345 replies to this topic

[Randy Reed]

Balloon guy, on Monday, January 11th, 2010, 9:42 AM, said:

This would be a speculation. You have no examples of humans with tails, (other than random freaks of nature ) you have primates and a fact that we are cousins on the evolution tree thanks to dna comparisons.

FYPThere have been 23 elephant-like animals in history, and yet only two survive today (and we add, they’re not doing very well). Clearly, this is the mark of an all-powerful creator who is stuck on the same stupid idea and can’t figure out why the hell they keep dying off. Hmm, perhaps it’s because giant, big-eared mammals with huge, prehensile noses are ridiculous? I mean, WTF? A giant, powerful, grasping nose? It looks like something a preschooler would make up.

[LongLiveYorke]

Randy Reed, on Monday, January 11th, 2010, 1:17 PM, said:

WTF? A giant, powerful, grasping nose? It looks like something a preschooler would make up.

I laughed

[Balloon guy]

Randy Reed, on Monday, January 11th, 2010, 10:17 AM, said:

FYPThere have been 23 elephant-like animals in history, and yet only two survive today (and we add, they’re not doing very well). Clearly, this is the mark of an all-powerful creator who is stuck on the same stupid idea and can’t figure out why the hell they keep dying off. Hmm, perhaps it’s because giant, big-eared mammals with huge, prehensile noses are ridiculous? I mean, WTF? A giant, powerful, grasping nose? It looks like something a preschooler would make up.

I don't see your point.You are saying there is no way God would make something that looks like an elephant because it's got a big nose?And you are saying that since many species of elephants have died off this means God couldn't have made them?You do understand that the fall of man brought change to God's original plan and as such things die now?

[colonel Feathers]

Randy Reed, on Monday, January 11th, 2010, 9:16 AM, said:

It would be because if my nose was intelligently designed they did a piss poor job of it juding by the way the it's running over my upper lip. It was surely a much better design when we walked on all fours and it faced backwards.

This is why God in his wisdom evolved plastic surgeons. Also if you are using poor designs to debunk a creator, the earth itself is one big botched job.

[Balloon guy]

colonel Feathers, on Monday, January 11th, 2010, 12:08 PM, said:

This is why God in his wisdom evolved plastic surgeons.

that and his desire to make sure Cher can sing forever

[Randy Reed]

Balloon guy, on Monday, January 11th, 2010, 11:59 AM, said:

I don't see your point.You are saying there is no way God would make something that looks like an elephant because it's got a big nose?And you are saying that since many species of elephants have died off this means God couldn't have made them?You do understand that the fall of man brought change to God's original plan and as such things die now?

I think the operating word was "intelligent". And no, I don't understand the babble about the fall of man and how God had no power to do anything about it.

colonel Feathers, on Monday, January 11th, 2010, 1:08 PM, said:

This is why God in his wisdom evolved plastic surgeons. Also if you are using poor designs to debunk a creator, the earth itself is one big botched job.

Well, uh,thanks for the support I guess.

[vbnautilus]

Balloon guy, on Monday, January 11th, 2010, 9:42 AM, said:

You have no examples of humans with tails,

Except for every single human embryo

Quote

(other than random freaks of nature )

and a bunch of freaks of nature (thanks to god for those?)

Quote

The fact that without the tail bone we would have serious issues with muscles, ligaments and tendons not having a place to connect to shows that this is a purposeful and necessary part of the human anatomy.

...which used to be a tail.

Quote

I think it's because it is nick-named 'tail-bone' that so many of you guys are fooled.

Or, it's nick-named a tail-bone because it corresponds to our tail.

[Balloon guy]

Randy Reed, on Monday, January 11th, 2010, 12:52 PM, said:

I think the operating word was "intelligent". And no, I don't understand the babble about the fall of man and how God had no power to do anything about it.

Yea, it's obvious you don't understand that.I mean you are trying to pass off an appendage that is vital to our ability to walk sit and dance as vestigial...Why would I suspect you to understand one of the more basic concepts in Christianity?

[Balloon guy]

Does this livescience site understand the whole process of male/female division in the zygite etc to explain the reason for nipples on men?I guess when you have nothing but made up science you got to grab what you can.Funny that it is #1 on their list.Like at one time we needed them and now we don't.I guess the word vestigial has lost it's meaning since the scopes trial destroyed it's relevance to truth.

[vbnautilus]

Balloon guy, on Monday, January 11th, 2010, 1:07 PM, said:

Does this livescience site understand the whole process of male/female division in the zygite etc to explain the reason for nipples on men?I guess when you have nothing but made up science you got to grab what you can.Funny that it is #1 on their list.Like at one time we needed them and now we don't.I guess the word vestigial has lost it's meaning since the scopes trial destroyed it's relevance to truth.

Well we know you didn't read the actual article since1 - I screwed up the numbering and forgot the appendix. nipples were #22 - the article says this: The subject of male nipples is a sensitive, and maybe confusing, topic to many. Those who wish to invalidate evolutionary theory might pose the question, "Was man descended from woman?" The answer, of course, is no. Both men and women have nipples because in early stages of fetal development, an unborn child is effectively sexless. Nipples are present in both males and females; it is only in a later stage of fetal development that testosterone causes sex differentiation in a fetus. All mammals, male and female, have mammary glands. Male nipples are vestigial; they may perform a small role in sexual stimulation and a small number of men have been able to lactate. However, they are not fully functional and, because cancer can grow in male or female breast tissue, the tissue can be dangerous.

[Balloon guy]

vbnautilus, on Monday, January 11th, 2010, 1:18 PM, said:

Well we know you didn't read the actual article since1 - I screwed up the numbering and forgot the appendix. nipples were #22 - the article says this: The subject of male nipples is a sensitive, and maybe confusing, topic to many. Those who wish to invalidate evolutionary theory might pose the question, "Was man descended from woman?" The answer, of course, is no. Both men and women have nipples because in early stages of fetal development, an unborn child is effectively sexless. Nipples are present in both males and females; it is only in a later stage of fetal development that testosterone causes sex differentiation in a fetus. All mammals, male and female, have mammary glands. Male nipples are vestigial; they may perform a small role in sexual stimulation and a small number of men have been able to lactate. However, they are not fully functional and, because cancer can grow in male or female breast tissue, the tissue can be dangerous.

1. I never read the article...I have standards for what I put into my brain, and after seeing the list, I knew this would be wasted effort.2. I think you will need have to have crow redefine vestigial for us, because the current definition is not met by the above's explanation. It doesn't matter if something is potentially harmful to us to make it become vestigial, nor is it required to be fully functioning, it needs to have been used before, but now have no function.When the geniuses at this joke site explain what the male nipples used to be for, then they can claim they are no longer useful. Until then they, like you guys, are making up facts to fit your bias.It's common. And easily spotted by those of us who hold truth to be higher than bias.

[Randy Reed]

Balloon guy, on Monday, January 11th, 2010, 1:23 PM, said:

1. I never read the article...I have standards for what I put into my brain, and after seeing the list, I knew this would be wasted effort.2. I think you will need have to have crow redefine vestigial for us, because the current definition is not met by the above's explanation. It doesn't matter if something is potentially harmful to us to make it become vestigial, nor is it required to be fully functioning, it needs to have been used before, but now have no function.When the geniuses at this joke site explain what the male nipples used to be for, then they can claim they are no longer useful. Until then they, like you guys, are making up facts to fit your bias.It's common. And easily spotted by those of us who hold truth to be higher than bias.

Well Mr. Truth can you explain what God was thinking when he gave Trex those dinky little arms? I mean wtf? I bet he was laughing his ass off that day.

[Balloon guy]

Randy Reed, on Monday, January 11th, 2010, 1:31 PM, said:

Well Mr. Truth can you explain what God was thinking when he gave Trex those dinky little arms? I mean wtf? I bet he was laughing his ass off that day.

Trex was a vegetarian and those little hands were useful for stripping an extinct berry from an extinct plant that required little arms on a large body.Of course this is the standard deflection of the evolutionist. Once their cute little attempts at 'proving' their theory are proven completely baseless and false, they try to attack the messenger.Your link was a joke, with no basis in reality. Don't blame me for tearing it apart.And I guess the nose could have been placed somewhere else...there's the side of the head, under the chin, below the mouth?I mean it should have somewhat close access to the brain to interpret the data, so the head makes sense. Oh and you'll want to keep the water out of it when it rains, so a little downward angle would be good. I guess the nose isn't such a mess after all.

[Randy Reed]

Balloon guy, on Monday, January 11th, 2010, 1:41 PM, said:

Trex was a vegetarian and those little hands were useful for stripping an extinct berry from an extinct plant that required little arms on a large body.Of course this is the standard deflection of the evolutionist. Once their cute little attempts at 'proving' their theory are proven completely baseless and false, they try to attack the messenger.Your link was a joke, with no basis in reality. Don't blame me for tearing it apart.And I guess the nose could have been placed somewhere else...there's the side of the head, under the chin, below the mouth?I mean it should have somewhat close access to the brain to interpret the data, so the head makes sense. Oh and you'll want to keep the water out of it when it rains, so a little downward angle would be good. I guess the nose isn't such a mess after all.

Okay, so God made this huge dinosaur with little arms so that he could only eat berries and then took the berries away so they could starve to death? Right.Can you explain why humans and the Paddlefish share some of the same genes, namely the Hox gene which enables both to grow arms (or fins)?

[colonel Feathers]

Maybe god put nipples on men cause he knew that someday transgenderism would come into vogue, and he didnt want them laughed at on topless beaches.

[Balloon guy]

Randy Reed, on Monday, January 11th, 2010, 2:02 PM, said:

Okay, so God made this huge dinosaur with little arms so that he could only eat berries and then took the berries away so they could starve to death? Right.Can you explain why humans and the Paddlefish share some of the same genes, namely the Hox gene which enables both to grow arms (or fins)?

When God was making the Paddlefish on Thursday, he was coming in right after the cleaning woman, Helga, had 'straightened up'. this caused his organization plan of organizing everything by molecular weight to be messed up and instead by organized by alphabetic number of neutrons/electron ratios. Otherwise the Hox gene would have been way over on the outskirts of the lab and you can bet God would have skipped using it for the fish since he needed it for Friday's big day. Instead it was right in front of Him so he saved time because if there is one thing you can bet on, it's that God is an efficient Creator of new lifeforms.Now your turn, why do Humans share over 60% of their DNA with fruit flys?

[Randy Reed]

Balloon guy, on Monday, January 11th, 2010, 2:22 PM, said:

As soon as you explain why Humans and Bananas share 50% of their DNA

Easy- Our common ancestor was HUMANA haha

[Balloon guy]

Randy Reed, on Monday, January 11th, 2010, 2:25 PM, said:

Easy- Our common ancestor was HUMANA haha

I tee em up, you knock em out

[BaseJester]

Balloon guy, on Monday, January 11th, 2010, 5:22 PM, said:

Now your turn, why do Humans share over 60% of their DNA with fruit flys?

I can't say I knew that figure, but why is it surprising?We're not similar to fruit flies as compared to other animals, but as compared to say a rock, we're pretty similar. We reproduce sexually. We eat things and digest them. We have multiple cells with common features.

[Balloon guy]

BaseJester, on Monday, January 11th, 2010, 3:34 PM, said:

I can't say I knew that figure, but why is it surprising?We're not similar to fruit flies as compared to other animals, but as compared to say a rock, we're pretty similar. We reproduce sexually. We eat things and digest them. We have multiple cells with common features.

Sorry, the assertion is that these things disprove the ability for there to be a Creator, I am merely doing what you are doing, which is turn that logic around and show it for it's weak point that it is.For you to re-point out my point shows that either:1. My point was correct, hence I win2. My logic was correct, hence I win.Therefore, we are stuck with uncharacteristic results of me winning the debate.Good day sirs