STILL no evidence FOR creation/ID

PsychoSarah said:

Circumcision doesn't reduce masturbation, except for in the rare person that ends up with practically no feeling or outright pain from the act. Which are not the most common outcomes from the procedure.

Click to expand...

The study in the link posted said it reduced pleasure from masturbation. It could be postulated from this that as the benefit from masturbation is reduced, masturbation itself is reduced. I understand that on the subject of circumcision, it appears there are studies affirming/rejecting almost every benefit/issue.

PsychoSarah said:

-_- a view that has resulted in children dying because their parents think crystals can heal them and other such nonsense. My fiance's mother tried to have him exorcised, for crying out loud. Despite the fact that parents should be reliable health advocates for their children, this isn't always the case. I would rather not leave children to the mercy of ignorant or insane parents, so rather than trust the parents by default, I would say children above or equal to the age of 12 should have agency when it comes to procedures that are a matter of life and death, and that the default would be the most typical treatment direction taken for children younger than that age whom lack a sane health advocate.

Click to expand...

If you believe parents have a right to terminate the lives of their children, why not the right to deny them potentially life saving medical procedures? Don't doctors claim exercising is healthy for children?

Funny how documentaries and scientists seem not be able to skip the word design when looking at animals. You hear it a lot of times when they present evolution.
But is ´apparent design´for them, you can´t deny that animals seems to be intelligently constructed.

NBB said:

Funny how documentaries and scientist seem not be able to skip the word design when looking at animals. You hear it a lot of times when they present evolution.
But is ´apparent design´for them, you can´t deny that animal seems to be intelligently constructed.

Click to expand...

Because there are two common meanings of the word "design." In one sense it means "purpose." In the other sense it merely means the arrangement of functional components, without any implication of purpose.

NBB said:

Funny how documentaries and scientists seem not be able to skip the word design when looking at animals. You hear it a lot of times when they present evolution.
But is ´apparent design´for them, you can´t deny that animals seems to be intelligently constructed.

Click to expand...

Of course we’re intelligent, if I do say so myself.

I just read how the ´The tectum is a beautiful piece of engineering.´ in an evolution article and there is that word everywhere. It shoulnd´t be obvious that nature has that particular ´well done and functioning´ side to it?

HitchSlap said:

Of course we’re intelligent, if I do say so myself.

Click to expand...

Don't forget "wise" as well.

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

That's how you became an atheist, wasn't it?

AV1611VET said:

Don't forget "wise" as well.

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became Christians,

That's how you became an atheist, wasn't it?

Click to expand...

Intelligence is how we determine what’s designed and what’s not, compadre.

Doctor.Sphinx said:

Can you give even one example of a species (more correctly a kind) conceiving something not of that species (or kind)?

Click to expand...

First off, the term "kind" is simply a Biblical thing that means nothing. So you can stop using it. Asking this question shows that you're either purposefully misdirecting or you don't understand evolution. So I'm going to go with you don't understand and try to educate you a bit. Here are some basic rules of how we got here. No parents ever gave birth to any child that they didn't recognize. Get that? Evolution happens on a population basis, not on an individual basis. Now, have you heard of ring species? Groups of animals will begin to expand around a natural formation like a mountain and they will form a ring around it. As they do they create little population groups. Group A can breed with Group B. Group B can breed with Group A behind it and Group C in front of it. This goes on around the mountain until Group M runs into Group A and they cannot interbreed. They've evolved to the point that they are different species yet they can interbreed with the groups around them. Ring species. You will say, "they're all still lizards." Yes. But they are now a different species of lizards. Once they can't interbreed they are forever isolated from the gene pool that they came from and can only become more and more different. They can't share DNA anymore. If they can only become more different, that's evolution. You say, well, they're just lizards and they will always be lizards. Why? We've seen lizards change from laying eggs to live birth. Given enough time what's to stop one group of lizards from changing and changing and changing? We've only been watching the world for a little over a hundred years now with the idea that species can change. One hundred years out of millions. Stop insisting it can't happen.

Phred said:

First off, the term "kind" is simply a Biblical thing that means nothing. So you can stop using it. Asking this question shows that you're either purposefully misdirecting or you don't understand evolution. So I'm going to go with you don't understand and try to educate you a bit. Here are some basic rules of how we got here. No parents ever gave birth to any child that they didn't recognize. Get that? Evolution happens on a population basis, not on an individual basis. Now, have you heard of ring species? Groups of animals will begin to expand around a natural formation like a mountain and they will form a ring around it. As they do they create little population groups. Group A can breed with Group B. Group B can breed with Group A behind it and Group C in front of it. This goes on around the mountain until Group M runs into Group A and they cannot interbreed. They've evolved to the point that they are different species yet they can interbreed with the groups around them. Ring species. You will say, "they're all still lizards." Yes. But they are now a different species of lizards. Once they can't interbreed they are forever isolated from the gene pool that they came from and can only become more and more different. They can't share DNA anymore. If they can only become more different, that's evolution. You say, well, they're just lizards and they will always be lizards. Why? We've seen lizards change from laying eggs to live birth. Given enough time what's to stop one group of lizards from changing and changing and changing? We've only been watching the world for a little over a hundred years now with the idea that species can change. One hundred years out of millions. Stop insisting it can't happen.

Click to expand...

Nothing improves overtime with a bit of luck like evo suggests there is nothing making these animals improve even if they need some improvement because x situation. They are not going to get improved just by needing it and with luck... liek evo documentaries and ´biologists´ suggest.

NBB said:

Nothing improves overtime with a bit of luck like evo suggests there is nothing making these animals improve even if they need some improvement because x situation. They are not going to get improved just by needing it and with luck... liek evo documentaries and ´biologists´ suggest.

Click to expand...

You seem confused. If you have a question about ToE, you should ask.

HitchSlap said:

You seem confused. If you have a question about ToE, you should ask.

Click to expand...

I have read evolution a lot, and actually is a simple thing. And animals don´t get improved like birds supposedly jumping up mountains or falling of trees to get wings.

NBB said:

Nothing improves overtime with a bit of luck like evo suggests there is nothing making these animals improve even if they need some improvement because x situation. They are not going to get improved just by needing it and with luck... liek evo documentaries and ´biologists´ suggest.

Click to expand...

There are an awful lot of mistakes and misapprehensions in your post. First, things do improve over time if there is an energy source to add energy to the system. If only there were a big, yellow energy source out in space pouring energy into the earth on a daily basis... OH! There is. We call it "the sun" and it's been doing that for the entire life of this planet. You keep harping on "luck" and that's not a part of this. So you can stop that now. Random chance isn't luck. There's as much chance of a crappy outcome as there is of a good one. Mutations aren't going to be good. They're just going to be mutations. There is only one thing that matters. Does the creature survive long enough to pass on its genes? That's all. Nothing else. If the mutation helps the creature survive better and pass on its genes then it will. If it doesn't then it won't. There is NO luck and NO mind guiding it. Lastly, I think you believe that there's an outcome. There isn't. There is no target for evolution. We are here because we are what ended up. We weren't somehow the magical outcome that evolution managed to create. It's no wonder you can't understand evolution when you have all these ridiculous ideas floating around in your head.

Phred said:

There are an awful lot of mistakes and misapprehensions in your post. First, things do improve over time if there is an energy source to add energy to the system. If only there were a big, yellow energy source out in space pouring energy into the earth on a daily basis... OH! There is. We call it "the sun" and it's been doing that for the entire life of this planet. You keep harping on "luck" and that's not a part of this. So you can stop that now. Random chance isn't luck. There's as much chance of a crappy outcome as there is of a good one. Mutations aren't going to be good. They're just going to be mutations. There is only one thing that matters. Does the creature survive long enough to pass on its genes? That's all. Nothing else. If the mutation helps the creature survive better and pass on its genes then it will. If it doesn't then it won't. There is NO luck and NO mind guiding it. Lastly, I think you believe that there's an outcome. There isn't. There is no target for evolution. We are here because we are what ended up. We weren't somehow the magical outcome that evolution managed to create. It's no wonder you can't understand evolution when you have all these ridiculous ideas floating around in your head.

Click to expand...

Evolution if true needs a load of luck in the random mutations to be able to stack up tiny change after tiny change improving a biological machine that has no big flaws.

NBB said:

Evolution if true needs a load of luck in the random mutations to be able to stack up tiny change after tiny change improving a biological machine that has no big flaws.

Click to expand...

You're still hung up on "improve" and "flaws." It's not about improving or flaws. It's about DOES THE MUTATION MEAN THAT THE ORGANISM CAN PASS ON ITS GENES BETTER THAN OTHERS? That's it. There's a skier in Finnland who had a mutation that allowed his blood to carry more oxygen than others. He ended up being one of the most successful endurance skiers ever. Would that matter to someone in a corporate job in New York? No... but to him it was amazing. In our past, that person would have been able to chase and hunt longer and farther than anyone in the tribe. I can't get you to stop thinking about this in terms of luck and improve and flaws... this is on you now.

Finnish Skier

Doctor.Sphinx said:

The study in the link posted said it reduced pleasure from masturbation.

Click to expand...

It does. XD but not enough to discourage masturbation in most men.

Doctor.Sphinx said:

It could be postulated from this that as the benefit from masturbation is reduced, masturbation itself is reduced.

Click to expand...

Reality and the booming inappropriate content industry in the United States, a country in which male circumcision is quite common, suggest otherwise.

Doctor.Sphinx said:

I understand that on the subject of circumcision, it appears there are studies affirming/rejecting almost every benefit/issue.

Click to expand...

Not surprising, given the history of it. The only actual benefit of circumcision I know of to be confirmed is a bit of a reduction in the chances of contracting certain STIs. The downsides are reduced pleasure from sex and increased potential for further desensitization over time. However, the extremely unlucky can end up becoming impotent from it or having pain with sexual acts, and I think we both can agree that such outcomes are far from ideal.

-_- personally, though, why would you even give a crap if other people touch in the privacy of their own homes? If you view abstaining from the practice as absolutely necessary to be a good Christian, you are free to voice that, but endorsing mass genital mutilation in the hopes of some reduction in it is going a bit far. We don't try to reduce murders by cutting off everyone's hands, do we?

Doctor.Sphinx said:

If you believe parents have a right to terminate the lives of their children,

Click to expand...

If this is an abortion thing, I've never told you what my position on that is. Plenty of atheists are pro life, it isn't a position exclusive to theists.

From my perspective, abortion is a sad practice, only the better of the evils we are caught in between. As it stands, more people live with it being legal than with it being illegal, due to how many people were dying from improperly performed illegal abortions before.

However, it is possible to immensely reduce abortion numbers by supporting actions that financially support low income families (33% of abortions are asked for by the reasoning that the mother doesn't feel she can financially support the child), improving sexual education, and making birth control methods cheaper. I say get to the root of the problem; get rid of the reasons people want to get abortions, and it won't matter if it is legal or not.

Doctor.Sphinx said:

why not the right to deny them potentially life saving medical procedures?

Click to expand...

Again, a stance which assumes I am pro choice, when the reality is that I approach the issue as a social matter rather than a legal one. Reduce the number of people that want abortions by removing the problems that drive them towards that choice rather than removing the option and inevitably raising the demand of illegal back alley abortions.

But no, I don't think parents should have the right to refuse life-saving treatment for their child if it is within their means.

Doctor.Sphinx said:

Don't doctors claim exercising is healthy for children?

Click to expand...

-_- you very well know exorcising and exercising are different things. Or, perhaps you don't. An exorcism is a sort of ritual for casting out demons that is largely frowned upon in modern times because the vast majority of those "demons" are actually treatable mental disorders that are not helped in any way by an exorcism. The only ones actually helped are delusions of being possessed, to some extent.

NBB said:

I have read evolution a lot, and actually is a simple thing. And animals don´t get improved like birds supposedly jumping up mountains or falling of trees to get wings.

Click to expand...

I don't believe you have any idea of ToE. You've yet to provide a cogent idea yet.

NBB said:

I have read evolution a lot, and actually is a simple thing. And animals don´t get improved like birds supposedly jumping up mountains or falling of trees to get wings.

Click to expand...

Obviously it isn't "very simple" when you say stuff like this. It just shows that you do not understand what evolution is.

You only earn the right to criticize a scientific theory when you show that you understand said theory.

Skreeper said:

Obviously it isn't "very simple" when you say stuff like this. It just shows that you do not understand what evolution is.

You only earn the right to criticize a scientific theory when you show that you understand said theory.

Click to expand...

Tell me how evolutionists think birds got wings then. By flapping, jumping up cliffs is another one or falling of trees. Which is ridiculous.

NBB said:

Tell me how evolutionists think birds got wings then. By flapping, jumping up cliffs is another one or falling of trees. Which is ridiculous.

Click to expand...

By means of mutations which are selected for by natural selection. A bird with the means to fly or levitate has a much higher chance of living long enough to pass on his genes than a bird without the ability to fly.

Doctor.Sphinx said:

Can you give even one example of a species (more correctly a kind) conceiving something not of that species (or kind)?

Click to expand...

. Any polyploid species meets your criteria ( bread wheat) . Kind is not correct or even useful scientific terminology in any meaning of the word.