(May 25, 2016 at 4:49 pm)AAA Wrote:

(May 25, 2016 at 10:41 am)Constable Dorfl Wrote: A designer that can create a creature who can choke to death on a pretzel is so incompetent he makes Baldrick look like a genius.

Think about the success rate of eating. I don't even feel like I can speculate a reasonable ratio of successful attempts at eating to the attempts that end in choking. Just be thankful we've got mechanisms to prevent choking.

That such bullshit here is a better design a second hole for eating another for breathing.

(May 25, 2016 at 4:49 pm)AAA Wrote: Think about the success rate of eating. I don't even feel like I can speculate a reasonable ratio of successful attempts at eating to the attempts that end in choking. Just be thankful we've got mechanisms to prevent choking.

This argument works if your intent is to affirm that our physiology is the result of natural selection, and not malicious idiocy.

Now how would you defend the claim that our physiology is the result of a tri-omni supernatural being?

(May 25, 2016 at 11:03 am)robvalue Wrote: I wouldn't put it anywhere since my creation wouldn't need to eat or breathe in order to not die.

You're talking like God has restrictions to work around. Where did these come from?

I knew you would rather have a discussion of theology than biology. You always want to move toward that route. Again, it is illogical to say that just because life obeys contraints it is not designed. Moreover, just because life is not the way you would like it to be does not mean that it wasn't designed. You don't know what is the optimal anatomy for living systems.None of us do.

I'm not trying to be offensive, but this is the only analogy I can think of to illustrate the problem with the way you guys are thinking. You are basically saying, "why can't life just not need to breathe or eat? Life would be so much better." It's like a child saying "Why can't we print $100,000,000,000 for everybody? Life would be so much better for everyone." The obvious flaw is that you have to have some foresight before you make a statement like that.

(May 25, 2016 at 4:51 pm)AAA Wrote:

(May 25, 2016 at 10:46 am)Gemini Wrote: It's not obvious that problems would arise from separating the respiratory system from the digestive system.

But where would you put them??

Why would an omniscient, omnipotent designer be constrained by our current body shape? Can't your gawd figure out how to run two pipes without crossing them? Your average plumber can.

(May 25, 2016 at 4:51 pm)AAA Wrote:

(May 25, 2016 at 10:46 am)Gemini Wrote: It's not obvious that problems would arise from separating the respiratory system from the digestive system.

But where would you put them??

As the The Gentleman Bastard pointed out, dolphins and whales seem to manage just fine. 

So...put the esophagus where you don't get deaths from choking.

---

(May 25, 2016 at 5:08 pm)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote: Why would an omniscient, omnipotent designer be constrained by our current body shape? Can't your gawd figure out how to run two pipes without crossing them? Your average plumber can.

Fortunately for plumbers, they aren't inhibited by the logical constraints theologians have placed on God. Otherwise it would be impossible to unclog a stopped up pipe.

(May 25, 2016 at 4:57 pm)Gemini Wrote:

(May 25, 2016 at 4:49 pm)AAA Wrote: Think about the success rate of eating. I don't even feel like I can speculate a reasonable ratio of successful attempts at eating to the attempts that end in choking. Just be thankful we've got mechanisms to prevent choking.

This argument works if your intent is to affirm that our physiology is the result of natural selection, and not malicious idiocy.

Now how would you defend the claim that our physiology is the result of a tri-omni supernatural being?

That part of our physiology is consistent with evolution, but it is by no means inconsistent with design.

And I would go to the molecular level if I was to defend the claim that it was the more likely to be the result of an intelligent designer. One great example of a feature consistent with intelligent design is the elaborate control mechanisms that eukaryotic cells have when regulating their genes. I was just reading a paper today on epigenetic modifications controlling gene expression. An environmental stimulus will lead to an intracellular change which will lead to the activation or inactivation of an chromatin modifying enzyme which will add or remove functional groups to the chromatin. This remodels the structure of the chromatin in order to promote or prevent transcription factors to bind, which will then attract RNA polymerases at different strengths. I know that was a little vague, but there are so many different responses that we haven't even begun to understand the molecular mechanism by which our bodies deal with a changing environment. Even more interesting is that these changes can be heritable, meaning that the way that you live your life could be displayed in the phenotype of your children.

(May 25, 2016 at 4:49 pm)AAA Wrote:

(May 25, 2016 at 10:41 am)Constable Dorfl Wrote: A designer that can create a creature who can choke to death on a pretzel is so incompetent he makes Baldrick look like a genius.

Think about the success rate of eating. I don't even feel like I can speculate a reasonable ratio of successful attempts at eating to the attempts that end in choking. Just be thankful we've got mechanisms to prevent choking.

If the success rate of an omniscient, omnipotent designer less than 100% for something as simple as not causing deaths by crossing two pipes, it's either incompetent or malicious.

(May 25, 2016 at 5:04 pm)AAA Wrote:

(May 25, 2016 at 11:03 am)robvalue Wrote: I wouldn't put it anywhere since my creation wouldn't need to eat or breathe in order to not die.

You're talking like God has restrictions to work around. Where did these come from?

I knew you would rather have a discussion of theology than biology. You always want to move toward that route. Again, it is illogical to say that just because life obeys contraints it is not designed. Moreover, just because life is not the way you would like it to be does not mean that it wasn't designed. You don't know what is the optimal anatomy for living systems.None of us do.

I'm not trying to be offensive, but this is the only analogy I can think of to illustrate the problem with the way you guys are thinking. You are basically saying, "why can't life just not need to breathe or eat? Life would be so much better." It's like a child saying "Why can't we print $100,000,000,000 for everybody? Life would be so much better for everyone." The obvious flaw is that you have to have some foresight before you make a statement like that.

(bold mine)

Replace the word "God" with "the designer". What difference does it make?

Also, AAA, you never did answer my question about your evidence that snowflakes are designed.

(May 25, 2016 at 5:04 pm)AAA Wrote:

(May 25, 2016 at 11:03 am)robvalue Wrote: I wouldn't put it anywhere since my creation wouldn't need to eat or breathe in order to not die.

You're talking like God has restrictions to work around. Where did these come from?

I knew you would rather have a discussion of theology than biology.

Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you the one claiming intelligent design? Unless your claiming ETs or Trans dimensional beings, it was a theological argument from the get-go.