From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Perhaps the evolutionary usefulness of vomiting would have a place here? Barikada 20:31, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

What evolutionary usefulness does it have, as opposed to other sorts of usefulness? That is, how does vomiting help evolution? Philip J. Rayment 20:41, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
It's an adaptation, genius. If you eat poisoned food and you can't vomit, you're dead. If you eat poisoned food, your body catches it and forces you to vomit, then you're more likely to live. It's not foolproof by any means, but it's better than nothing. Incidentally, this is also why seeing others vomit makes us nauseous. Barikada 20:43, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
Okay, I'll accept that. But then what evidence is there that it is an evolutionary adaptation rather than a design feature? Philip J. Rayment 20:55, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
Would anything intelligent create a system that involves searing one's own flesh with acid? Barikada 21:44, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
You perhaps forget (assuming you knew enough about the subject to begin with) that what we have today is not the perfect world that God created, but a degenerate, fallen, world, where some things are worse than was originally created. I'm not certain that's the explanation, but it's a likely one. Philip J. Rayment 21:58, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
Right, Right. I keep forgetting God doesn't really like us. However, let's go with the idea that God intentionally designed us so we'd seer our own flesh to prevent dying. Wouldn't he have at least made this work 100% of the time? Heck, even if we do puke up the poison, we can still choke on the vomit. (Proof: Hendrix, Jimi.) I'm just saying, you'd think God would've given us some better mechanism for getting rid of poisons. Barikada 22:02, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
You need to see a doc. In 40+ years, I've never seared my own flesh when tossing cookies. Get a grip and quit trolling. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 22:07, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
Ever seen the throat of someone who has vomited a lot? A bulimic, for example? It shows.
On another note, I'd appreciate it if you avoided calling me a troll. If I was, I'd be blanking pages and adding things without discussion-- The exact opposite of janitorial work and discussing. Barikada 22:09, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
Maybe that's a design feature to discourage vomiting. Bulimia not being a default setting and all. And don't get gobby, you ARE trolling. Plus your attitude stinks. Quit playing to the gallery and log out if you've nothing useful to contribute. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 22:11, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
This is not the place for a debate about the merits of my edits, Fox. If you've got an issue with me instead of my position, it would be far more appropriate to take it up with me on my talk page instead of derailing the dicussion. Barikada 22:13, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
Lest I be a hypocrite, here's something on topic: Indeed, bulimia isn't the default position. I never claimed it was. Why would you want to discourage removing poisons from one's body, though? Barikada 22:14, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Barikada, you're simply not getting it. If the explanation is that the world we have today is not the perfect world that God created, and that His creation has since deteriorated, then God didn't "intentionally [design] us so we'd seer our own flesh to prevent dying". That is, He would have designed vomiting in order to eject poisons, but designed it in such a way that we would not have been seared. And getting seared now is therefore a fault that has developed in the original design.

My understanding of a "troll" is someone who posts comments in order to provoke or stir up arguments. Whether that applies to you or not I couldn't say for certain, but I can certainly see why Fox thinks so. Your description of a troll is incorrect, I believe.

Philip J. Rayment 22:50, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Oh for the love of... Look, as I told Ed I would, I've made a debate topic here. Incoherent my foot. 17:53, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
Personal tools