Hey Creationists, explain this:

Post Reply New Topic

http://listverse.com/science/top-10-sig ... odern-man/

Smart Creationists, can you explain us why God would create such useless stuff in humans? To test our faith maybe?

Because they wanted to promote intellectual curiosity when they created the world as-is at the beginning of the Unix epoch.

If you take the Bible literally He first created light and then created the Sun and Moon. Which indicates God could work miracles but he had no idea as to how physics works. Then He created Adam and Eve and even with omniscience didn't know how they would screw up so He had to kick them out of Eden. And he really was horribly nasty to Job to test him even though he knew how the test would turn out beforehand. It seems God really had no idea how things work so he kept screwing up. And look at the world now. If this isn't a perfect all thumbs creation....

Both cute and funny....as usual though. So this thread's pretty much saying that if you believe in a creator or a higher power that you can't believe in evolution?

I have thread called 'The Debate Video Thread' and I think you might want to check out the one with Daniel Dennett vs. Dinesh D Souza @ Tufts University debate. Dinesh speaks, at least on this issue, for a lot of believers - evolution's a big so what, reason being that Christianity has no requirement to argue with science as science was set in motion by Christianity for such aims as it was - and evolution still doesn't hold any disproof on the macro. The only thing your beating on with further evidence of evolution is the sham-ID people who are driven to try and dismantle evolution; kinda the unpolished fringies/ludites at best (and yes, I feel bad for the new-earth people but, they're doing the same thing; making a fallacious battle of something that really doesn't matter).

This thread was not targetted to the religious, but to the Creationists. As you might have seen from the topic. No one claimed what you understood.

That is what I find really problematic when it comes to creation, and was one of the things responsable for my 'faith' to fade away years ago, a part from growing up

Citing from the Bible, it could be argued though that some things may be missing or misleading somehow because of the english translation, which would differ from the original hebrew, but here it goes:


well, it looks here that the universe consisted on water or something, and that the said separation lead to the creation of the earth, made of water only, originally. I think it could be probably argued that this type of formation of the earth to have been written with a flat earth in mind. And the earth being the first object of the universe to exist, before the sun.


The birth of life on earth, no animal life yet, but vegetation, the sun doesn't exist yet.


Until the fourth day we see the birth of the sun, the moon and all the stars, an observation here is that it looks like the rest of the universe was created in one single day, while for the earth, it took 5 days.


well, at least the order of creation in life, except for vegetation, seems to go along somehow with the order of the process of evolution.

The conflict lies here, especially nowadays as we live in an era of science and modern technology, it's difficult to grasp that concept in this literal way, which is very likely how in the biblical times was understood.

Here's the problem with those terms though, I don't know about buddhism per say on whether or not it consider's human origin important but almost all theistic religions indicate an unmoved mover that brought the universe (or universes as one may argue) into existence. To believe in a designer at all is creationism.

That is probably what creationists would argue, but there is the concept of Theistic evolution, who don't take the literal view of the biblical creation.

Well, correct on theistic evolution. I guess I'm confused on why what I said would be useful 'creationist' (new earth) propaghanda. It doesn't really obfruscate the original argument that evolution occured.

My real issue that I take up with a lot of atheists, not all but sadly the most loud and verbal - they make this issue that evolution disproves all religion, all purpose of faith in a higher power, and they play it like a broken record that its proof for atheism. That's why I find myself having the need to clarify my point - evolution does not disprove anything aside from the idea that the first man and woman kind of poofed into existence. When they try to wield evolution as the cure-all for religion in its entirety its a huge logical fallacy and I firmly believe that they do this on a broken record basis not to get to the bottom of things but to propaghandize the general public into believing that they're right and that there's no deeper thought to be had on this.

I have no sources to cite, but as far as I know/what I can think of with my tired brain at the moment is: the Jacobson's organ is for the detection of pheremones, the 'junk' DNA may needed/'turned back on' without us knowing or it may be there just in case we do need it (just as one keeps little-used but not useless items in the loft or basement) and, if I recall correctly, the removal of the appendix shortens the lifespan somewhat (not good news for me!) - it's needed for immunity functions.

For the coccyx, I would like to quote the article:

Evidence please? Let me continue...


If you'd like to think so. I'll continue...


No because we always had a need for it which shall be explained in the next quotation from the article:


So how what exactly is the evolutionary point here? This is the weakest point in the article. In fact it's so weak it has no strength at all.

I don't know about widom teeth but saying that many humans no longer have them because they are not needed is somewhat Lamarckist. The presence of unecessary teeth does not cause a person to die and so losing them would not be particularly beneficial to survival.

I don't know about the others (but that doesn't mean there isn't an answer).

That entire article in two words: Vestigial structures...

^ and why God would create Adam and Eve with Vestigial structures?

I wasn't arguing against the article, I was just pointing out for the tl;dr folks that it could be simplified a hell of a lot more...

Theistic evolutionists are the ones that say: "I believe in evolution and I also believe in God! =D" Right?

No, I think that refers to the proposition that the world religions are products of their own evolution. Those who believe in both God and evolution just qualify as not being 'new earth' creationists.

My opinion on the subject:

The universe we live in is God's grand experiment, he created something that could evolve and develop without his direct influence, much like humanity is on the verge of doing ourselves (the technological singularity). When he saw humanity he realized that we had developed to the point of understanding at least the basics of his nature. So he granted humanity true life, sentience if you will,(this was the root cause of the dawn of civilization, which occurred thousands of years after biological humans arose). He taught us what he felt we could understand, and as we grew and developed he taught us more. This eventually culminated in the coming of Jesus Christ, who opened the way to direct understanding of God without needless rituals or arbitrary rules.