Man created in god's image

[Ryantology]

The appendix is a safehouse for good bacteria--helps fight off diseases. The spleen helps filter out old blood cells as well as keeping reserves of blood cells and monocytes.

Neither is necessary and a person can live a perfectly normal life without either. Both functions are carried out adequately by other bodily functions. Worse, neither act as a redundancy to the system they 'support'.

Jaw sizes have decreased over generations, but wisdom teeth were indeed helpful to earlier humans (we only need to go back a couple hundred years for this to be the case).

Hello and welcome to the concept called 'evolution'.

The coccyx has a host of functions (http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/tailbone.html ). Above all, it is a bone used for support. Nothing about the coccyx screams ‘tail’ except its location and shape. Bottom line, a bone needs to sit in the cavity beneath our vertebrae and the coccyx fits the bill.

Your explanation is 'it is there because it has to be there'? Your all-powerful God could not make it all work without adding a useless appendage?

Male nipples are an example of design economy. A female’s breast tissue is just as useless as male’s until puberty, meaning the embryonic stage is not the diverging point. This is crucial because it requires random evolutionary processes to develop the nipple before milk came along. Moreover, human evolutionary history claims male and female divergence occurred first in reptiles. Nipples would then require an additional divergence in humans, eliminating males from breastfeeding for no seemingly reason at all. In short, the topic of nipples poses a bigger problem for evolution than it does for an omniscient creator.

Does it? Because I have to say, I do not remember where, in the Bible, it says that humans evolved from reptiles.

It is a crucial problem for the 'omniscient creator' because he put something there, in males, which is of no use whatsoever.

The question that should be asked is why we don’t find any vestigial DNA—remnants of codes for tissues/organs we do not exhibit on our bodies. The fact we have not suggests humans have always had what current phenotypes show and nothing else. New uses are constantly being discovered. For a long time, 98% of the human genome was pronounced “junk” by over-anxious scientists. Recently, 80% has been discovered to have a use (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/09/jun...64001.html ) and scientists have no reason to believe the rest does not. The 80% includes over 4 million ‘gene switches.’ Scientists now know that any functioning mutation needs not only the initial mutation but a mutation for the gene switch to turn that new function on. A self-professed rule of science: restrict judgment until the all information comes in. For some reason, evolutionists talking about vestigial organs have ignored it.

Oh come on, a quick peek at Wikipedia explains what should be obvious:

Similar concepts apply at the molecular level — some nucleic acid sequences in eukaryotic genomes have no known biological function; some of them may be "junk DNA", but it is a difficult matter to demonstrate that a particular sequence in a particular region of a given genome is truly nonfunctional. The simple fact that it is noncoding DNA does not establish that it is functionless. Furthermore, even if an extant DNA sequence is functionless, it does not follow that it has descended from an ancestral sequence of functional DNA. Logically such DNA would not be vestigial in the sense of being the vestige of a functional structure. In contrast pseudogenes have lost their protein-coding ability or are otherwise no longer expressed in the cell. Whether they have any extant function or not, they have lost their former function and in that sense they do fit the definition of vestigiality.

In other words, macroscopic organs can serve no crucial purpose even though its constituent DNA might be vital to this or any number of functions.

[Godscreated]

Well, here we go again, gotta help out the idiot theists.

"Man was created in the image of god", refers to the soul. The body is just a shell to carry us through this material world until such time we we shed this mortal body and ascend to heaven.



You're welcome.

What about man being body, spirit and soul. Triune, just as God is, three in one.

[KichigaiNeko]

Silly theists...don't know their own bloody "holy book"

[Drich]

Silly theists...don't know their own bloody "holy book"

-Or-
The "silly theist'' recognized a 'silly' tired arguement and decided to let the 'silly man' who wanted to argue a 'silly point' the oppertunity to do so.

[Doubting_Thomas]

Please show me where I have stated this.

In my orginal post I made no such statement. I simply said we are not carbon copies or clones of God.

In my second post I said Jesus Was God incarinate. Meaning He would have Nipples and a belly button.

So again show me were I said God did not have these things. ;D

why make the point that humans are not clones or photocopies if you are in fact agreeing that god, at the time he created man in his image, had nipples and belly button? Pointless first response.

So, now that we have cleared up that you think god did have nipples when he created humans, why did he have nipples???? What possible use does god have for them??? and before women was even invented!

Anyone would think it's religious bollox written by half wits for the consumption of other half wits. The mind boggles.

[Drich]

why make the point that humans are not clones or photocopies

To establish that we CAN retain attributes and features that are not considered to be attributes or features of God.

if you are in fact agreeing that god, at the time he created man in his image, had nipples and belly button?

My orginal arguement left the spectrum open to be interpereted from any number of possiable angles. We could have gone into the spiritual attributes or the similarities we share with God as orginally identified in genesis or we could have described what God incarnate (Jesus Christ) would indeed and did look like. IF you had not presumed too much.

Pointless first response.

Only if you presume too much.

So, now that we have cleared up that you think god did have nipples when he created humans, why did he have nipples????

Do you want me to list the logical fallacies you are commiting here, or will you conceed that you over stepped in your 'arguement?'

What possible use does god have for them??? and before women was even invented!

Anyone would think it's religious bollox written by half wits for the consumption of other half wits. The mind boggles.

Do you suffer from P.E. physically as well? or is it limited to verbal/written 'outbursts?'

[IATIA]

What about man being body, spirit and soul. Triune, just as God is, three in one.

Give me a break! Your god has no mortal body. Even if there were such thing as god, it would not be an old man (woman) sitting up in the clouds shaking it's head and wagging it's finger. The limitations of such a being would be that of a man.

Your god would consist of 'being', 'awareness' and 'soul'.

[Ryantology]

How can one point to the human body as proof of an omnipotent creator? The human body is rife with what would be extremely bad design flaws, if it actually was designed.

This is where your theist will say "mankind cannot create something as complex" (except for the exceptionally stupid ones who just blame our bodily failures on sin), but that just avoids the huge issue that flaws of any kind should be considered entirely unacceptable when the creator holds such pretensions as "all-knowing" and "all-powerful".

[Minimalist]

Well, here we go again, gotta help out the idiot theists.

"Man was created in the image of god", refers to the soul. The body is just a shell to carry us through this material world until such time we we shed this mortal body and ascend to heaven.



You're welcome.

Um....

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

Doesn't say anything about any fucking soul, man.

---

"you're" *

You're welcome...

---

What about the rest of us who don't give a flying fuck about you or your god, fishy?

You obviously cared enough to respond, so what exactly are you saying???

Oh, it's my job to stomp the arrogance out of you god fucks at every opportunity.

You know...you really don't have a special invisible friend in the sky.

You made all that shit up.

[Undeceived]

The appendix is a safehouse for good bacteria--helps fight off diseases. The spleen helps filter out old blood cells as well as keeping reserves of blood cells and monocytes.

Neither is necessary and a person can live a perfectly normal life without either. Both functions are carried out adequately by other bodily functions. Worse, neither act as a redundancy to the system they 'support'.

Now you're arguing for just partial uselessness. Where do you draw the line? Just how useful does God have to make every organ? "I think if an organism can live without it God wouldn't have made it." By that logic I don't need my pinkie finger, or hair on my arms, or a tongue that can discern sweetness. In the cases of the appendix and spleen I think you neglected to do your research. Read this: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/...96277.html . Tell me a sixteenth-century cholera sufferer would not have appreciated their appendix. And this: https://csb.mgh.harvard.edu/highlights/t...d-function . 1.2 million people having heart attacks in the next year could benefit from their spleen.

Now I ask, why would evolution develop such refined healing systems? What could they have been before humans supposedly "evolved"? Speculators say the appendix is the remnant of the larger cecum. But if it is the case that the appendix is merely a degraded digestive system, why do 70% of all primate and rodent groups have the organ in the approximately same stage of degradation? Either they miraculously lost the same portions of the cecum DNA all at the same time or evolution has kept around a useless organ for tens of millions of years. And if the organ has been kept so consistently--70% of all these species--why can we find so few other vestigial organs? On an even deeper level, why does every 'vestigial' organ have a use (though you may not consider it significant)? Where are the vestigial organs with absolutely no use whatsoever?

Jaw sizes have decreased over generations, but wisdom teeth were indeed helpful to earlier humans (we only need to go back a couple hundred years for this to be the case).

Hello and welcome to the concept called 'evolution'.

You helped me see an error in my research. Jaw sizes might not have shrunk--it would even be anti-evolutionary progress for them to do so. The concept I describe is microevolution/adaptation. If involves using the genes already present and reducing the genetic information in the gene pool over time. Everyone agrees this is an active process. What you argue for is macroevolution, or the expanding of the gene pool via random mutations. The shrinking of the jaw--if it had shrunk--would be a result of the elimination of alleles for larger jaws, keeping only the alleles for a smaller jaw. An analogy is people seemingly shrinking over generations. What's really happening is that tall people are having a hard time surviving long enough to pass their genes to their offspring (just an analogy, may not be true). In any development like this, information is lost from the gene pool. 

So we're still left with the question of wisdom teeth. Well, they have their obvious uses when they fit. Why don't they always fit? There are several hypotheses. One blames western diet and habits--we cook our food tender so we don't need them, and our body has responded to the change. Another cites poor nutrition and hygiene--since the problem is not too many teeth, it is how they grow in. Also, orthodontist Jack Cuozzo has presented evidence that humans may be maturing faster today than they used to, not allowing facial bones enough time to develop before the wisdom teeth come in. 

The coccyx has a host of functions (http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/tailbone.html ). Above all, it is a bone used for support. Nothing about the coccyx screams ‘tail’ except its location and shape. Bottom line, a bone needs to sit in the cavity beneath our vertebrae and the coccyx fits the bill.

Your explanation is 'it is there because it has to be there'? Your all-powerful God could not make it all work without adding a useless appendage?

It's not useless, it does everything it needs to. What evidence do you have that the coccyx used to be a tailbone (other than looks)?

Male nipples are an example of design economy. A female’s breast tissue is just as useless as male’s until puberty, meaning the embryonic stage is not the diverging point. This is crucial because it requires random evolutionary processes to develop the nipple before milk came along. Moreover, human evolutionary history claims male and female divergence occurred first in reptiles. Nipples would then require an additional divergence in humans, eliminating males from breastfeeding for no seemingly reason at all. In short, the topic of nipples poses a bigger problem for evolution than it does for an omniscient creator.

It is a crucial problem for the 'omniscient creator' because he put something there, in males, which is of no use whatsoever.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and ask, what would a male look like without pecs? Why would God make males and females look more different than they have to? Humans like familiarity. The mamillae also provide sexual stimulation, as they have nerves unlike any others in the body. In short, the uses are aesthetic. Which brings up the question: why might evolution randomly develop things 'beautiful' to our eyes?