ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
SCIENCE SHOWS THE UNIVERSE could not have been active eternally because of entropy (energy decay, even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
CREATIONISTS RIGHT ABOUT ENTROPY (Internet Article): Entropy occurs in both open and closed systems. In every transfer of energy some of the energy becomes useless. If universe is left to itself, all energy will become useless and the universe cannot sustain any activity. Even in an open system, there must first exist an energy-converting, directing mechanism to develop order, such as when a seed becomes a tree. Spontaneous order from chaos is not possible, not to any significant degree.
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator.
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news concerning genetics, fossils, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit Institute for Creation Research.
WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! This Internet article describes how evolutionary scientists are disagreeing over all the "evidence" traditionally used to support macro-evolution. I have given over a dozen lectures, including before evolution science faculty and students, refuting macro-evolution. At the end I would answer questions and arguments from the audience. The science faculty was mostly silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true.
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select" traits, not produce them. If a trait survives, that survival is called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
GENETIC AND BIOLOGICAL SIMILARITIES are better explained due to a common Designer Who designed similar functions for similar purposes in the various forms of life. Genetic information can't happen by chance, so this is the best explanation. So-called junk DNA is not junk. These "non-coding" segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression (how, when, and where genes are expressed in the body). Read my Internet article WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
AMINO ACIDS CAN COME BY CHANCE BUT NOT PROTEINS: Find out why. Read my Pravda Internet article: NASA, FANTASY, AND SCIENCE. Most (not all) scientists believe we're here by chance. That doesn't make the belief a scientific fact. Scientists are human and they have personal motives influencing their various beliefs concerning origins. Mathematical probability shows that it is not rational nor scientific to believe that DNA and life came about by chance. Study the evidence yourself!
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site). The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation and refutes arguments by evolutionists (i.e. "flaws" in design of human eye, "junk" DNA, embryonic recapitulation, age of the earth, fossils, origin of life, etc.). Also, read my Internet article ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH. In the Earth's past, powerful volcanic activity spewed life-containing dirt into space very possibly reaching Mars.
Such a statement is highly *absurd* that order and rectitude should come about *without* a Creator, and disorder and impropriety of design and *fate* should suppose a Creator. He is an *ignoramus* who says this, because anything produced *without* design will ***never*** be exact and proportioned, while disorder and contrariness cannot co-exist with orderly design. Allah is far above what the *deluded and duped ignorant atheists* say.
If abiogenesis spontaneous creation *without* specific "design" can be admitted under such conditions of regularity, then purposeful generation and definitely balanced creation can be the result of *error* ad perplexity, since these two are *opposed* to abiogenesis.
Where would YOU put human reproductive organs? Most people believe in Love, but where is it? Can you measure it, or see it? What can be observed---and in some cases, measured---is the Effects of Love. Some things in Life must simply be taken on Faith.
reproductive system next to waste system does not disprove ID you dam idiot! A whale having a pelvis left over from when it used to be a land mammel is a question you want to ask ID people. Your video sucked,
@1rishShaman Intelligent design requires an all-powerful, all-knowing creator to have created it. If you look beneath the surface, the cellular and bodily structure of plants and organisms are so intricate and well-designed that they look like they were created by a genius in math or physics. The human brain itself is designed just like a computer, and powered by the same forces of electricity. Everything of existence, even in space, has been designed for our prosperity.
No idea about the reproductive positioning lol but perhaps if the organs were positioned somewhere easily accessible combined with the drive to procreate.. you get the idea.. I do believe we are spiritual beings. When I was 14 I injured myself badly surfing and my mother came racing down in the car and found me walking along the road bleeding. She said she felt something was wrong. My grand dad predicted the names of the queens children before they were born. Just my opinion that we are.
personally, i think that the idea of evolution is the most highest possibility of how things were created.(btw i am a Christian).the reason i believe the both sides of evolution and creationism is simple.if u read genesis chapter one of genesis and substitute each day for millions of years and u use the order of evolution(galaxy formation,then planets settling then life starting from water etc) it aligns perfectly with the order of the things created on earth.i have more "info" if ur interested.
our environment seems to be built on the principles of procreation co-habiting who knows how old the dark matter of the universe is.... it could have taken a disproportionate amount of time for our perfect breeding ground to develop to get just close enough to the sun..blala.but what im really getting at here is whats around us is only butiful because it is what keeps us alive and it is what keeps us pro creating.. dont get me wrong maybe there is some almighty master plan but id like the proof
LOL I was not expecting that question at the end... I suppose it's a fair question! If you're interested, I'd recommend the greatest show on earth by richard dawkins, a great book, and it talks about things like the reproductive system and how the human body isn't actually very ''intelligently'' ''built''
@hellomoto170 - Thanks I'll certainly check that out tomorrow (bass practice tonight). I enjoyed the God Delusion up until about half way and then he kinda tapered off from the scientific aspect. Still have yet to finish it!
@1rishShaman No problem, and yeah I'm yet to read the God Delusion too, it's been sitting on my shelf for a year now along with some others by Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris etc. Thanks.
@1rishShaman Dawkins is a very professor-ish writer. He's very dry and very British. I loved The Greatest Show, but it wasn't the easiest read. I read God Delusion and thought the same thing. Hitchens is a much better writer and a lot more fun to read.
@bamboo4tameshigiri - I love dryness especially from comedy. I've read some of Hitchens work and got a few on audio-book.
I much prefer Hitchens to Dawkins. I think Hitchens was originally supposed to be participating in this (or so I heard last year). Such a shame as I was looking forward to his appearance.
As that the male reproductive system needs to be outside the body to be kept at the right temp, it's position is probably the least vulnerable one possible. The waste disposal unit is nearby because it has to be below the intestines, otherwise energy would be wasted pumping waste upwards. The soles of the feet seem a handy place to crap from, but all that extra plumbing going down the legs would mean more things to go wrong. Plus it's more hassle to take off your shoes than take down your pants.
@gerontodon - Most peoples feet smell like shit anyway... haw haw haw I actually really like getting good answers like this. Way better than jesus did it.
Thanks, it's an interesting question whatever someone's perspective is. It could be seen as a reverse-engineering question. Maybe it was sexist referring just to the male system, as females suffer more from those kind of infections. I think another reason they're together is that the urinary tract is also where it is for energy efficiency reasons, and the reason it's combined that with the reproductive one could be that to minimise infection overall, the less orifices the better.
@gerontodon - Yea I didn't focus on any gender for just that point. I wanted female I'Ders to have a chance to question the proximity as well as males. I'm wondering when we will develop two penises though, snakes have them so why can't we? We've got two testicles just like a snake, why the favoritism of the creator when the snake was meant to be the bastard in the story?
@ExtantFrodo It would make that bible verse more interesting if humans could do that. "If your arm causes you to sin, chop it off. Again and again and again and again (et cetera)"
Well, when you look at it objectively, this idea that there was a some designer is absurd. It would be a pretty bad designer considering all the problems we have with our own bodies alone. Don't even need to get into the rest of the universe. They are able to cover for all the "imperfection" by claiming sin did it. It's a ridiculous idea, that's all.
@tattooskin72 - The imperfection makes sense considering the evil that can be expelled from ones ass at inappropriate times. And FYI for anyone else I'm talking rhetorically in the first bit and setting the scene. Please feel free to share this with actual I.D'ers because I want to understand their own take on this question.
@1rishShaman - And I counter that argument by asking: didn't Adam and Eve as they say begin to populate the earth? Even before they supposedly ate from that tree they must have surely had the same regulatory functions as humans today. How could they have lived for so long before their downfall if they didn't have the same bodily functions as we have?
@1rishShaman The whole biblical creation myth is a lot more complex than even most Christians seem to understand. I guess that's because many haven't even bothered to read it for themselves.
@tattooskin72 - Or like my parents say "you've misunderstood that" or the popular one "you've taken it out of context" - despite myself having read the thing more than themselves!
Well I mean I've read it through from cover to cover more than them, they seem to just open a random page and go from there.
So I'm finding it hard to tell, are you trying to bait them by saying "there had to be something in the beginning"... "it couldn't have just popped in to existence" or do you actually believe that?
@TotalLogic - I'm good with sarcasm, ain't I! I was pointing out their argument to begin with and then I moved onto the impracticality of "Intelligent Design" putting something that can cause major bacterial infection within such a close radius to exposed organs. I don't believe that there had to be a creator but if I was pushed to actually say one thing created what we see today, it would have been the planet itself and organisms which evolved and changed due to its own conditioning.
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THE UNIVERSE could not have been active eternally because of entropy (energy decay, even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CREATIONISTS RIGHT ABOUT ENTROPY (Internet Article): Entropy occurs in both open and closed systems. In every transfer of energy some of the energy becomes useless. If universe is left to itself, all energy will become useless and the universe cannot sustain any activity. Even in an open system, there must first exist an energy-converting, directing mechanism to develop order, such as when a seed becomes a tree. Spontaneous order from chaos is not possible, not to any significant degree.
Mogley52 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator.
Mogley52 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site. Read analysis from creation scientists about the latest news concerning genetics, fossils, astronomy, etc. that you won't read in the main stream media. Visit Institute for Creation Research.
Mogley52 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! This Internet article describes how evolutionary scientists are disagreeing over all the "evidence" traditionally used to support macro-evolution. I have given over a dozen lectures, including before evolution science faculty and students, refuting macro-evolution. At the end I would answer questions and arguments from the audience. The science faculty was mostly silent. They knew enough science to understand what I was saying was true.
Mogley52 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?
Mogley52 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select" traits, not produce them. If a trait survives, that survival is called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC AND BIOLOGICAL SIMILARITIES are better explained due to a common Designer Who designed similar functions for similar purposes in the various forms of life. Genetic information can't happen by chance, so this is the best explanation. So-called junk DNA is not junk. These "non-coding" segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression (how, when, and where genes are expressed in the body). Read my Internet article WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
AMINO ACIDS CAN COME BY CHANCE BUT NOT PROTEINS: Find out why. Read my Pravda Internet article: NASA, FANTASY, AND SCIENCE. Most (not all) scientists believe we're here by chance. That doesn't make the belief a scientific fact. Scientists are human and they have personal motives influencing their various beliefs concerning origins. Mathematical probability shows that it is not rational nor scientific to believe that DNA and life came about by chance. Study the evidence yourself!
Mogley52 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site). The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation and refutes arguments by evolutionists (i.e. "flaws" in design of human eye, "junk" DNA, embryonic recapitulation, age of the earth, fossils, origin of life, etc.). Also, read my Internet article ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH. In the Earth's past, powerful volcanic activity spewed life-containing dirt into space very possibly reaching Mars.
Mogley52 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Such a statement is highly *absurd* that order and rectitude should come about *without* a Creator, and disorder and impropriety of design and *fate* should suppose a Creator. He is an *ignoramus* who says this, because anything produced *without* design will ***never*** be exact and proportioned, while disorder and contrariness cannot co-exist with orderly design. Allah is far above what the *deluded and duped ignorant atheists* say.
1tabligh 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Absurdity of Atheism!
If abiogenesis spontaneous creation *without* specific "design" can be admitted under such conditions of regularity, then purposeful generation and definitely balanced creation can be the result of *error* ad perplexity, since these two are *opposed* to abiogenesis.
1tabligh 6 days ago
Where would YOU put human reproductive organs? Most people believe in Love, but where is it? Can you measure it, or see it? What can be observed---and in some cases, measured---is the Effects of Love. Some things in Life must simply be taken on Faith.
LechDharma 3 months ago
so we can cover up using for example y fronts. and its better than having a willy for example on your head. UP THE IRISH BY THE WAY
irishbarrycooper 4 months ago
reproductive system next to waste system does not disprove ID you dam idiot! A whale having a pelvis left over from when it used to be a land mammel is a question you want to ask ID people. Your video sucked,
footballunleashed 7 months ago
Glad to hear you liked it.
1rishShaman 7 months ago
@1rishShaman Intelligent design requires an all-powerful, all-knowing creator to have created it. If you look beneath the surface, the cellular and bodily structure of plants and organisms are so intricate and well-designed that they look like they were created by a genius in math or physics. The human brain itself is designed just like a computer, and powered by the same forces of electricity. Everything of existence, even in space, has been designed for our prosperity.
Yuilen 7 months ago
No idea about the reproductive positioning lol but perhaps if the organs were positioned somewhere easily accessible combined with the drive to procreate.. you get the idea.. I do believe we are spiritual beings. When I was 14 I injured myself badly surfing and my mother came racing down in the car and found me walking along the road bleeding. She said she felt something was wrong. My grand dad predicted the names of the queens children before they were born. Just my opinion that we are.
floatinginblue 8 months ago
personally, i think that the idea of evolution is the most highest possibility of how things were created.(btw i am a Christian).the reason i believe the both sides of evolution and creationism is simple.if u read genesis chapter one of genesis and substitute each day for millions of years and u use the order of evolution(galaxy formation,then planets settling then life starting from water etc) it aligns perfectly with the order of the things created on earth.i have more "info" if ur interested.
drummerjafet09 9 months ago
we need to save the planet man Lol, :)
fiacre 10 months ago
our environment seems to be built on the principles of procreation co-habiting who knows how old the dark matter of the universe is.... it could have taken a disproportionate amount of time for our perfect breeding ground to develop to get just close enough to the sun..blala.but what im really getting at here is whats around us is only butiful because it is what keeps us alive and it is what keeps us pro creating.. dont get me wrong maybe there is some almighty master plan but id like the proof
fiacre 10 months ago
@fiacre - Thats a great point of view there, I can't disagree with any of it actually! Don't I know you from somewhere? :P
1rishShaman 10 months ago
LOL I was not expecting that question at the end... I suppose it's a fair question! If you're interested, I'd recommend the greatest show on earth by richard dawkins, a great book, and it talks about things like the reproductive system and how the human body isn't actually very ''intelligently'' ''built''
hellomoto170 10 months ago
@hellomoto170 - Thanks I'll certainly check that out tomorrow (bass practice tonight). I enjoyed the God Delusion up until about half way and then he kinda tapered off from the scientific aspect. Still have yet to finish it!
1rishShaman 10 months ago
@1rishShaman No problem, and yeah I'm yet to read the God Delusion too, it's been sitting on my shelf for a year now along with some others by Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris etc. Thanks.
hellomoto170 10 months ago
@1rishShaman Dawkins is a very professor-ish writer. He's very dry and very British. I loved The Greatest Show, but it wasn't the easiest read. I read God Delusion and thought the same thing. Hitchens is a much better writer and a lot more fun to read.
bamboo4tameshigiri 10 months ago
@bamboo4tameshigiri - I love dryness especially from comedy. I've read some of Hitchens work and got a few on audio-book.
I much prefer Hitchens to Dawkins. I think Hitchens was originally supposed to be participating in this (or so I heard last year). Such a shame as I was looking forward to his appearance.
1rishShaman 10 months ago
As that the male reproductive system needs to be outside the body to be kept at the right temp, it's position is probably the least vulnerable one possible. The waste disposal unit is nearby because it has to be below the intestines, otherwise energy would be wasted pumping waste upwards. The soles of the feet seem a handy place to crap from, but all that extra plumbing going down the legs would mean more things to go wrong. Plus it's more hassle to take off your shoes than take down your pants.
gerontodon 10 months ago
@gerontodon - Most peoples feet smell like shit anyway... haw haw haw I actually really like getting good answers like this. Way better than jesus did it.
1rishShaman 10 months ago
@1rishShaman
Thanks, it's an interesting question whatever someone's perspective is. It could be seen as a reverse-engineering question. Maybe it was sexist referring just to the male system, as females suffer more from those kind of infections. I think another reason they're together is that the urinary tract is also where it is for energy efficiency reasons, and the reason it's combined that with the reproductive one could be that to minimise infection overall, the less orifices the better.
gerontodon 10 months ago
@gerontodon - Yea I didn't focus on any gender for just that point. I wanted female I'Ders to have a chance to question the proximity as well as males. I'm wondering when we will develop two penises though, snakes have them so why can't we? We've got two testicles just like a snake, why the favoritism of the creator when the snake was meant to be the bastard in the story?
1rishShaman 10 months ago
@1rishShaman Salamanders can regrow limbs while we can not. And they say the creator loves US more? Yeah right.
ExtantFrodo 10 months ago
@ExtantFrodo It would make that bible verse more interesting if humans could do that. "If your arm causes you to sin, chop it off. Again and again and again and again (et cetera)"
Pushtrak 10 months ago
@Pushtrak - Namek's knew this, thats why they live somewhere else.
1rishShaman 10 months ago
@Pushtrak ouch :-)
ExtantFrodo 10 months ago
Well, when you look at it objectively, this idea that there was a some designer is absurd. It would be a pretty bad designer considering all the problems we have with our own bodies alone. Don't even need to get into the rest of the universe. They are able to cover for all the "imperfection" by claiming sin did it. It's a ridiculous idea, that's all.
tattooskin72 10 months ago
@tattooskin72 - The imperfection makes sense considering the evil that can be expelled from ones ass at inappropriate times. And FYI for anyone else I'm talking rhetorically in the first bit and setting the scene. Please feel free to share this with actual I.D'ers because I want to understand their own take on this question.
1rishShaman 10 months ago
@1rishShaman - And I counter that argument by asking: didn't Adam and Eve as they say begin to populate the earth? Even before they supposedly ate from that tree they must have surely had the same regulatory functions as humans today. How could they have lived for so long before their downfall if they didn't have the same bodily functions as we have?
1rishShaman 10 months ago
@1rishShaman The whole biblical creation myth is a lot more complex than even most Christians seem to understand. I guess that's because many haven't even bothered to read it for themselves.
tattooskin72 10 months ago
@tattooskin72 - Or like my parents say "you've misunderstood that" or the popular one "you've taken it out of context" - despite myself having read the thing more than themselves!
Well I mean I've read it through from cover to cover more than them, they seem to just open a random page and go from there.
1rishShaman 10 months ago
So I'm finding it hard to tell, are you trying to bait them by saying "there had to be something in the beginning"... "it couldn't have just popped in to existence" or do you actually believe that?
TotalLogic 10 months ago
@TotalLogic - I'm good with sarcasm, ain't I! I was pointing out their argument to begin with and then I moved onto the impracticality of "Intelligent Design" putting something that can cause major bacterial infection within such a close radius to exposed organs. I don't believe that there had to be a creator but if I was pushed to actually say one thing created what we see today, it would have been the planet itself and organisms which evolved and changed due to its own conditioning.
1rishShaman 10 months ago