The Appendix

[Lestat]

Somehow the discussion of organ/kidney donation came up at the poker table. I mentioned you can get by fine on one kidney. Then someone asked, "Then why do you think God give us two kidneys?". I responded that I didn't believe "God" gave us two kidneys and pointed out that we also have an appendix which to my understanding, is a completely worthless organ to us.

If I understand things correctly, our appendixes used to help in digesting bones and other hard to digest materials. But as we evolved, we didn't need them anymore. If I am wrong about this, I'd appreciate if someone could clarify this for me. But either way, my question to creationists is:

How do you account for the appendix? This seems a glaring case for evolution. Why would God create an organ in us that we don't need? In fact, the only thing this organ does do for humans now is cause problems or even death when it ruptures. So do you think this organ is present only for punishment? Or some other reason?

[theweatherman]

Arguing this point with a theist seems like foolish thing to do. they have the advantage of stating that GOd works in mysterious ways. His plan cannot be understood by mere humans. The human body is designed perfectly in order to follow His plan.

God obviously has it planned forsome people to get sick and die with apendisitis(sp?) in order to test our faith/end people's lives/any number of things a "benevolent" God could want to do to people.

There really isnt anythign that proves evolution that cant be explained by God wanting it that way. Science and logic cannot debunk illogical conclusions. Saying 2+2=4 over and over agin will not convince someone who believes out of faith that 2+2=5

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
Arguing this point with a theist seems like foolish thing to do. they have the advantage of stating that GOd works in mysterious ways.

[/ QUOTE ]

"And don't tell me God works in mysterious ways, There's nothing so mysterios about it. He's not working at all. He's playing. Or else He's forgotten all about us. That's the kind of Fod you people talk about - a country bumpkin, a clumsy, bungling, brainless concieted, uncouth haysee. Good God, how much reverence can you have for a Supreme Being who finds it necessary to include such phenomena as phlegm and tooth decay is His divine system of creation? What in the world was running through that warped, evil, scatological mind of HIs when He robbed old people of the power to control their bowl movements? Why in the world did He ever create Pain?"
"Pain is a usefull symptom. Pain is a warning to us of bodily dangers."
"And who created the dangers? Oh, He was really being charitable to us when He gave us pain! Why couldn't He have used a doorbell instead to notify us, or one of His celestial choirs? Or a system of blue and re neon tubes right in the middle of each person's forehead. Any jukebox manufacturer worth his salt could have done that. Why couldn't He?"
"People would certainly look silly walking around with red neon tubes in the middle of their foreheads."
"They certainly look beutiful now writhing in agony or stypefied with morphine, don't they?"
Catch-22

[Lestat]

A little harsher than I'd have put it, but these are all questions that should nonetheless be asked and answered by theists.

And that's the thing... Any theist who has asked himself these questions, and found ways to reconcile the answers with his beliefs, fine. I might not agree with it, but fine. It is those who do not even bother questioning these things that I cannot respect much.

[Metric]

Mocking someone else's reverence with this sort of strident position isn't going to convince anyone. You might as well wad up the Vitruvian Man and use it for a three-point jumpshot to the office garbage can, exclaiming "Take that, tooth decay!"

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
Mocking someone else's reverence with this sort of strident position isn't going to convince anyone. You might as well wad up the Vitruvian Man and use it for a three-point jumpshot to the office garbage can, exclaiming "Take that, tooth decay!"

[/ QUOTE ]

Virtually nothing will convince a person who has a deep emotional investment in religion. Hell its hard enough to convince a battered woman to leave their husband despite extremely painfull and humiliating circumstances. I just put that quote in there because
1. Catch 22 is an excellent book and
2. i happen to be rereading it and was like 5 pages past that (relevant) quote when i read this post.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
Arguing this point with a theist seems like foolish thing to do. they have the advantage of stating that GOd works in mysterious ways. His plan cannot be understood by mere humans. The human body is designed perfectly in order to follow His plan.

God obviously has it planned forsome people to get sick and die with apendisitis(sp?) in order to test our faith/end people's lives/any number of things a "benevolent" God could want to do to people.

There really isnt anythign that proves evolution that cant be explained by God wanting it that way. Science and logic cannot debunk illogical conclusions. Saying 2+2=4 over and over agin will not convince someone who believes out of faith that 2+2=5

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, you're right about theists always being able to resort to the "God works in myseterious way" answer, but I still don't see why we can't at least try to insert some logic.

I want to know how it logically follows that God would go through the trouble of designing an utterly useless organ for humans. Theists should be forced to think about these things and arrive at logical answers.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, you're right about theists always being able to resort to the "God works in myseterious way" answer, but I still don't see why we can't at least try to insert some logic.

I want to know how it logically follows that God would go through the trouble of designing an utterly useless organ for humans. Theists should be forced to think about these things and arrive at logical answers.

[/ QUOTE ]
I know you believe this anyway but just so that someone has said it:

Theist doesnt equal anti-evolutionist. "God made living organisms through evolution" is an answer to issues like this that fits the facts and accords with religious faith.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course, you're right about theists always being able to resort to the "God works in myseterious way" answer, but I still don't see why we can't at least try to insert some logic.

I want to know how it logically follows that God would go through the trouble of designing an utterly useless organ for humans. Theists should be forced to think about these things and arrive at logical answers.

[/ QUOTE ]
I know you believe this anyway but just so that someone has said it:

Theist doesnt equal anti-evolutionist. "God made living organisms through evolution" is an answer to issues like this that fits the facts and accords with religious faith.

[/ QUOTE ]'

But is not an Occam's compliant hypothesis.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course, you're right about theists always being able to resort to the "God works in myseterious way" answer, but I still don't see why we can't at least try to insert some logic.

I want to know how it logically follows that God would go through the trouble of designing an utterly useless organ for humans. Theists should be forced to think about these things and arrive at logical answers.

[/ QUOTE ]
I know you believe this anyway but just so that someone has said it:

Theist doesnt equal anti-evolutionist. "God made living organisms through evolution" is an answer to issues like this that fits the facts and accords with religious faith.

[/ QUOTE ]'

But is not an Occam's compliant hypothesis.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not for you, no. I have another fact about the world I need to explain though - and atheism doesnt account for that fact (I couldnt make it, anyhow).