Mokele Posted March 10, 2009 Posted March 10, 2009 ::Peers into the distance, looking for the original topic::
Sayonara Posted March 10, 2009 Posted March 10, 2009 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? Have you learned nothing?
Paralith Posted March 10, 2009 Posted March 10, 2009 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? Counting myself, I can think of seven female science forum members off the top of my head, only one of which I ever saw use a picture of a famous woman as her icon, but that same person also rotated her icons fairly often and used her own face as often as she did someone else's.
Xittenn Posted March 10, 2009 Posted March 10, 2009 Or, my favorite, just punch him in the balls. That was the best......................
SkepticLance Posted March 11, 2009 Posted March 11, 2009 Any question relating to the imperfections of the 'creations' should be enough to embarass the creationists. For example : What idiotic creator would make humans with the opening to the gut (esophagus) and the opening to the lungs (trachea) side by side, with a lousy little piece of flesh to act as a valve between them? Every year, untold thousands of humans die of choking (like Mama Cass with her chicken sandwich) by inhaling as they swallow. What a horrible piece of design, if it was the result of creation.
Mr Skeptic Posted March 11, 2009 Posted March 11, 2009 Or, my favorite, just punch him in the balls. Good point. We have balls because sperm do not like it hot, and instead of having sperm that can withstand body temperature we have these hanging sacks of *it hurts ridiculously if you punch here* so they can be at a lower temperature.
iNow Posted March 11, 2009 Posted March 11, 2009 Actually, that's why we have a descendable scrotum. The balls are the factories, and have little to do with thermal regulation.
Xittenn Posted March 11, 2009 Posted March 11, 2009 What idiotic creator would make humans with the opening to the gut (esophagus) and the opening to the lungs (trachea) side by side, with a lousy little piece of flesh to act as a valve between them? I always thought that was ingenious streamlining! How would you separate the two, one or the other would have to be rerouted to another orifice. Doing so would greatly decrease the sense of taste.......... You just drew a parallel between eating and Russian Roulette.
SkepticLance Posted March 12, 2009 Posted March 12, 2009 buttacup Many other mammals have a better system. For example, cetaceans do not have our problem system. We have a perfectly useable set of nostrils, and a breathing passage that can lead directly from the nose to the lungs. It would require a widening of that passage, but that is simple engineering. The larynx and voice production would have to be within that passage, but again a mere detail. The point is that evolution, being an imperfect means of development can lead to a breathing/swallowing system that is frequently lethal. A good design by a good bio-engineer would avoid that.
Sayonara Posted March 12, 2009 Posted March 12, 2009 Lance: given the choice, would you rather have the small chance of probable death, or a cloaca? Just curious (The cloaca has to be a -50 Awful on the good biology scale).
Mr Skeptic Posted March 12, 2009 Posted March 12, 2009 Separate eating and breathing passages would dull our taste since much of taste is based on smell. And eating the wrong thing can be as deadly as choking. Also, we would need to have a different system to talk rather than mouth and tongue. Lance: given the choice, would you rather have the small chance of probable death, or a cloaca? Just curious (The cloaca has to be a -50 Awful on the good biology scale). On the other hand, you wouldn't hear people arguing about which organ inserts where, would you? Isn't the cloaca a good weight saver though?
SkepticLance Posted March 12, 2009 Posted March 12, 2009 Sayonara I know you are being light hearted, and that is good. If the perfect creator created us with a separate breathing cloaca (fused nostrils?), the designer would also create us to appreciate the aesthetics of a handsome hole! Imagine the street corner scene. "Whoooah, look at the cloaca on that one!!"
Mokele Posted March 12, 2009 Posted March 12, 2009 To borrow an old engineering joke: How do you know God is a civil engineer? Because when designing the body, only a civil engineer would put a playground next to a sewage outflow.
Xittenn Posted March 13, 2009 Posted March 13, 2009 God just gave me eczema, why? I'm serious! Thirty years no eczema and then boom...............twice in two months! I would say contact but with what. I blame God!
Fyre4Man Posted March 13, 2009 Posted March 13, 2009 I think I have some skin related medical problem but I don't know what it is, and I tell me parents that, but they just say put some lotion on it.
SkepticLance Posted March 13, 2009 Posted March 13, 2009 buttacup There are two kinds of eczema - contact and atopic. Contact eczema, as you know, comes from touching something you are sensitive to. Usually, this shows by being very localised, since it flares up only where the contact has been made. Is your eczema localised in this way? If so, does the location on your body, and the shape of the rash give a clue?
Daecon Posted March 13, 2009 Posted March 13, 2009 Wouldn't a group of creators be a more efficient team than a single one?
Mr Skeptic Posted March 13, 2009 Posted March 13, 2009 Wouldn't a group of creators be a more efficient team than a single one? I think the duck-billed platypus was designed by committee. 1
Mr Skeptic Posted March 13, 2009 Posted March 13, 2009 Where did the designer come from? Nope, that's no problem. God was never created and always existed (aka nothing caused God), so he doesn't need a cause. Incidentally, the same argument applies to the materialistic explanation for the origin of our universe. 1
Sayonara Posted March 13, 2009 Posted March 13, 2009 Nope, that's no problem. God was never created and always existed (aka nothing caused God), so he doesn't need a cause. Incidentally, the same argument applies to the materialistic explanation for the origin of our universe. The "everything needs something which created it, except for the creator who just doesn't" argument always makes me smile.
Mr Skeptic Posted March 13, 2009 Posted March 13, 2009 (edited) The "everything needs something which created it, except for the creator who just doesn't" argument always makes me smile. You mean everything that was created needs something that created it, except for the things that weren't created that just don't. If you tell me when God was created, I'll tell you what created him Next thing I know, you'll want to know at what number the number line starts, who created mathematics, or where the Big Bang came from and where wherever the Big Bang came from, came from, or... Edited March 13, 2009 by Mr Skeptic rephrasing
iNow Posted March 13, 2009 Posted March 13, 2009 And this is why I don't waste my time with Creation Museum visits...
Xittenn Posted March 13, 2009 Posted March 13, 2009 buttacupThere are two kinds of eczema - contact and atopic. Contact eczema, as you know, comes from touching something you are sensitive to. Usually, this shows by being very localised, since it flares up only where the contact has been made. Is your eczema localised in this way? If so, does the location on your body, and the shape of the rash give a clue? Actually I think it was caused by a mix of the cold weather we're having in Vancouver(my lips are pretty chapped too,) my gloves at work(which have a sanitary spray for longer use,) my hormone levels having changed(even more than what the Cyproterone had achieved) and God! No, really this being an E, M and E topic it's just another example of how we literally do it to ourselves............It's our will which drives us forward and we evolve and morph our exobiology to enjoy ourselves more or survive better, either/or. And God gave us the free will to do it, right? Wouldn't a group of creators be a more efficient team than a single one? I picture God like the ending scenes of the new Indana Jones movie. A quantum physical hive mind that manifests itself as greys inside of our universe but actually exists within inner space. I wonder if they use 'Squeezed Vacuum' technology? Nope, that's no problem. God was never created and always existed (aka nothing caused God), so he doesn't need a cause. Incidentally, the same argument applies to the materialistic explanation for the origin of our universe. Is there any going arguement for a finite reality.........my brain really hurts!
Recommended Posts