midniterider Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 If god created us and the human body is such a wonderful miracle, why did he give us an appendix ? Or tonsils? Why is the body so prone to illness, bacteria, viruses. Why do I have an airtube right next to a food tube that causes me to choke occaisionally? Intelligent Design? I think not. More like jury rigged haphazard throw-together. Why does your teacher think the female reproductive system is so far advanced from the male reproductive system? I'd say both male and female bodies have extremely complicated systems. Which is more complicated, the female reproductive system? Or the operation of the brain? Both males and females have uber-complex brains that in my non-professional opinion are probably much more complicated than any other organ(s) of the human body. Males and females have similar brains. Maybe they evolved together, like everything else. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrotherJosh Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 When I want knowledge on why my car isn't working, I don't seek out the cashier at the gas station. I go seek out an expert aka a mechanic. A Sunday school teacher isn't going to be an expert on biology or evolution. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcdaddy Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 Why is it a super-genie speaking everything into existence at once makes more sense to them than an organism (or an orgasm) changing and developing over long periods of time? Especially since there is hard evidence for one of them. Lol. You said "hard" and "orgasm" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 Why is it a super-genie speaking everything into existence at once makes more sense to them than an organism (or an orgasm) changing and developing over long periods of time? Especially since there is hard evidence for one of them. It made me think of a good question CatsPajamas can ask the Sunday school teacher. If God created sexual reproduction, sex, and orgasms, then why is it immoral by God's laws? God created immoral ways of reproduction and that somehow proves God? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akheia Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 That Sunday School teacher is just hoping to put the kiddies into "Duh" mode--that mode tech support people love. Give a complicated explanation, and most gullible people will just go "Duh.. ok...," glaze over, and accept whatever you're telling them. I used to have a friend who made up a new "Duh" excuse every day that he'd use on almost every single call at the call center we worked at; one was "El Nino caused excessive magnetism that is making computers (insert whatever ridiculous thing the caller was having trouble with that he couldn't Google on his own; by the way, NEVER call tech support regarding mega-cheap computers)." When he'd totally shorted out the customer's mental circuits, then he'd actually fix the problem, and the customer was so scared to think for himself that he didn't do stupid shit like click buttons he hadn't been asked to click, turn stuff off or on without being told, or I don't know, piss on his motherboard thinking the ammonia would speed up his Windows install, or whatever it is stupid people always try to do to "help" tech support people. It was shocking how often this approach worked on people. Confuse people, and they're far more likely to listen to you. The problem is that not everybody thinks like this--what works on gullible fundies doesn't work as well on educated people. I feel terrible for those kids--they're going to go out all primed like fireworks to FIGHT FOR SOULS and get laughed off the stage by people who know better. Thank goodness you're actually trying to learn the truth, CatsPajamas. It should be insulting to you that this ignorant old fart is feeding you guys blatant lies about a subject he understands so poorly. I'm not sure what limitation it is in the American evangelical mindset that actually leads them to the conclusion that a Sunday School teacher should be teaching science in any capacity, but there you go. As others have said, it doesn't take much to tear these people new anuses (another evolutionary advance that makes it impossible for me to believe in a Christian creator--seriously, if he was so awesome and perfect, why did he make us so hopelessly inefficient and wasteful, and why did he design our elimination systems to be so prone to failure and sickness? Is that really the *best* idea he could come up with? And then why'd he stick a prostate gland in there to make anal sex feel so damn good to so many people if that's such a "no-no" place?). Even a rudimentary understanding of natural selection destroys the most sophisticated ID ideas. May I respectfully suggest that in addition to the fine resources already listed, you find the Dover trial documentaries and the judge's judgment papers about it? I found them simply fascinating. The paper was very long, but taught me quite a bit about evolution and about ID's many flaws. Good luck and have fun! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skepticalme Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 And I admittedly don't know enough about evolution to argue it. Little aside - still going to church, haven't told anyone I don't believe anymore. Anyway - this morning in Sunday School, our teacher said that one of the greatest arguments for God creating man and us not evolving is the fact that we can reproduce. Because so much is involved when reproduction occurs, it would be impossible for males and females to have evolved at exactly the same speed to make reproduction possible. He thinks that both had to have been created at the exact same moment for our bodies to be compatible and able to successfully produce offspring. Can someone clarify/explain this to me a little? Sorry if the question is a little vague. I know what I'm trying to ask, I just can't seem to phrase it correctly. You can take this argument apart with something Xtians understand. A group of only males or a group of only females can't break off from the rest of the population and reproduce in isolation. A male and a female are needed every time, thus there is no divergence. A mutation that occurs in a female has a 50% chance of being inherited by both her male and female offspring, and vis versa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antix Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 And I admittedly don't know enough about evolution to argue it. Little aside - still going to church, haven't told anyone I don't believe anymore. Anyway - this morning in Sunday School, our teacher said that one of the greatest arguments for God creating man and us not evolving is the fact that we can reproduce. Because so much is involved when reproduction occurs, it would be impossible for males and females to have evolved at exactly the same speed to make reproduction possible. He thinks that both had to have been created at the exact same moment for our bodies to be compatible and able to successfully produce offspring. Can someone clarify/explain this to me a little? Sorry if the question is a little vague. I know what I'm trying to ask, I just can't seem to phrase it correctly. Wow! Like I posted on another thread, I do not buy micro evolution, but that statement is easily refuted. Why are females of somespecies so much larger than the males? If they evolved simutaneously, shouldn't they be of similar size? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RankStranger Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 And I admittedly don't know enough about evolution to argue it. Little aside - still going to church, haven't told anyone I don't believe anymore. Anyway - this morning in Sunday School, our teacher said that one of the greatest arguments for God creating man and us not evolving is the fact that we can reproduce. Because so much is involved when reproduction occurs, it would be impossible for males and females to have evolved at exactly the same speed to make reproduction possible. He thinks that both had to have been created at the exact same moment for our bodies to be compatible and able to successfully produce offspring. Can someone clarify/explain this to me a little? Sorry if the question is a little vague. I know what I'm trying to ask, I just can't seem to phrase it correctly. Wow! Like I posted on another thread, I do not buy micro evolution, but that statement is easily refuted. Why are females of somespecies so much larger than the males? If they evolved simutaneously, shouldn't they be of similar size? Look up "non sequitur", and get back to us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skepticalme Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 And I admittedly don't know enough about evolution to argue it. Little aside - still going to church, haven't told anyone I don't believe anymore. Anyway - this morning in Sunday School, our teacher said that one of the greatest arguments for God creating man and us not evolving is the fact that we can reproduce. Because so much is involved when reproduction occurs, it would be impossible for males and females to have evolved at exactly the same speed to make reproduction possible. He thinks that both had to have been created at the exact same moment for our bodies to be compatible and able to successfully produce offspring. Can someone clarify/explain this to me a little? Sorry if the question is a little vague. I know what I'm trying to ask, I just can't seem to phrase it correctly. Wow! Like I posted on another thread, I do not buy micro evolution, but that statement is easily refuted. Why are females of somespecies so much larger than the males? If they evolved simutaneously, shouldn't they be of similar size? Sexual dimorphism (members of one gender being larger than the other) is mostly hormonal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thought2Much Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 If they evolved simutaneously, shouldn't they be of similar size? Short answer: No. There's no reason at all why this should be true. You need to go and berate whoever is pushing this argument against evolution for being a complete moron. EDIT: Since this is the second time I've seen this stupid argument in less than a week, does this mean that the idiots that don't believe in evolution have finally given up on the ridiculous idea of using carbon dating to argue against evolutionary science? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FeelHappy Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 Wow! Like I posted on another thread, I do not buy micro evolution, but that statement is easily refuted. Why are females of somespecies so much larger than the males? If they evolved simutaneously, shouldn't they be of similar size? hmm..... why do females of almost all species have different sexual organs than the males if both evolved simultaneously??? In all fairness, you're just taught lies by people who are afraid of their beliefs being hurt, so they data mine for anything which they can use to reinforce their beliefs (most of the time taken out of context). Seriously though read a few pro evolution books and get back to us, these things are often discussed. I'd recommend starting with Why Evolution is True for some of the proof for evolution and then read The Red Queen which addresses sexual evolution (or why sex matters). (Secondly why are the sperm of many male species so much smaller than the eggs of the females?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts