That would certainly inspire me to have a transcendental experience.*






*ie, spooging in my pants.

(November 6, 2013 at 9:15 am)apophenia Wrote:

---

I'm tempted to post some tail in here.





Oh what the hell.

Muslim Scholar is undeniably correct, as the following tail could only be the work of a god. If anybody else has more pictures demonstrating good tail, you can help support the Muslim Scholar position by sharing them.

---

I like your way of thinking! Now, I need to find me some tail in Real Life!

Then I saw that face,
Now I'm a believer!

(November 6, 2013 at 2:33 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote:

(November 4, 2013 at 10:48 am)ToriJ Wrote: If you add something just because of 'beauty' or any other want then it's not really Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design implies that every function of the body has a practical purpose.

I wanted only to open the topic!
Yes beauty can prove intelligent design

How can you explain
Symmetrical shapes of most creatures
Non-symmetrical internal organs

It is not even symmetrical; e.g. left hand is not a replica of the right one, it is a mirror image of it, this proves more the intelligence behind the design.

---

(November 4, 2013 at 8:50 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: If you had a tail and everyone else had a tail, would you not regard tails as a thing of beauty.

Tails has a function for some species to climb trees

Mirror image is symmetry, you moron.

(November 6, 2013 at 1:38 pm)Chas Wrote:

(November 6, 2013 at 2:33 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: I wanted only to open the topic!
Yes beauty can prove intelligent design

How can you explain
Symmetrical shapes of most creatures
Non-symmetrical internal organs

It is not even symmetrical; e.g. left hand is not a replica of the right one, it is a mirror image of it, this proves more the intelligence behind the design.

---

Tails has a function for some species to climb trees

Mirror image is symmetry, you moron.

I believe socrates was the one that said "If cows had a god, would their god not be a cow." apo posted something similiar

MS wrote Wrote:How can you explain
Symmetrical shapes of most creatures
Non-symmetrical internal organs

It is not even symmetrical; e.g. left hand is not a replica of the right one, it is a mirror image of it, this proves more the intelligence behind the design.

This assumes, of course, that symmetry and asymmetry are not a part of the natural world, which, of course, is a poor assumption. Crystal symmetry, for instance, is a direct reflection of its atomic structure, a perfectly naturally explainable phenomenon. Symmetry in biological organisms is a balanced distribution of body parts, but that symmetry is not perfect. If is was, when I divide my face into two parts vertically in a photograph and mirror them, I would not get the exact same facial appearance that I would get from the original face. That is because the environment often shapes that symmetry. For instance, I could have a scar on my right side that doesn't exist on my left side, or even better, I could have a deformity that causes my left cheek bone to sit higher up on my face than my right cheek bone. I could have a drooping eyelid on one side and not the other. These are not design features, and neither is the original symmetry, which is a function of natural selection.

Crinoids and other echinoderms have pentagonal symmetry, which is an evolutionary adaptation to the way these creatures feed, and to the way the parts of their crystalline exoskeletons intermesh.

(November 6, 2013 at 2:10 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote:

(November 6, 2013 at 1:38 pm)Chas Wrote: Mirror image is symmetry, you moron.

I believe socrates was the one that said "If cows had a god, would their god not be a cow." apo posted something similiar

Quote:If the triangles made a god, they would give him three sides.

Charles de Montesquieu

Thanks Min. I suspected the Yiddish attribution was an error, but idiots tend to float to the top of a google search, and I just didn't have time to drill.

(November 6, 2013 at 6:58 pm)orogenicman Wrote:

MS wrote Wrote:How can you explain
Symmetrical shapes of most creatures
Non-symmetrical internal organs

It is not even symmetrical; e.g. left hand is not a replica of the right one, it is a mirror image of it, this proves more the intelligence behind the design.

This assumes, of course, that symmetry and asymmetry are not a part of the natural world, which, of course, is a poor assumption. Crystal symmetry, for instance, is a direct reflection of its atomic structure, a perfectly naturally explainable phenomenon. Symmetry in biological organisms is a balanced distribution of body parts, but that symmetry is not perfect. If is was, when I divide my face into two parts vertically in a photograph and mirror them, I would not get the exact same facial appearance that I would get from the original face. That is because the environment often shapes that symmetry. For instance, I could have a scar on my right side that doesn't exist on my left side, or even better, I could have a deformity that causes my left cheek bone to sit higher up on my face than my right cheek bone. I could have a drooping eyelid on one side and not the other. These are not design features, and neither is the original symmetry, which is a function of natural selection.

Actually this proves intelligent design
while overall near-symmetry is a matter of beauty
differences proves that it is not nature which formed it (like fingerprints for example or inner organ non-symmetrical positions and shapes)

(November 11, 2013 at 7:31 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote:

(November 6, 2013 at 6:58 pm)orogenicman Wrote: This assumes, of course, that symmetry and asymmetry are not a part of the natural world, which, of course, is a poor assumption. Crystal symmetry, for instance, is a direct reflection of its atomic structure, a perfectly naturally explainable phenomenon. Symmetry in biological organisms is a balanced distribution of body parts, but that symmetry is not perfect. If is was, when I divide my face into two parts vertically in a photograph and mirror them, I would not get the exact same facial appearance that I would get from the original face. That is because the environment often shapes that symmetry. For instance, I could have a scar on my right side that doesn't exist on my left side, or even better, I could have a deformity that causes my left cheek bone to sit higher up on my face than my right cheek bone. I could have a drooping eyelid on one side and not the other. These are not design features, and neither is the original symmetry, which is a function of natural selection.

Actually this proves intelligent design
while overall near-symmetry is a matter of beauty
differences proves that it is not nature which formed it (like fingerprints for example or inner organ non-symmetrical positions and shapes)

No, it doesn't prove anything!
It is part of the greater theory of evolution by natural selection.