Posted on 02/12/2009 10:24:51 AM PST by steve-b
Stephen Bratteng, a biology teacher at Westwood High School in Austin put this together. I got the list from him when I heard him testify in favor of solid science in biology textbooks, in hearings before the Texas State Board of Education in 2003:
1. Why does giving vitamin and mineral supplements to undernourished anemic individuals cause so many of them to die of bacterial infections?
2. Why did Dr. Heimlich have to develop a maneuver to dislodge food particles from people’s wind pipes?
3. Why does each of your eyes have a blind spot and strong a tendency toward retinal detachment? But a squid whose eyesight is just as sharp does not have these flaws?
4. Why are depression and obesity at epidemic levels in the United States?
5. When Europeans came to the Americas, why did 90 percent of the Native Americans die of European diseases but not many Europeans died of American diseases?
6. Why do pregnant women get morning sickness?
7. Why do people in industrialized countries have a greater tendency to get Crohn’s disease and asthma?
8. Why does malaria still kill over a million people each year?
9. Why are so many of the product Depends sold each year?
10. Why do people given anti-diarrheal medication take twice as long to recover from dysentery as untreated ones?
11. Why do people of European descent have a fairly high frequency of an allele that can make them resistant to HIV infection?
12. Why do older men often have urinary problems?
13. And why do so many people in Austin get cedar fever?
(Excerpt) Read more at timpanogos.wordpress.com ...
God created man in his image, right? Which homo species was the first created in his image?
...because Homo habilis was one U-G-L-Y dude...
I like poking fun too...
Wow.
I’ve been trying to avoid gluten, and I never realized it was so prevalent.
Thank you for find this.
It has something to do with, you know, how the lungs and GI tract of land animals evolved such that we breathe and eat through the same orifice and food goes close to our breathing apparatus.
THAT is why Heimlich is important to the evo-debate.
Perfect! Sounds right to me.
That's like saying that there's a design flaw because someone chooses to put water in their gas tank instead of gas. Or that there's a design flaw on a keyboard because the "H" key is too close to the "J" key. Or there's a design flaw with a chair because the user tried to sit on the arm and fell over.
The breathing and eating mechanism is a marvel of design and works perfectly 99.99999% of the time. However when someone doesn't chew their food thoroughly and tries to eat too fast then there is a chance that they're going to breathe food. God did design a LOT of safeguards against stupidity, but his job wasn't to insure that life was perfect.
Look for the chewy nougat.
I didn't call it a flaw. I said it appears to be the result of a long series of slight modifications.
My mistake. It appears to be designed that way to me.
Why are there monekeys?
Why did Eskimo monkeys shed their natural furs? Fashion?
There is a huge gap between Homo erectus, a human race, and the apes that preceded Homo erectus in the "human evolution" scenario, (Australopithecus, Homo Habilis, and Homo rudolfensis). Admitting this fact is totally against the dogmatic philosophy and ideology of evolutionists. As a result, they try to portray Homo erectus, a truly human race, as a half-ape creature. In their Homo erectus reconstructions, they tenaciously draw simian features. On the other hand, with similar drawing methods, they humanise apes like Australopithecus or Homo Habilis. With this method, they seek to "approximate" apes and human beings and close the gap between these two distinct living classes.
Evolution is about change, not origins.
But while on the subject of first life, I think you are looking at some major disappointments in the next couple of decades. It's becoming a hot research topic, primarily because there are a number of approaches showing promise.
The designer, however, is confined to increasingly smaller gaps. And more of them, since each new fossil find creates two new gaps.
Oh please...then why is the "big bang" claim made by evolutionists? Why was the "pond scum" theory put forth by evolutionists until it was debunked?
The biggest question is...why such a hatred of creationism by Darwinists? I suspect we can conclude that those who deny original intelligent design by espousing Darwinism are merely atheists grasping at straws to support their particular brand of "religion".
We can call it religion because it is only on their fervent faith...and of course, deception which has been proven time and again (e.g. Piltdown Man, Archaeoraptor, Nebraska Man)...that it survives scrutiny by the mostly uneducated masses today, taught by liberal professors who have been hell bent on dumbing down the system for decades so they can impose socialism and eventually communism. You want evolution...you need to look no further than the education system, we have evolved into a nation of sheep ready for the slaughter.
I could swear that the big bang hypothesis was first put forth by a Catholic Priest and later confrimed by astronomers like Hubble and by physists. I don't recall cosmology being a branch of biology.
I would call it pity rather than hatred. But I suppose the feeling can be similar to what women felt when biblical literalists said anesthesia during childbirth is forbidden by Genesis, or what ordinary people feel when they see a child die because the parents withheld medical care for religious reasons.
Faith can be right or wrong, and the results good or bad. People had faith in Jim Jones. Just having faith doesn't protect you from being wrong.
There comes a time in any field of science when the basic ideas are beyond doubt. The earth is spherical. It orbits the sun and not vice versa. The earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. Living things are related by descent.
As for your comment that the hypothesis was first put forth by the Catholic Priest Lemaitre, that hypothesis was based on Einstein's theory of general relativity that could explain the phenomenon. And Lemaitre was not merely a Priest...in 1923, he became a graduate student in astronomy at the University of Cambridge and worked with Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, an English astrophysicist of the early 20th century who had the the natural limit to the luminosity of stars, entitled the Eddington limit, named in his honor. From there Lemaitre went to Harvard College Observatory in Cambridge, Massachusetts and worked with with Harlow Shapley, who had just gained a name for his work on nebulae, and at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he received his doctorate. He then became a professor of physics and an astronomer at the Catholic University of Leuven, thus the title of "Priest", which is routinely disingenuously used in the manner which you just displayed.
Furthermore, Lemaitre's theory was actually predated by a 1922 theory espoused by Alexander Friedman and lauded by Einstein, but Friedman died in 1925 so his work was never fully recognized. After Hubble's discovery was published, Einstein endorsed Lemaître's theory, helping both the theory and Lemaitre get recognition. That is why he is recognized as the original creator of the theory.
Dang...enough of this already, my brain hurts, LOL! Have a great weekend!
I wonder if whoever decided the this was so profound considered the possibility that the designer considered the alternatives and decided that sharing the orifice, in spite of it's shortcomings, was the best design choice.
The remote chance of choking is more than made up for by the extra breathing capacity the mouth provides when the nose is overwhelmed, or somehow obstructed. The nose is more than just a passage way for air. It also has to smell and filter. The mouth provides overflow capacity when necessary. Great design. Design always involves trade offs, maybe even for a divine designer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.