The Hand: A Marvel of Engineering

[mariam.]

The hand, a marvel of engineering, is an organ specially created for human beings by God, and reveals with its perfect features the flawless nature of our Lord’s creation.

Our hands, which enable us to perform some very ordinary acts such as stirring a cup of tea, turning the pages of a newspaper, or writing, are incredible engineering wonders.

The most important feature of the hand is its ability to operate with high efficiency in very distinct activities, despite having a standard structure. Being furnished with a great number of muscles and nerves, our arms help our hands grip objects strongly or softly according to different circumstances. For instance, the human hand, although when not formed into a fist, can strike a blow strike against an object with a weight of 45 kilograms. However, our hand can also feel, between its thumb and forefinger, a sheet of paper one tenth of a millimeter in thickness.

Obviously, these two acts are of a totally different character. As one requires sensitivity, the other requires great force. We, however, never even think for a second what we have to do when we take a sheet of paper between our fingers or hit with a fist. Nor do we think how to adjust the strength for these two acts. We never say, "Now I will pick up some paper. Let me apply a force of 500 g. Now I will lift this bucketful of water. Let me apply a force of 40 kg." We even do not bother to think about these.

The reason is that the human hand is designed to perform all these acts simultaneously. The hand is created together with all its functions and all its related structures concurrently.

All the fingers in the hand are the appropriate length and position, and proportionate to each other. For instance, the strength of a fist formed with a hand having a normal thumb is greater than that formed with a hand having a shorter thumb, because with its pre-determined appropriate length, the thumb covers other fingers and helps augment their power by supporting them.

There are many small details in the structure of the hand: for instance, it has smaller structures besides the muscles and nerves. The nails at the tip of the fingers are by no means trivial accessories. When we try to pick a needle from the floor, we use our nails as well as our fingers. The rough surface comprising our fingertips and nails helps us in picking up small objects. Last but not least, nails play a big role in the regulation of the minute pressure fingers have to exert on the object they hold.

Another distinctive feature of the hand is that it does not get tired.

Robot Hands Are a Failure

The worlds of medicine and science spend a considerable effort on making an artificial copy of the hand. The robotic hands so far manufactured have the same performance as human hands in terms of power, yet it is hard to say the same thing for sensitivity of touch, perfect maneuverability, and the ability to do diverse jobs.

Many scientists agree that no robot hand can be made having the complete functions of the hand. Engineer Hans J. Schneebeli, who has designed the robotic hand known as "The Karlsruhe Hand", stated that the more he worked on robotic hands, the more he admired the human hand. He added that they still need a lot of time to make possible even a certain number of the jobs accomplished by a human hand.

The hand usually functions in co-ordination with the eye. The signals reaching the eye are transmitted to the brain, and the hand moves according to the command given by the brain. These, of course, are completed in a very short time and without making us spend a special effort to do them. Robotic hands, on the other hand, can only rely either on sight or touch. Different commands are needed for every move they make. In addition, robotic hands cannot accomplish diverse functions. For instance, a robotic hand playing the piano cannot hold a hammer, and a robotic hand holding a hammer cannot hold an egg without breaking it. Some robotic hands that have only lately been produced are able to perform 2-3 actions together, but this is still very primitive when compared to the abilities of the hand.

In addition, when you consider that the two hands co-operate with each other in perfect harmony, the flawlessness of the design of the hand becomes more explicit.

God designed the hand as an organ especially for human beings. With all these aspects, it shows us the perfection and uniqueness in God’s art of creation.

by. harun yahya

[Opethian]

Does anyone agree with this? I, like most sane people, accept evolutionary theory, and in the past I've debated many a thread about evolution with creationists, mostly christians (I also have an account on christianforums.com). I came across this site and registered to see what the difference is between christian creationists and muslim creationists, in quantity, "arguments", etc... The fallacious argument for design above is completely analogous to the ones christian creationists use, and it seems that muslim creationists too are making use of the intelligent design "theory". So my question to you all is (since no one responded to this OP), are you creationist, and do you find the "argument" above persuasive?

[aamirsaab]

:sl:

... So my question to you all is (since no one responded to this OP), are you creationist, and do you find the "argument" above persuasive?

Personally, I think the whole aspect of the human body and mind is fascinating. Unfortunately, being a full time student at degree level, I do not have the luxury that is time to discuss/debate on this particular matter.

It is indeed cool though and for me just enforces my belief in God that He has given us pretty much everything we need (well, bar paradise :) )

[Opethian]

:sl:

Personally, I think the whole aspect of the human body and mind is fascinating. Unfortunately, being a full time student at degree level, I do not have the luxury that is time to discuss/debate on this particular matter.

It is indeed cool though and for me just enforces my belief in God that He has given us pretty much everything we need (well, bar paradise :) )

Yeah, I know what it's like, I'm studying too atm, that's why I asked a question instead of refuting the OP argument, since that takes too much time (although I probably won't be able to resist doing that later today :-[). I also agree that the human body and mind are fascinating (especially at a cellular level), which is why I'm studying bio engineering in cellular and genetic technology. Well, good luck with your own studies, I'm going to go back to doing some studying of my own, since I was taking a break :enough!:.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[ranma1/2]

Does anyone agree with this? I, like most sane people, accept evolutionary theory, and in the past I've debated many a thread about evolution with creationists, mostly christians (I also have an account on christianforums.com). I came across this site and registered to see what the difference is between christian creationists and muslim creationists, in quantity, "arguments", etc... The fallacious argument for design above is completely analogous to the ones christian creationists use, and it seems that muslim creationists too are making use of the intelligent design "theory". So my question to you all is (since no one responded to this OP), are you creationist, and do you find the "argument" above persuasive?

No i dont find the argument persuasive at all..
Many creatures have hands that are prehensil, many apes and rats to name a few. Also our hands are not the best made. They could definetly be better designed for swimming. They could be more sensitive for touch. They could detect light or smell. Not to mention the problems with hands, ingrown nails, caral tunnel syndrome, arthritis , skin problems ,etc...

However we are resonable adapted to our enviroment.

[Philosopher]

No i dont find the argument persuasive at all..
Many creatures have hands that are prehensil, many apes and rats to name a few. Also our hands are not the best made. They could definetly be better designed for swimming. They could be more sensitive for touch. They could detect light or smell. Not to mention the problems with hands, ingrown nails, caral tunnel syndrome, arthritis , skin problems ,etc...

However we are resonable adapted to our enviroment.

Do you think evolution is by chance or is it guided?

[Opethian]

Do you think evolution is by chance or is it guided?

There's the factor of random mutations that one could call "by chance", but then these random mutations go through a sieve of natural selection, which one could call "guided". There is both an aspect of chance and an aspect of guiding, although this guiding occurs by a completely natural, non-intelligent entity.

[ranma1/2]

Do you think evolution is by chance or is it guided?

As Opethian has stated its a combination of random mutation with selection of different types including natural, sexual and maybe others. Currently there is no reason to believe that there is any guiding hand.

Also if there was some sort of engineer they could have done a much better job in our design.
If there was an omni powerful intelligent engineer I would expect to see a perfect design.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you ranma1/2;

They could definetly be better designed for swimming.

That’s a strange thing for an evolutionist to say, didn’t we all evolve from fish to start with?

In the spirit of seareching

Eric

[ranma1/2]

Greetings and peace be with you ranma1/2;


That’s a strange thing for an evolutionist to say, didn’t we all evolve from fish to start with?

In the spirit of seareching

Eric

Huh? All I am saying is that if we were designed it was done very badly.
I personally dont see any design in us, at least not from something greatly intelligent.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you ranma1/2;

Huh? All I am saying is that if we were designed it was done very badly.
I personally dont see any design in us, at least not from something greatly intelligent.

Design is nearly always a compromise, if you want to design a hand with swimming qualities you put some webbing on it and give it a bigger surface area. If you do that you may loose or compromise other qualities, you will have a clumsy hand

In the spirit of searching

Eric

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you ranma1/2;

They could definetly be better designed for swimming.

Just another minor little nit pick, the way our hands are designed combined with our brain gives us the ability to build all manor of flippers, boats and submarines. Do you want webbed hands and feet so you can be a better swimmer, or do you want the ability to drive a jet ski?

In the spirit of searching

Eric

[ranma1/2]

Greetings and peace be with you ranma1/2;



Design is nearly always a compromise, if you want to design a hand with swimming qualities you put some webbing on it and give it a bigger surface area. If you do that you may loose or compromise other qualities, you will have a clumsy hand

In the spirit of searching

Eric

Why would a omnipotent designer be limited in its design? Heck it could have made us like Odo in DS9 able to morhp ourselves at will. All we would need to be better swimmers is webbed hands, we could even make them retractable webbing so we could still have more agile fingers.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you ranma1/2;

With intelligent design you look at the things you want to try and achieve; and then you try and design something for that purpose. If you design retractable webbing and it is not used, then it is a waste of time, and you are building more things that can go wrong.

Probably 99.9 percent of the world population only needs to swim for recreational purposes; and they have many man made attachments like flippers that can help them.

So why should a creator designer need to give us retractable webbing?

In the spirit of searching

Eric

[ranma1/2]

Greetings and peace be with you ranma1/2;

With intelligent design you look at the things you want to try and achieve; and then you try and design something for that purpose. If you design retractable webbing and it is not used, then it is a waste of time, and you are building more things that can go wrong.

Probably 99.9 percent of the world population only needs to swim for recreational purposes; and they have many man made attachments like flippers that can help them.

So why should a creator designer need to give us retractable webbing?

In the spirit of searching

Eric

Because we need it to be better swimmers. A omnipotent designer could design it so we could have webbing whenever we needed it and surely a omni smart designer could build it so it never went wrong. Since it is retractable you wouldnt use it till you need it, not to mention for the majoritity of our existence we didnt swim for fun but for food and survival.
Also why do men have nipples? Why do we have a vestigial appendix "it no longer functions as it once did."

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you ranma1/2;

for the majoritity of our existence we didnt swim for fun but for food and survival.

If you really believe that we had to swim for food and survival, how do you explain evolution?
Surely the whole theory of evolution hangs on how the best in the species adapts to its surroundings. If webbed hands and feet were that important for survival then the evolutionary process would have kept them.

So where does that leave our debate, it seems that evolution replaced webbed hands for something better, and an omnipotent designer did not deem webbed features necessary for mankind.

In the spirit of searching

Eric

[Opethian]

If you really believe that we had to swim for food and survival, how do you explain evolution?
Surely the whole theory of evolution hangs on how the best in the species adapts to its surroundings. If webbed hands and feet were that important for survival then the evolutionary process would have kept them.

So where does that leave our debate, it seems that evolution replaced webbed hands for something better, and an omnipotent designer did not deem webbed features necessary for mankind.

In the spirit of searching

Eric

What's important here is the difference between design and evolution. For intelligent design, the assumption is that everything that we observe on this planet was designed by an omnipotent designer, and thus everything should be optimally designed, with no room for improvements whatsoever. This is not what we observe. You can say that for a lot of advantages in one area a disadvantage will arise in another area, but there are still many improvements that could be made in our body plan and cellular plan without having to sacrifice something else. Our eyesight could be better, our hearing could be better, we could have stronger skeletal structures (a certain family with a rare mutation has nearly unbreakable bones), we could be stronger, our metabolism could be more efficient etc... When you study molecular biology you will see many ingenious systems, that are nevertheless always flawed and improvable in certain ways. We can marvel at the complexity of the cell and the intricacies of the human body, but we will still find flaws, significant and less significant, everywhere. Improvements are possible, even if those improvements wouldn't be needed under most circumstances. That is why evolutionary theory does predict what we observe. Evolution has no direction, no preset goal. It is perfectly normal to find suboptimal designs everywhere in nature if the diversity of organisms we observe in nature today are the result of evolution. As long as the flaws are not significant enough to cause the extinction of a species, the species that has these flaws can continue to survive and pass on their genetic material to their offspring. Evolution allows organisms to indirectly adapt to their environment, so that they remain able to survive and procreate. The organisms don't have to be perfect, they just have to be well enough adapted to achieve a certain level of survival and procreation. If we would have been designed by a divine, omnipotent designer, there would be no reason for any flaws at all, and thus we wouldn't observe them either. And if you want to assume that an omnipotent creator does not necessarily have to make perfect designs, then why not let this creator create us by the means of evolution? If this creator was not going for perfection anyway, he could have just as well started a natural process that doesn't need his interference after he/she/it started it, that could result in life, in a completely natural way.

[Opethian]

Besides, if you respect and admire your creator so much, what is more elegant and awesome? Creating life in all its forms directly, designing them like humans design lifeless objects, or creating a vast, complex natural process that gives rise to life and the diversification of this life all by itself?

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Opethian; welcome to the forum.

the assumption is that everything that we observe on this planet was designed by an omnipotent designer, and thus everything should be optimally designed, with no room for improvements whatsoever

I agree with you up to a point, and if you where to search for a bottom line to this argument then mankind should have been created in a way that they would not suffer, sickness, injury and ultimately death.

Presumably it is within God’s power to create immortality, because we have life after death.

So the greater question might be to search for a reason why God did not give our generation immortality?

If this creator was not going for perfection anyway, he could have just as well started a natural process that doesn't need his interference after he/she/it started it, that could result in life, in a completely natural way.

For evolution to stand a chance of working you need to find an answer to the creation of the universe from nothing, or with no beginning, and you need to prove abiogenesis.

In the spirit of searching

Eric

[ranma1/2]

Greetings and peace be with you ranma1/2;

If you really believe that we had to swim for food and survival, how do you explain evolution?
Surely the whole theory of evolution hangs on how the best in the species adapts to its surroundings. If webbed hands and feet were that important for survival then the evolutionary process would have kept them.

So where does that leave our debate, it seems that evolution replaced webbed hands for something better, and an omnipotent designer did not deem webbed features necessary for mankind.

In the spirit of searching

Eric

Evolution goes with what works. For evolution webbed toes and fingers would have been a hinderance. But if you are a ominpotent designer you could make it so it wouldnt be. Remember an omnipotent designer can make the flawless design , it did not. Evolution can make naturally a good enough design, it has.

[ranma1/2]

Presumably it is within God’s power to create immortality, because we have life after death.
So the greater question might be to search for a reason why God did not give our generation immortality?
I think a better question is why would a god make such flawed designs?


For evolution to stand a chance of working you need to find an answer to the creation of the universe from nothing, or with no beginning, and you need to prove abiogenesis.


Evolution needs to prove no such thing, thats the point of AbioGen. Evolution tries to explain the diversity of life "as well as the inbetweeners like viruses and bacteria." Thats one reason why the majority of evolutionary scientists are theists. Lets say a god or something created the beggining and then let everything role into place.

[جوري]

How does evolution explain modern day syndactyly if

-- and let me quote..

Evolution can make naturally a good enough design, it has.

Also on the account that supposedly in accordance with many of your statements it is a change of an "entire" population over a "long" period of time...

peace!

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you ranma1/2;

You say in two separate posts that hands could be better designed for swimming

Also our hands are not the best made. They could definetly be better designed for swimming.

Because we need it to be better swimmers. A omnipotent designer could design it so we could have webbing whenever we needed it.

Then you say webbed hands would be a hindrance and so they would not have evolved.

Evolution goes with what works. For evolution webbed toes and fingers would have been a hinderance.

An omnipotent designer might also deem swimming hands a hindrance, and I believe that God created us in the best way possible. It seems that both God and the evlotionary process don't need swimming hands, so you may be on your own with this line of thinking.

In the spirit of searching

Eric

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Opethian;

but there are still many improvements that could be made in our body plan and cellular plan without having to sacrifice something else. Our eyesight could be better, our hearing could be better, we could have stronger skeletal structures

Ok supposing our omnipotent creator gave us better eyesight, hearing, skeletal structure etc, just exactly how do you suppose mankind would use these improvements?

Would these improved features be used for good or evil?

Evolution has no direction, no preset goal.

That can only be true if there is no God

In the spirit of searching

Eric

[ranma1/2]

Greetings and peace be with you ranma1/2;

You say in two separate posts that hands could be better designed for swimming

Then you say webbed hands would be a hindrance and so they would not have evolved.

An omnipotent designer might also deem swimming hands a hindrance, and I believe that God created us in the best way possible. It seems that both God and the evlotionary process don't need swimming hands, so you may be on your own with this line of thinking.

In the spirit of searching

Eric

Hi Eric,
Its always good to have good converstations.
The entire point is that evo goes with what works. The problem i have is if god tried to make a perfect design it failed. It could easily design us so we could have webbed hands when we need them. It could make it so they apear and disappear at will or however ti would design it. It hasnt. Apart from hands there are many parts of the body that could be better designed.

[Opethian]

Greetings and peace be with you Opethian;



Ok supposing our omnipotent creator gave us better eyesight, hearing, skeletal structure etc, just exactly how do you suppose mankind would use these improvements?

Would these improved features be used for good or evil?

Eric

If you define perfect as being used only for good, a perfect designer would also implicate a design that will only do good, so in this case, you have a self-defeating argument.

That can only be true if there is no God

In the spirit of searching

Evolution itself has no goal, but if God exists and is omniscient, he could predict what would happen if evolution started off on a planet with a beginning of life that he created. In fact, if this omniscient God just set off the big bang he could predict what would happen from thereof without having to interfere afterwards. In this case, evolution could have a "goal", as the creator of the universe could have let the universe start off with specific parameters to ultimately result in life on this planet as we observe at this time. Obviously, I don't believe in any of this, but as I show here, evolution itself can have no goal, but a supposed creator of the universe could have a goal for the result of the evolution of his creation, meaning that the fact that evolution has no goal can be true, and there could still be a God.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you ranma1/2;

Its always good to have good converstations.

I do agree:)

I don’t think it was God’s intention to create us with the most efficient body, with perfect eyes, ears, sense of smell and touch, perfect swimming ability etc. Instead God created us with a limited life span and we can suffer injury, illness and ultimately death to this world.

Even with our limited bodily functions we are so supperior to our nearest rival. To my way of thinking there has to be a reason why god would give us a “fragile body”

In the spirit of searching,

Eric

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Opethian,

If you define perfect as being used only for good, a perfect designer would also implicate a design that will only do good, so in this case, you have a self-defeating argument.

I feel it is possible to create in a greatest good way, and that is different from creating in a perfect way. As a Christian we look on God as a father and parent, and I feel that God faced the same kind of problems that good loving parents face.

Up to the time my son was two or three years old I was pretty much in control, then he went to school I had less control. When my son was ten he walked out the house on his own called for his friends, crossed roads on his own. When he was twenty he moved out and he is his own man. When he is forty I doubt that I shall have any influence over him at all.

As a parent these are the things I have to do if I love my son, I have to let him go so that he may learn about life for himself. I can talk to him about trying to lead an honest life, not to be a rapist, mugger, murderer, but I have no control over these things; unless I keep him locked up for life or hire minders to keep him under control

If I kept him locked up or hired minders to control him then I do not think I would be a kind and loving parent.

Hopefully he will be good but he has to do that freely and willingly and I only have to read the news to know that many sons grow up to do all kind of evil things.

These are the problems that I believe faced God, how could he give us freedom to grow and guarantee that we would behave?

God has given us the freedom to do anything but with freedom comes responsibility, and we are responsible to ourselves, our neighbours and to God.

I feel the only way God can sort the mess out that man has created is by giving us the chance of a greater life after death.

In fact, if this omniscient God just set off the big bang he could predict what would happen from thereof without having to interfere afterwards.

I know this is down to my faith, but I strongly believe that God did more than the big bang. I believe that he created all the trees, plants, animals and man in a complete way.
I believe that the evolutionary process is a limited means of any species fine tuning it’s body to adapt to its ever changing surroundings; like Darwin’s finches evolving longer beaks.

In the spirit of searching

Eric

[ranma1/2]

Greetings and peace be with you ranma1/2;

I do agree:)

I don’t think it was God’s intention to create us with the most efficient body, with perfect eyes, ears, sense of smell and touch, perfect swimming ability etc. Instead God created us with a limited life span and we can suffer injury, illness and ultimately death to this world.

Even with our limited bodily functions we are so supperior to our nearest rival. To my way of thinking there has to be a reason why god would give us a “fragile body”

In the spirit of searching,

Eric

Cheers,
So why would god intentionally make us flawed? And what do you mean by superior to our neares rivals? Are you able to kill a lion bare handed? Are you able to hold your breath longer than a sea otter? Can you fly?

Humans are well adapted for their enviroments but outside there enviroments they are very poorly made.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you ranma1/2;

And what do you mean by superior to our neares rivals? Are you able to kill a lion bare handed?

Ok the Romans put Christians and lions together in their arenas and I guess the lions came out on top most times. But most other times man looks for some other advantage and when man goes hunting he usually wins.

If God could be confident that mankind would use better eyesight, hearing, swimming etc for the good of the community then we might have been given these qualities. Surely a creator has an over riding purpose when he creates something.

I don’t believe that his purpose was to give us the best body possible, I believe his purpose was to give us the freedom to form relationships and care for God and each other.

Anyway sorry I have to go, I shall be away now for a week. If this thread is still going I shall catch up with you all again.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

[ranma1/2]

Greetings and peace be with you ranma1/2;



Ok the Romans put Christians and lions together in their arenas and I guess the lions came out on top most times. But most other times man looks for some other advantage and when man goes hunting he usually wins.

If God could be confident that mankind would use better eyesight, hearing, swimming etc for the good of the community then we might have been given these qualities. Surely a creator has an over riding purpose when he creates something.

I don’t believe that his purpose was to give us the best body possible, I believe his purpose was to give us the freedom to form relationships and care for God and each other.

Anyway sorry I have to go, I shall be away now for a week. If this thread is still going I shall catch up with you all again.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

Have a good trip, where are you going? I just got back from Osaka to pick up my GFs mom.

Anyway back to the subject.

Why would a god create something that is imperfect? If it knows that its creation is imperfect then it must know that it will suffer. SO why does god make something to suffer? It could have made it so we did not have to eat and still give us a limited life span free of hunger. There are so many problems with the idea of a super creator. I dont have any problem with a non super creator that is capable of flaws though. I just dont see any evidence for a non perfect creator either but at least a non perfect creator can explain the many problems we have.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you ranma1/2;

Why would a god create something that is imperfect? If it knows that its creation is imperfect then it must know that it will suffer.

I sense that if we were all created in a perfect way and did not suffer illness, harm and death, then we would not care about each other so much. The capitalist culture would be much stronger and we would be more inclined to look after ourselves first rather than care and help other people.

How much of mankind’s problems today are centred on our lack of care for other people. In Christianity the greatest thing we are commanded to do is love God, but we can only do this through loving our neighbours as we love ourselves.

I have just been to Germany with a group of fifty people, half of our group have disabilities and I supported a gentleman with learning disabilities in his seventies who cannot speak or hear. We had a real adventure; and I did see the more caring side of man’s nature during this holiday.

I have found that people tend to help others more when they have a problem or illness it brings out the more caring side of our nature. I believe that God wants us to love each other as a voluntary consideration, he could possibly brain wash us and make us conform and we would all become his robots.

I think the problems facing God are the same as the problems facing loving and caring parents, we have to let our children go in order for them to grow. When a child is ten we have to let them cross roads on their own, go to the shops and school independently. We all know the harm that could happen to our children but we have to take that risk. When a child is twenty they find their own home and friends, the parents have virtually no influence over a twenty year old. When the child is sixty he is independent of his parents and he is his own man.

The parents have no control if that child secretly becomes a rapist or serial killer we would not want this to happen, but we all know that innocent babies grow up to do all sorts.

There are huge risks in giving people freedom they can do good or evil, but we have to take those risks in order for them to grow.

I believe that God was taking a huge risk in creating us with freedom, but I still believe this is a greatest way to be.

I just got back from Osaka to pick up my GFs mom.

Is your girlfriend Japanese do you speak the language, it seems so complicated?

In the spirit of dearching

Eric

[ranma1/2]

Greetings and peace be with you ranma1/2;

Greetings Eric.

I sense that if we were all created in a perfect way and did not suffer illness, harm and death, then we would not care about each other so much. The capitalist culture would be much stronger and we would be more inclined to look after ourselves first rather than care and help other people.

I would disagree, if we were perfectly made we would not have near as much in needs as we do now. And as im sure you know especially if your familar with buddhism. Most ills of the world are caused by need. Now im not saying we would live in a perfect world but im sure it would be better.
I would say that most of the worlds ills are caused by selfish desires rather than lack of care "perhaps different sides of a die".

How much of mankind’s problems today are centred on our lack of care for other people. In Christianity the greatest thing we are commanded to do is love God, but we can only do this through loving our neighbours as we love ourselves.

I agree , id say we should love others more than we love ourselves, kind of the opposite of selfishness is selflessness.

I have just been to Germany with a group of fifty people, half of our group have disabilities and I supported a gentleman with learning disabilities in his seventies who cannot speak or hear. We had a real adventure; and I did see the more caring side of man’s nature during this holiday.

Im glad you enjoyed yourself, I myself teach once a week at a special needs school as well and I enjoy it alot.

I have found that people tend to help others more when they have a problem or illness it brings out the more caring side of our nature. I believe that God wants us to love each other as a voluntary consideration, he could possibly brain wash us and make us conform and we would all become his robots.

Thats pretty much from empathy. Now we may lose that if we were better designed but i dont think we would since there are other problems besides our bodies.

I think the problems facing God are the same as the problems facing loving and caring parents, we have to let our children go in order for them to grow. .....

The parents have no control if that child secretly becomes a rapist or serial killer we would not want this to happen, but we all know that innocent babies grow up to do all sorts.

There are huge risks in giving people freedom they can do good or evil, but we have to take those risks in order for them to grow.

I believe that God was taking a huge risk in creating us with freedom, but I still believe this is a greatest way to be.

Of course if I recall correctly islam has a different view on creation than christianity but did god create everything? Did he create good and evil?
Is god capable of evil? Does god have free will? If god can have free will and is capable of not doing evil then im sure he could have done the same for us.
unless he needs evil to exists and then that just brings up an entire nother thread.

Is your girlfriend Japanese do you speak the language, it seems so complicated?

In the spirit of dearching

Eric

Nope shes American, "although she was ironically born in japan being a military brat but no japanese in her blood"

And darn those S and D keys... ;)

Peace

Ranma

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Ranma;

I agree , id say we should love others more than we love ourselves, kind of the opposite of selfishness is selflessness.

I believe that this is at the heart of God’s purpose for the creation of the universe and life.

A third of the world population live in the 48 poorest countries in the world; and their combined wealth is the same as the combined wealth of the three richest people on Earth.

Why does Bill Gates need another billion dollars, why does he need to own more than the combined wealth of the poorest hundred million people on Earth?

I feel that even if God put more resources on Earth and gave us better bodies, we would still have this same desire for selfishness.

How could God create every one with free will and make us all selfless?

Is god capable of evil? Does god have free will?

Only my opinion but if God can do anything then he can do evil but chooses not too. All of mankind has the freedom to commit murder but thankfully very few do.

but did god create everything? Did he create good and evil?

This is a little bit like a kitchen knife manufacturer, they make the knives hoping they will serve a good purpose, but some knives might be used as murder weapons. Can we blame the knife maker because some of his knives are used to kill?

I believe that God created us for a greatest good purpose, but we abuse our freedom.

In the spirit of dearching for my ‘s’ key.

Eric

[ranma1/2]

Greetings and peace be with you Ranma;

I believe that this is at the heart of God’s purpose for the creation of the universe and life.

A third of the world population live in the 48 poorest countries in the world; and their combined wealth is the same as the combined wealth of the three richest people on Earth.

Why does Bill Gates need another billion dollars, why does he need to own more than the combined wealth of the poorest hundred million people on Earth?

Good moringing Eric,

Why does Billy G keep getting more money, probably 1 main reason.
Desire. And as I said before desire is the main cause of suffering.
Of course i dont see BG causing sufffering and I do know that he supports one of the largest non religously based charities.

I feel that even if God put more resources on Earth and gave us better bodies, we would still have this same desire for selfishness.

But there would be fewer needs and thus fewer desires.

How could God create every one with free will and make us all selfless?

I didnt say that, i said he could make us like him, incapable of evil. Assuming of course god is incapable of evil and still has free will.

Only my opinion but if God can do anything then he can do evil but chooses not too. All of mankind has the freedom to commit murder but thankfully very few do.

This is a little bit like a kitchen knife manufacturer, they make the knives hoping they will serve a good purpose, but some knives might be used as murder weapons. Can we blame the knife maker because some of his knives are used to kill?

But the knife maker doesnt threaten to destroy the knife for not worshiping it. More importantly judging the knife on the knife makers standards when the knife is not perfect is cruel in my opinion.

I believe that God created us for a greatest good purpose, but we abuse our freedom.

In the spirit of dearching for my ‘s’ key.

Eric

We are starting to get off topic here, perhaps you could create a seperate thread on god. Back to the subject of design, if as it sounds you agree, the hand and the body is not perfectly made and shows many flaws then why could it not be made by a non perfect non guided process? This seems much simpler and allows for imperfection.

Oh yeah, Eric isn't a very islamic name, where are you from and what background was your family?

Peace.

[Eric H]

Good morning, greetings and peace be with you Ranma;

Why does Billy G keep getting more money,

This is a sadness for me, I became a Catholic at the age of fifty and totally disagree with the notion that the Pope and Bishops should live in grand palaces. During his time of ministry Christ was a Nomad with no home. If the Pope was to live somewhere with a greatest meaning then Jerusalem comes to mind, should we be following Christ or St. Peter?

Analogies about God always fall short but going back to the knife manufacturer, his intentions must be to make the perfect range of knives for all the cutting jobs in the kitchen. Even though the knife maker aims for perfection in his product, he should not be held responsible for the misuse of his knives. You are right that murder weapons are not condemned to the fiery furnace of hell but this analogy is incomplete.

You are right again; we have strayed from the subject, so getting back to mariam’s first post.

The hand, a marvel of engineering, is an organ specially created for human beings by God,

There is no proof for this statement to be true, but I am fully in agreement with it and it is my belief. The bottom line of this whole argument is centred on beliefs because there is not the final proof for the existence or non-existence of God.

If we are looking to science for answers then we have to look more honestly at a law of science that has to be fulfilled. That is chemicals always work in the same way.

Starting from no life or abiogenesis and over a period of billions of years; all the chemicals that make up a bone have to be brought together in many different ways to make all the different shaped bones. All the chemicals that make up muscles have to be brought together in many different ways to make all the variation in muscles, the same with tendons, ligaments, nervous system, etc.

If there is no God then nature has to keep creating conditions that bring variations in the way that chemicals come together.

So if chemicals can be brought together to make all these different shaped components with many different qualities, you have a heap of junk. Design and engineering are a process of putting things together in a very precise way so that all the components work in line with each other for a purpose.

I believe that the theory of evolution jumps the gun, first it should be looking at how all these chemical variations could come about in the first place.

Then we have the HOX gene as a possible explanation, but I feel that this gene needed to be designed by God to work in the way it is claimed to work.

In the spirit of searching

Eric

[ranma1/2]

Good morning, greetings and peace be with you Ranma;

This is a sadness for me, I became a Catholic at the age of fifty and totally disagree with the notion that the Pope and Bishops should live in grand palaces. During his time of ministry Christ was a Nomad with no home. If the Pope was to live somewhere with a greatest meaning then Jerusalem comes to mind, should we be following Christ or St. Peter?

OOps my bad, so many people so many religons, for some reason i was thinking you were islamic. :-[
So what were you before a catholic? And i pretty much agree with you about the pope and his riches. off topic but do you think the USA should tax religous income?

Analogies about God always fall short but going back to the knife manufacturer, his intentions must be to make the perfect range of knives for all the cutting jobs in the kitchen. Even though the knife maker aims for perfection in his product, he should not be held responsible for the misuse of his knives. You are right that murder weapons are not condemned to the fiery furnace of hell but this analogy is incomplete.

You are right again; we have strayed from the subject, so getting back to mariam’s first post.

ill leave this topic for a seperate posts.

There is no proof for this statement to be true, but I am fully in agreement with it and it is my belief. The bottom line of this whole argument is centred on beliefs because there is not the final proof for the existence or non-existence of God.

If we are looking to science for answers then we have to look more honestly at a law of science that has to be fulfilled. That is chemicals always work in the same way.

abiogenesis is seperate from evolution.origin of life is different from origin of the species. lets just say that something did start the initial lifeforms for the sake fo argument and lets ignore what created the thing that created the initial life form. Evo explains how these new structures are formed after life began.

Starting from no life or abiogenesis and over a period of billions of years; all the chemicals that make up a bone have to be brought together in many different ways to make all the different shaped bones. All the chemicals that make up muscles have to be brought together in many different ways to make all the variation in muscles, the same with tendons, ligaments, nervous system, etc.

If there is no God then nature has to keep creating conditions that bring variations in the way that chemicals come together.

and thats pretty much explained through evolution through imperfect replication and natural selection.


So if chemicals can be brought together to make all these different shaped components with many different qualities, you have a heap of junk.
[/QUOTE]

if evolution were random then i would agree but its not "just the imperfect replication is". It envolves a selection process that weeds out bad replicators with better replicators. thus over a period of time you gradual get more and more complicated "and sometimes less complicated" structures.
imagine and arch. it appears to be IC, if you take out a part it falls. But it is very possible for arches to form naturally. You could take a rock and through errosion you can lose the center part till you get an arch. Its a simple matter of removing unneeded parts or scafolding.

Design and engineering are a process of putting things together in a very precise way so that all the components work in line with each other for a purpose.

and thats the biggest flaw with your argument. we are not precisely made. We have many flaws and that shows either a poor design which goes against the typical allpowerful designer concept , but a natural solution allows for imperfection and reasonably explains the origin of the specieces.

is it just me or does everyone wish these forums had spellcheckers...

I believe that the theory of evolution jumps the gun, first it should be looking at how all these chemical variations could come about in the first place.

thats not its job that the job of abiogenesis ro the other theories of how life began.

Then we have the HOX gene as a possible explanation, but I feel that this gene needed to be designed by God to work in the way it is claimed to work.

In the spirit of searching

Eric

Peace.

[Abu yahya]

Hi everyone

I just wanted to say this thread is extremely interesting, I seem to be developing a love for philosophical discussions since I started my A-level philosophy this year. Anyway, I don't wanna interrupt your discussion or anything, I just wanted to know what your opinions are regarding the assumption that if a perfect God exists then He must have created us perfectly too. Like I said, I don't wanna enter into a discussion at the moment (I have tonnes of exams coming up), but I just wanted your opinion on this one matter because it seems that you're automatically assuming that a perfect God would create a perfect creation. But the way I see it, if God is all perfect then why would he create other beings that were ALL perfect, wouldn't they then be able to compete with him? Why would God create a being equal in power to Himself which therefore had the ability to challenge Him? Surely He would create the creation with certain limits so that they couldn't overpower Him?

All I'm saying is that it's possible for a perfect God to create imperfect creation, and therefore the statement "that we must have been formed by evolution because it allows for imperfection, whereas the existance of a perfect God doesn't" seems flawed.

It should also be noted that theres a difference between a flaw and a deficiency. A deficiency is like our eyesight, we can't see everything therefore we're deficient in eyesight. But our eyesight is not flawed, because it works perfectly, that is what is meant by the design argument, that the creation is created perfectly, meaning it WORKS perfectly, therefore it must have been designed. It doesn't mean it's perfect in nature. Like a car, it must've been designed because all it's parts come together to allow it to work perfectly, not because it's perfect in nature, because there's always room for improvement.

Oh, I knew I was gona end up going on for too long, anyway if a discussion does start then please excuse me as it may be a while before I come online for long enough to respond. For the time being, please post both your views on the matter, I like to hear different viewpoints.

Peace

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Ranma,

off topic but do you think the USA should tax religous income?

Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar; and give unto God what belongs to God. I feel that if income is used to serve the personal needs of the clergy then it should be taxed. if the income is used to build grand churches that seems to be the church building up a tax free real estate portfolio and I feel this should be taxed. If the religious income is used to help the marginalised and disadvantaged then I feel this is God’s purpose and there is a good argument for tax relief.

I guess I could class the first fifty years of my life as being agnostic, and one of the things that helped me to understand there is a God is the design of the human body. The opening post does not appear to be an argument against evolution, rather it appears to be an argument that it needs a God to design the human hand.

marian
The hand, a marvel of engineering, is an organ specially created for human beings by God,

abiogenesis is seperate from evolution.origin of life is different from origin of the species.

Agreed.

lets just say that something did start the initial lifeforms

It is either God that created the universe and life, or there is some chemical that had no beginning or a chemical that came from nothing.

for the sake fo argument and lets ignore what created the thing that created the initial life form.

That appears to be ignoring the aim of the original post that says the hand was designed by God

imagine and arch. it appears to be IC, if you take out a part it falls. But it is very possible for arches to form naturally. You could take a rock and through errosion you can lose the center part till you get an arch. Its a simple matter of removing unneeded parts or scafolding.

I hear what you are saying but arches don’t need movement. Hands, wrists, and fingers need to move in many different ways. I suppose it is a bit like using a plaster when someone fractures their hand, it gives the hand time to heal. But for plasters to work you can’t use any old chemical and you cant just randomly stick bits on a hand hoping that it will do the job. When the hand is deemed to have healed someone cuts the plaster off.
Also the person has the use of their other hand or someone supports them to go through life whilst they are healing.

The scaffolding argument in evolutionary terms means that chemicals will have to come together and form a splint and then disappear when the bones, muscles, tendons, ligaments have all come together. The splint adds extra weight which is a burden on the vital organs.

and thats the biggest flaw with your argument. we are not precisely made.

Sorry that was my mistake, I should not have said precisely made, God looked at his creation and saw that it was very good, my apologies.

In the spirit of searching

Eric

[Zman]

:sl:/Peace To All

I hope this isn't off topic, but, man has been attempting to mimic God, Himself.

With reproducing part of the human anatomy in the lab (at least it has some benefit for humanity. But leave it to man to find a destructive use for it). To cloning animals, etc.

I recall reading an Aya in the Qur'an, which stated that if humanity came together to produce the wing of a fly, they'd fail at it.

Now, on the Discovery Channel (U.S.A.), I see inventors and the military producing robotic spiders, flies, and insects that would be used for surveillance....