wiccanpony
Official Freak Bar Witch
:drunk: ok, people let\'s get back on topic.......Adam\'s willie
lol
lol
Did Adam have a member?
- Thread starter Infidel Castro
- Start date
johnboyjjb
Active member
That\'s the one track mind we\'ve come to know and love. I suppose you\'d want details. If Adam was made perfect, then his johnson would be too. Lucky Eve.Originally posted by wiccanpony
:drunk: ok, people let\'s get back on topic.......Adam\'s willie
I have some problems with Darwinian evolution which I will not discuss here except to how they apply to suit my needs in comparison to global warming. Some scientists are afraid that all of the these creatures will die because of global warming. Isn\'t that evolution at it\'s finest? Only the fittest survive. If that means that us humans aren\'t as adaptable as the cockroach, well then kiss your butt goodbye.
No Such Agency
New member
Your local school system would certainly be within their constitutional bounds to teach any creation story they wish to... in a comparative religion class. However, as there isn\'t a shred of evidence for \"efficient causation\" or whatever you want to call a supernatural creator, it belongs nowhere near science class. Scientific theories of the origins of life touch on evolution, and they examine the chemical properties of certain clay surfaces, the behaviour of self-catalyzing RNA molecules in solution, and other more esoteric topics. It\'s all pretty far out there but it\'s entirely evidence-based, and it\'s come a loooong way since the Miller-Urey experiments on amino acid formation.
btw...I am what I\'d call an empirical Christian. I\'m not one of those whose beliefs are not falsifiable. Given sufficient weight of evidence I\'d be forced to question everything I believe. Should they find the bones of the deceased Jesus or somehow prove macro-evolution...I\'d have no problems revising my position.
As another aside, a major ivy league university (Oxford? I can\'t remember) is currently studying why religiosity is the default position among humans. We seem to be born pre-programmed with a propensity towards religion. Atheism is taught. Not that that proves anything at all...I just find it interesting. And I think it\'s worth mentioning as a point where science and religion are currently intersecting.
As another aside, a major ivy league university (Oxford? I can\'t remember) is currently studying why religiosity is the default position among humans. We seem to be born pre-programmed with a propensity towards religion. Atheism is taught. Not that that proves anything at all...I just find it interesting. And I think it\'s worth mentioning as a point where science and religion are currently intersecting.
Originally posted by johnboyjjb
That\'s the one track mind we\'ve come to know and love. I suppose you\'d want details. If Adam was made perfect, then his johnson would be too. Lucky Eve.Originally posted by wiccanpony
:drunk: ok, people let\'s get back on topic.......Adam\'s willie
I have some problems with Darwinian evolution which I will not discuss here except to how they apply to suit my needs in comparison to global warming. Some scientists are afraid that all of the these creatures will die because of global warming. Isn\'t that evolution at it\'s finest? Only the strong survive. If that means that us humans aren\'t as adaptable as the cockroach, well then kiss your butt goodbye.
OK, back on topic - if we assume that Adam\'s willie looked like modern day willies, then it had to have been intended for procreation from the beginning. Most of a \"willie\" is comprised of erectile tissue, which serves no purpose as far as urination is concerned.
Back off topic - why do many proponents of creationism/intelligent design equate modern evolutionary theory with Darwin\'s theories? Sure the guy was ahead of his time and got alot of it right, but science has carried the concept much further. This capacity for scientific theory to adapt in the face of new data makes it all the more compelling to me.
I think Revs question is a good one. The whole god made adam in his image thing is a weird one. I guess you could argue its like us building a robot in our image, ie its kinda similar, but very different.
Oh and that difference between science and faith pic, excellent, trouble is the vast majority of science fits into the faith side these days.
Example: how many of you have actually measured the distance from the moon to the earth? How many of you just accept its on average 384403 km? See, the second is faith. Its amazing how many scientists do the same. There is simply so much information now, that you have to take a lot of stuff on faith.
Oh and that difference between science and faith pic, excellent, trouble is the vast majority of science fits into the faith side these days.
Example: how many of you have actually measured the distance from the moon to the earth? How many of you just accept its on average 384403 km? See, the second is faith. Its amazing how many scientists do the same. There is simply so much information now, that you have to take a lot of stuff on faith.
Fair enough...but by that same right, macro-evolution should be encompassed withing \'comparable religion\' as well. It is a system designed to answer a question of origin. The only evidence we have to support evolution does so on a micro-scale, ie species evolving into subspecies, etc. To date, there has been no fossil evidence of a \"transitional form\" found thus we cannot provide evidence to support macro evolution, only to suggest it. Same with creationism. There is evidence, mathematical and logical to support the idea of an efficient cause. Perhaps science class should stay away from the question of origin altogether until we find a way to emprically support ANY theory of origin from the big bang all the way through to evolution and creationism. They are educated guesses at best.
We\'re not so different, you and I. My religion is Christianity. Yours is empiricism. Nothing could tear you away from your empiricism. As much as you may hate to believe it...it is a belief system. To say otherwise is frankly narcissistic.
darthfoley
Active member
/popcorn
johnboyjjb
Active member
I refer to it as Darwinian evolution as most of the modern world recognizes that to be mainly a fauna based progression. Stellar evolution, as some would call it, would be a different category. Also, Darwin\'s theories have been discredited, accepted, added to, and changed, to become modern evolutionary theory. Why wouldn\'t his name get stuck in front? Is that what you were asking?
Or are you saying that most anti-evolutionary people are quick to point out that Darwin was keen on the superiority of the white man and modern evolutionary theorists are not, and things of that nature?
On to Adam\'s membership: Some believe that God has no corporeal form and as such when Adam was made in His image it was also non-corporeal. Then, when Adam sinned and he saw that he was naked (here meaning without flesh) God made for him a skin (and all the other parts inside. Then how did Adam eat the forbidden fruit without a body you might ask? How does God walk in the garden with Adam when He has no corporeal form is the only good answer I have. It\'s is just an idea that kind of struck me.
Finally, bear with me, I heard an interesting argument recently about Jesus preaching the concept of an afterlife being the one concept that prevents the establishment of another one government world. He stated that since I will live happily in eternity dying for my cause, then I can willing rebel against the government. For proof he points to the fact that since the fall of the Roman empire, the only government that has come close to ruling the entire known world is the Catholic church.
Also, did anybody else read the recent Dilbert comics about Jesus? I found them really funny.
I don\'t equate modern evolutionary theory with Darwinism. I typically refer to Darwinism as a means to denoting a theory of origins. Much of modern evolutionary theory I can subscribe to. Then again, I believe that much of modern evolutionary theory isn\'t in contest with Christianity. I believe in evolution on a micro scale. I do not believe that I have simian relatives and that my great great great great, etc. grandparents were essentially one-celled.
I\'m admittedly probably not as well-versed on modern evolutionary theory as would be someone like NSA, but I have yet to have someone explain to me or point me to a resource that adequately and scientifically explains origins of life using evolutionary theory without a fair smattering of faith.
I just find it amusing that so many reject the notion of God because He can\'t easily be explained and fully understood. I can\'t even understand my wife and she\'s certainly not God. If we could explain Him, understand Him, and truly comprehend all that He is...well...we wouldn\'t really call that God would we?
Anyway, I\'ve already said more than I originally intended and gone waaaay off topic. My whole point was that the generalizations of idiocy to all those Christian are not only inappropriate in my opinion, they are patently incorrect. You don\'t have to be weak minded or backwoods to be Christian. The truth is that much of our world is beyond our understanding at this point. In order to make sense of it...we will accept some things on faith regardless of what we believe. For that reason, I believe that most of us with a brain are on fairly level ground.
NSA, Freak, and others: as I mentioned before, I don\'t accept my beliefs blindly and I\'ll be happy to tell you why I believe what I do without using scripture and religious zealotry. I won\'t even try to evangelize you. That said, I didn\'t me to start an argument and I don\'t want to be hated around here so before I say anything that someone takes offense to, shoot me a PM if you are interested in continuing the conversation.
I\'m admittedly probably not as well-versed on modern evolutionary theory as would be someone like NSA, but I have yet to have someone explain to me or point me to a resource that adequately and scientifically explains origins of life using evolutionary theory without a fair smattering of faith.
I just find it amusing that so many reject the notion of God because He can\'t easily be explained and fully understood. I can\'t even understand my wife and she\'s certainly not God. If we could explain Him, understand Him, and truly comprehend all that He is...well...we wouldn\'t really call that God would we?
Anyway, I\'ve already said more than I originally intended and gone waaaay off topic. My whole point was that the generalizations of idiocy to all those Christian are not only inappropriate in my opinion, they are patently incorrect. You don\'t have to be weak minded or backwoods to be Christian. The truth is that much of our world is beyond our understanding at this point. In order to make sense of it...we will accept some things on faith regardless of what we believe. For that reason, I believe that most of us with a brain are on fairly level ground.
NSA, Freak, and others: as I mentioned before, I don\'t accept my beliefs blindly and I\'ll be happy to tell you why I believe what I do without using scripture and religious zealotry. I won\'t even try to evangelize you. That said, I didn\'t me to start an argument and I don\'t want to be hated around here so before I say anything that someone takes offense to, shoot me a PM if you are interested in continuing the conversation.
wiccanpony
Official Freak Bar Witch
if it\'s buttered, then pass it over here my good man:beer:
Shawn R. L.
New member
Once every month I give thanks that I\'m a guy - Gentlemen, do I hear a rousing AMEN!!?
No Such Agency
New member
Hey, don\'t worry, I\'m not hating anybody. I don\'t mind arguing this stuff and I\'m not going to pull any punches just because the other guy holds a paintbrush
That said, I doubt any minds will be changed so there isn\'t much point...
That said, I doubt any minds will be changed so there isn\'t much point...
Penile perfection is such a personal thing though... no two women (or indeed, men of that preference) could likely agree on the qualities of the perfect male member. For example, some people swear by size, but I\'ve heard many declarations that size isn\'t that important, really, it\'s okay and lots of guys have small ones and it\'s nothing to be ashamed of.
Why do I occasionally harbor a distaste for Christians?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfv-Qn1M58I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfv-Qn1M58I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504
Avelorn
Sven Jonsson
Don\'t use shitty creationist propaganda as a mean of having a dig at all Christians or even all creationists and ID believers.
\"Look you fool this is what you believe\"
No it\'s not! I believe what I believe and let me be the one to define that.
If you want to see a scientist not understanding science and dwelling in bigotry you might want to see \"the Root of all Evil\" by Stephen Dawkins. I have only seen parts but it got me so furious that I had to turn it off.
\"Look you fool this is what you believe\"
No it\'s not! I believe what I believe and let me be the one to define that.
If you want to see a scientist not understanding science and dwelling in bigotry you might want to see \"the Root of all Evil\" by Stephen Dawkins. I have only seen parts but it got me so furious that I had to turn it off.
No Such Agency
New member
Well said. I always cringe when somebody links to, for example, the vid where Kirk Cameron tries to use the modern banana (heavily bred for the modern N. American consumer) as an example of Creation: \"look, it fits so perfectly in our hands! How can that be a coincidence?\". I don\'t personally know anybody, Christian or otherwise, who falls for such facile nonsense.
Richard Dawkins is unfortunately not only an advocate of rationalism and science, he\'s become quite anti-religious. I expect much of that has developed from his confrontations with big-name creationists over the years, he mostly witnesses the dark side of religious faith (deception, meddling in politics) rather than the good side (compassion and charity).
MPJ
New member
From what I\'ve read so far I\'d have to say that many of you non-christens (of which I\'m one) tend to take to much away from religious beliefs and put way to much stock in science. Science too has been responsible for a lot of ignorance in the world even though it professes to do the exact opposite. Far to often once \'science\' has made up it\'s mind about something that thing becomes \'law\' as opposed to a \'rule\' or a \'guide\'. Some examples include:
Flat Earth (just as much science as religion).
Dates Homo Sapiens came to the Americas (even though there is evidence much older dates that evidence is not accepted by \'popular science\' which won\'t budge from the previously established).
Pyramids (almost the entire pyramid theory of who and when they were built is based on a single cartouche found inside the big one... Even though there is evidence to the contrary (especially with the sphinx) \'science\' won\'t even give it a serious look).
These are just a couple examples of how science has or is doing us injustice. Yes science can change over time but sometimes breaking the established order can take a LONG time. Religion too can and has changed it\'s views just like science and sometimes this change is not spurred by science but by greater religious understanding.
As I said I don\'t consider myself to be Christian even though I was baptized. I do believe in some sort of supreme being or my preferred way to put it \'Supreme Architect of the Universe\' (yes I\'m a Freemason, which does require it\'s members to swear they believe in some sort of supreme being). I make no claims to know what sort of form or structure said being may take and I doubt very highly that such a being has any interest in us whatsoever given that he/she/it did create a rather large and ever expanding universe. I would like to believe in an afterlife but I doubt it highly and if there is I don\'t see people as having any special place in it over any other living being... But I could be wrong (and part of me hopes I am). I consider myself very tolerant of religions, excepting maybe for Jehovah\'s Witnesses but that\'s a whole other story).
For all the negatives people ascribe to religion there are a lot of positives too. I won\'t list the negatives as so many are doing a good job of that already but I certainly believe the world would actually be a much less understanding and/or friendly place without religion.
Anyway, that\'s my 2 cents, pents, whatever... :drunk:
Flat Earth (just as much science as religion).
Dates Homo Sapiens came to the Americas (even though there is evidence much older dates that evidence is not accepted by \'popular science\' which won\'t budge from the previously established).
Pyramids (almost the entire pyramid theory of who and when they were built is based on a single cartouche found inside the big one... Even though there is evidence to the contrary (especially with the sphinx) \'science\' won\'t even give it a serious look).
These are just a couple examples of how science has or is doing us injustice. Yes science can change over time but sometimes breaking the established order can take a LONG time. Religion too can and has changed it\'s views just like science and sometimes this change is not spurred by science but by greater religious understanding.
As I said I don\'t consider myself to be Christian even though I was baptized. I do believe in some sort of supreme being or my preferred way to put it \'Supreme Architect of the Universe\' (yes I\'m a Freemason, which does require it\'s members to swear they believe in some sort of supreme being). I make no claims to know what sort of form or structure said being may take and I doubt very highly that such a being has any interest in us whatsoever given that he/she/it did create a rather large and ever expanding universe. I would like to believe in an afterlife but I doubt it highly and if there is I don\'t see people as having any special place in it over any other living being... But I could be wrong (and part of me hopes I am). I consider myself very tolerant of religions, excepting maybe for Jehovah\'s Witnesses but that\'s a whole other story).
For all the negatives people ascribe to religion there are a lot of positives too. I won\'t list the negatives as so many are doing a good job of that already but I certainly believe the world would actually be a much less understanding and/or friendly place without religion.
Anyway, that\'s my 2 cents, pents, whatever... :drunk:
Godlikebuthumble
New member
OT I\'d just like to say how I love the way we\'re having a civilized discussion without much in the way of flaming. I love you guys
