Skip to main content

In search of the Mastermind of the Cruel World Further Comments

By critical thinker ~

In search of the Mastermind of the Cruel World was an essay I wrote to my christian brother. After he read it and sent me comments I answered with a commentary essay on his comments, it is provided below.

Response to “In Search of Mastermind of Cruel World”. Establishing the Need for Radical Redesign

Eight lions stalking a herd of about 100 water...
Eight lions stalking a herd of about 100 water buffalo in Okavango Delta, Botswana. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
This response to feedback comments focuses on the objections to my statement that God must have redesigned the nature AFTER the Fall of Man. This will question the explanation provided in feedback comments that God had “pre planned” the world to work in “Emergency mode” in case the humanity falls. The pre planned hypothesis puts God in favorable light as in this case he was not an active force in creating or redesigning the world to be cruel, but had potentially good motives to save the humanity. Responces to some of the feedback comments below argue that there HAD to be things to redesign AFTER the Fall of Man. On an example of herbivore- carnivore animals I’ll show why this is so.

On the Digestive System

Words like “changed”, “switched”, “changed behavior” are misleading! They assume COMPLETE CHANGE! The correct CONSERVATIVE standpoint is that with the Fall of Man, our spiritual nature as well as the physical world has been “BENT” or CORRUPTED. NOT completely altered or transformed.

So, where is exactly that BIG CHANGE or TRANSFORMATION that proves that before the Fall carnivore animals SIMPLY COULD NOT live with the body parts they have now?

A thoughtful and honest reading of the essay (cited again below) would answer this question. Please read again the following two paragraphs of citation to grasp the point.

“A carnivore's or omnivore's small intestine is three to six times the length of its trunk. This is a tool designed for rapid elimination of food that rots quickly. Man's, as well as other herbivore's small intestines are 10 to 12 times the length of their body, and winds itself back and forth in random directions. This is a tool designed for keeping food in it for long enough periods of time so that all the valuable nutrients and minerals can be extracted from it before it enters the large intestine.

A carnivore's or omnivore's large intestine is relatively short and simple, like a pipe. This passage is also relatively smooth and runs fairly straight so that fatty wastes high in cholesterol can easily slide out before they start to putrefy. Man's, as well as other herbivore's large intestines, or colons, are puckered and pouched, an apparatus that runs in three directions (ascending, traversing and descending), designed to hold wastes that originally were foods high in water content. This is so that the fluids can be extracted from these wastes, now that all the useful nutrients and minerals have been extracted and the long journey through the small intestine is over. Substances high in fat and cholesterol that have been putrefying for hours during their long stay in the small intestine tend to get stuck in the pockets that line the large intestine.”

It becomes clear that carnivore and herbivore digestive systems are different not just in internal workings but to state the obvious in proportions. Digesting plants requires a small intestine that is 10-12 times the length of the body while carnivore’s small intestine is only 3-6 times of the body. This lengthy intestine is necessary to herbivores for extracting the nutrients from a food source high in fiber. A much smaller small intestine and pipe-like large intestine of today’s carnivores would be incapable of processing plants and other vegetation for which much longer small intestine and pouched large intestine are needed. Today’s carnivores with same digestive body parts would simply die of indigestion or hunger if they had to eat vegetation. Clearly if today’s carnivores originally ate plants they had herbivore digestive systems and a fairly radical redesign work of shortening small intestine and changing colon needed to be done to have their digestive systems as we find them today.

This is in no way an exhaustive argument for a need for redesign. But first I’m bringing relative feedback comments and then continuing the argument.

All carnivores have it that highly acidic?

Should it [highly acidic stomach] be used for digesting MEATS ONLY or can it be used for digesting hard vegetables? Should it be used for digesting MEATS ONLY or can it be used for digesting hard vegetables?

Yes, it can be used for digesting meats only. Herbivores animals are only able to digest plants because of bacteria that lives in the stomach and breaks down molecules, this fact can be looked up. The quote below provides an answer to why strong acidic juices exclude plant digestion.

“A carnivore's stomach secretes powerful digestive enzymes with about 10 times the amount of hydrochloric acid than a human or herbivore. The pH is less than or equal to "1" with food in the stomach, for a carnivore or omnivore. For humans or other herbivores, the pH ranges from 4 to 5 with food in the stomach. Hence, man must prepare his meats with laborious cooking or frying methods. E. Coli bacteria, salmonella, campylobacter, trichina worms [parasites] or other pathogens would not survive in the stomach of a lion.”

As is clear from above God would need to “switch” the digesting mode of today’s carnivores from alkaline to acidic to make breaking down of flesh possible, which accidently excludes (nutritional) breaking down of plants.

On skeletal structure of carnivores

HOW does it prove that animals with “long, sharp, curved incisors” could not (OR EVEN PRESENTLY DON’T) eat hard shelled fruit and other vegetation?

How about humans eating meat without any special teeth?

How about absolutely vegetarian animals with REALLY long and sharp teeth?

If you have time I recommend reading an article on comparative anatomy of eating. I will provide pertinent citation from the article below to substantiate the statement that skeletal structure of carnivores is not sufficient for herbivores behavior.

Describing herbivore animals jaw structure Milton M.D writes:

“The masseter and pterygoid muscles hold the mandible in a sling-like arrangement and swing the jaw from side-to-side. Accordingly, the lower jaw of plant-eating mammals has a pronounced sideways motion when eating. This lateral movement is necessary for the grinding motion of chewing.”
Suffices to recall the grinding motion of a cow’s jaws to understand the need and use for side to side jaw movement of herbivore animals.

In distinction the carnivores jaws move up and down but not sideways. Milton writes about carnivores: “In all mammalian carnivores, the jaw joint is a simple hinge joint lying in the same plane as the teeth. This type of joint is extremely stable and acts as the pivot point for the "lever arms" formed by the upper and lower jaws.” The article quoted in previous essay states “A carnivore's jaws move up and down with minimal sideways motion”. To summarize the stated a herbivore jaws allows for side to side motion necessary to grind plant foods and carnivore jaws lacks this but provides mechanism for rapid swallowing of meat.

With respect to the structure of teeth Miller writes:
“The teeth of a carnivore are discretely spaced so as not to trap stringy debris. The incisors are short, pointed and prong-like and are used for grasping and shredding”.

From the points above we can try to picture a carnivore trying to eat plants. Two problems readily stand in the way. The carnivores teeth, spaced and pointed, would miss most of the attempted scoop of grass, or other vegetation. Secondly, once in the mouth, the plant food would not be properly grinded because of the poor sideway motion of the carnivore jaws. Thus poor carnivore would have a hack of bad time eating plants if it didn’t have a herbivore teeth and jaws.


Popular posts from this blog

Are You an Atheist Success Story?

By Avangelism Project ~ F acts don’t spread. Stories do. It’s how (good) marketing works, it’s how elections (unfortunately) are won and lost, and it’s how (all) religion spreads. Proselytization isn’t accomplished with better arguments. It’s accomplished with better stories and it’s time we atheists catch up. It’s not like atheists don’t love a good story. Head over to the atheist reddit and take a look if you don’t believe me. We’re all over stories painting religion in a bad light. Nothing wrong with that, but we ignore the value of a story or a testimonial when we’re dealing with Christians. We can’t be so proud to argue the semantics of whether atheism is a belief or deconversion is actually proselytization. When we become more interested in defining our terms than in affecting people, we’ve relegated ourselves to irrelevance preferring to be smug in our minority, but semantically correct, nonbelief. Results Determine Reality The thing is when we opt to bury our

Christian TV presenter reads out Star Wars plot as story of salvation

An email prankster tricked the host of a Christian TV show into reading out the plots of The Fresh Prince of Bel Air and Star Wars in the belief they were stories of personal salvation. The unsuspecting host read out most of the opening rap to The Fresh Prince, a 1990s US sitcom starring Will Smith , apparently unaware that it was not a genuine testimony of faith. The prankster had slightly adapted the lyrics but the references to a misspent youth playing basketball in West Philadelphia would have been instantly familiar to most viewers. The lines read out by the DJ included: "One day a couple of guys who were up to no good starting making trouble in my living area. I ended up getting into a fight, which terrified my mother." The presenter on Genesis TV , a British Christian channel, eventually realised that he was being pranked and cut the story short – only to move on to another spoof email based on the plot of the Star Wars films. It began: &quo

So Just How Dumb Were Jesus’ Disciples? The Resurrection, Part VII.

By Robert Conner ~ T he first mention of Jesus’ resurrection comes from a letter written by Paul of Tarsus. Paul appears to have had no interest whatsoever in the “historical” Jesus: “even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, we know him so no longer.” ( 2 Corinthians 5:16 ) Paul’s surviving letters never once mention any of Jesus’ many exorcisms and healings, the raising of Lazarus, or Jesus’ virgin birth, and barely allude to Jesus’ teaching. For Paul, Jesus only gets interesting after he’s dead, but even here Paul’s attention to detail is sketchy at best. For instance, Paul says Jesus “was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” ( 1 Corinthians 15:4 ), but there are no scriptures that foretell the Jewish Messiah would at long last appear only to die at the hands of Gentiles, much less that the Messiah would then be raised from the dead after three days. After his miraculous conversion on the road to Damascus—an event Paul never mentions in his lette


By David Andrew Dugle ~   S ettle down now children, here's the story from the Book of David called The Parable of the Bent Cross. In the land Southeast of Eden –  Eden, Minnesota that is – between two rivers called the Big Miami and the Little Miami, in the name of Saint Gertrude there was once built a church. Here next to it was also built a fine parochial school. The congregation thrived and after a multitude of years, a new, bigger church was erected, well made with clean straight lines and a high steeple topped with a tall, thin cross of gold. The faithful felt proud, but now very low was their money. Their Sunday offerings and school fees did not suffice. Anon, they decided to raise money in an unclean way. One fine summer day the faithful erected tents in the chariot lot between the two buildings. In the tents they set up all manner of games – ring toss, bingo, little mechanical racing horses and roulette wheels – then all who lived in the land between the two rivers we

Morality is not a Good Argument for Christianity

By austinrohm ~ I wrote this article as I was deconverting in my own head: I never talked with anyone about it, but it was a letter I wrote as if I was writing to all the Christians in my life who constantly brought up how morality was the best argument for Christianity. No Christian has read this so far, but it is written from the point of view of a frustrated closeted atheist whose only outlet was organizing his thoughts on the keyboard. A common phrase used with non-Christians is: “Well without God, there isn’t a foundation of morality. If God is not real, then you could go around killing and raping.” There are a few things which must be addressed. 1. Show me objective morality. Define it and show me an example. Different Christians have different moral standards depending on how they interpret the Bible. Often times, they will just find what they believe, then go back into scripture and find a way to validate it. Conversely, many feel a particular action is not

On Living Virtuously

By Webmdave ~  A s a Christian, living virtuously meant living in a manner that pleased God. Pleasing god (or living virtuously) was explained as: Praying for forgiveness for sins  Accepting Christ as Savior  Frequently reading the Bible  Memorizing Bible verses Being baptized (subject to church rules)  Attending church services  Partaking of the Lord’s Supper  Tithing  Resisting temptations to lie, steal, smoke, drink, party, have lustful thoughts, have sex (outside of marriage) masturbate, etc.  Boldly sharing the Gospel of Salvation with unbelievers The list of virtuous values and expectations grew over time. Once the initial foundational values were safely under the belt, “more virtues'' were introduced. Newer introductions included (among others) harsh condemnation of “worldly” music, homosexuality and abortion Eventually the list of values grew ponderous, and these ideals were not just personal for us Christians. These virtues were used to condemn and disrespect fro