Amputees...take two
by James C
First, let's take a look at the last half of his/her title.... Avoidance of the question. The most telling admittance of this avoidance I've found is in the testimony by Ken Daniels in his "From Missionary Bible Translator to Agnostic (2003)" as shown in his section 3.1 Crisis #5: Deism (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/testimonials/daniels.html#Section2.2 ) where he states, "We never prayed for an amputee's leg to grow back or for a woman with a hysterectomy to have a child, because we knew it was impossible. We prayed only for the possible, and those who prayed for the truly impossible and claimed it happened were disingenuous, like the televangelists."
But saying it was impossible is a direct denial of God's known abilities as a creator (if you buy into creation). If you check out (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?idhow-do-chameleons-regener ) you'll find that, "The planarians (flat worms) can be cut into 50 pieces and you will end up with 50 smaller worms." or that, "If an arm of a starfish is cut off, you will have two starfish after regeneration." or even that, "Crickets can regenerate their legs."
But that's only the invertebrates. How about all the lizards? Most of us think of them as regenerative... but all they can do about their lost tail is, "regrow, but it will not be a perfect replacement of the original, and if a lizard loses a leg it will never regrow." In fact, even frogs can regenerate their tails... BUT, only when they are tadpoles. After that, tough petunias!
So who has the hammer on true regeneration in this "created" bunch? The "Urodele amphibians" (yeah, I didn't know what that meant either.... Salamanders, about 500 species) which have the, "outstanding ability to regenerate perfectly complex tissues over and over again, and each time the regenerated tissue is identical to the original in appearance and function."
Bingo! So the facts tell us that (if) God was the creator, he darn well knew how to create beings with the ability to regenerate necessary parts. So is it possible that the Jews (and follow-on Christians and Muslims of the Abrahamic faith) are NOT the chosen ones? That it's a bunch of dudes who have four fingers on their front legs (arms) and five on the back ones and look like eels or lizards and regularly shed their outer skin and eat it (HEY, maybe that's the secret?!).
So, what's your take???
First, let's take a look at the last half of his/her title.... Avoidance of the question. The most telling admittance of this avoidance I've found is in the testimony by Ken Daniels in his "From Missionary Bible Translator to Agnostic (2003)" as shown in his section 3.1 Crisis #5: Deism (http://www.infidels.org/
But saying it was impossible is a direct denial of God's known abilities as a creator (if you buy into creation). If you check out (http://www.
But that's only the invertebrates. How about all the lizards? Most of us think of them as regenerative... but all they can do about their lost tail is, "regrow, but it will not be a perfect replacement of the original, and if a lizard loses a leg it will never regrow." In fact, even frogs can regenerate their tails... BUT, only when they are tadpoles. After that, tough petunias!
So who has the hammer on true regeneration in this "created" bunch? The "Urodele amphibians" (yeah, I didn't know what that meant either.... Salamanders, about 500 species) which have the, "outstanding ability to regenerate perfectly complex tissues over and over again, and each time the regenerated tissue is identical to the original in appearance and function."
Bingo! So the facts tell us that (if) God was the creator, he darn well knew how to create beings with the ability to regenerate necessary parts. So is it possible that the Jews (and follow-on Christians and Muslims of the Abrahamic faith) are NOT the chosen ones? That it's a bunch of dudes who have four fingers on their front legs (arms) and five on the back ones and look like eels or lizards and regularly shed their outer skin and eat it (HEY, maybe that's the secret?!).
So, what's your take???
Comments
Post a Comment