The Religion subforum.

[leopold]

I said nothing disparaging in the thread. I just said "here's what they do, you judge for yourself."

do people screw animals? do people engage in incest? perversion?
it's not just the homosexuals that are freaky, it's pretty much all of us.
i bet even you woody have some nasty ass skeletons in the closet.

 

[Woody]

do people screw animals? do people engage in incest? perversion?
it's not just the homosexuals that are freaky, it's pretty much all of us.
i bet even you woody have some nasty ass skeletons in the closet.

Would you call those things normal, healthy behaviors that deserve the privileges of marriage?

That's what the thread was about. Besides it is difficult for me to understand why gays would want to confine themselves with the restrictions of marriage, "the forsaking of all others", when the gay revolution is supposed to be about sexual freedom to do it with whomever whenever you want to.

It seems they just want to buck the system by screwing marriage. For the gay males it won't work at all without extra sex pals on the side.

 

[leopold]

do you honestly beleive that a person will put 3 arms up his ass?

 

[Woody]

do you honestly beleive that a person will put 3 arms up his ass?

That's funny, it sounds something like the title of my thread. LOL.

Maybe that would get him ready for the honeymoon.

 

[invert_nexus]

Woody,

Maybe the guys who like getting three arms up their assholes don't want to get married? Ever think of that?

By the way. You just admitted the eventual direction of your thread... See? I told you were weren't retards.

 

[Woody]

Woody,

Maybe the guys who like getting three arms up their assholes don't want to get married? Ever think of that?

Then again maybe they only want one fist up their butt, and marriage would help reduce the pain.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

of course we do. We compensate for hardware problems with software. That's why you're not even aware of your blind spot.

But. Your blind spot is there. There's a huge whole in your perception. Just because you can't see it doesn't make it any better.

And what else does the software make up for? The fact that you only have clear vision in the fovea of your retina and that the rest of your vision only seems to be clear because of the software?

How about the lack of color vision outside of the fovea? Amazing that. That you only really see colors in a small portion of your vision but think that you see color everywhere.

There's a million and one little things that are weird about the human eye. Its defects made up for elsewhere.



How about we take a step back for a second. Ok?

Let's look at your question.
You want an explanation for the human eye.
Do you even realize how nonsensical that question is? What do you want explained about it? What 'evidence' are you looking for?
Do you want a 1000 page essay as an abstract for the outline of such an endeavor?

How about we start with one simple fact of the evolution of the eye? Ok?

Humans have three cones. Yes? Reptiles have four. Because of this, they can see in the ultraviolet. Did you know that? They can.

Not only this, but we only share two of our cones with them. And some of the earlier mammals only have two cones.

Here's the story. Early mammals were nocturnal. Color vision at night is not really very useful. So, a mutation or three caused the jettisoning of two of the cones.

Ok?

Well. A few million years later, mammals were diurnal as well as nocturnal. This means that those extra cones would come in handy. But, they were gone.
Well. A beneficial duplication duplicated one of the cones. Not a precise duplication, but one which reacts to a pretty similar bandwidth of frequencies. This isn't the best solution. Far from. But it works better than two.

So. Here we are.

You might also find it interesting to note that the duplicated gene was on the X chromosome. This is why its men who are more prone to color blindness. Because we only have one copy of the X. So if we get an X with a crappy cone gene that places the frequency spread too close to each other? We can't seperate colors very well.

Yay for the eye! Woohoo!

Did I tell you I used to be a manager of an opticians and dispensed spectacles? (Age 19- 24 so very long time ago)

I also did a parachute jump for the retinitis pigmentosa society

I also had a eye test recently

I have a genuine interest in the 'eye' and could tell you many other remarkable things about it that you may not know such as the many health conditions present in the rest of the body that can be 'seen' on examination of the eye. Opticians can know much more about you than you imagine when they are checking your sight. The way that the expectation of the mind can effect vision, the way that the brain compensates for poor functioning of the 'eye' itself, the way medication effects vision. The eye is indeed a masterful piece of work.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

meanwhile the woman with the tentacle fetish needs a Brazillian pronto!!!!!

 

[The Devil Inside]

I mean, really, all the theists here have already admitted that their feelings about god are just a form of hope that there's "more" to it all, and that they have no real reason to think that way other than this hope.

this is in no way true.

i might as well say "all the british posters here are rabid football hooligans that love manchester united."

in other words, completely unsubstantiated and pure conjecture.

i am of the jewish faith, and your words reflect nothing about my beliefs, or why i hold them.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Here is one of my deleted pictures:

[deleted]

Looks a bit like a teratoma. If those things are teeth.

---
edit

well, maybe they are not teeth...and then it isn't.

 

[Woody]

“ Originally Posted by superluminal
I mean, really, all the theists here have already admitted that their feelings about god are just a form of hope that there's "more" to it all, and that they have no real reason to think that way other than this hope. ”

Superluminal, atheists think they have us figured out, but you guys always get it wrong... Always.

The spirituality element comes from a need for companionship that this world doesn't offer.

 

[The Devil Inside]

Looks a bit like a teratoma. If those things are teeth.

---
edit

well, maybe they are not teeth...and then it isn't.

i was thinking it looked like jeff goldblum.....

 

[superluminal]

Superluminal, atheists think they have us figured out, but you guys always get it wrong... Always.

The spirituality element comes from a need for companionship that this world doesn't offer.

Exactly. And that's what places it in the category of a delusion. Because there is no sky buddy. You believe in what your eyes and intellect can't percieve and no amount of measurement can illuminate, except in the negative.

By definition, this is a fantasy, or in serious cases, a delusion.

 

[superluminal]

yes, that true, our children are taught that things become alive when in fact THERE IS NO EVIDENCE for such an assumption.
when it comes to what our children are taught science should be a man about it and say we do not know how life arose.

They do. No scientist says we know how life arose. We don't. But the best working hyporthesis with the most supporting lines of evidence is that it was molecules that combined in an interesting way. What other line of research would you suggest scientists follow to learn how life arose?

 

[superluminal]

this is in no way true.

i am of the jewish faith, and your words reflect nothing about my beliefs, or why i hold them.

Not in detail, but at the root, there's a common few reasons to want there to be an afterlife and a sky protector.

 

[Woody]

Exactly. And that's what places it in the category of a delusion. Because there is no sky buddy. You believe in what your eyes and intellect can't percieve and no amount of measurement can illuminate, except in the negative.

By definition, this is a fantasy, or in serious cases, a delusion.

But the bible makes it work, and I share the same "delusion" with my christian brothers and sisters. I think it's pretty cool myself. Ask any of them and they'll tell you the same.

The really neat part about it, is they didn't have science and a lot objective information way back then. The wise old sages relied heavily on introspection, subjectivity, and analysis of self. It was a very introspective and illuminative period in human history that produced empirical results.

That's why you'll find so much wisdom about human nature from people like Confucious, Jesus, Solomon and others. The metaphors are without comparison. The inward look means more than the outward look, not less as you say.

 

[superluminal]

But the bible makes it work, and I share the same "delusion" with my christian brothers and sisters. I think it's pretty cool myself. Ask any of them and they'll tell you the same.

That's good! I'm glad for you. Really.

The really neat part about it, is they didn't have science and a lot objective information way back then. The wise old sages relied heavily on introspection, subjectivity, and analysis of self. It was a very introspective and illuminative period in human history that produced empirical results.

That's why you'll find so much wisdom about human nature from people like Confucious, Jesus, Solomon and others. The metaphors are without comparison. The inward look means more than the outward look, not less as you say.

Well, to paraphrase you woodster, you theists always seem to get it wrong. I have zero complaints with introspection and self reflection. I spend much of my time that way. It's the objective claims of god(s) as effective entities that is the problem. By effective entities I mean objectively or subjectively. There is no evidence of the objective effect of a god(s) on the universe. In fact, tests of claims by the religious are always indistinguishable from random noise. And you may claim subjective effects of a god(s) but as subjective phenomena have never been shown to be anything other than artifacts of mental processing, this is also a claim with no substance.

 

[Woody]

That's good! I'm glad for you. Really.


Well, to paraphrase you woodster, you theists always seem to get it wrong. I have zero complaints with introspection and self reflection. I spend much of my time that way. It's the objective claims of god(s) as effective entities that is the problem. By effective entities I mean objectively or subjectively. There is no evidence of the objective effect of a god(s) on the universe. In fact, tests of claims by the religious are always indistinguishable from random noise. And you may claim subjective effects of a god(s) but as subjective phenomena have never been shown to be anything other than artifacts of mental processing, this is also a claim with no substance.

Well, as we said before, there is no natural explanation for the supernatural, if there were then it would not be supernatural.. You might ask how I can know the supernatural exists, and the answer does not come from my five senses. It comes from the inside.

The external input is the bible. The words of the bible come to life in me as I read them.

 

[leopold]

They do. No scientist says we know how life arose. We don't.

they do? i have never heard of the word abiogenesis untill i came to this board.

But the best working hyporthesis with the most supporting lines of evidence is that it was molecules that combined in an interesting way. What other line of research would you suggest scientists follow to learn how life arose?

there is only one line to follow and that is brute force trial and error.

 

[The Devil Inside]

Not in detail, but at the root, there's a common few reasons to want there to be an afterlife and a sky protector.

dont you dare assume to know anything about why i believe what i believe.

actually...by all means, do. it makes you look like a presumptuous tool.