TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- i have a question for proponents of intelligent design?
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

i have a question for proponents of intelligent design?

why do i, a man, have nipples?

since eve was made from adam, adam had to have some nipple so that eve too could have nipple. and i dont think the importance of female nipple can be understated.

Re: i have a question for proponents of intelligent design?

quote:

Originally posted by Spacey Orange why do i, a man, have nipples?

The default sex of a human embryo is female, until a Y chromosome initiates male development. Prior to a Y chromosome, mammary glands are already programmed into development.

Re: i have a question for proponents of intelligent design?

quote:

Originally posted by Spacey Orange why do i, a man, have nipples?

Well how weird would you look without nipples? You think God didn't think about that?!

i have nipples too focker, can you milk me?

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 i have nipples too focker, can you milk me?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN since eve was made from adam, adam had to have some nipple so that eve too could have nipple. and i dont think the importance of female nipple can be understated.

Maybe Adam had to nurse eve to maturity first, so god gave him functional nipples. And then when the great firmament collapsed causing solar radiation to start to slowly destroy our genetic material through microevolution, male nipples became obsolite. There

Men can milk their nipples!

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/...v16/ai_16051177

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN since eve was made from adam, adam had to have some nipple so that eve too could have nipple. and i dont think the importance of female nipple can be understated.

So when god though up a woman, he needed a reference to create a nipple but he created a vagina off the top of his head? That's one deity with naughty on his mind.

quote:

Originally posted by Moongoose So when god though up a woman, he needed a reference to create a nipple but he created a vagina off the top of his head? That's one deity with naughty on his mind.

Why would we want to reproduce otherwise?

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Why would we want to reproduce otherwise?

Huh? Vaginas alone don't make me want to reproduce. I find it incredible that I feel compelled by my hormones to stick a part of me into what seems to be a melting taco

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Huh? Vaginas alone don't make me want to reproduce. I find it incredible that I feel compelled by my hormones to stick a part of me into what seems to be a melting taco

A melting taco =/. Surely you could of thought of something more... vagina like.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Men can milk their nipples! http://findarticles.com/p/articles/...v16/ai_16051177

That's just disturbing.

This thread is silly. There's way too many ways to disprove religion.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z A melting taco =/. Surely you could of thought of something more... vagina like.

PKC came to the rescue this time:

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i love it how girls try to portray their grungel as a lovely delicate flower or (in this case) a leaf. makes one wonder whether any of them have ever taken the time to give themselves a proper inspection to discover its more akin to a badly-packed kebab.

There you are... a badly-packed kebab

Re: i have a question for proponents of intelligent design?

quote:

Originally posted by Spacey Orange why do i, a man, have nipples?

because our intelligent designer made them.


DUH!

For girls to suck on something during sex.

quote:

Originally posted by mndeg This thread is silly. There's way too many ways to disprove religion.

How can you disprove religion? That would be proving a negative. Prove to me there is no god.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton How can you disprove religion? That would be proving a negative. Prove to me there is no god.

Hey, this should be fun: Prove to me that, by "God", you actually mean something

I'm in just for the semantics, heh.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/09/u...ash.html?ref=us

and all of history. alright there's no way to prove that there's no god but with the same logic there's no way to prove the flying spaghetti monster does not exist.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton How can you disprove religion? That would be proving a negative. Prove to me there is no god.

Disproving religion isnt about disproving god, its about pointing out what a fucking load of bollocks it is.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Disproving religion isnt about disproving god, its about pointing out what a fucking load of bollocks it is.

Actually, they're somewhat related. If you prove how the existence of God in Christian terms is impossible (like the way Yujin Nagasawa does), you're disproving all that is attached to this belief... which happens to include the religion as a whole. Still, even if you claim you can't disprove God, it doesn't validate the religion.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira PKC came to the rescue this time: There you are... a badly-packed kebab

That's sounds more like a shemale, and hopefully that kebab isn't packed anywhere near you . He's got a point though, a flower isn't delicate anymore if it's been over watered by multiple sprinklers in just a matter of a few weeks... more like soggy and in desperate need of more sunshine.

quote:

Originally posted by mndeg http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/09/u...ash.html?ref=us and all of history. alright there's no way to prove that there's no god but with the same logic there's no way to prove the flying spaghetti monster does not exist.

So because there is suffering on earth, there is not a god? That does not prove there is no god.

You are right, there is no way to prove the flying spaghetti monster. But flying spaghetti monster has not given "special revelation" of itself to mankind. Another thing about special revelation is that it must stand on its own in truthfulness. For example, the bible. The teachings of Jesus pretty much stands by itself as the greatest special revelation ever given to man. I'm not going to get into deciphering false religions or whose special revelation is the right special revelation. All I'm going to say, is that if one is seeking God, they seek God's special revelation. Whatever special revelation one examines must stand by itself in its truthfulness and it's practical applicability or it is not a special revelation from god/gods, whatever...

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Actually, they're somewhat related. If you prove how the existence of God in Christian terms is impossible (like the way Yujin Nagasawa does), you're disproving all that is attached to this belief... which happens to include the religion as a whole. Still, even if you claim you can't disprove God, it doesn't validate the religion.

The very nature of god is not bound by physical laws of nature or else god would not be god. You will never detect god in a laboratory. There is no measuring what is infinite. But because you can not detect or measure the infinite god, does not mean there is no god. On the other hand, this does not mean there is an infinite god. Which is why believing in god relies on faith.

My personal belief is that the very essence of the universe is god. Everything ever created was created of god. This universe is one reality in an infinite number of realities throughout the ages of a never ending eternity, which is god. When we try to discover what is the basic building block of the universe, we go from atoms, to protons, to quarks, to ever smaller, ever more complex systems, which are in and of themselves made up of more complex systems. The more we know, the more there is know. There is infinite knowledge which only god can know, especially if god is eternal, god would already see the past, present, and future all at the same time. I can not see how a programmed reality such as the one we inhabit could have just sprung up spontaneously out of nothing. Something can not come from nothing.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton The very nature of god is not bound by physical laws of nature or else god would not be god. You will never detect god in a laboratory. There is no measuring what is infinite. But because you can not detect or measure the infinite god, does not mean there is no god. On the other hand, this does not mean there is an infinite god. Which is why believing in god relies on faith.

I'm not talking about science, actually. This is something religious people (and often atheists themselves) seem to ignore. It's not science that has killed religion, so to speak: it's philosophy.

What pkc argued, and can't be denied, is that many ideas about deities in our Christian tradition (and most other theist religions, as far as I'm aware) are contradictory. So, even if God exists, it's probably not a God imagined by men...

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton My personal belief is that the very essence of the universe is god. Everything ever created was created of god. This universe is one reality in an infinite number of realities throughout the ages of a never ending eternity, which is god. When we try to discover what is the basic building block of the universe, we go from atoms, to protons, to quarks, to ever smaller, ever more complex systems, which are in and of themselves made up of more complex systems. The more we know, the more there is know. There is infinite knowledge which only god can know, especially if god is eternal, god would already see the past, present, and future all at the same time. I can not see how a programmed reality such as the one we inhabit could have just sprung up spontaneously out of nothing. Something can not come from nothing.

This is the kind of thing that ends up being problematic, and why I posted that link to Nagasawa's work: Is God omniscient, then?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.