Sayonara Posted March 8, 2009 Posted March 8, 2009 So, by that reasoning, I should be in the middle of the smoldering ruins of Tokyo right now, battling a giant moth? Am I right in thinking some posts appeared while you were composing that reply?
Xittenn Posted March 8, 2009 Posted March 8, 2009 Not that I'm a believer in anything but the patterns in the chaos but....... YT is a guy................oh! Yeah, ummmmmm the Bible clearly states that to God a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day.................. I asked this guy I work with whom happens to be a Muslim what he thinks about our current ability to make replacement parts for brains. He replied all knowledge comes from God..................I don't know to many creationists who don't believe in evolution. They just feel that God was responsible for it all whether being 7days or 18billion years! I'm still the Devil! There was however the gentleman who was also Muslim who didn't believe in Dinosaurs...........................
SkepticLance Posted March 8, 2009 Posted March 8, 2009 Sayonara I am happy to accept your statement. However I am not happy to be called stupid, even by implication, by iNow. Thus I explained my reasoning, which in the absense of your personal knowledge, is valid. Nor did I say that YT was female. I just asked why several posts assumed maleness.
Xittenn Posted March 8, 2009 Posted March 8, 2009 SayonaraI am happy to accept your statement. However I am not happy to be called stupid, even by implication, by iNow. Thus I explained my reasoning, which in the absense of your personal knowledge, is valid. Nor did I say that YT was female. I just asked why several posts assumed maleness. SkepticLance are you male? Moke are you a Giant Atomic Lizard? Buttacup are you a Giant Transgendered Devil? Sorry! I don't think anything said here is intentionally offensive darlin'!
YT2095 Posted March 8, 2009 Posted March 8, 2009 How does this compute? the Simple version is that the Bible (old testament) doesn`t "compute", but simply puts forth an idea of the one true God and creator of all. taking anything Other than the idea and teachings from it would be silly. and to take it Literally as some do is even dafter. 1
Sayonara Posted March 8, 2009 Posted March 8, 2009 So basically you consider yourself a "creationist", because your belief is that there was a creator who was responsible for all of creation. Apt choice of word I guess.
Xittenn Posted March 8, 2009 Posted March 8, 2009 (edited) the Simple version is that the Bible (old testament) doesn`t "compute", but simply puts forth an idea of the one true God and creator of all.taking anything Other than the idea and teachings from it would be silly. and to take it Literally as some do is even dafter. Scientists still look for Eve! There has also been evidence to suggest a major flooding throughout the world at a point in history which coincides with Noahs Ark and other religious stories of this date. Not exactly what I was getting at but http://www.viewzone.com/noah.story.html Noah's Ark found http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/04/0427_040427_noahsark.html I wonder what the big myth about our time will be 250 000 years from now; I use a logarithmic value here as a more accurate history will be maintained for longer periods. They had this queen her name was Britney Spears........................ she used to torture people with songs........... (I actually like Britney) So basically you consider yourself a "creationist", because your belief is that there was a creator who was responsible for all of creation. Apt choice of word I guess. Like some kid playing with his ant farm? Edited March 8, 2009 by buttacup
YT2095 Posted March 8, 2009 Posted March 8, 2009 So basically you consider yourself a "creationist", because your belief is that there was a creator who was responsible for all of creation. Apt choice of word I guess. Yup, in a nutshell that sums it up pretty good.
tomgwyther Posted March 8, 2009 Posted March 8, 2009 Going back to the OP for a bit. Try asking those at the museum "Why do humans have an appendix" As it has no real use to us today - although did have way back in our evolutionary history - and we can lead a healthy life without one. One rebuttal I've heard from a creationist 6-day type is that it's a built in self-destruct mechanism which God can activate at will.
Kyrisch Posted March 9, 2009 Posted March 9, 2009 Scientists still look for Eve! [citation needed] There has also been evidence to suggest a major flooding throughout the world at a point in history which coincides with Noahs Ark and other religious stories of this date. Well yeah, sure, maybe. But it wasn't a world-wide flood, and there certainly was no animals-two-by-two going on. How do we know? No genetic bottleneck -- something that recent would have lasting effects on the genetic variability of extant species today.
Samar Posted March 9, 2009 Posted March 9, 2009 Going back to the OP for a bit.Try asking those at the museum "Why do humans have an appendix" As it has no real use to us today - although did have way back in our evolutionary history - and we can lead a healthy life without one. One rebuttal I've heard from a creationist 6-day type is that it's a built in self-destruct mechanism which God can activate at will. Check this out
Paralith Posted March 9, 2009 Posted March 9, 2009 I already am a beautiful woman. I don't need a different beautiful woman to represent me on an online forum. I am not, however, a sweet little lab mouse. I want to know why God made women give birth out of the tiny space between their legs, risking the lives of both mother and child at every birth, and not through the wide open bone-free abdominal wall. Is this some sort of original sin punishment? I know women are supposed to go through the pain of childbirth, but put the innocent baby at risk too? And at high risk of dying if its mom dies?
Mokele Posted March 9, 2009 Posted March 9, 2009 Check this out That's all well and good, but it's nothing but a speculation. Without actual testing, that's all it ever will be. And frankly, that's not a very convincing speculation, either - a slightly faster recovery from illness cannot possibly outweigh a large possibility of sudden death for no reason at all.
SkepticLance Posted March 9, 2009 Posted March 9, 2009 Paralith Even though I do not know you, I get the impression that you are a special kind of woman. I cannot comment on your looks, though I suspect that the need other women have to identify with a gorgeous woman as icon is probably more related to feeling deficient in that area. That is : a bit of wishful thinking. You, however, are a biologist, with a healthy self image bolstered by the knowledge that you are good in your field. Therefore, from that self image, you choose an icon more related to your academic interest than to wishful thinking. I respect that. Your comments about God, and the need for women to reproduce so painfully and dangerously are good. I agree. If we were created, then the creator did a ridiculously lousy job of designing the birth method. I add to that the incredibly poor design of the menstrual cycle, which causes enormous pain and discomfort to women, and the flow on impact of their male partners living through PMT. Why would a competent creator do such a lousy job of design?
JHAQ Posted March 9, 2009 Posted March 9, 2009 Tell him he believes in the nonsense he believes in because he cannot accept the concept of a benign & loving "God ' with the harsh reality of natural selection as the cutting edge of evolution --- death by many unpleasnt & often horrible ways ( predation , starvation , climate change & the ultimate horror parasitism by an organism like Sacculina spp )
Mr Skeptic Posted March 9, 2009 Posted March 9, 2009 I already am a beautiful woman. I don't need a different beautiful woman to represent me on an online forum. I am not, however, a sweet little lab mouse. I want to know why God made women give birth out of the tiny space between their legs, risking the lives of both mother and child at every birth, and not through the wide open bone-free abdominal wall. Is this some sort of original sin punishment? I know women are supposed to go through the pain of childbirth, but put the innocent baby at risk too? And at high risk of dying if its mom dies? Yup, that was specifically woman's punishment for eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Genesis 3:16 To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." The nearby passages have the punishment for the serpent (crawling on its belly, "eating dirt", and enmity with the woman), and for Adam (a curse on the ground, painful toil, death).
Paralith Posted March 9, 2009 Posted March 9, 2009 But if the punishment is intended for the woman, why put the baby at risk too? And by putting the mother at risk you automatically put the baby at risk. It's not just the pain, it's the real danger of injury and death to both.
Mr Skeptic Posted March 9, 2009 Posted March 9, 2009 But if the punishment is intended for the woman, why put the baby at risk too? And by putting the mother at risk you automatically put the baby at risk. It's not just the pain, it's the real danger of injury and death to both. I have no answer to that. Maybe part of the more general curse that is a punishment for Adam (and thereby all people, including Eve)? More amusingly, the story in Genesis 3 can be paraphrased like this: The serpent tells Eve that eating from that tree would make her more like God, knowing the difference between good and evil, and not die. God had told Eve not to eat from that tree (but surely she didn't know it would be evil to do so anyways because she did not know good and evil) and that she would die if she did. So Eve ate from the tree, and gave some to Adam, and they didn't die but knew the difference between good and evil. Soon God finds out, and punishes them and all of creation. The punishment also includes their eventual death. Reading comprehension question: who was more honest, the Serpent or God? (compare Genesis 3:2-5 and Genesis3:22)
Sisyphus Posted March 9, 2009 Posted March 9, 2009 Reading comprehension question: who was more honest, the Serpent or God? (compare Genesis 3:2-5 and Genesis3:22) Bonus question: Who was more honest? Darth Vader or Obi Wan Kenobi? Wait, what are we talking about, again?
Xittenn Posted March 9, 2009 Posted March 9, 2009 Well yeah, sure, maybe. But it wasn't a world-wide flood, and there certainly was no animals-two-by-two going on. How do we know? No genetic bottleneck -- something that recent would have lasting effects on the genetic variability of extant species today. I never said that there was(two animals two by two!) YT had said she didn't take the old testament as fact but more so as moral teachings. I can't agree more, I was just noting that there are reasons to at least search for the historical events that led to the stories. Why would a competent creator do such a lousy job of design? Tell him he believes in the nonsense he believes in because he cannot accept the concept of a benign & loving "God ' with the harsh reality of natural selection as the cutting edge of evolution --- death by many unpleasnt & often horrible ways ( predation , starvation , climate change & the ultimate horror parasitism by an organism like Sacculina spp ) Yeah, why is it always a good and competent God or none at all? Why is the possibility that God is either incompetent or evil or just shamelessly striving for his own success never really considered. I really have a hard time in life if hell is any worse well..........I'm still not convinced or am feeling threatened enough to believe in an 'omnipotent' creator. I do however hold regard for the idea that we are just lab rats for some greater being that is just toying around with his/her/its research project..........I know many under the influence of Pink Floyd have come to share this opinion with me! oh and Eve http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199511-12/0289.html
DrDNA Posted March 10, 2009 Posted March 10, 2009 Why do you assume YT is male?The attached icon is female. YT sure is looking pretty these days. I wonder if she has a boy friend.
Paralith Posted March 10, 2009 Posted March 10, 2009 ParalithEven though I do not know you, I get the impression that you are a special kind of woman. I cannot comment on your looks, though I suspect that the need other women have to identify with a gorgeous woman as icon is probably more related to feeling deficient in that area. That is : a bit of wishful thinking. You, however, are a biologist, with a healthy self image bolstered by the knowledge that you are good in your field. Therefore, from that self image, you choose an icon more related to your academic interest than to wishful thinking. I respect that. Lance, I think any woman who actively participates in online science forums is a special kind of woman. We are a very small subset of a very large population, and I think perhaps it's not the best idea to make assumptions about any of us....especially when the person in question isn't actually a woman.
Xittenn Posted March 10, 2009 Posted March 10, 2009 YT sure is looking pretty these days.I wonder if she has a boy friend. Paralith looks like she would make for a good science project...........I'd call it deep blue..............I'm single!
SkepticLance Posted March 10, 2009 Posted March 10, 2009 Paralith I could not agree more. I love it when women get involved in science, and the more women who do, the better. Why shoud 50% of our species avoid the most important field of study there is? However, my comment about using beautiful women as icons is still valid. It is mostly women who do it. Obviously not a perfect guide to gender, but it does seem to be the case more often than not.
iNow Posted March 10, 2009 Posted March 10, 2009 However, my comment about using beautiful women as icons is still valid. It is mostly women who do it. Obviously not a perfect guide to gender, but it does seem to be the case more often than not. I think this is simply a case of perceptual salience, and memorial bias, not evidential of your assertion. I really don't think the data supports your claim. Do you have anything objective to support your contention?
Recommended Posts