Cannibalism: Things are getting ugly

[Cerebrum123]

I misspoke. I meant Jesus never promises that any prayers will be answered. If you think your obliged to to have your prayers answered, you're misunderstanding faith. Faith isn't based on experience.

That still has nothing to do with Biblical faith, which you are still misunderstanding, and the vid would clear up a LOT. It's very short. It's only about 2 and a half minutes, surely it wouldn't be THAT much of a bother to watch it.

[Whag]

That still has nothing to do with Biblical faith, which you are still misunderstanding, and the vid would clear up a LOT. It's very short. It's only about 2 and a half minutes, surely it wouldn't be THAT much of a bother to watch it.

I watched it against my better judgment. Turns out it's a JP Holding cartoon.

Next time I'm trusting my better judgment.

[Sparko]

The specific issue is that Cerebrum considered the "bad design" argument to be a "non-starter" for creationists, since instances of "bad design," even if they do, in fact, represent bad design, can be attributable to the Fall and to human sin. It's difficult to see how that would be the case with such examples as detailed above. If God created the giraffe "as is" in the Garden, for example, it had a recurrent laryngeal nerve threading itself through an aortic duct and running 15' from source to target. If the giraffe is the product of post-ark "radiation," mammals would still suffer a design flaw traceable to their creation. So it makes the "bad design" argument very much a problem for creationists to deal with.

God, in the specific argument, doesn't play too heavy of a role; we're just looking at whether certain anatomical traits make for bad design and, if so, whether or not these traits function as a physical rebuttal of Intelligent Design claims. From a general standpoint, then, we're asking which avenue of biodiversity is more plausible, Intelligent Design or evolution. From a theistic standpoint, we're asking whether God created via ID or evolution.

—Sam

I got that, but I am wondering where God figures into your notion of the development of various species? Does he control their evolution? Or did he just create some single celled lifeform and then sit back and wait to see what happened? Or not even that? What role does God play in all this according to you?

[Sparko]

It's a better design to run a nerve 4"-6" than it is to run it 15'. Your link creates a strawman argument by refuting the claim that the nerve makes a long-distance loop "for no reason." But that's not what is being argued at all; we understand the reason that the loop is made but it'd be far better design to have a short-distance lead and a mid-distance lead with no loop rather than having one long loop with branches here and there.

I'm not saying that the nerve is bad design or even that it's a design flaw. It is what it is because of evolutionary constraints. I could certainly envision a more efficient route, however, and that makes it a sub-optimal design.

I'm fine with a new thread in Nat. Sci., if it interests you.

—Sam

You understand that design doesn't entail making every detail it's optimum right? It is all about compromise. Ask any civil engineer. The steel in a bridge for instance. You can make it very strong, but then it becomes inflexible. Bridges need to flex, so you compromise by using weaker steel that has more flexibility, but that introduces other problems such as limiting the allowable load on the bridge, and so on. Each bit of the bridge can be made better than it is, but it would affect other parts negatively, so you end up compromising to get the best overall design.

[rogue06]

It is all about compromise.

Like building on what already exists rather than starting over from scratch?

[Seasanctuary]

God made the nerve long to test our faith.

[Cerebrum123]

Like building on what already exists rather than starting over from scratch?

Where are you going with that comment?

[Whag]

God made the nerve long to test our faith.

God combined our air and feeding tubes to test our faith. He's essentially a building engineer who's forced to make material compromises. Making two separate tubes wasn't possible. He had limitations.

[Sparko]

God combined our air and feeding tubes to test our faith. He's essentially a building engineer who's forced to make material compromises. Making two separate tubes wasn't possible. He had limitations.

not limitations, reasons.

[Whag]

not limitations, reasons.

If a building engineer is limited to choosing one kind of metal, that's a limitation. As you pointed out, he has a limited choice of materials and must choose the optimum material. In the case of the trachea and esophagus, there's no such limitation. The solution to avoid the choking hazard is simple. He even designed cetaceans with these organs separated, so it's not like there's no precedent.

[Sparko]

If a building engineer is limited to choosing one kind of metal, that's a limitation. As you pointed out, he has a limited choice of materials and must choose the optimum material. In the case of the trachea and esophagus, there's no such limitation. The solution to avoid the choking hazard is simple. He even designed cetaceans with these organs separated, so it's not like there's no precedent.

It's not a matter of limited choice of materials, but of function.

As to why God used one tube for both air and food? I don't know, I am not a designer of humans, are you? But I can be pretty sure that if he DID use two tubes you would be here whining about how inefficient the design of using two separate tubes for air and food is, and how wasteful a designer God is, when he could have much more easily just used one tube instead.

[Whag]

It's not a matter of limited choice of materials, but of function.

As to why God used one tube for both air and food? I don't know, I am not a designer of humans, are you? But I can be pretty sure that if he DID use two tubes you would be here whining about how inefficient the design of using two separate tubes for air and food is, and how wasteful a designer God is, when he could have much more easily just used one tube instead.

No, I wouldn't make that argument, any more than i'd make the argument that the brain and liver are inefficent designs because they are not "combined."

i'm also not whining about the inefficiency of design any more than Ansgar is "whining.". Like all theistic evolutionists, he's simply tackling the tricky problem of dysteleology by saying that God set the process in motion rather than babysitting it and adjusting it when it needed fixing, which is precisely what ID argues.

This theological "que sera sera", though uncomfortable for some theists, is a necessary compromise to those familiar with the perils of traditional creationist arguments.

[Ansgar Seraph]

I got that, but I am wondering where God figures into your notion of the development of various species? Does he control their evolution? Or did he just create some single celled lifeform and then sit back and wait to see what happened? Or not even that? What role does God play in all this according to you?

I would say that God created a universe amicable to life with the intention of that universe "bringing forth" creatures who could become sentient attain an awareness of Him. I don't think, as many theistic evolutionists do, that God had humans exclusively in mind as His goal (though it wouldn't disappoint me if that were the case).

As to the development of various species, therefore, I think that biodiversity is the result of unguided evolution. I wouldn't object to the claim that God guided evolution specifically to create humans other than to say that it seems like a somewhat chauvinistic limitation to place on God's designs.

You understand that design doesn't entail making every detail it's optimum right? It is all about compromise. Ask any civil engineer. The steel in a bridge for instance. You can make it very strong, but then it becomes inflexible. Bridges need to flex, so you compromise by using weaker steel that has more flexibility, but that introduces other problems such as limiting the allowable load on the bridge, and so on. Each bit of the bridge can be made better than it is, but it would affect other parts negatively, so you end up compromising to get the best overall design.

Well, I specifically asked what design elements offset the "design flaws" mentioned. I understand the concept of limitations but I want to know what necessary design elements led to the compromise. If the lead engineer asks his subordinates why they chose an inferior material or design for that bridge, they had better be able to come up with a convincing reason for their choice.

In this case, I'd like to know what the trade-off is. We see the same design in all mammals and what seems illogical in humans appears downright ludicrous in giraffes. With every extra foot that nerve has to travel, the question "Why?" becomes more prominent. We know why, from an evolutionary standpoint, why that nerve bundle has to run 15' in giraffes. But for the group who believes that God made every animal uniquely, or at least made every "kind" ex nihlo, there's no reason to suggest that sub-optimal design is a necessary part of the equation. So what's the benefit of running that nerve 15' instead of having two nerves or branching the RLN's auxiliary nerves off of another existing run?

—Sam

[Ansgar Seraph]

God made the nerve long to test our faith.

But it was Satan who buried the fossils. That's a division of labor made in . . . um . . .

[Ansgar Seraph]

It's not a matter of limited choice of materials, but of function.

As to why God used one tube for both air and food? I don't know, I am not a designer of humans, are you? But I can be pretty sure that if he DID use two tubes you would be here whining about how inefficient the design of using two separate tubes for air and food is, and how wasteful a designer God is, when he could have much more easily just used one tube instead.

I'd be pretty thankful for a design element that ensured I'd never have to worry about my nephews choking on food and dying, to be honest.