# Top Ten Scientific Proofs of Creation **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 19, 2012, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231 "2012-04-19T02:09:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 18
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2012, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/342 "2012-04-22T20:49:13Z")
> [@GEEPERS](#): > > I explain it as an organ with a function that human beings, in their ignorance, have yet to discover. There is some research where scientists have begun to see a purpose for the organ. Yes, that was mentioned by **Jackmannii** in a less evasive way. About that other post…? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2012, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/343 "2012-04-22T20:55:36Z")
> [@miss\_elizabeth](#): > > I cannot build a car from scratch, or even if you gave me all the parts in a pile, and yet I can see that the placement of the gas tank in the old Ford Pintos was a design flaw. I used to own a Pinto and I dispute this. It was very useful in keeping people from tailgating me. You see, whether or not it is a design flaw depends on the requirements, or, as we say, it’s not a bug, it’s a feature. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2012, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/344 "2012-04-22T20:55:50Z")
> [@GEEPERS](#): > > I explain it as an organ with a function that human beings, in their ignorance, have yet to discover. There is some research where scientists have begun to see a purpose for the organ. Evolution is opportunistic, and works with what it can get. This is one reason why there are many non-optimal structures in nature. As pointed just a couple of posts before, the Appendix helps in some cases and in others it makes things worse. Just what one would expect from a non-optimal structure in our bodies. ---
**Author:** ![GEEPERS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c89c15/32.png) [@GEEPERS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GEEPERS)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2012, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/345 "2012-04-22T20:59:09Z")
> [@miss\_elizabeth](#): > > I cannot build a car from scratch, or even if you gave me all the parts in a pile, and yet I can see that the placement of the gas tank in the old Ford Pintos was a design flaw. > > In fact, I’d be willing to bet you see design flaws in things you cannot build yourself _all the time_. > > You (and many other religious people) seem to think that since scientists, which you falsely equate to atheists, do not have a god, they hold themselves up as god, and you seek to show us that we are not divine as god, since we can’t “build a man from dirt”. But, you see, _ **we don’t believe in ANY gods.** _ Scientists recognize they cannot make a person in a lab from scratch\*. So what? The point is that _ **God didn’t build a man from dirt EITHER.** _ Not being able to make a person from dirt is utterly irrelevant, since no one (except the ignorant) thinks man was built from dirt anyway. > > You are incapable of seeing the world without your religious lens. Rest assured that others don’t have that problem, though. > > \*yet. It may happen one day Nope, you are saying you could build the human body better yet you don’t have a clue on how to build a human body. Wind pipe in the wrong spot? Ok, where are you going to put it? And how do you know a relocation wouldn’t intefer with some other bodily function? Atheists differ from scientists because atheists present their position as concrete conclusive proof. No, a perceived design flaw does not concretely disprove God. And even if the human body did not have your noted flaws, you would find some other way to criticize. WHy are bones allowed to break? Why can’t a decapitated head reattach? Why didn’t God give us 4 arms instead of two? It would be endless complaints with the insane judgements that atheists hurl in defiance to a living God. ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2012, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/346 "2012-04-22T21:10:48Z")
> [@GEEPERS](#): > > Nope, you are saying you could build the human body better yet you don’t have a clue on how to build a human body. Wind pipe in the wrong spot? Ok, where are you going to put it? And how do you know a relocation wouldn’t intefer with some other bodily function? > > Atheists differ from scientists because atheists present their position as concrete conclusive proof. No, a perceived design flaw does not concretely disprove God. And even if the human body did not have your noted flaws, you would find some other way to criticize. WHy are bones allowed to break? Why can’t a decapitated head reattach? Why didn’t God give us 4 arms instead of two? It would be endless complaints with the insane judgements that atheists hurl in defiance to a living God. Well, cetaceans have separated windpipes and esophagi, so the engineering can be done without messing up the dolphins to much. AND, a “perceived design flaw does not concretely disprove God.” It does, however, cast great doubt on the literal interpretation of the Bible. That is not the same thing, and anyone who tells you so has a very weak faith. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2012, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/347 "2012-04-22T21:14:41Z")
> [@GEEPERS](#): > > Nope, you are saying you could build the human body better yet you don’t have a clue on how to build a human body. Wind pipe in the wrong spot? Ok, where are you going to put it? And how do you know a relocation wouldn’t intefer with some other bodily function? > > Atheists differ from scientists because atheists present their position as concrete conclusive proof. No, a perceived design flaw does not concretely disprove God. And even if the human body did not have your noted flaws, you would find some other way to criticize. WHy are bones allowed to break? Why can’t a decapitated head reattach? Why didn’t God give us 4 arms instead of two? It would be endless complaints with the insane judgements that atheists hurl in defiance to a living God. What **DrFidelius** said, and scientists already have clues on how and why it could be better. [http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/11/ask\_a\_scienceblogger\_which\_par.php](http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/11/ask_a_scienceblogger_which_par.php) > [@](#): > > Which parts of the human body could you design better?" > > This is a great question, because a lot of aspects of the human body represent what worked well enough for survival, not necessarily what works best. Therefore the engineering ends up being rather ramshackle, and convoluted, and sometimes, downright terrible. > > For instance, who can look at this image - an anatomical model of human pregnancy at term, and not think this is really, really stupid engineering. > [@](#): > > Much more below the fold… ---
**Author:** ![miss\_elizabeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/838e76/32.png) [@miss\_elizabeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/miss_elizabeth)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2012, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/348 "2012-04-22T21:27:18Z")
> [@GEEPERS](#): > > Nope, you are saying you could build the human body better yet you don’t have a clue on how to build a human body. Wind pipe in the wrong spot? Ok, where are you going to put it? And how do you know a relocation wouldn’t intefer with some other bodily function? NO ONE is saying we could build a human body better. That is what I’m trying to tell you! What we are saying is, even though we cannot build a human body, we can recognize design flaws that an intelligent creator would have/should have fixed. Again, I can’t build a Pinto, but I know having the gas tank explode easily is bad design ( **Voyager’s** joking aside). Part of the reason we see this is simple intelligence, and part is by noticing that some animals that evolved along different paths don’t have our same flaws. All these things point to gradual evolution, NOT design by an intelligent creator. Whether humans can make another human life is a complete non-sequitur. It’s a strawman. It’s irrelevant to the discussion. Ok, put another way. Science works by making an observation, and then a hypothesis based on that observation. Then you test the hypothesis. Okay? So, scientists observed that there are parts of our bodies (and ever other animal’s body) that could work better. The hypothesis for why this could be is that perhaps we evolved slowly, over many millions of years, adding complexity and changes as time went on, and unable to reverse course once certain evolutionary paths had been set. Meaning that if a creature had a blind spot when it’s eyes began evolving, everything that evolved from that creature would also have a blind spot. Or that whales, who evolved from land mammals, would retain vestigial hip bones from the legs they once had. And what do you know!? Upon testing this hypothesis against the fossil record, and the DNA record, and looking at modern day living things, it happens exactly as predicted! Can you offer a testable hypothesis for intelligent design or creationism? If we were created by a loving intelligent deity, as you contend, what should we expect to see? One thing people are saying is that we should expect to see really great design. I mean, we’re talking about an omnipotent designer here! And since, by your ideas, humans are the pinnacle of this design, we should have the best stuff of all! And yet, that isn’t how the world actually is. In fact, _it’s the opposite of that._ Can you offer an explanation for that? > [@](#): > > Atheists differ from scientists because atheists present their position as concrete conclusive proof. No, a perceived design flaw does not concretely disprove God. And even if the human body did not have your noted flaws, you would find some other way to criticize. WHy are bones allowed to break? Why can’t a decapitated head reattach? Why didn’t God give us 4 arms instead of two? It would be endless complaints with the insane judgements that atheists hurl in defiance to a living God. No one is trying to disprove God. They are trying to understand how life arrived to this state on our planet. It has nothing to do with God at all, really, and the fact that a HUGE number of religious people, including scientists, accept the fact of evolution proves it. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2012, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/349 "2012-04-22T21:27:59Z")
> [@GEEPERS](#): > > No, a perceived design flaw does not concretely disprove God. _Nobody said it did._ They disprove your argument that the complexity of the human body requires a designer. That’s how this tangent came up in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2012, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/350 "2012-04-22T21:34:36Z")
> [@miss\_elizabeth](#): > > No one is trying to disprove God. They are trying to understand how life arrived to this state on our planet. It has nothing to do with God at all, really, and the fact that a HUGE number of religious people, including scientists, accept the fact of evolution proves it. How can we disprove God if a standard working definition of God isn’t given to us to disprove? ---
**Author:** ![miss\_elizabeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/838e76/32.png) [@miss\_elizabeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/miss_elizabeth)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2012, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/351 "2012-04-22T21:42:50Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > How can we disprove God if a standard working definition of God isn’t given to us to disprove? Fucking hell, can we stick to one subject in this thread?! Preferably the one in the OP??! How on earth does this have _ANYTHING_ to do with evolution or creation?? All you do here is prove to people like GEEPERS that scientists actually have some desire to prove or disprove the existence of God, which, unless you are a fucking imbecile, you \*KNOW \*is crap. Are you _trying_ to make this thread more contentious? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2012, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/352 "2012-04-22T21:44:51Z")
> [@miss\_elizabeth](#): > > Fucking hell, can we stick to one subject in this thread?! Preferably the one in the OP??! How on earth does this have _ANYTHING_ to do with evolution or creation?? All you do here is prove to people like GEEPERS that scientists actually have some desire to prove or disprove the existence of God, which, unless you are a fucking imbecile, you \*KNOW \*is crap. Are you _trying_ to make this thread more contentious? Sorry. edited to add: I thought that whether or not a Designer even exists would have _some_ bearing on the question. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2012, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/353 "2012-04-22T21:51:36Z")
> [@GEEPERS](#): > > Nope, you are saying you could build the human body better yet you don’t have a clue on how to build a human body. Wind pipe in the wrong spot? Ok, where are you going to put it? And how do you know a relocation wouldn’t intefer with some other bodily function? It can’t be possible to detect design, but not detect poor design. Otherwise, it’s like saying it’s possible to tell the difference between geese and ducks, but impossible to tell the difference between ducks and geese. ---
**Author:** ![drewtwo99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d07c76/32.png) [@drewtwo99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewtwo99)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2012, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/354 "2012-04-22T23:39:48Z")
And of course, no sooner did I post my complaints about creationists coming up with strawman attacks and other logical fallacies that GEEPERS shows up and does just that several times. Honestly, why even argue seriously with people like GEEPERS when they aren’t even going to address your logic, but just commit logical fallacy after logical fallacy. DEMAND that GEEPERS and others use reasonable arguments, and if they do, then go ahead and engage them. Otherwise, how is it even worth the effort? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2012, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/355 "2012-04-22T23:54:51Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > How can we disprove God if a standard working definition of God isn’t given to us to disprove? I’m curious why the default alternate explanation keeps coming back to the JudeoChristian God, as opposed to any of the numerous other just-as-sound creation myths. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/356 "2012-04-23T00:43:32Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I’m curious why the default alternate explanation keeps coming back to the JudeoChristian God, as opposed to any of the numerous other just-as-sound creation myths. Because, to a Christian with blinders on, their story is not a myth and all the others are. ---
**Author:** ![GEEPERS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c89c15/32.png) [@GEEPERS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GEEPERS)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/357 "2012-04-23T01:00:22Z")
> [@drewtwo99](#): > > And of course, no sooner did I post my complaints about creationists coming up with strawman attacks and other logical fallacies that GEEPERS shows up and does just that several times. > > Honestly, why even argue seriously with people like GEEPERS when they aren’t even going to address your logic, but just commit logical fallacy after logical fallacy. DEMAND that GEEPERS and others use reasonable arguments, and if they do, then go ahead and engage them. Otherwise, how is it even worth the effort? Typical atheist escape route. Just claim logical fallacy or straw man to create the illusion of winning the argument. Those sneaky atheists. I would love to just see once where an atheist agrees that a Christian has mad a good point. Not gonna happen. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/358 "2012-04-23T01:01:11Z")
> [@GEEPERS](#): > > We have a nervous system that can send impulses as fast as 175 mph. It was designed this way so we could have super fast reflexes like when a hand comes in contact with a hot stove. Why didn’t God design us to be fireproof? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/359 "2012-04-23T01:37:24Z")
> [@GEEPERS](#): > > Typical atheist escape route. Just claim logical fallacy or straw man to create the illusion of winning the argument. Those sneaky atheists. I would love to just see once where an atheist agrees that a Christian has mad a good point. Not gonna happen. There are Christians in this very thread who have made good points. It’s you that haven’t made any good points. Christians are wrong about their God, but they don’t have to be wrong about evolution. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/360 "2012-04-23T01:38:26Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Why didn’t God design us to be fireproof? Because he wanted hell to be painful. Checkmate, Atheists! ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2012, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/361 "2012-04-23T01:42:34Z")
> [@GEEPERS](#): > > I would love to just see once where an atheist agrees that a Christian has mad a good point. All the Christians in this thread who’ve said that your argument sucks? Pretty much all of them have made good points. Do I win a pony? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231.md?page=19)