Did Adam have a member?

[mud duck]

But is that a true evolution NSA? Or is it adapting to it\'s new environment? Take bears, the brown bear is happy to live in the woods, frolicking, hunting berries, grubs and whatnot. But here comes man into its environment, paving everything and removing the bears food source. So what does the bear do, but adapt to this new environment, find a new food source (garbage) and scare the pants off older folks and those with kids and or small dogs. Is that considered evolving or adaption? Same thing with diseases. Those are adapting to new circumstances but are still a disease.

 

[mattrock]

Not true NSA. When I distinguish between micro and macro evolution I\'m talking about two very different things. Micro evolution may suggest the possibility of macro but it does NOT support the idea on it\'s own merits.

Let me define how I see the difference so that there\'s no question that what I\'m doing with the distinction is anything but semantics:

Micro evolution is that which occurs directly before us as you said. The old example of the white moth becoming a black moth in the right enviornment etc. Multiple species of feline, canine, reptile etc. I believe it\'s obvious this happens and I don\'t believe that it\'s in contradiction with scripture as I would consider this reproduction \"after their own kind\".

Macro evolution would be fish becoming a terrestrial land-dwelling animal. Simians becoming human. Dinosaurs becoming birds, etc. If you are going to convince me that this type of evolution happens you are going to have to produce evidence of a transitionary species. And given the relatively slow speed of the evolutionary process in our perspective of time and also given that ALL of our current animal kingdom would have to trace its roots to some transitional species and indeed multiples, I find it hard to stomach that there have been NO true transitional species found in the fossil record or in current existence to date. I\'m looking for a fish with legs here or something equally \"macro\" as you have put it. Find a transitional species (or a few thousand) and I\'ll have my evidence of macro evolution.

Many non-Christian scientists have rejected the idea of macro-evolution at present because it is currently religious by nature, not scientific. It requires faith because there is no direct supporting evidence. Micro evolution might as well be law as far as I\'m concerned...it\'s as plain as gravity. Macro evolution still has a loooooongg way to go to reach that status.

 

[treide]

Aren\'t all fossils transitional fossils (unless of course you are referring to fossils of species that still exist, like coelocanths)?

This is one fossil that I have heard about that is transitional between fish and tetrapods:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik

I don\'t see why we care so much about the fossil record as the evidence for evolution based on molecular biology is much more compelling.

 

[lizcam]

Ok, keep in mind I\'m reponding not having read the entier string so someone might have said this before;

Adam had a member because Lillith was his first mate, who took off because she was \"too independant\" (yah right). So god made Eve, the for-runner to the door mat my mother was for most of her marriage until Lillith tapped her on the shoulder and told her to wake up.

The big question is.......if Adam was made in God\'s image does that mean God has a member? And if so who\'s the power behind THAT throne? (what I mean is what female deity does god kowtow to?)

 

[No Such Agency]

Originally posted by mud duck
But is that a true evolution NSA? Or is it adapting to it\'s new environment? Take bears, the brown bear is happy to live in the woods, frolicking, hunting berries, grubs and whatnot. But here comes man into its environment, paving everything and removing the bears food source. So what does the bear do, but adapt to this new environment, find a new food source (garbage) and scare the pants off older folks and those with kids and or small dogs. Is that considered evolving or adaption? Same thing with diseases. Those are adapting to new circumstances but are still a disease.

Are they adapting on an individual basis by modifying their behaviour? Bears are relatively intelligent and opportunistic animals - they can learn and make the most of a new situation. But the adaptation is not inherited by their offspring. No genetic change is required. When disease organisms adapt to change, they must do so on a genetic level, they have no ability to learn the way animals with nervous systems do. Of course they make up for that by having very short generations so they can evolve much more quickly than bears or humans do.

Mattrock - evolutionary biologists do not make a distinction between micro- and macro-evolution. Large changes in a lineage are either just a slow accumulation of smaller changes, or they are a (geologically) sudden radical change happening over a shorter number of generations. In either case, the mechanism is the same as when the beaks of Darwin\'s finches changed size in response to changing food sources, or when a bacterium develops resistance to antibiotics. As for transitional fossils, treide\'s example is an excellent one. Coelocanths are similar, with thick muscular fin-limbs. I don\'t know what they use them for, however. (Why are coelocanths still around? Well, their habitat has not changed much in a loooong time. So why would they change? )

 

[lizcam]

Originally posted by mattrock
I\'m probably going to get strung up for asking this, but it\'s something I truly don\'t understand...

First, as many of you know, I make no effort to hide the fact that I\'m Christian. The thing is, I don\'t expend a lot of effort patronizing athiests or any others for that matter who disagree with me. Even when their arguments are blatantly flawed and/or obviously develop on ignorance. And to be sure, many have good arguments. I don\'t bother arguing with them too much either. As I\'ve stated before, arguing on a message board is like running in the special olympics: even if you win you\'re still retarded.

That said, I am always overwhelmed by how many forum denizens are not just non-Christian (which is certainly acceptable) but are, in fact, antagonistically anti-Christian. It\'s very easy to discount all people of faith (be they Christian or any other belief system) as ignorant narrow-minded twits, but to do so completely disregards some of the great thinkers of our time.

Don\'t get me wrong, I\'m not offended or anything, but I gotta say, I fancy myself a pretty empirical thinker and at the same time a pretty faithful Christian and I don\'t really think those two things have to be mutually exclusive.

So....as a Christian among you, I have to ask: why the animosity?

Myself, Shawn, Airhead and others that participate here and are otherwise accepted as intelligent contributors to the community are all people of faith...are we considered narrow-minded and cognitively handicapped?

Just my thoughts.

I can only speak from my own experiences here so this in no way is a generalization for everyone.

For me I have serious issues with Christians because of past treatment by them. I was raised in a cult by well meaning parents. In many ways they were very good to me and I\'m not talking about anything sexual here. But I have mentioned before that I went to their school where everything was heavily censored and I was totally un-prepared for real life when the school closed. Many of my school mates from those days (50%) have either spent a great deal of time in mental health facilities or have committed suicide.

The worst of it is the amount needless guilt that was heaped on me most of my life because of religion. I was taught to hate my body, sex and anything pleasurable. And I was taught that because my cousins, Grandparents and other relatives didn\'t believe what was \"right\" they would fry in hell for eternity. All of this scarred me for life and made me never trust an organized religion.

Then there\'s Christianity\'s handling of my son. Being a liberal person I decided when my son was born that I would not stand in his way if he wanted to be Christian or Jewish or what ever. I gave him a basis in all the religions growing up. Finally he asked if he could go to a Baptist bible study group with some of his friends. I dutifully took him and he was really enjoying it.

Then we got new, very religious neighbors. Their son was the same age as my son and they were hard core proselytizers. This little boy started to ride my son about everything, nagging him if my son expressed a different view point from the \"accepted\" one. It was non-stop.

After about a year my son told me he never wanted anything to do with religion again. I tried to explain that it wasn\'t all of religion but just this one family but he would have nothing of it. I finally had to talk to the kids parents about it and they told me that this boy was just doing god\'s work and obviously my son had sins that he was not confronting.

This is the thing. I\'ve found that under the guise of religion a person can say and do things that are not only rude but out-right wrong and the rest of the world is supposed to roll over and take it. Because \"it\'s god\'s word\". That\'s my big issue with Christianity. The assumption that they can rule the world. It wasn\'t always like this. I remember a time when common politeness still ruled. But that\'s no longer in effect. I begrudge no one their religion and I do have beliefs of my own but I choose not to discuss them as I will not be a hypocrite.

Sorry for the rant. I promise to go back to being light hearted and fun. :innocent:

 

[wiccanpony]

Originally posted by lizcam
Ok, keep in mind I\'m reponding not having read the entier string so someone might have said this before;

Adam had a member because Lillith was his first mate, who took off because she was \"too independant\" (yah right). So god made Eve, the for-runner to the door mat my mother was for most of her marriage until Lillith tapped her on the shoulder and told her to wake up.

The big question is.......if Adam was made in God\'s image does that mean God has a member? And if so who\'s the power behind THAT throne? (what I mean is what female deity does god kowtow to?)

Lillith took on look at Adam\'s \"perfect\" member and after laughing her self silly, ditched him for a demon with a decent package and didn\'t mind her being on top. lol

 

[No Such Agency]

Liz, it\'s entirely possible that the people who are now belligerently badgering others over religion are the same ones who were \"polite\" before. Of course back then they weren\'t very polite sometimes, if they encountered somebody obviously different from themselves... And they feel more threatened now that we live in a much more openly diverse and multi-cultural society. Many of them openly admit this by claiming there is a \"war on Christianity\" and so on. Lest anyone think I am solely trashing Christians, look at how religious minorities/atheists/gays/etc. are treated around the world, usually it is with intolerance by whatever the dominant faith is.

And I\'m sorry to hear you have witnessed the worst aspects of religion - the fear and guilt and coercion. Even I know there\'s more to it than that. I just don\'t want it, and moreover I don\'t need it to be a good person.

 

[Friar]

wow I missed this thread, from Adam\'s schlong to evolution kinda sad I just noticed it.

I don\'t have much to say about evolution I\'m no scientist and I don\'t play one on TV same with religion tho I have read alot of the different \"core\" texts from here an there it\'s all based on interpretation so kinda hard to be an expert. my personal thoughts on religion science an pretty much everything is more or less belief based if people believe in something then I give it in the least credit for being a truth to them (even if it\'s fundamentally psycotic) I figure it makes up a part of the world for them and I get more fascinaited with what folk believe and why then if it\'s \"real\" or not. As far as religions go every book, text, and belief system basically ends up talking about the same thing do good, purification of the self, respect \"God\" which is usually one way or another attributed to everything or creating everything so respect all and you respect God in whatever incarnation he\'s concieved in. In the end all religions are meant to be paths to God, completness, understanding, and divine compassion so I just figure it\'s all the same \"God\" just different instruction books from different cultures and human expierences to reach the same place. Largely I feel sadened by the divide between science and religion the two could complement and deepen each other tremendously, mostly since from what I\'ve expierence one of the cornerstones of religion are respect, compasion and understanding and that science can greatly enhance why everything deserves respect, keys to eventual understanding of a great number of things, and I find understanding and respect to be the key to compassion. Now I will readily admit that when I have looked over different religios texts I ignore the orginazition attatched (most are just brow beating bullies, I\'m catholic by default and it drives me nuts that the pope sits on a mountain of gold instead of using that to give relief to suffering and their practice of helping nazi\'s oh and hiding child molesters well this is kinda why I ignore the orginizations) and choose to focus on what I would call the divine message and not all social commentary the writers combined with that message (another one from the bible the basic assumption that women are evil or corrupt Lilith, Delila, Salome, etc).

As far as the actual topic of Adam\'s Ding-a-ling, would it have been a snausage or snipped at the tip... I vote on snipped he was made by the Hebrew God and as such being the perfect creation of that God have come pre-nipped.

Edit: just thought of something for ya Matt I would imagine most folk end up expressing a seemingly hostile tone toward Christians isn\'t so much that Christian fundamentalists are the only ass-hats ruining the good name of nice folk but that far and above all the other religous fundamentalists most of the folk we would run into are goin to be the Fundamental Christian sort. I know I\'ve never had a Rabbi, Buddist, Muslim, or Hindu Fundamentalist wake me up Saturday morning from a nice attempt at sleeping in or been pamphleted by one then yelled at about how wrong I am and how I\'m going to hell. But I imagine just about all of us have run into the Christian version of the psycho religous zealot, hence we remember them and refer to them when I would venture a guess that most don\'t mean Christian exclusively but a more generic fundamentalist no matter what faith they are from.

 

[Dragonsreach]

Originally posted by Friar
As far as the actual topic of Adam\'s Ding-a-ling, would it have been a snausage or snipped at the tip... I vote on snipped he was made by the Hebrew God and as such being the perfect creation of that God have come pre-nipped.

Here\'s a laugh, an Atheist pointing out something from the bible.
Adam would not have been circumcised as Abraham after being told to sacrifice Isaac, was then given the instruction to \"trim the tip\" as a token sacrifice instead.

Yeah I went to Sunday school and even got prizes for attendance.

@Lizcam: I think I understand the difficulties that you faced growing away from what you had been taught (or rather indoctrinated) as a child. It does however indicate to me that your strength of character is greater than you think.
I am fortunate in that I was raised amongst \'sensible\' people and despite the hassle I received for being a policemans kid grew up relativly normal.
(if you\'ll excuse me for describing myself as normal).

 

[Einion]

NSA you go boy!

Shawn R. L. Amen brother, amen

Originally posted by mattrock
Under current conditions, Darwinian evolution is not really falsifiable either as no one was there to witness the origins of life as we know it. It is speculation based primarily on a generalization of a known process (micro-evolution)

You\'re wrong there. It\'s a lot more certain than that if you understand it properly (sorry, that\'s a bit misleading: understand it better). It\'s very important to read good Darwinian writing, because even among the pros there is bad (as in wrong) and bad (as in poorly expressed) explanations of processes and cause and effect.

As far as faith being in some way counter to a belief in evolution, that\'s just lazy thinking IMV.

Originally posted by mattrock
I don\'t however, believe that evolution can adequately explain the origin of life from a scientific perspective. And neither to many scientists. That\'s why there\'s a very large contingient of the science community that believes in the idea of \"efficient causation\" or \"intelligent design.\"

That\'s a very weak argument: just because there is a large contingent (would want to see numbers by the way) doesn\'t mean they\'re right; truth is not a numbers game. Things are either right or they\'re not, doesn\'t matter a jot if only one person buys it initially and 15,000 don\'t.

Just to give one example: when the theory of plate tectonics was first floated - which I think there\'s zero doubt about now - nobody else in the community apparently bought it, obviously many of the entrenched opponents would have argued vehemently in support of some contrary view. All those opponents were wrong.

Originally posted by mattrock
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.

Okay, in that case buy everything that Stephen Jay Gould wrote. Pretty hard to get as good an intro in as accessible a form.

Have to address the tired old \"arguing on the Internet is like running in the Special Olympics: even if you win you\'re still retarded\" thing. Not only is it offensive (and inaccurate!!) it\'s also wrong at core; and quite honestly when tossed out by one side in an argument - as opposed to an observer making a snide observation - it merely shows a reluctance, or inability, on their part to engage in a rigorous discussion. That\'s why you see it so often used on low-brow fora like gaming sites where, honestly, one doesn\'t expect a high level of intellectual response to anything. We should be better than that and I\'m appalled to see it here.

Originally posted by No Such Agency
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.

Yes, and purely from a mathematical standpoint the average means that literally there are as many smaller as larger penises out there (in addition to those of the mean size).

Originally posted by Gilvan Blight
...science or religion. Both tend to admit that they could be wrong in one way or another.

The thing that is often overlooked is that both could be right.

Even when I was a Christian I had no problem with reconciling the two. There could be a god and still evolution, to take but one example, could be correct. Now personally I think it reflects better on an infinitely-patient and far-seeing divine creator that he\'d set in motion the conditions that would ultimately lead to life, rather than going \"Shazzam!\" and bingo, there\'s the world, fully-formed in its complexity (not to mention its flaws).

P.S. I haven\'t seen much evidence of religions acknowledging they could be wrong about things. As a rule I think they tend to be pretty adamant about their view (or interpretation in the case of factions) being the only correct position.

Einion

 

[No Such Agency]

Originally posted by Einion
NSA you go boy!

Aw shucks...

Have to address the tired old \"arguing on the Internet is like running in the Special Olympics: even if you win you\'re still retarded\" thing. Not only is it offensive (and inaccurate!!) it\'s also wrong at core; and quite honestly when tossed out by one side in an argument - as opposed to an observer making a snide observation - it merely shows a reluctance, or inability, on their part to engage in a rigorous discussion. That\'s why you see it so often used on low-brow fora like gaming sites where, honestly, one doesn\'t expect a high level of intellectual response to anything. We should be better than that and I\'m appalled to see it here.

Yes, it is pretty offensive, though I have seen it used in an attempt to mockingly defuse an increasingly vitriolic debate (once the tone HAS lowered to personal insults and comparisons to Hitler). Fortunately we are all gentlemen/women here so it is probably not necessary

 

[mud duck]

The real Power behind the throne? God \'snipped\' this little \'problem\' in the bud with \"Thou shall have no other Gods before me.\" which if you think about it, doesn\'t necessarily rule out the existence of other Dieteties. Yes it has been interpreted as Idol worship, but.....

Liz, think that I could interest your Son in joining the Cult of Bob?

NSA, I have to argue on the bear thing. A month or so ago, we had a bear that was hibranating under a deck with two clubs in the North woods, close to a inhabited area. The animal control people where going to put the mother down and move the clubs back up in to the deep woods. They argued that the mother would teach the clubs how to live off humans, as apposed to living in a more natural bear way.
I guess that I see the adaption of a diseases to new drugs as an adaption as apposed to evolution because the disease is still the same disease. So maybe a sideways evolution as apposed to a forward one?

 

[Gilvan Blight]

\"P.S. I haven\'t seen much evidence of religions acknowledging they could be wrong about things. As a rule I think they tend to be pretty adamant about their view (or interpretation in the case of factions) being the only correct position.\"

Just take a look at all the Changes to Cannon law over the years. If they were certain of their view there wouldn\'t be any revisions, and there have been many.

 

[mattrock]

@ Einion - in address to your comments:

- Perhaps I have gotten some bad evolutionary information and I\'ll be happy to read up on the information you suggest. And obviously I won\'t know whether that information clears things up for me until I read it. But I have a hard time understanding how Darwinian evolution as an explanation for origin could be falsifiable. At least any more so than the big bang theory or Creationist theory. And if I communicated that I think science and Christianity are at odds then I miscommunicated because I actually have not had too much trouble reconciling the two. I need to do more study on Darwinian evolution if what you say is true, but a this point it seems more akin to a religious system than a scientific one.

- I wasn\'t posing the fact that a portion of the scientific community supports the idea of efficient cause as an argument in favor of it. I was simply pointing out that one can be \'scientific\' and not be \'evolutionist.\' I\'ve never really tried to support anything by weight of numbers as I tend to be of the minority opinion.

- We are going to post in the freak bar, the mancave, and a thread on whether Adam had a pair and suddenly get all PC about a well-propogated joke about the special olympics??? lol Seriously...I don\'t even think I\'ll adress this one further than that. Lighten up. Taking offense to this kind of obvious tongue-in-cheek comment is what I\'d expect from a \"typical christian.\" I\'d further that by asking you: Do I appear to have a reluctance to engage in rigorous discussion? Mostly I can see where people come from in their arguments. I have turn your comments back on you here: this one was just weak.

- And to address the last point: I have changed my views on a number of things through my life as a Christian. Admittedly most of them were doctrinal in nature, but as I\'ve mentioned before...if evidence were present to suggest that the basis of Christianity were wrong, I\'d have to reconsider my position. If someone finds the bones of the deceased Jesus my beliefs are in trouble. As far as it being the only correct position...how could it be anything otherwise? I\'d assume you believe the same as much of what we believe would be mutually exclusive. You cannot believe that there is a God and yet at the same time believe that athiests are correct in their positions? Seems like a circular argument.

 

[mattrock]

Originally posted by lizcam

Originally posted by mattrock
I\'m probably going to get strung up for asking this, but it\'s something I truly don\'t understand...

First, as many of you know, I make no effort to hide the fact that I\'m Christian. The thing is, I don\'t expend a lot of effort patronizing athiests or any others for that matter who disagree with me. Even when their arguments are blatantly flawed and/or obviously develop on ignorance. And to be sure, many have good arguments. I don\'t bother arguing with them too much either. As I\'ve stated before, arguing on a message board is like running in the special olympics: even if you win you\'re still retarded.

That said, I am always overwhelmed by how many forum denizens are not just non-Christian (which is certainly acceptable) but are, in fact, antagonistically anti-Christian. It\'s very easy to discount all people of faith (be they Christian or any other belief system) as ignorant narrow-minded twits, but to do so completely disregards some of the great thinkers of our time.

Don\'t get me wrong, I\'m not offended or anything, but I gotta say, I fancy myself a pretty empirical thinker and at the same time a pretty faithful Christian and I don\'t really think those two things have to be mutually exclusive.

So....as a Christian among you, I have to ask: why the animosity?

Myself, Shawn, Airhead and others that participate here and are otherwise accepted as intelligent contributors to the community are all people of faith...are we considered narrow-minded and cognitively handicapped?

Just my thoughts.

I can only speak from my own experiences here so this in no way is a generalization for everyone.

For me I have serious issues with Christians because of past treatment by them. I was raised in a cult by well meaning parents. In many ways they were very good to me and I\'m not talking about anything sexual here. But I have mentioned before that I went to their school where everything was heavily censored and I was totally un-prepared for real life when the school closed. Many of my school mates from those days (50%) have either spent a great deal of time in mental health facilities or have committed suicide.

The worst of it is the amount needless guilt that was heaped on me most of my life because of religion. I was taught to hate my body, sex and anything pleasurable. And I was taught that because my cousins, Grandparents and other relatives didn\'t believe what was \"right\" they would fry in hell for eternity. All of this scarred me for life and made me never trust an organized religion.

Then there\'s Christianity\'s handling of my son. Being a liberal person I decided when my son was born that I would not stand in his way if he wanted to be Christian or Jewish or what ever. I gave him a basis in all the religions growing up. Finally he asked if he could go to a Baptist bible study group with some of his friends. I dutifully took him and he was really enjoying it.

Then we got new, very religious neighbors. Their son was the same age as my son and they were hard core proselytizers. This little boy started to ride my son about everything, nagging him if my son expressed a different view point from the \"accepted\" one. It was non-stop.

After about a year my son told me he never wanted anything to do with religion again. I tried to explain that it wasn\'t all of religion but just this one family but he would have nothing of it. I finally had to talk to the kids parents about it and they told me that this boy was just doing god\'s work and obviously my son had sins that he was not confronting.

This is the thing. I\'ve found that under the guise of religion a person can say and do things that are not only rude but out-right wrong and the rest of the world is supposed to roll over and take it. Because \"it\'s god\'s word\". That\'s my big issue with Christianity. The assumption that they can rule the world. It wasn\'t always like this. I remember a time when common politeness still ruled. But that\'s no longer in effect. I begrudge no one their religion and I do have beliefs of my own but I choose not to discuss them as I will not be a hypocrite.

Sorry for the rant. I promise to go back to being light hearted and fun. :innocent:

Liz...

It didn\'t read like a rant to me. It read like honesty. And to be frank, it breaks my heart to hear stuff like this. I totally know where you\'re coming from.

The thing that hurts Christianity more than anything else is that so many of its adherents fail to recognize their estate. I apologize for getting all \'spiritual\' here, but there\'s no other way for me to state this: I, as a Christian, have to recognize that I am no better than the worst of men in the holiness of the gaze of God. Let me put it another way: I have nothing to brag about. I\'m no better and no worse than anyone else. I didn\'t earn the salvation I believe I have and I did nothing to add to it. It was not a cooperative work between God and I. It was God\'s work that was imputed to me without cause. Too many \'christians\' think that they have accomplished something and thus lord it over others. My contention is that these people obviously missed the most important part of the gospel message.

This is the best way I can state my \'position.\'

I have my own problems and I\'m not responsible for yours (or your son\'s). Since I can\'t seem to get the plank out of my own eye, I shouldn\'t even point out the speck in yours.

I can\'t defend the \'christian\' position in your case. I can only sympatize with you and apologize for the injustice you\'ve had to deal with. It\'s not supposed to work that way.

 

[treide]

Mud Duck - The bear example is a good example of adaptation through learning, as NSA pointed out. Any creature with the ability to sense its environment can learn to avoid stuff that is unpleasant or harmful and to increase behavior that has positive outcomes. So the bear learned to raid trash cans because it was an easy way to get food. BTW, the reason they are so good at that is that evolution has produced an incredible sense of smell in bears (better than bloodhounds, according to a documentary I saw), plus they are quite strong and can get into just about anything to get to food.

If the mother bear died before she could demonstrate some of her learned behaviors to her offspring, they would not be able to benefit from that knowledge, and would have to learn it themselves via trial and error. Therefore it is an adaptation rather than an evolutionary change, the latter requiring a change in the bear\'s actual genetic coding.

BTW, I have a close friend who grew up in Fridley - small world!

Mattrock - Evolutionary theory can be falsified, as soon as someone can propose a different mechanism by which organisms change over time. Lamarck (sp?) tried to propose, for example, that the reason giraffes developed long necks is that they stretched their necks longer and longer to reach higher branches, and that eventually led to longer necks. We know that biological change doesn\'t work that way. Darwin didn\'t exactly understand how heredity worked, but he observed that it seemed to be taking place. It took the works of Mendel, Watson & Crick, and countless other scientists over the years to iron out the details.

 

[wiccanpony]

:cussing:where is the OP.......... toss in a “holy grenade” then beat feet laughing like a drunk hyena .................reverend!, you can’t hide from us, we know where your Pub is!:twisted::drunk:


it\'s a tar and feather union suit for youlol

 

[uberdark]

sorry guys, but i just feel this is just reading too much into an inane topic. i dont care about the size or lack there of adam\'s member or if there is a feminine or masculine aspect of God. all i care about is my own relationship with God and not all the philosophical rhetoric i feel is being put forth here.

i mean no disrespect to anyone, but its like when you have an art critic and a 6 year old looking at the same piece.

lets say its a \"still life of fruit\"

the art critic sees all of these amazing ideas and thoughts behind it and causes him to question his own life.

the six year old thinks its some nice looking fruit and he like the apples the bestest.

in the end its what you make of it, and i for one dont care.

:innocent::innocent:

 

[treide]

Uberdark - I respectfully disagree! While you may not care about these topics, clearly a fair number of us around here do. I actually thoroughly enjoy these types of discussions, if for no other reason to get a better understanding of the \"other side\'s\" viewpoints. Plus it is just fun to have rational debate.

Just because this website is primarily about little toy soldiers doesn\'t mean we can\'t talk about other stuff!