"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

stevejazzx · 22-09-2010 9:17pm

MagicMarker wrote: »

I can't tell if this is a serious answer or not?

Serious I imagine, I mean think about it...if ones testicles are in ones stomach then they can't be fondled prior to ejaculation.

PDN · 22-09-2010 9:18pm

MagicMarker wrote: »

I can't tell if this is a serious answer or not?

I guess one may take it seriously or not depending on:
a) Whether one has a partner or not.
b) Whether that partner is inventive or not.

Improbable · 22-09-2010 9:24pm

PDN wrote: »

I guess one may take it seriously or not depending on:
a) Whether one has a partner or not.
b) Whether that partner is inventive or not.

I still can't tell whether this is serious...

Seriously, is this an actual argument for the existence of a creator?

I'm sorry if this comes across as confrontational but the argument from personal pleasure is absurd.

PDN · 22-09-2010 9:30pm

Improbable wrote: »

I still can't tell whether this is serious...

Seriously, is this an actual argument for the existence of a creator?

I'm sorry if this comes across as confrontational but the argument from personal pleasure is absurd.

Do try to concentrate, nothing was offered as an argument for the existence of a creator. :rolleyes:

The question was asked if there was a creator and he created the world 6000 years ago then why are our balls on outside and not the inside. So, taking Paparazzo's initial parameters, and given that sex is supposed to be fun, it seems reasonable to suggest that a benevolent creator would place our balls where they are easily accessible to a partner's mouth.

Indeed, I'm suprised than anyone, other than an 82-year old virgin behind 3 inches of bulletproof glass, couldn't see the advantages of such an anatomical arrangement.

Improbable · 22-09-2010 9:34pm

Ah well now that's just a silly question. You could say it was for whatever reason and there's no way of really saying it didn't happen for that reason.

J C · 22-09-2010 9:40pm

robindch wrote: »

Here's him arriving at the Buswell's gig last week:

At the time, he was in the back with the telly crew ranting away at them. I think the gorilla, breasts and darwin guy were in there with him, at least at the start anyway.

You have to admit that the man has style!!!:)

sponsoredwalk · 22-09-2010 9:44pm

PDN wrote: »

God wants you to have pleasure. I shudder to think of some of the experiences I would have missed out on if they were on the inside.

It's more just the claim to know the mind of god that makes me wonder how
serious it is, where have I come across people doing that before?

PDN · 22-09-2010 9:52pm

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

It's more just the claim to know the mind of god that makes me wonder how
serious it is, where have I come across people doing that before?

Ah stop being daft. If you're going to engage in dialogue with Christians then you'll not get far without falling into needless pedantry and quibbling unless you accept that Christians see the Bible as a revelation of God's will.

After all, a whole book of the Bible is devoted to sexual intimacy. So you can't blame us if we feel free to engage in uninhibited intimacy with our spouses.

Dades · 22-09-2010 9:56pm

PDN wrote: »

God wants you to have pleasure. I shudder to think of some of the experiences I would have missed out on if they were on the inside.

I shuddered just reading that post. :pac:

Improbable · 22-09-2010 9:57pm

Dades wrote: »

I shuddered just reading that post. :pac:

Did you really have to use the pacman one? :eek:

sponsoredwalk · 22-09-2010 9:59pm

So you're asking me to look on the bible as if it's the ultimate porn, i.e. I don't
believe it's anything but a fairy tale full of immorality and sex but if it gets you
off then I can't really knock it.

No problem

edit: Not that I think porn is immoral or anything, but if I view the bible the way
some prude would view porn they'd see immorality, you get what I'm getting at.

Improbable · 22-09-2010 10:05pm

PDN wrote: »

Ah stop being daft. If you're going to engage in dialogue with Christians then you'll not get far without falling into needless pedantry and quibbling unless you accept that Christians see the Bible as a revelation of God's will.

After all, a whole book of the Bible is devoted to sexual intimacy. So you can't blame us if we feel free to engage in uninhibited intimacy with our spouses.

I don't mind debating with religious people in general but what tends to get my back up is that religious people get to pick and choose which bits are metaphorical and which bits are literal. Do you know if there is any information on whether people believed in a literal interpretation of adam and eve back when we didn't know about our evolutionary history? Or did people always believe that it was metaphorical. The same question can be asked about other parts of the bible which are called metaphorical by those religious people who try to reconcile science and the existence of a deity.

sponsoredwalk · 22-09-2010 10:09pm

Improbable last time we had this debate with PDN about this very topic in this
very thread it ended up with 15 pages being relegated to it's own thread
called "distinguishing metaphor from reality". Guess how similar the topic of
the thread was to your post

PDN · 22-09-2010 10:11pm

Improbable wrote: »

I don't mind debating with religious people in general but what tends to get my back up is that religious people get to pick and choose which bits are metaphorical and which bits are literal. Do you know if there is any information on whether people believed in a literal interpretation of adam and eve back when we didn't know about our evolutionary history? Or did people always believe that it was metaphorical. The same question can be asked about other parts of the bible which are called metaphorical by those religious people who try to reconcile science and the existence of a deity.

I suggest you try doing some reading. There's a whole wealth of literature out there studying ancient Semitic literature and Hebraic thought. This literature, written by Christians, Jews, agnostics, atheists and others, explains the principles used to discern different forms of writing, including metaphors etc.

Improbable · 22-09-2010 10:14pm

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Improbable last time we had this debate with PDN about this very topic in this
very thread it ended up with 15 pages being relegated to it's own thread
called "distinguishing metaphor from reality". Guess how similar the topic of
the thread was to your post

Oops, haven't been able to read threads from start to finish since college started back up. In that case, what about those people who don't enjoy it?

PDN · 22-09-2010 10:17pm

Improbable wrote: »

Oops, haven't been able to read threads from start to finish since college started back up. In that case, what about those people who don't enjoy it?

Enjoy what? Reading?

Improbable · 22-09-2010 10:17pm

PDN wrote: »

Enjoy what? Reading?

No, having their testicles on the outside rather than on the inside.

sponsoredwalk · 22-09-2010 10:23pm

I think they are inferior

sponsoredwalk · 22-09-2010 10:28pm

One would have thought a creator who gave such an impenetrable piece of
literature to a mainly illiterate part of the world would have gone easy on
the doublespeak/open-to-interpretation/metaphors but there you have it,
mysterious ways and all that...

Still doesn't change the fact the book is rife with inaccuracies with regard
to reality, "it wasn't meant to be a scientific statement", well then why do
you give the book so much stock?

repeat ad nauseum until we've created a new sub-thread :cool:

Back on-topic:

What was this talk of John May on the radio today, was he?

robindch · 22-09-2010 11:02pm

PDN wrote: »

Improbable wrote: »

I don't mind debating with religious people in general but what tends to get my back up is that religious people get to pick and choose which bits are metaphorical and which bits are literal.

I suggest you try doing some reading. There's a whole wealth of literature out there studying ancient Semitic literature and Hebraic thought. This literature, written by Christians, Jews, agnostics, atheists and others, explains the principles used to discern different forms of writing, including metaphors etc.

I entirely agree with PDN here!

Only I think that it should have been made clear that if you want the (jewish) principles of what is and isn't real in the bible, then consult the jewish literature. If you want the (catholic) principles of what is and isn't real in the bible, then consult the catholic literature. If you want the (protestant) principles of what is and isn't real in the bible, then consult the protestant literature. If you want the (orthodox) principles of what is and isn't real in the bible, then consult the orthodox literature. And so on. And on.

God sure didn't make it easy, what with forgetting to include instructions about what to believe is true and everything and instead, simply leaving it to the reader to decide.

.

J C · 22-09-2010 11:19pm

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Originally Posted by Paparazzo
I'm sick of this, I'm sinking down to the creationists level

If god created us 6000 years ago:
Why do we have wisdom teeth?
Wisdom teeth are an example of vestigial structures, these are
"organs" of an animal that have no apparent purpose having lost
their primary function due to evolutionary adaptation. J C, vestigial
structures make no sense whatsoever without evolution & act as
corroborating evidence for the theory. Intelligent design cannot
explain the wings of an emu, the human tailbone, the appendix,
ear muscles, useless human body hair, useless muscles, the
od characteristic of the remnants of whiskers being found on
cadavers etc..., here is a nice list that gives more
examples and better/more-detailed explanations.
Note: None of these point to "intelligence", even your terrible answer
"not-so-good-after-the-fall" is an example of "intelligence",
quite the opposite.
All of the supposedly vestigial organs have some function ... indeed some have important functions, for example, the role of the Coccyx in bipedalism and the appendix in maintaining healthy gut flora, especially in young babies.
Loss of some CFSI after it's originaly perfect Intelligent Design at Creation can explain the loss of various characteristics, such as flight in Emus, while mis-placed hairs is evidence of degeneracy in functionality since Creation.

Why are mens balls on the outside? Serious design flaw there!
Serious design flaw by a designer, smart adaptation by an
unconscious yet directed process of evolution.
calling it a serious design flaw .. and a smart adaptation is a contradiction
Why do we have an appendix?
Refer to the links in the vestigial structures.
I have already told you it has functions in relation to preventing neo-natal gastro-enteritis.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v3/i1/appendix.asp

Why do so many people have heart attacks?
evolution of heart disease protection.
If Evolution/Evolutionists cannot explain the 'evolution' of the CFSI in the Heart, itself ... I don't think that Evolution provides any explanation for Heart Disease ... other than in the minds of Evolutionists themselves.
Why can't he design a hip? Every old person needs their hip done.
Apparently humans can design this but an "inteGlligentodesigDner" forgot
Every old person doesn't need a hip replacement ... and the Divinely Intelligently designed hip can function for up to 100 years ... while the Human Designed version has a lifespan of only about 10 years!!!!
Why did he give us a coccyx?
To allow us to stand upright and sit ... amongst other things!!!
Refer to the links in the vestigial structures.The rest follow similar logic, basically I'd like to see J C explain all of these
things away first...
.

.

J C · 22-09-2010 11:27pm

robindch wrote: »

I entirely agree with PDN here!

Only I think that it should have been made clear that if you want the (jewish) principles of what is and isn't real in the bible, then consult the jewish literature. If you want the (catholic) principles of what is and isn't real in the bible, then consult the catholic literature. If you want the (protestant) principles of what is and isn't real in the bible, then consult the protestant literature. If you want the (orthodox) principles of what is and isn't real in the bible, then consult the orthodox literature. And so on. And on.

God sure didn't make it easy, what with forgetting to include instructions about what to believe is true and everything and instead, simply leaving it to the reader to decide.

.

A plain reading of the text ... would be the obvious solution ... but it would put a lot of theologians, priests, ministers, rabbis, bishops ... and assorted Atheists, out of business ... and a lot of people wouldn't want that !!!!:)

J C · 22-09-2010 11:29pm

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

I think they (external testicles) are inferior

speak for yourself!!!!
... I quite like mine exactly as and where they are!!!!;)

sponsoredwalk · 23-09-2010 12:42am

J C
All of the supposedly vestigial organs have some function ... indeed some
have important functions, for example, the role of the Coccyx in bipedalism
and the appendix in maintaining healthy gut flora, especially in young
babies.
Loss of some CFSI after it's originaly perfect Intelligent Design at Creation
can explain the loss of various characteristics, such as flight in Emus,
while mis-placed hairs is evidence of degeneracy in functionality since
Creation.

Yes of course the appendix & coccyx are going to take on these functions.
J C the point is that their "primary" purpose is gone. This, again

, is an
example of natural selection. The point of the tailbone is that it shows
common descent, J C, how do you explain a bloody tail in humans? Why
would a tailbone that so many other species share, and something that
can be traced back through evolutionary history,

The coccyx does have some functionality. But nothing about what it does
requires it to be made of fused, vertebrae-like bones; to have a muscle to
move it, since the fused parts cannot move; nor to be made by the
particular genes that it is. In short, nothing about what it does requires it
to have the form of a tiny tail.

Its structure does not match with its claimed function.
It is therefore overdesigned, containing features that are irrelevant.

Thus we can reject the made-as-it-is hypothesis as an adequate
explanation. Even if we have no other to offer.

As it happens, we do. Descent with modification explains how one
structure can, over the course of generations, become enlarged, reduced,
added to or subtracted from, and even change function or lose function.
And intriguingly, other creatures have coccyxes. It is just that they are
often longer, unfused, and made of more bones. But when we encounter
such longer, unfused coccyxes, we call them tails.

Evolution predicts that a tail-less creature whose ancestors had a tail
might have a thing just like a coccyx, just as it predicts that a lineage that
lost its hind limbs on returning to the sea might still have bits of bone
shaped like parts of a pelvis and femur inside it. As many whales do.

Evolution is therefore a satisfactory explanation, while creation can be
rejected as inadequate.

Creationists: Just for a moment, perhaps you could imagine that
evolution is true.
Please could you tell us what a reduced tail ought to look like?

http://oolon.awardspace.com/vestigial.htm

It's beautiful how you explain away examples in ways that actually show
your argument to be incorrect, it's an acquired skill :P
Nobody claims vestigial organs are useless, I specifically said "apparent
purpose" because it is an important distinction. The apparent inclusion of a
tailbone is important because it's lost the function of a tailbone but held on
to other things.

Oh, and you have absolutely zero evidence that the loss of functions of
anything explains how this could be loss of functions after the flood.
You're making stuff up here my friend and have no evidence to back it up.

J C
calling it a serious design flaw .. and a smart adaptation is a contradiction
No, no, no :eek: You've got me JC!!!!

:(:confused::mad::eek::D:rolleyes:

You really misunderstand what I meant. It's a serious design flaw if you're
trying to design a man who needs to be adequately protected from danger.
I think you'll admit having something dangling is a visible target for a
potential predator. Also, it makes you wonder seeing as most other
mammals have internal testes. It would be safer if you were designing
something "perfect" :rolleyes: It's a serious design flaw for a designer.
But, from an evolutionary standpoint, i.e. a blind struggle towards
something that will work, it makes perfect sense because keeping them
out of the body will cool them.

By the way that was no proper answer...

keppler · 23-09-2010 1:22am

J C wrote: »

The explanation for red Shift (courtesy of AIG) is as follows:-
The red-shift of starlight is a decrease in the energy of the light. This energy decrease results in a lengthening of the wavelength of the light, measured with an instrument called a spectrometer. Red is the rainbow color with the longest wavelength, hence the name "red-shift." Stars do not actually become red in appearance since the wavelength change is usually slight. Almost every star and galaxy is found to be red-shifted. The following list summarizes some of the alternative explanations for the origin of this stellar red-shift.

1. Stellar Motion. If a star moves outward from the earth, its light energy will be reduced and its wavelength stretched or red-shifted. Stars and entire galaxies show varying amounts of red-shift, therefore implying a variety of speeds for these objects. Police actually use this same effect with radar to measure the speed of cars. Stellar motion is often taken as evidence in support of the Big Bang theory. Stars are assumed to be speeding outward as a result of the explosion. This is not the only explanation of red-shift, however.

2. Gravitation. As light leaves a star, the star's gravity may slightly lengthen the wavelength of the light. A gravitational red-shift could also result from starlight passing near a massive object in space, such as a galaxy. As the light escapes from a strong gravity field, it loses energy, similar to what happens to a person struggling to the top of a mountain.

3. Second-Order Doppler Effect. A light source moving at right angles (tangentially) to an observer will always be red-shifted. This can be observed in the laboratory by using a high-speed turntable. A detector is placed in the center and a gamma radiation source is placed on the outside edge. The gamma energy is seen to decrease, or "red-shift," as the turntable speed increases. This is an intriguing explanation for stellar red-shift. When applied to stars, it implies that the universe may be in circular motion instead of radial expansion.

4. Photon Interaction. It is possible that light waves exchange energy during their movement across space and lose some energy in the process. A loss of light energy is equivalent to a "reddening" of its light. A theoretical understanding of this proposed "tired light" process has not yet been developed.

Any of these four explanations, alone or in combination, may be responsible for red-shift. We do not know enough about space to be certain of the source of stellar red-shift.

... and there are anomalies which indicates that red-shifts may not be connected with recession velocities and so may not be a reliable index to distances in an expanding universe after all.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/TJ/v11/i3/quasar.asp

J C I am slightly Confused by your explanation of redshift. The final paragraph of your reply shows a link to an anomaly which seems to defy the use of stellar movement as an explanation for redshift. Thus (according to you or your 'save as' from the AIG) rendering redshift as inaccurate method of calculating astronomical distances.

J C your first paragraph clearly states "The following list summarizes some of the alternative explanations for the origin of this stellar red-shift".
Included in the list of alternatives is Stellar Motion. are you implying that stellar drift is not the most commonly accepted cause of redshift and only an alternative????

J C what i would like to know is are you presenting the other three explanations (Gravitational Redshift, Second-Order Doppler Effect and Photon Interaction) also as means to disregard stellar movement as the primary cause of redshift and thus also rendering redshift as an inaccurate means of calculating astronomical distance??????

keppler · 23-09-2010 1:37am

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Oh, and you have absolutely zero evidence that the loss of functions of
anything explains how this could be loss of functions after the flood.
You're making stuff up here my friend and have no evidence to back it up.

Yes J C. You cannot just state that The Flood just caused loss of function!
Sponsoredwalk has just accused you of making stuff up. lying. So could you please give yourself a chance to defend yourself and elaborate............
Or maybe you just can't

equivariant · 23-09-2010 8:14am

J C wrote: »

A plain reading of the text ... would be the obvious solution ... but it would put a lot of theologians, priests, ministers, rabbis, bishops ... and assorted Atheists, out of business ... and a lot of people wouldn't want that !!!!:)

On the contrary, many (most?) atheists are probably in favour of people reading the bible and not explaining away the awkward stuff as metaphor. A plain reading of the bible generally exposes it for the pile of codswallop that it is (posting in A+A is much more fun than in christianity).

http://www.atheist.ie/campaigns/read-the-bible-campaign/

Ghost Buster · 23-09-2010 8:16am

J C wrote: »

A plain reading of the text ... would be the obvious solution ... but it would put a lot of theologians, priests, ministers, rabbis, bishops ... and assorted Atheists, out of business ... and a lot of people wouldn't want that !!!!:)

Leaving just you, your purty wife and first cousin Emmy Lou, the 9 little uns, Cleatus the dawg and the Phelps family in charge.... The futures so bright!!!:cool:

keppler · 23-09-2010 10:53am

equivariant wrote: »

On the contrary, many (most?) atheists are probably in favour of people reading the bible and not explaining away the awkward stuff as metaphor. A plain reading of the bible generally exposes it for the pile of codswallop that it is (posting in A+A is much more fun than in christianity).

http://www.atheist.ie/campaigns/read-the-bible-campaign/

AMEN TO THAT...:D

Newaglish · 23-09-2010 3:33pm

PDN wrote: »

Enjoy what? Reading?

Improbable wrote: »

No, having their testicles on the outside rather than on the inside.

This sequence of posts really made me laugh out loud. What a ludicrous conversation!

"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Comments