Creationists

[daws101]

[ame=http://youtu.be/kzMjGbSoTj4]Jello Biafra & Mojo Nixon - Plastic Jesus - YouTube[/ame]

 

[holston]

Psalm 1

How blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked, Nor stand in the path of sinners, Nor sit in the seat of scoffers!

 

[daws101]

Psalm 1

How blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked, Nor stand in the path of sinners, Nor sit in the seat of scoffers!

more out of context bible blabber

 

[UltimateReality]

only in your mind, in reality you're showcasing you're tenuous grip on reality in a highly humorous way..

Only in your mind do you consider our exchanges as debates.

wrong as always, what our discussions amount to is you making a total ass of yourself each and every time you post.

I know you are but what am I?

 

[holston]

Psalm 1

How blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked, Nor stand in the path of sinners, Nor sit in the seat of scoffers!

more out of context bible blabber

On the contrary, I think you fit perfectly within that context.

 

[Big_D2]

Humans have the genes for a tail. Why would God create humans with a gene for a tail if He never intended for us to have or evolve from species that have a tail?

 

[newpolitics]

there is no evidence that any of the previous statement is fact....
the human form is not and never has been perfect....it has major design flaws, is highly susceptible to disease and damage..

Nip, by your response I'd say that you probably have mental problems. I suggest that you get it checked just to be safe.

I believe that those who do not see God in nature are stupidly blind. I plainly see cause and affect played out even in the news. Non-believers scoff at conspiracy theory; however, I know that evil is in a heated battle to overpower good. The conspiracy is to say such is not the case.

You do realize that Stars Wars was a fiction movie, right? The battle between good and evil is a fairy tale. Come back to reality.

 

[newpolitics]

So why did god make ugly people?

Answer me this question... If EVERYONE was beautiful, how would anyone know they were beautiful?

Ugly-beautiful, Light-Dark, Hot-Cold, Good-Evil...

You really should get some formal education starting with a basic philosophy class.

You really should study the science of sexual attraction. We don't know beauty because of non-beauty. We know beauty because of the properties of that which are beautiful, in and of itself, without relation to anything outside of itself. If everyone were beautiful, everyone would still be beautiful, because beauty is sexual marker for fitness, such as skin tone, symmetry, facial proportion, waist to hip ratio, and hip to shoulder ratio. These are OBJECTIVE markers for sexual attraction that do not rely on a relational context for their definition. In other words, beauty is not relationally defined. Go read a Wikipedia article, will ya?

 

[HUGGY]

So why did god make ugly people?

Answer me this question... If EVERYONE was beautiful, how would anyone know they were beautiful?

Ugly-beautiful, Light-Dark, Hot-Cold, Good-Evil...

You really should get some formal education starting with a basic philosophy class.

You really should study the science of sexual attraction. We don't know beauty because of non-beauty. We know beauty because of the properties of that which are beautiful, in and of itself, without relation to anything outside of itself. If everyone were beautiful, everyone would still be beautiful, because beauty is sexual marker for fitness, such as skin tone, symmetry, facial proportion, waist to hip ratio, and hip to shoulder ratio. These are OBJECTIVE markers for sexual attraction that do not rely on a relational context for their definition. In other words, beauty is not relationally defined. Go read a Wikipedia article, will ya?

Well then ..riddle me this Batman... why is the best sex dirty?

 

[daws101]

Psalm 1

more out of context bible blabber

On the contrary, I think you fit perfectly within that context.

thus proving my point.

 

[daws101]

Answer me this question... If EVERYONE was beautiful, how would anyone know they were beautiful?

Ugly-beautiful, Light-Dark, Hot-Cold, Good-Evil...

You really should get some formal education starting with a basic philosophy class.

You really should study the science of sexual attraction. We don't know beauty because of non-beauty. We know beauty because of the properties of that which are beautiful, in and of itself, without relation to anything outside of itself. If everyone were beautiful, everyone would still be beautiful, because beauty is sexual marker for fitness, such as skin tone, symmetry, facial proportion, waist to hip ratio, and hip to shoulder ratio. These are OBJECTIVE markers for sexual attraction that do not rely on a relational context for their definition. In other words, beauty is not relationally defined. Go read a Wikipedia article, will ya?

Well then ..riddle me this Batman... why is the best sex dirty?

 

[newpolitics]

Answer me this question... If EVERYONE was beautiful, how would anyone know they were beautiful?

Ugly-beautiful, Light-Dark, Hot-Cold, Good-Evil...

You really should get some formal education starting with a basic philosophy class.

You really should study the science of sexual attraction. We don't know beauty because of non-beauty. We know beauty because of the properties of that which are beautiful, in and of itself, without relation to anything outside of itself. If everyone were beautiful, everyone would still be beautiful, because beauty is sexual marker for fitness, such as skin tone, symmetry, facial proportion, waist to hip ratio, and hip to shoulder ratio. These are OBJECTIVE markers for sexual attraction that do not rely on a relational context for their definition. In other words, beauty is not relationally defined. Go read a Wikipedia article, will ya?

Well then ..riddle me this Batman... why is the best sex dirty?

Because lying there like a stiff is no good.

 

[UltimateReality]

Humans have the genes for a tail. Why would God create humans with a gene for a tail if He never intended for us to have or evolve from species that have a tail?

Why do men have nipples? Did evolution intend for men to breast feed?

 

[newpolitics]

Humans have the genes for a tail. Why would God create humans with a gene for a tail if He never intended for us to have or evolve from species that have a tail?

Why do men have nipples? Did evolution intend for men to breast feed?

Evolution doesn't intend anything, but you know that, yet you post this garbage anyway. And if you don't know that, then you sir, are an idiot, and after being here for how long? A long ass motherfuckin time.

Men have nipples because nipples are formed before sexual dimorphism begins in the womb. Simple!

 

[Underhill]

Humans have the genes for a tail. Why would God create humans with a gene for a tail if He never intended for us to have or evolve from species that have a tail?

Why do men have nipples? Did evolution intend for men to breast feed?

Evolution doesn't intend anything, but you know that, yet you post this garbage anyway. And if you don't know that, then you sir, are an idiot, and after being here for how long? A long ass motherfuckin time.

Men have nipples because nipples are formed before sexual dimorphism begins in the womb. Simple!

Ironic that UR chooses nipples as an example.

Why would god put nipples on a man? Symmetry? It seems a designer would give us something more useful. A cup holder perhaps?

As you say newpolitics, evolution doesn't plan ahead. Leftovers like nipples on a man are evidence of evolution, if anything.

 

[daws101]

Humans have the genes for a tail. Why would God create humans with a gene for a tail if He never intended for us to have or evolve from species that have a tail?

Why do men have nipples? Did evolution intend for men to breast feed?

all mammals male and female have nipples.

Why do men have nipples?

Andrew M. Simons, a professor of biology at Carleton University in Ottawa, Ontario, explains.

Like all "why" queries, the question of why men have nipples can be addressed on many levels. My four-year-old daughter, always suspicious of a trick when asked such obvious questions, answered: "because they grow them." In search of the trick answer, she quickly added that "chests would also look pretty funny with just hair."

Evolutionary biologists, whose job it is to explain variety in nature, are often expected to provide adaptive explanations for such "why" questions. Some traits may prove—through appropriate tests—to be best explained as adaptations; others have perfectly good evolutionary, but nonadaptive, explanations. This is because evolution is a process constrained by many factors including history, chance, and the mechanisms of heredity, which also explains why particular attributes of organisms are not as they would be had they been "designed" from scratch. Nipples in male mammals illustrate a constrained evolutionary result.

A human baby inherits one copy of every gene from his or her father and one copy of every gene from his or her mother. Inherited traits of a boy should thus be a combination of traits from both his parents. Thus, from a genetic perspective, the question should be turned around: How can males and females ever diverge if genes from both parents are inherited? We know that consistent differences between males and females (so-called sexual dimorphisms) are common--examples include bird plumage coloration and size dimorphism in insects. The only way such differences can evolve is if the same trait (color, for example) in males and females has become "uncoupled" at the genetic level. This happens if a trait is influenced by different genes in males and females, if it is under control of genes located on sex chromosomes, or if gene expression has evolved to be dependent on context (whether genes find themselves within a male or a female genome). The idea of the shared genetic basis of two traits (in this case in males and females) is known as a genetic correlation, and it is a quantity routinely measured by evolutionary geneticists. The evolutionary default is for males and females to share characters through genetic correlations.

The uncoupling of male and female traits occurs if there is selection for it: if the trait is important to the reproductive success of both males and females but the best or "optimal" trait is different for a male and a female. We would not expect such an uncoupling if the attribute is important in both sexes and the "optimal" value is similar in both sexes, nor would we expect uncoupling to evolve if the attribute is important to one sex but unimportant in the other. The latter is the case for nipples. Their advantage in females, in terms of reproductive success, is clear. But because the genetic "default" is for males and females to share characters, the presence of nipples in males is probably best explained as a genetic correlation that persists through lack of selection against them, rather than selection for them. Interestingly, though, it could be argued that the occurrence of problems associated with the male nipple, such as carcinoma, constitutes contemporary selection against them. In a sense, male nipples are analogous to vestigial structures such as the remnants of useless pelvic bones in whales: if they did much harm, they would have disappeared.

In a now-famous paper, Stephen Jay Gould and Richard C. Lewontin emphasize that we should not immediately assume that every trait has an adaptive explanation. Just as the spandrels of St. Mark's domed cathedral in Venice are simply an architectural consequence of the meeting of a vaulted ceiling with its supporting pillars, the presence of nipples in male mammals is a genetic architectural by-product of nipples in females. So, why do men have nipples? Because females do.
Why do men have nipples?: Scientific American

 

[daws101]

Why do men have nipples? Did evolution intend for men to breast feed?

Evolution doesn't intend anything, but you know that, yet you post this garbage anyway. And if you don't know that, then you sir, are an idiot, and after being here for how long? A long ass motherfuckin time.

Men have nipples because nipples are formed before sexual dimorphism begins in the womb. Simple!

Ironic that UR chooses nipples as an example.

Why would god put nipples on a man? Symmetry? It seems a designer would give us something more useful. A cup holder perhaps?

As you say newpolitics, evolution doesn't plan ahead. Leftovers like nipples on a man are evidence of evolution, if anything.

what god?

 

[Hollie]

Humans have the genes for a tail. Why would God create humans with a gene for a tail if He never intended for us to have or evolve from species that have a tail?

Why do men have nipples? Did evolution intend for men to breast feed?

Why do many mammals have vestigial bones?

Have the gawds played a cruel joke on you, or, is evolution an imperfect process of starts, stops and sometimes utter dead ends?

 

[t_polkow]

Kooks on parade

 

[holston]

God wants spiritual fruit, not religious nuts.