"Bill, The Avender" wrote:

In alt.atheism on 22 Dec 2003 17:08:05 -0800,

_Discover_ magazine for January 2004 features the top 100 science
stories of 2003. Coming in at #70 is a snippet about coral bleaching.
One of the agents of this is a bacterium called Vibrio shiloi which
is active when the waters are warmer (and consequently more active if
the oceans are heating up through global warming), but when things are
cooler, what does it do? It hides out in the marine fireworm,
Hermodice carunculata, a foot-long bristle worm that eats coral.

So here we have a design (according to the creationists) where the
bristleworm feeds on the coral, but actively kills it by spreading the
bacterium all over the very coral it needs to survive. Can you think
of a worse design than that?

Not as a refutation, no. But in addition to the example you cite, I'd
say the often painful, sometimes deadly process of childbirth - human
and otherwise - is another example.

But at least *this* one is explained. Childbirth is dangerous because
humanity is inherently wicked and disobedient. The sex act is sin,
therefore the dangers of childbirth are the penalty for a woman's sin of
having sex. Ain't God a loving and merciful God?

If that's designed, then it
speaks nothing but volumes of pure evil of the alleged designer. The
number of ways one can engage in acrimony-free reproduction is limited
only by the imagination. So what does this mean for the theist's god
thingy? This means that the theist god-thingy deliberately decided to
make child-bearing a harrowing experience when it could have been _SO_
much easier.

Ah, but He did so because of the sins of Adam and Eve (ok, just Eve. She
was the one who gave in to Evil.)

Most mammals do _not_ possess that type of reproductive
system. Sure, a theist can say that humans suffer through actual
reproduction (the part after the sex) because of Eve's sin, but that
explains nothing about why virtually the entire mammalian kingdom must
also suffer.

Actually, very few mammals, or any other animal, goes through what humans
go through. Even other primates have a relatively easy time of it. At least
the Bible got it almost right: childbirth is such a trauma for humans
because of our ability to think and reason ie because of our relatively
large brain.

Actually, very few mammals, or any other animal, goes through what humans
go through. Even other primates have a relatively easy time of it. At least
the Bible got it almost right: childbirth is such a trauma for humans
because of our ability to think

"Bill, The Avender" wrote:

In alt.atheism on 22 Dec 2003 17:08:05 -0800,

_Discover_ magazine for January 2004 features the top 100 science
stories of 2003. Coming in at #70 is a snippet about coral bleaching.
One of the agents of this is a bacterium called Vibrio shiloi which
is active when the waters are warmer (and consequently more active if
the oceans are heating up through global warming), but when things are
cooler, what does it do? It hides out in the marine fireworm,
Hermodice carunculata, a foot-long bristle worm that eats coral.

So here we have a design (according to the creationists) where the
bristleworm feeds on the coral, but actively kills it by spreading the
bacterium all over the very coral it needs to survive. Can you think
of a worse design than that?

Not as a refutation, no. But in addition to the example you cite, I'd
say the often painful, sometimes deadly process of childbirth - human
and otherwise - is another example.

But at least *this* one is explained. Childbirth is dangerous because
humanity is inherently wicked and disobedient. The sex act is sin,
therefore the dangers of childbirth are the penalty for a woman's sin of
having sex. Ain't God a loving and merciful God?

If that's designed, then it
speaks nothing but volumes of pure evil of the alleged designer. The
number of ways one can engage in acrimony-free reproduction is limited
only by the imagination. So what does this mean for the theist's god
thingy? This means that the theist god-thingy deliberately decided to
make child-bearing a harrowing experience when it could have been _SO_
much easier.

Ah, but He did so because of the sins of Adam and Eve (ok, just Eve. She
was the one who gave in to Evil.)

Most mammals do _not_ possess that type of reproductive system. Sure,
a theist can say that humans suffer through actual reproduction (the
part after the sex) because of Eve's sin, but that explains nothing
about why virtually the entire mammalian kingdom must also suffer.

Actually, very few mammals, or any other animal, goes through what
humans go through. Even other primates have a relatively easy time of
it. At least the Bible got it almost right: childbirth is such a trauma
for humans because of our ability to think and reason ie because of our
relatively large brain.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear

"If you make yourself a sheep, the wolves will eat you." -- Benjamin
Franklin

On 22 Dec 2003,

In alt.atheism on 22 Dec 2003 17:08:05 -0800,

_Discover_ magazine for January 2004 features the top 100 science
stories of 2003. Coming in at #70 is a snippet about coral bleaching.
One of the agents of this is a bacterium called Vibrio shiloi which
is active when the waters are warmer (and consequently more active if
the oceans are heating up through global warming), but when things are
cooler, what does it do? It hides out in the marine fireworm,
Hermodice carunculata, a foot-long bristle worm that eats coral.

So here we have a design (according to the creationists) where the
bristleworm feeds on the coral, but actively kills it by spreading the
bacterium all over the very coral it needs to survive. Can you think
of a worse design than that?

Not as a refutation, no. But in addition to the example you cite, I'd
say the often painful, sometimes deadly process of childbirth - human
and otherwise - is another example. If that's designed, then it
speaks nothing but volumes of pure evil of the alleged designer. The
number of ways one can engage in acrimony-free reproduction is limited
only by the imagination. So what does this mean for the theist's god
thingy? This means that the theist god-thingy deliberately decided to
make child-bearing a harrowing experience when it could have been _SO_
much easier. Most mammals do _not_ possess that type of reproductive
system. Sure, a theist can say that humans suffer through actual
reproduction (the part after the sex) because of Eve's sin, but that
explains nothing about why virtually the entire mammalian kingdom must
also suffer.

It was Eve's punishment! She disobeyed, so she (oh, and all the other
women who ever existed) has to pay the price!