God’s Intelligent Design?
If God designed the human body then He failed Bioengineering 101. Any first year medical student could have done a better job of it.
*If God doesn't like foreskins, why did He create human males that are born with foreskins?
*Perfect eyesight? A goodly number of humans need to wear glasses, even from a relatively early age.
*Juxtaposition of the food tube and the air tube and thus people can (and do) choke to death - not the best of intelligent designing.
*Juxtaposition of the reproductive system and the waste elimination system - again, not the best of intelligent designing.
*One blood type would have done very nicely thank you especially when it comes to transfusions. Instead, we have basically eight blood types: A, B, AB and O, plus Rh+ and Rh- for each type.
*Humans have apparently a few rather useless organs, for someone "designed" less than six thousand years ago. There's the wisdom teeth (that cause no end of jawbone crowding); the appendix; the tonsils; and the adenoids.
*If you ever suffer from a bad lower back, blame God.
*To prevent a lot of death (and suffering), the birth canal could have been a bit larger than God designed it to be.
*Unlike most body cells - stomach, skin, liver, blood, etc. - muscle, especially heart cells; nerve cells (except apparently nasal neurons - those nose nerves, and egg cells don't regenerate. What you get; your initial quota, is it. That's all you get - ever.
*Why male nipples?
*Your blood, hemoglobin, has a far greater affinity for carbon monoxide than for oxygen which results in unnecessary deaths from carbon monoxide poisoning.
*We come with a lot of duplication - two arms, hands, legs, eyes, ears, tonsils, nostrils, lungs, kidneys, testicles, ovaries, even two brain hemispheres. However, considering the importance of it, and unlike Doctor Who, we just have one heart.
*We also have just two legs which means we are very, very unstable and very prone to losing our balance and falling over, and that's without any / the benefit of a balancing tail (as per birds, kangaroos, etc.). A far better design would have been four legs and two arms, sort of like a Centaur.
*Teenage males have way too much testosterone.
*Unlike say stomach acid, mucus, saliva, bile, etc. humans can't internally manufacture many of the necessary minerals and vitamins that are required.
Anything else?
20
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
39 comments (26 - 39)
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.
Not so much of an issue now, but before we developed better weapons technology, the fact that we have no effective natural weapons, no natural armor, run slowly, and are edible to large predators presented something of a problem.
JimG
Level 8
Oct 25, 2018
1
Jnei:
Our being such an easy meal for so many other animals may be why we ended up brains capable of developing weapons. We might have been better off sticking to spears instead of inventing nuclear bombs, VX gas and suchlike, though!
@Jnei Yep, why we needed better brains & a co-operative social structure. & tho a bit dated, Desmond Morris' "The Naked Ape' explains this well.
Jnei:
@phxbillcee Read it 35 years ago and several times since; might do so again if I can find another copy.
Maybe if God had not been in such a hurry, things might be different. Six days is not enough time to put something together as complex as the Universe. Why the rush? Time certainly wasn't an issue. Maybe the whole eternity thing got to him, and he was just looking for something to do. Maybe the Universe is just a hobby.
Sticks48
Level 9
Oct 25, 2018
1
the optical nerve that goes all the way down the neck before returning to the brain, being a lot more exposed and a lot more places to fail (even in the huge giraffes necks)
Pedrohbds
Level 7
Oct 25, 2018
1
I think you mean the laryngeal nerve which serves the larynx.
@indirect76 my bad
@Pedrohbds You got the important details right.
One one word.....Banana ?
Source:
Jay1313132018
Level 7
Jan 10, 2019
0
If you want to see God’s intelligent design just watch the “Saint Jude‘s hospital“ commercial begging for money to cure children with cancer, birth defects, and 20,000 other genetic diseases Who all suffer and live in pain. That is proof enough “there is no God.”
Weismonger
Level 4
Jan 3, 2019
0
the main Question still the same is there a god?
zenith01
Level 5
Nov 8, 2018
0
No.
Does it matter if a God exists? If you think so, say why?
Any 'first year medical student' knows or the train has left them at the station, that every second a human body lives is an incomprehensible miracle of 'bioengineering'. It goes as well for a cockroach or a kangaroo.
Whoever penned that cynical, Narcissistic list might not be a believer but has a scope that isn't much broader than a kangaroo.
Silver1wun
Level 7
Oct 26, 2018
0
@johnprytz I agree with you. What silver one one doesn't seem to understand is that amoeba life began approximately a billion years after the Earth formed and that it's had three and a half billion years to get to where we are now. Duh!
No apology from this atheist for the use of miracle. The definition isn't limited to belief in divine agency as a qualification. The term has broader meaning and uses. Would that many people's mentalities expanded as appropriately. Most, however, though rejecting gods, cast out the proverbial baby as well and as a consequence of group thinking afflictions.
Who are you, or anyone else for that matter, to set (speaking of expanded) non-reasoned, inappropriate criteria for qualifying other atheists? Does a shared status of rejecting gods mean that some of us are more 'divinely' endowed with discernment faculties and therefore supremely qualified to certify levels of 'approved atheism' on the parts of others? Are our attitudes about non-existence of gods and worthlessness of theologies now to be subjected to the scrutiny of a budding, self-appointed orthodoxy? Who might., conveniently, be appointing themselves in those positions of superior judgment? This inquiring mind would love to be informed.
As for when 'amoeba life' actually began; a billion years hence or why not two billion or how about double or nothing? Our perspective on even a million years is but a pin-hole view based on assumption of unproven and non-reasoned constants. It has little to no bearing on broader reality that IS observable and comprehensible in the here and now.
Consider consulting with an amoeba about it's own notions regarding genealogical history; or simply observe it's timeless example of tension-charge-discharge-relaxation. The pulse paradigm applies to all that is alive and even in the observable universe itself. One can learn a lot from a mere amoeba; more than from most people.
The body is comprehensible—and becoming more so every day. It is called science.
@Weismonger No argument on my part against science being a more dependable tool than imagination and fabrication for explaining the process of life and other phenomena. It is, in my view, only a tool; only a method that exists and is recognizable in it's rich value as a tool because of imagination and reasoning faculties, which came first and are native to our kind. It is believed for good cause that science validates sound thought. The latter actually preceded science and is indispensable in determining what is good science. The instrument, as in computers for example, can outperform it's source in mechanistic functions only, like science, as a valuable tool. Without mind and animating life source they are still capable of 'mindless errors'. Science orthodoxy also discloses a long history of pockets of mindless error coupled with self-imposed blindness.
An extra heart would be handy.
alanalorie
Level 7
Oct 25, 2018
0
If you had a better designed heart one would be quite sufficient. It is pretty silly that the main cause of heart problems is that an organ which is full of blood doesn't get a sufficient blood supply. This is because oxygenated blood is pumped out of the heart into the aorta whence it returns by the left and the right coronary arteries. These are what cause the trouble. It shouldn't have been too difficult to have designed a heart which got it's oxygen from the blood in the heart.
A more radical redesign is possible too. There are several other pumps in the body (most obviously the gut), and these work by peristalsis. Intelligent design of a circulatory system would have probably given us a peristalsis based system. What a shame evolution didn't.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.