so they start to shutdown?
How silly! The "Designer" could have designed a _functionally_
redundant system.
> | It doesn't make a lot of sense to have the signal indicating foot pain
> | travel the whole length of the body and back again in order for you to
> | remove your foot from the source. Why not have a local processor for
> | this, which immediately afterwards notifies the brain?
>
> When you trip and injure your ankle with a sprain, (far more common then a
> head injury), and that injury knocks out the node for that specific section
> of the body, then what? Do you do without your foot for the rest of your
> life? The CPU has its name for a reason. It is the "central processing unit"
> for the machine. Likewise the brain is the central processor for the body.
Oh, WOW, you know nothing about computers!
> A
> computer does not have a CPU for each small part of the machine and neither
> should humans.
WRONG! The more powerful and more reliable computers do.
Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh!
:-|
Jenny
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 22:53:43 +0000, in alt.talk.creationism
So they might as well not exist. And that is the assumption pending
evidence for _any_ of them, including gods.
Unlike believers with their special pleading, we have no reason to
treat them any differently.
In fact their special pleading, just like all their other fallacies
only serves to reinforce it.
Because if they actually had any evidence a conversion religion would
have used it long ago.
David V.
> Paul Hands wrote:
>
>> There was no design because there is no designer.
>
> How can you know?
Point to one.
--
Dave
You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents,
not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
- Abbie Hoffman
David V.
> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>> adman wrote:
>>> You can live forever, try turning to the God that created
>>> you.
>>
>> Name one person that has lived forever by worshiping the
>> christian gods.
>
> Moses, Elijah and Jesus were all reported by eye witnesses to
> have returned and spoken.
Not one eye witness of any of those events spoke up. Those are
all stories told decades after the alleged events. You're going
to have to do better than bible myths.
Also, I see you did not answer the question. Where is someone
that has not died because they believe in your little gods? If
those three characters from a myth you mentioned did not die,
then where are they? Heaven doesn't count. You said "live
forever" now show me someone that has not died BECAUSE of their
god beliefs. To qualify that'd have to be at least 120 years old.
So far, everyone that has believed in our little gods has died,
or will die.
Oh, don't give me that "spiritual life" bullshit. You said "live
forever" not "live spiritual life forever."
adman
| On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 12:46:43 -0600, in alt.atheism
| "adman" <72...@hottmail.et> wrote in
| <8whyj.4228$rE5....@bignews5.bellsouth.net>:| >message news:79KdnUq8Kt3oC1Ta...@bt.com...
| >| Paul Hands wrote:
| >|
| >| >
| >| > There was no design because
| >| > there is no designer.
| >|
| >| How can you know?
| >
| >
|
| or Tooth Fairy or Hogfather.
You blather the same shit over and over.
Get over yourself.
You are NOT as smart as you want people to believe.
adman
| David Flechard wrote:
| > Paul Hands wrote:
| >
| >> There was no design because there is no designer.
| >
| > How can you know?
|
| Point to one.
I said, how can you know? If you cannot answer, just say so.
| You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents,
| not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
| - Abbie Hoffman
except on usenet of course.
ta
adman
| adman wrote:
| > "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote
| >
| >> adman wrote:
| >>> You can live forever, try turning to the God that created
| >>> you.
| >>
| >> Name one person that has lived forever by worshiping the
| >> christian gods.
| >
| > Moses, Elijah and Jesus were all reported by eye witnesses to
| > have returned and spoken.
|
| Not one eye witness of any of those events spoke up.
Wrong. They spoke up and the events were recorded
adman
"Ips-Switch" <Watchtow...@this.org> wrote in message
news:47c9ed22$0$1344$834e...@reader.greatnowhere.com...
I call it: "You are too stupid to understand the truth".
adman
"Elmer" <nyli...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:6Ujyj.5354$7d1....@news01.roc.ny...
| adman wrote:
| > (snip)
|
| > When your science actually BUILDS a human better then the humans we see
| > today, get back with me ok?
body to
| > behave as well as the ORIGINALLY DESIGNED PART that GOD created.
|
|
| I vote for a recall with free repairs.
RoFling!!
Ken
> "Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
>
> news:rkhjs39vdj6vp8cqm...@4ax.com...
> | On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 12:46:43 -0600, in alt.atheism
> | "adman" <72...@hottmail.et> wrote in
> | >
> | >"David Flechard" <david_flech...@invalid.invalid.nowhere.com> wrote in
> | >messagenews:79KdnUq8Kt3oC1Ta...@bt.com...
> | >| Paul Hands wrote:
> | >|
> | >| >
> | >| > There was no design because
> | >| > there is no designer.
> | >|
> | >| How can you know?
> | >
> | >
> | >They can't and don't
> |
> | Just as I "can't and don't" know there is no Santa Claus or Easter Bunny
> | or Tooth Fairy or Hogfather.
>
> You blather the same shit over and over.
>
> Get over yourself.
>
> You are NOT as smart as you want people to believe.
While you are MORWE stupid than you want people to believe, if that's
even possible
(How do you spell "explane"?)
Ken
> I call it: "You are too stupid to understand the truth".
While you are just too stupid..period
Free Lunch
"adman" <72...@hottmail.et> wrote in
<qCnyj.83804$vt2....@bignews8.bellsouth.net>:
You have chosen not to answer the question.
Free Lunch
"adman" <72...@hottmail.et> wrote in
<SGnyj.83809$vt2....@bignews8.bellsouth.net>:
Your lack of knowledge of the development of the Bible is noted.
Free Lunch
"adman" <72...@hottmail.et> wrote in
<pInyj.83815$vt2....@bignews8.bellsouth.net>:
Calling it that does not make it true.
You have demonstrated that you are a liar. Your claims are
untrustworthy.
adman
Do you enjoy making a fool of yourself?
|
adman
Bwahahahahaha!!!!
Ips-Switch
"adman" <72...@hottmail.et> wrote in message
news:pInyj.83815$vt2....@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
No one cares what an uneducated asshole like you calls anything.
>
>
>
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>On Mar 1, 5:49 pm, "adman" <72...@hottmail.et> wrote:
>
>> I call it: "You are too stupid to understand the truth".
>
>While you are just too stupid..period
Calling it "the truth" is one of the roots of the acrimony.
It's part of the mind control exerted by the religion on its
followers. With constant reinforcement it has become "the truth" as
far as they are concerned.
It's behind their blatant, unthinking question-begging. And the
demands for proof that they think are unreasonable. After all it's the
truth. Everybody knows this. Why on Earth should anybody have to prove
that the truth is true?
And because it's "the truth" it prevents them accepting reality
because isn't "the truth". Including the fact that non-Christians of
any stripe, not just atheists, see it as "what somebody else believes"
Being binary thinkers, the only alternative to "the truth" is "a lie".
So our very existence is an insult to them.
When it's actually just "somebody else's religion".
But this is made worse because it makes creationism and everything
else "the truth". So the alternative is a lie. So we "believe a lie".
And when they try to "correct" us, we don't react the way we should.
So there is something seriously wrong with us. Which they rationalise
in terms of "the truth".
David V.
> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:M7idnYgPGPcXZVTa...@sti.net...
> | David Flechard wrote:
> | > Paul Hands wrote:
> | >
> | >> There was no design because there is no designer.
> | >
> | > How can you know?
> |
> | Point to one.
>
> I said, how can you know?
Are you admitting that you cannot point to a god?
Are you admitting that you cannot prove a god exists?
Are you admitting that you're talking out of your ass?
--
Dave
David V.
> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:AfadnZRx9uE9Z1Ta...@sti.net...
> | adman wrote:
> | > "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> wrote
> | >
> | >> adman wrote:
> | >>> You can live forever, try turning to the God that created
> | >>> you.
> | >>
> | >> Name one person that has lived forever by worshiping the
> | >> christian gods.
> | >
> | > Moses, Elijah and Jesus were all reported by eye witnesses to
> | > have returned and spoken.
> |
> | Not one eye witness of any of those events spoke up.
>
> Wrong. They spoke up and the events were recorded
Apparently you are completely ignorant of the history of your own
bible. Why is it that Atheists know more about your religion than
you do?
Now, show me someone that has not died because of their god beliefs.
David V.
We're all enjoying you make a fool of yourself. Those that have
actually studied the bible will tell you that Moses most likely
is just a myth, a story. The same with Elijah. And the honest
ones will admit that not one of the writers of the NT ever met
the guy they yammer on about.
adman
You know nothing about the bible.
David V.
That means I know a hell a lot more about it than you do.
Mike Painter
>>> We're all enjoying you make a fool of yourself. Those that have
>>> actually studied the bible will tell you that Moses most likely
>>> is just a myth, a story. The same with Elijah. And the honest
>>> ones will admit that not one of the writers of the NT ever met
>>> the guy they yammer on about.
>>
>> You know nothing about the bible.
>
> That means I know a hell a lot more about it than you do.
Maybe adman can tell us why god tried to kill Moses.
If he has actually studied the sybject maybe he can tell us what othrs say
about the reason for the passage, even if he does not agree with that
reason.
David Flechard
>>> There was no design because there is no designer.
>> How can you know?
>
> Point to one.
I am not the one asserting there is no designer. It is not my
dialectical burden to disprove the assertion.
--
David Flechard
SeppoP
But you *are* asserting that there *is* a designer. Point to one.
--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
David Flechard
>
> But you *are* asserting that there *is* a designer. Point to one.
>
Point to where I assert that.
Then answer my original question.
--
David Flechard
Paul Hands
> "David V." <s...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6IudnREN_5PB6lTa...@sti.net...| adman wrote:
>
> | > You can live forever, try turning to the God that created you.
> |
> | Name one person that has lived forever by worshiping the
> | christian gods.
> |
>
> Moses, Elijah and Jesus were all reported by eye witnesses to have returned
> and spoken.
No they haven't. You're just gullible.
Paul Hands
> "David Flechard" <david_flech...@invalid.invalid.nowhere.com> wrote in
>
> |
> | >
> | > There was no design because
> | > there is no designer.
> |
> | How can you know?
>
>
> |
> |
> | David Flechard
Complete lack of supporting evidence and mountains of evidence to the
contrary.
SeppoP
> SeppoP wrote:
>
>>
>> But you *are* asserting that there *is* a designer. Point to one.
>>
> Point to where I assert that.
>
> Then answer my original question.
>
>
You are asserting that by your question "How can you know [there isn't a designer]?"
Those who believe that a designer exists, ie. making a positive claim need to
prove their assertions.
For example, I'm *not* required to show that there *is not* a giant Duracell bunny
hiding behind the planet Jupiter since I'm not claiming that there is such.
David Flechard
> You are asserting that by your question "How can you know [there isn't a designer]?"
I am not. If someone said "There is no such thing as the greatest prime
number" and I asked "How can you know that?", I would not be asserting
by my question that there was a greatest prime number.
So, how can you know there is no designer?
--
David Flechard
David Flechard
> Complete lack of supporting evidence
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
> and mountains of evidence to the contrary.
It would be good if someone would therefore answer the original
question, by perhaps offering some grains from this mountain of evidence.
--
David Flechard
Mark K. Bilbo
UCeyj.4128$rE5....@bignews5.bellsouth.net, "adman" <72...@hottmail.et>
wrote:
> "Mark K. Bilbo" <gm...@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message
> news:602o95...@dialup-4.231.35.48.Dial1.Houston1.Level3.net... | On
> Sat, 01 Mar 2008 04:05:57 -0600 in |
> TT9yj.3974$rE5....@bignews5.bellsouth.net, "adman" <72...@hottmail.et>
> | wrote:
> |
> | > Would you like to be twice your current size in order to accommodate
> the | > redundantly of major systems in the body? |
> | You're already twice half your size and you're okay with it aren't
> you?
>
> IOW you have nothing intelligent to say, and usually never do.
You couldn't follow what I was saying huh?
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered.
Religion is answers that may never be questioned.
Lisbeth Andersson
news:TT9yj.3974$rE5....@bignews5.bellsouth.net:
<....>
> On the bright side, we do have some important redundant features.
> The eyes, the ears, 2 legs, two arms, two sets of teeth, 10
> fingers and toes. Our blood vessels can reroute themselves, our
> immune system has several redundancies. The list is long.
<....>
Do you really think that having two legs is redundant?
Lisbeth.
----
The day I don't learn anything new is the day I die.
*What we know is not nearly as interesting as *how we know it.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
SeppoP
Well, I guess on reason is that various religious freaks have done their damnednest to claim
that there is one, without having been able to provide even a shred of evidence beyond
drooling and meaningless hand waving of such designer.
How do *you know* there isn't a giant Duracell bunny hiding in space behind Jupiter's orbit.
Is the probability of a "designer" *any* higher than the probability of Duracell bunny in the space?
That's how I *know* that there is no designer.
Elmer
> "adman" <72...@hottmail.et> wrote in
> news:TT9yj.3974$rE5....@bignews5.bellsouth.net:
>
> <....>
>> On the bright side, we do have some important redundant features.
>> The eyes, the ears, 2 legs, two arms, two sets of teeth, 10
>> fingers and toes. Our blood vessels can reroute themselves, our
>> immune system has several redundancies. The list is long.
> <....>
>
> Do you really think that having two legs is redundant?
"I *am* the Easter Bunny...Hop...Hop...Hop...Hop..."
Elmer
First one needs to define "design" and whether or not design is natural or
artificial.
David V.
> SeppoP wrote:
>
>> You are asserting that by your question "How can you know [there isn't
>> a designer]?"
>
>
> I am not.
You are. Why do you refuse to prove your "designer" exists?
Elmer
> Elmer , 03.02.2008:
>
>> First one needs to define "design" and whether or not design is natural or
>> artificial.
>
> was banned from schools they had to find another name.
Das stimmt.
But it's interesting to see what the response might be.