Creationists

[daws101]

God wants spiritual fruit, not religious nuts.

then why are you a believer.?
your prose suck.

 

[newpolitics]

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.

Right. The same question could be asked of a designer. Why something so obviously useless? His rhetorical question is self-defeating. You would expect something like this of evolution, which has no telos, but not of a perfect designer god.

 

[holston]

God wants spiritual fruit, not religious nuts.

then why are you a believer.?
your prose suck.

And you just plain suck.

 

[holston]

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.

Right. The same question could be asked of a designer. Why something so obviously useless? His rhetorical question is self-defeating. You would expect something like this of evolution, which has no telos, but not of a perfect designer god.[/QUOTE]

I don't know newpolitics, there is a growing number of men who would like some boobs to go with those nipples, like flyingsaucer man for instance. He sucks you know.

I can look around me at anytime or place and see all sorts of things which are apparently useless, just as so many events seem to lack rhyme or reason.

But who am I to say. Just because I lack an understanding of all things, does not mean that all things can not be understood.

We make the mistake of assuming that we have reached the pinnacle of wisdom when we purport to know the mind of God. That strikes me as more than a little presumptuous on the part of man, even fervent Darwinists.

Nevertheless, it is difficult to live and reconcile oneself with the fact that they don't know everything and maybe never will.

 

[newpolitics]

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.

Right. The same question could be asked of a designer. Why something so obviously useless? His rhetorical question is self-defeating. You would expect something like this of evolution, which has no telos, but not of a perfect designer god.

I don't know newpolitics, there is a growing number of men who would like some boobs to go with those nipples, like flyingsaucer man for instance. He sucks you know.

I can look around me at anytime or place and see all sorts of things which are apparently useless, just as so many events seem to lack rhyme or reason.

But who am I to say. Just because I lack an understanding of all things, does not mean that all things can not be understood.

We make the mistake of assuming that we have reached the pinnacle of wisdom when we purport to know the mind of God. That strikes me as more than a little presumptuous on the part of man, even fervent Darwinists.

Nevertheless, it is difficult to live and reconcile oneself with the fact that they don't know everything and maybe never will.

Well, if you are going to talk about the mind of god ontologically, then you need to show that god exists. Since this has not been done, no one can be said to be arrogant for trying to figure out the nature of the universe. Your last paragraph makes little sense: you have trouble reconciling your own existential dilemmas because other people don't know everything? That's a little like looking over someone's shoulder during a test and being upset that they don't know an answer to a problem that you also don't have the answer to.

 

[daws101]

God wants spiritual fruit, not religious nuts.

then why are you a believer.?
your prose suck.

And you just plain suck.

jealous

 

[SmarterThanHick]

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.

Right. The same question could be asked of a designer. Why something so obviously useless? His rhetorical question is self-defeating. You would expect something like this of evolution, which has no telos, but not of a perfect designer god.

I don't know newpolitics, there is a growing number of men who would like some boobs to go with those nipples, like flyingsaucer man for instance. He sucks you know.

I can look around me at anytime or place and see all sorts of things which are apparently useless, just as so many events seem to lack rhyme or reason.

But who am I to say. Just because I lack an understanding of all things, does not mean that all things can not be understood.

We make the mistake of assuming that we have reached the pinnacle of wisdom when we purport to know the mind of God. That strikes me as more than a little presumptuous on the part of man, even fervent Darwinists.

Nevertheless, it is difficult to live and reconcile oneself with the fact that they don't know everything and maybe never will.

The mistake is not assuming we've reached the pinnacle of wisdom. The mistake is seeing something you don't understand and believing there's a deeper meaning to it when no such evidence has ever presented itself.

Intelligent designers do not put seemingly useless pieces into their products. Have you ever seen an iPad with nipples? There are tons of examples of vestigiality in our body that has since lost its initial use. Heck even one of our chromosomes is the product of fusing two great ape chromosomes together. Why would a designer make chromosomes to appear as if they are two great ape chromosomes fused together when they would work just the same separately? Go on. Tell me something so simple REALLY represents the vast complexity of a deity.

 

[ima]

Creationists are living in a fantasy world, Like, who decided that the world was made in 6 days?

 

[holston]

Well, if you are going to talk about the mind of god ontologically, then you need to show that god exists. Since this has not been done, no one can be said to be arrogant for trying to figure out the nature of the universe. Your last paragraph makes little sense: you have trouble reconciling your own existential dilemmas because other people don't know everything? That's a little like looking over someone's shoulder during a test and being upset that they don't know an answer to a problem that you also don't have the answer to.

No. What I am saying is that it is just as arrogant for an atheist to make similar assertions about things for which he has no proof either.

I'm not looking to atheists for answers. The evidence which I have is sufficient to meet my needs, ie to persuade me that it is more logical to think that a creator preceded the creation than to think that the creation could produce a creator.
The later is what the transhumanistic Darwinians would want us all to believe, or rather, place our faith in.
What they have to offer is of no practical use to me.

I would say that many atheists and doubters come across as being much more angry because those who believe in God do not have a sort of Santa Claus figure to offer them which does all their homework for them and hands them with whatever they feel they are entitled to.

 

[holston]

Creationists are living in a fantasy world, Like, who decided that the world was made in 6 days?

Again. Not all who believe in a creator being pretend to know the details of how the universe was created.

It's OK for you guys to speculate all you want, so long as you don't try to foist your theories on everyone else as proven facts. That's very intellectually dishonest and I see a lot of that behavior on the part of those who smugly feel they have the market cornered on reason.

 

[holston]

Intelligent designers do not put seemingly useless pieces into their products. Have you ever seen an iPad with nipples? There are tons of examples of vestigiality in our body that has since lost its initial use. Heck even one of our chromosomes is the product of fusing two great ape chromosomes together. Why would a designer make chromosomes to appear as if they are two great ape chromosomes fused together when they would work just the same separately? Go on. Tell me something so simple REALLY represents the vast complexity of a deity.

OH. I can see already that you are smarter than the average hick. So pardon me if I humor you a little.

How intelligent is it to assume that a thing is purposeless when you admit that you see no purpose to begin with. That admission is no guarantee of the lack of purpose is it?

Perhaps you should say something like "serves an immediate function which is apparent to me" or
"has some intrinsic meaning which makes sense to me" rather than use the term "purpose" which has different connotations.

As for vestigial organs, what is vestigial, or useless may be subject to some debate. The appendix was once considered to be useless. But the last time I heard there are some very credible people who have been having second thoughts about it.

I certainly wouldn't say that there are "tons" of vestigial organs in our bodies. To begin with, our bodies weigh no where near a ton despite the epidemic of obesity in this country.

There are certain products of our bodies that people deliberately rid themselves of which no longer serve any "purpose" too. But the process of ridding ourselves of them is very purposeful.


I'm sorry but I am unaware of any chromosomes in the human genome which could be fused together to form a great ape. I would think that if there were, there are many people who would like to see it done and others that would certainly give it a try.

Do you have something against apes?

I wouldn't say that an ape is at all a "simple" creation.

If it was that simple the boys in my neighborhood would have whipped one up to go with the tales of the great white ape that was supposed to have roamed the knobs behind our subdivision. All they could conjure up were stories. Most of them weren't creative enough to do even that.

 

[daws101]

Well, if you are going to talk about the mind of god ontologically, then you need to show that god exists. Since this has not been done, no one can be said to be arrogant for trying to figure out the nature of the universe. Your last paragraph makes little sense: you have trouble reconciling your own existential dilemmas because other people don't know everything? That's a little like looking over someone's shoulder during a test and being upset that they don't know an answer to a problem that you also don't have the answer to.

No. What I am saying is that it is just as arrogant for an atheist to make similar assertions about things for which he has no proof either.

I'm not looking to atheists for answers. The evidence which I have is sufficient to meet my needs, ie to persuade me that it is more logical to think that a creator preceded the creation than to think that the creation could produce a creator.
The later is what the transhumanistic Darwinians would want us all to believe, or rather, place our faith in.
What they have to offer is of no practical use to me.

I would say that many atheists and doubters come across as being much more angry because those who believe in God do not have a sort of Santa Claus figure to offer them which does all their homework for them and hands them with whatever they feel they are entitled to.

rolf ! god would be the ultimate Santa Claus! in your belief system he did everything, made everything and all his ask for is not to ask questions and obey.
seems very odd as humans for the most part are curious and disobedient..

 

[daws101]

Intelligent designers do not put seemingly useless pieces into their products. Have you ever seen an iPad with nipples? There are tons of examples of vestigiality in our body that has since lost its initial use. Heck even one of our chromosomes is the product of fusing two great ape chromosomes together. Why would a designer make chromosomes to appear as if they are two great ape chromosomes fused together when they would work just the same separately? Go on. Tell me something so simple REALLY represents the vast complexity of a deity.

OH. I can see already that you are smarter than the average hick. So pardon me if I humor you a little.

How intelligent is it to assume that a thing is purposeless when you admit that you see no purpose to begin with. That admission is no guarantee of the lack of purpose is it?

Perhaps you should say something like "serves an immediate function which is apparent to me" or
"has some intrinsic meaning which makes sense to me" rather than use the term "purpose" which has different connotations.

As for vestigial organs, what is vestigial, or useless may be subject to some debate. The appendix was once considered to be useless. But the last time I heard there are some very credible people who have been having second thoughts about it.

I certainly wouldn't say that there are "tons" of vestigial organs in our bodies. To begin with, our bodies weigh no where near a ton despite the epidemic of obesity in this country.

There are certain products of our bodies that people deliberately rid themselves of which no longer serve any "purpose" too. But the process of ridding ourselves of them is very purposeful.


I'm sorry but I am unaware of any chromosomes in the human genome which could be fused together to form a great ape. I would think that if there were, there are many people who would like to see it done and others that would certainly give it a try.

Do you have something against apes?

I wouldn't say that an ape is at all a "simple" creation.

If it was that simple the boys in my neighborhood would have whipped one up to go with the tales of the great white ape that was supposed to have roamed the knobs behind our subdivision. All they could conjure up were stories. Most of them weren't creative enough to do even that.

another DNA denier..
if there was as much proof for the ark( place laughter here ) as there is for the apes and us being very closely related, then the bible would not be the best selling fantasy of all time.

 

[newpolitics]

Well, if you are going to talk about the mind of god ontologically, then you need to show that god exists. Since this has not been done, no one can be said to be arrogant for trying to figure out the nature of the universe. Your last paragraph makes little sense: you have trouble reconciling your own existential dilemmas because other people don't know everything? That's a little like looking over someone's shoulder during a test and being upset that they don't know an answer to a problem that you also don't have the answer to.

No. What I am saying is that it is just as arrogant for an atheist to make similar assertions about things for which he has no proof either.

I'm not looking to atheists for answers. The evidence which I have is sufficient to meet my needs, ie to persuade me that it is more logical to think that a creator preceded the creation than to think that the creation could produce a creator.
The later is what the transhumanistic Darwinians would want us all to believe, or rather, place our faith in.
What they have to offer is of no practical use to me.

I would say that many atheists and doubters come across as being much more angry because those who believe in God do not have a sort of Santa Claus figure to offer them which does all their homework for them and hands them with whatever they feel they are entitled to.

I've never heard of anyone claiming that the universe created god. I believe humans created the concept of god, but that is quite different. Is this what you are referring to?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Well, if you are going to talk about the mind of god ontologically, then you need to show that god exists. Since this has not been done, no one can be said to be arrogant for trying to figure out the nature of the universe. Your last paragraph makes little sense: you have trouble reconciling your own existential dilemmas because other people don't know everything? That's a little like looking over someone's shoulder during a test and being upset that they don't know an answer to a problem that you also don't have the answer to.

No. What I am saying is that it is just as arrogant for an atheist to make similar assertions about things for which he has no proof either.

I'm not looking to atheists for answers. The evidence which I have is sufficient to meet my needs, ie to persuade me that it is more logical to think that a creator preceded the creation than to think that the creation could produce a creator.
The later is what the transhumanistic Darwinians would want us all to believe, or rather, place our faith in.
What they have to offer is of no practical use to me.

I would say that many atheists and doubters come across as being much more angry because those who believe in God do not have a sort of Santa Claus figure to offer them which does all their homework for them and hands them with whatever they feel they are entitled to.

Is that your perspective on atheists? hahahaha

I don't think anyone looks to atheists for answers. After all, the fundamental prerequisite for being an atheist is not believing in magical thinking.

Who I recommend you look to for answers are scientists. You know, people who draw logical conclusions from that thing called EVIDENCE.

When you think of god, do you see him as a man? Why do you suppose that is?

Intelligent designers do not put seemingly useless pieces into their products. Have you ever seen an iPad with nipples? There are tons of examples of vestigiality in our body that has since lost its initial use. Heck even one of our chromosomes is the product of fusing two great ape chromosomes together. Why would a designer make chromosomes to appear as if they are two great ape chromosomes fused together when they would work just the same separately? Go on. Tell me something so simple REALLY represents the vast complexity of a deity.

OH. I can see already that you are smarter than the average hick. So pardon me if I humor you a little.

How intelligent is it to assume that a thing is purposeless when you admit that you see no purpose to begin with. That admission is no guarantee of the lack of purpose is it?

Perhaps you should say something like "serves an immediate function which is apparent to me" or
"has some intrinsic meaning which makes sense to me" rather than use the term "purpose" which has different connotations.

As for vestigial organs, what is vestigial, or useless may be subject to some debate. The appendix was once considered to be useless. But the last time I heard there are some very credible people who have been having second thoughts about it.

I certainly wouldn't say that there are "tons" of vestigial organs in our bodies. To begin with, our bodies weigh no where near a ton despite the epidemic of obesity in this country.

There are certain products of our bodies that people deliberately rid themselves of which no longer serve any "purpose" too. But the process of ridding ourselves of them is very purposeful.


I'm sorry but I am unaware of any chromosomes in the human genome which could be fused together to form a great ape. I would think that if there were, there are many people who would like to see it done and others that would certainly give it a try.

Do you have something against apes?

I wouldn't say that an ape is at all a "simple" creation.

If it was that simple the boys in my neighborhood would have whipped one up to go with the tales of the great white ape that was supposed to have roamed the knobs behind our subdivision. All they could conjure up were stories. Most of them weren't creative enough to do even that.

First off, vestigiality does not denote uselessness. It simply means a loss of original function. The appendix, as you mentioned, still some minor secondary function, but it has lost its original function. We can tell vestigiality from genetics, and track things back to our animal relatives that have complete genetics in those vestigial structures.

With that in mind, let's return to male breast tissue. You are right: the word PURPOSE can be misleading. Let me make it simpler: there is no function to male breast tissue. At the cellular level, it provides nothing for the male body. If removed, no functionality is lost or changed. Intelligent design demands intelligence. I can assure you that the human body is not a particularly streamlined intelligent system, either at the organ level or genetically.

 

[holston]

I would say that many atheists and doubters come across as being much more angry because those who believe in God do not have a sort of Santa Claus figure to offer them which does all their homework for them and hands them with whatever they feel they are entitled to.

rolf ! god would be the ultimate Santa Claus! in your belief system he did everything, made everything and all his ask for is not to ask questions and obey.
seems very odd as humans for the most part are curious and disobedient..

You don't seem to know much about my belief system.
What makes you think you do?

Try rereading my statement more slowly.

 

[holston]

another DNA denier..
if there was as much proof for the ark( place laughter here ) as there is for the apes and us being very closely related, then the bible would not be the best selling fantasy of all time.

Who "denied" DNA?

If I am denying anything here, that would be some of the presumptions you seem to be making about it.

And how do you know the stories in the Bible are fantasy?

 

[holston]

I've never heard of anyone claiming that the universe created god. I believe humans created the concept of god, but that is quite different. Is this what you are referring to?

Partly yes.

Why should you assume that matter must precede a conscious entity?

Can you demonstrate what consciousness is?

If only matter can generate consciousness, or if consciousness cannot exist apart from it,
how can you be certain that it can't or that it never does if you can not explain the connection in the first place?

You assert that the concept of God is merely the product of the human imagination, and that the human imagination is the product of the brain, and that the brain is the product of matter.

Which seems more reasonable, that mind should emerge from matter or that matter should emerge from mind?

You assert that mind (consciousness) can only exist as a product of matter. How do you justify this argument apart from the fact that matter is all that is accessible to your physical senses?

The grounds for your argument cannot rest on comprehension since no one understands the process. They merely assume that the matter they perceive called the brain is all there is because that's all they can see or detect. How can they be certain of this assumption?

If the process by which consciousness emerges from the brain is comprehensible, then one can imagine that man may someday understand it. From there, he should also be able to duplicate the process.

People frequently speculate on advancements in science which would prolong life. The logical conclusion of this would be to prolong it indefinitely however theoretical or far in the future that may be.

In the meantime, does it not strike you as something of an impenetrable mystery how disorganized matter and energy could spontaneously erupt in an order which is complex enough to generate consciousness, since the understanding of consciousness remains one of the ultimate challenges to the human mind, to understand itself?

And isn't it strange that mindless matter should create of itself an inquisitive consciousness which would retroactively ascribe to the inanimate origin of the universe the conscious characteristics of a Creator being?

Maybe not least of all is the age old riddle of the watchmaker.

Man considers his machines as being the height of technical complexity. Yet he is not able to mechanically reproduce the simplest forms of life without the aid of preexisting life.

So which "invention" should be considered the more complex of the two, those which are man made or those which are found in nature?

Isn't it strange that mindless chaos should result in the most complex of "machines"?

Anywhere we find a machine we expect that some blueprint existed prior to it's fabrication, if not on paper, in the mind of the one who assembled it.

So is it so unreasonable to assume that the universe with all it's life forms and intricate relations between things could have been the product of a sort of primordial seed which contained within it the blue print for all things which are seen?

Is there any solid understanding of these beginnings which precludes the existence of an organizing factor predating the first building block?
Or why should that concept be more difficult to grasp or even less likely than simply to say that matter simply always existed and that in the grand scheme of things, over eons life resulted as one tremendously long series of violations of the law of entropy?

 

[ima]

another DNA denier..
if there was as much proof for the ark( place laughter here ) as there is for the apes and us being very closely related, then the bible would not be the best selling fantasy of all time.

Who "denied" DNA?

If I am denying anything here, that would be some of the presumptions you seem to be making about it.

And how do you know the stories in the Bible are fantasy?

Because there's zero proof for the big things in the bible. Ex: page 1, god created the world in six days. Says who? From what evidence?

 

[Youwerecreated]

another DNA denier..
if there was as much proof for the ark( place laughter here ) as there is for the apes and us being very closely related, then the bible would not be the best selling fantasy of all time.

Who "denied" DNA?

If I am denying anything here, that would be some of the presumptions you seem to be making about it.

And how do you know the stories in the Bible are fantasy?

Because there's zero proof for the big things in the bible. Ex: page 1, god created the world in six days. Says who? From what evidence?

If you're basing your views solely on evidence as you claim then you should have no view on whether life was the product of creation nor was life the product of spontaneous generation because there is no evidence supporting either. Yet it stands to reason it was one of the two methods that started life.