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
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.
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.
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:
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:
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.
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 buffalo in Okavango Delta, Botswana. (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
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.
Comments
Post a Comment