Homoerotic Creationism

[A_Wanderer]

With Growing Pains Kirk Cameron

Bananas Proof Of Creation

The argument is that the banana is perfectly "designed" for people to hold and this disproves "evolutionists" wrong, I have two retorts

1) The Banana is a domesticated plant, it has been artifically selected by human beings to be the best possible fruit ~ there are no wild bananas that like a modern banana, we have selected them to have all the attributes.

2) Pineapples, how are they designed for human hands

 

[blueyedpoet]

Kirk Cameron said the banana is an argument for creationism?

 

[indra]

"It's pointed at the top for easy entry."

Indeed!

My god it's like a commercial for the penis!

 

[A_Wanderer]

I wonder why those that seem so vehemently opposed to the principle of selective pressures on infinitely varying replicators are the ones that do so much of the replicating, it's as if biology wants to outbreed those that elucidate it's principles, then I am reminded that regardless of belief the base sexuality still permeates through

 

[blueyedpoet]

What if the belief in creationism is selected for?

 

[A_Wanderer]

In some ways I suppose that it is, since it isn't the pro-choice atheists who are having kids.

 

[BVS]

 

[melon]

So how does "intelligent design" explain the appendix? Or the spleen? Get a certain disease and it bleeds to the point that it has to be removed.

How about cancer? Tumor suppression is controlled by one gene--and it's one gene that's easily mutated/corrupted, so that's why we have so much cancer, despite having a genetic protection against it.

What about genetic diseases? Where's the "intelligent design" in fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva (FOP), where those afflicted gradually are paralyzed and turn to bone?

And how about pregnancy in itself? It's thought that 80% of fertilized eggs naturally never attach to the uterus, so they are, by some definitions, naturally aborted. Beyond that, where's the "intelligent design" in growing a tail in utero, and then shedding it (or, in some instances, not shedding it and being born with a tail)?

And where's the "intelligent design" in the fact that every early fetus has *both* male and female sex organs, and a complex coordination of approximately eight hormones between the mother and fetus in a narrow window in the third month creates a male or female child? Where do the intersexed, XY females, and the infertile fall in "intelligent design"?

Where do children born with only a brain stem and die within the first week of birth fall in "intelligent design"?

"Intelligent design" advocates are idiots. And, yes, Kirk Cameron, the fucking banana is domesticated.

Melon

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Suddenly Alan Thicke looks like a Mensa member

 

[BrownEyedBoy]

So how does "intelligent design" explain the appendix? Or the spleen? Get a certain disease and it bleeds to the point that it has to be removed.

How about cancer? Tumor suppression is controlled by one gene--and it's one gene that's easily mutated/corrupted, so that's why we have so much cancer, despite having a genetic protection against it.

What about genetic diseases? Where's the "intelligent design" in fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva (FOP), where those afflicted gradually are paralyzed and turn to bone?

And how about pregnancy in itself? It's thought that 80% of fertilized eggs naturally never attach to the uterus, so they are, by some definitions, naturally aborted. Beyond that, where's the "intelligent design" in growing a tail in utero, and then shedding it (or, in some instances, not shedding it and being born with a tail)?

And where's the "intelligent design" in the fact that every early fetus has *both* male and female sex organs, and a complex coordination of approximately eight hormones between the mother and fetus in a narrow window in the third month creates a male or female child? Where do the intersexed, XY females, and the infertile fall in "intelligent design"?

Where do children born with only a brain stem and die within the first week of birth fall in "intelligent design"?

"Intelligent design" advocates are idiots. And, yes, Kirk Cameron, the fucking banana is domesticated.

Melon

I can´t believe someone as smart as you is honestly making those questions.

Turn it the other way around. How does a "lucky shot" explain this or that?

You have to have more faith to believe in a lucky shot than in intelligent design.

 

[deep]

With Growing Pains Kirk Cameron

Bananas Proof Of Creation

The argument is that the banana is perfectly "designed" for people to hold and this disproves "evolutionists" wrong, I have two retorts.

It is perfectly designed for man to hold.


and this proves what?

 

[anitram]

S
How about cancer? Tumor suppression is controlled by one gene

Um, closer to 200....

 

[AtomicBono]

dude, you can't prove the existance of God. you gotta figure that out on your own, with or without the help of bananas.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I can´t believe someone as smart as you is honestly making those questions.

Turn it the other way around. How does a "lucky shot" explain this or that?

You have to have more faith to believe in a lucky shot than in intelligent design.

There was no lucky shot making a human being from a collection of atoms and molecules, it has been at least 3.5 billion years of the most selected pressure on life ~ hardly a lucky shot.

Faith is blind, the evidence for a naturalistic world is all around us; no faith necessary.

 

[melon]

I can´t believe someone as smart as you is honestly making those questions.

Turn it the other way around. How does a "lucky shot" explain this or that?

You have to have more faith to believe in a lucky shot than in intelligent design.

You've built this entire argument on a fallacy:

That if I do not believe in "intelligent design" that I'm an atheist.

But even Roman Catholicism, the religion I grew up in, is opposed to "intelligent design," because they officially believe in "evolutionary creationism" (a.k.a., "theistic evolution"), which basically states that all of science is correct as-is, while believing that God was responsible for it. "Intelligent design" differs, because it rejects core aspects of science and creates pseudoscience to fit a religious agenda. "Evolutionary creationism," in theory, rejects no science at all.

Of course, in practice, I'm well aware that the Vatican is viciously homophobic in spite of what science says about the nature of homosexuality, but I guess every religion has contradictory theology.

Those questions are worth asking, because ID advocates only focus on the rosy parts of science to further their agenda. Nature and science is hardly that one-sided, and for that reason alone, ID is a joke.

I'm not sure what kind of plan God had, but it's increasingly looking like God created the laws of science and the building blocks of nature (i.e., atoms, elements, organic material, etc.) and just let everything go from there. I don't see any indication that things were meticulously planned, but I do not think less of God for that. The idea of "perfection," after all, is a human invention.

Melon

 

[melon]

Um, closer to 200....

I dug up an old fact from the back of my brain, so my apologies.

Melon

 

[anitram]

No problem.

It hasn't been that many years since RB pretty much was the only one known.

 

[melon]

No problem.

It hasn't been that many years since RB pretty much was the only one known.

Then that would explain it...lol.

Melon

 

[blueyedpoet]

Creationists and ID'ers who are really creationists who hide behind the dumbest name....I challenge you to read Mayr's What Evolution Is.....if you want I'll read any book about Creationism if you agree to read my recommendation. Deal anyone?

 

[U2DMfan]

This is not photoshopped. I guess even bananas have some faults.

 

[nathan1977]

How about cancer? Tumor suppression is controlled by one gene--and it's one gene that's easily mutated/corrupted, so that's why we have so much cancer, despite having a genetic protection against it.

What about genetic diseases? Where's the "intelligent design" in fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva (FOP), where those afflicted gradually are paralyzed and turn to bone?

Where do children born with only a brain stem and die within the first week of birth fall in "intelligent design"?

Where do these issues fall in evolution, which holds the ability of organisms to adapt and change to their environment as one of its fundamental principles?

Christians who believe in ID would probably point to the fall as a fundamental re-creation at the molecular, chemical, and biological level -- that the world as it is now is not how it was intended to be.