test0r's forum posts

#1 Edited by test0r (91 posts) -
@ChristOnIce said:

" @Sargus:   What utter nonsense.  If men have nipples simply because their mothers do, then why should they not also develop breasts or ovaries?  While one could explain male nipples without evolution (though not with evidence, obviously), the set-up you've offered is patently absurd.  The distinction between micro- and macro-evolution is also ridiculous, but I don't intend to argue that point so much as correct your apologetics.  The creationist position is generally that it was each "kind" required.  You have it backwards, as there are far more species than "kinds."  Also, two of each is pretty inaccurate.  Fourteen was the required number for any clean animal.  Granted, I consider it all a load of bollocks, but if you want to offer the Judeo-Christian spin, it helps to have read the damned book. "

Sargus isn't technically incorrect, the default template for a fetus is female, which is why men have nipples. 
The split occurs a few weeks into fetal development, when the fetus begins developing the sexual organs, which is why men do not have ovaries.
#2 Posted by test0r (91 posts) -
@Sargus said:
" @Video_Game_King said:
" I think the obvious answer is "no." If there was a truly intelligent designer, why would men have nipples? Babies don't drink from dude nipples, so what the hell are those things for? "
You actually don't need evolution to explain away nipples in men (I'm not saying it's not because of evolution, just that you don't need it). That's just a simple matter of genetics. I.E., women have nipples, children inherit genes from both parents, as a result, women's children have nipples. Even if you were to assume that the world began with one man, Adam, and one woman, Eve, and you assumed that Adam wasn't created with nipples (as indeed he wouldn't have needed to be), then you would still see the path leading to nipples in men.  I don't think I've actually met even a hardcore creationist who doesn't accept basic genetic principles like this. In fact, from my understanding, most creationist are fully willing to accept micro-evolution, just not macro-evolution (the evolution from one species into another). It's actually how many of them explain Noah's Ark - Noah didn't need every kind of animal, just two from each general species, which split up over time. "
Though they fail to realize that "macro" evolution is just a whole lot of "micro" evolution of a long period of time. 
 
Men have nipples because we do not have a gender until a few weeks into fetal development.
#3 Edited by test0r (91 posts) -
@ryanwho: Well, for one they are trying to prove the existence of the Higgs boson right now.  
Also, work is surely being done on alternative theories (i.e disprove/correct it) aswell. 
 
Again, the fundamental difference betwen science and religion is that you can, and have, to prove a scientific theory before it is broadly accepted. 
#4 Edited by test0r (91 posts) -
@ryanwho: Arguing for something with your main point being "you can't disprove it" makes for a pretty weak argument. 
 
Also, there are alternative theories regarding the Higgs boson.
#5 Edited by test0r (91 posts) -
@ryanwho: The difference between the Higgs boson and god is that god is fundamentally untestable, the Higgs boson is not. 
 
Also, ID as a scientific theory is unnecessary due to the existence of evolution. 
ID is just another attempt to fill a gap that science has yet to fill with "god/aliens/FSM did it". 
Though, I suppose in this case, science has already filled that particular gap.
#6 Posted by test0r (91 posts) -
@mano521 said:
" @AlexW00d said:
" @astrotriforce said:
" @oatz said:
" lolno 
 
 
EDIT: For those unaware, it's a fancy schmancy way to say that some being (hint: God) created/is designing nature. It means you don't believe in evolution. Just creationists trying to sound scientific. "
Right, so by your logic Richard Dawkins is not an Atheist or a proponent of Evolution, given his admission of belief in Intelligent Beings that seeded life.  "
Richard Dawkins isn't an atheist, he is strongly swayed towards atheism, but still classes himself as a an agnostic, much like myself. "
you do know that by being agnostic you are an atheist right?   a = not theism = belief in god.  you either believe in a god, or youre an atheist  anyways yea Intelligent design is just silly. its just a way for people to explain why things are the way they are without having to research it, or waiting for the research to be done "
No 
Gnosticism deals in knowledge 
Theism deals in belief.  
 
A gnostic thinks we can know wheter god exists or not, an agnostic thinks we cant know. 
A theist believes that god exists, an atheist does not believe that god exists.
#7 Edited by test0r (91 posts) -
@danimal_furry said:

" @test0r said:

" @danimal_furry said:
" @test0r said:
"ID was conjured up by religious people who'd like religion to be taught in schools.  You can believe in creation and evolution, you can't believe in ID and evolution.    Oh, and I don't believe in ID, or god for that matter. "

Explain why Intelligent Design can't work with evolution. If one believes in God, then what says he didn't allow evolution to create dinosaurs, but also created a situation where they would be wiped out, so that mammals could evolve into man? Seems like a devine hand could pretty much guide evolution the entire way, creating situations to lead to his final creation. That is Intelligent Design working with Evolution.  
No, that is believing in ID, and not evolution.   Anyway, this is a stupid subject at the best of times, considering ID isn't actually a scientific theory whilst evolution is and a video game forum is not the place to hold it. "
Nice job ducking the subject. But I agree that I don't want to have this discussion either. I don't agree that is the wrong place, though. It's in the off-topic section, and you knew what you were getting into when you read the subject title and continued reading everyone's comments... and decided to state your opinions. Just saying, don't participate if you don't like where it might lead and suddenly change your mind about what justifies being appropriate for these forums. "
I'm sorry if my answer didn't satisfy. 
 Again, intelligent design and evolution are mutually exclusive. Make no mistake about it. 
  
If, as you described in your hypothetical event, god caused the Permian–Triassic extinction event, then it isn't actually evoltution, it's god designing a system where mammals (and eventually homo sapiens) could evolve. That's intelligent design if I ever heard it. 
#8 Posted by test0r (91 posts) -
@danimal_furry said:
" @test0r said:
"ID was conjured up by religious people who'd like religion to be taught in schools.  You can believe in creation and evolution, you can't believe in ID and evolution.    Oh, and I don't believe in ID, or god for that matter. "

Explain why Intelligent Design can't work with evolution. If one believes in God, then what says he didn't allow evolution to create dinosaurs, but also created a situation where they would be wiped out, so that mammals could evolve into man? Seems like a devine hand could pretty much guide evolution the entire way, creating situations to lead to his final creation. That is Intelligent Design working with Evolution.  
No, that is believing in ID, and not evolution.  
 
Anyway, this is a stupid subject at the best of times, considering ID isn't actually a scientific theory whilst evolution is and a video game forum is not the place to hold it.
#9 Posted by test0r (91 posts) -

ID was conjured up by religious people who'd like religion to be taught in schools.  
You can believe in creation and evolution, you can't believe in ID and evolution.   
 
Oh, and I don't believe in ID, or god for that matter.

#10 Posted by test0r (91 posts) -

No problem. 
 
Today you, tomorrow me.