Forums | MacLife

Dude, you can't post stuff like that.  You know that.

8) No porn whatsoever.
- Chances are if it's nude, it's not acceptable. (Most Muppets don't count.)
-  If you post a link that you have the slightest doubt about being acceptable, post "NSFW" with it.  It might be the saving grace that lets it stay.

Yeah, you noted it with NSFW, but it's freaking full frontal nudity.  No, man.  No.

Pro_ wrote:

i dont see what nude cale3ndars has to do with the evolution vs stupidity debate anyway.

The first episode recreated was Adam and Eve.   

(great pun omitted)

I'm just glad to see parts of the Old Testament associated with porn and banned.  Mission accomplished for the hour.

Tetrachloride wrote:

Pro_ wrote:

i dont see what nude cale3ndars has to do with the evolution vs stupidity debate anyway.

The first episode recreated was Adam and Eve.   

(great pun omitted)

Adam and Steve?

Tetrachloride wrote:

Pro_ wrote:

Tetrachloride wrote:

The first episode recreated was Adam and Eve.   

(great pun omitted)

Adam and Steve?

Well here it is.

I must have been feeling my Oats this morning.

Hey, none of that either.  Don't touch me th...stop it!   I mean it, I'll scream.

A very very spirited 'high five' to Pro_ for the transcript. What is so telling is the vitriol of the pseudo-christians vs. the 'elitist' academics. The name callers aren't Christian in any sense of the teachings of Jesus Christ. They graphically show that they are of their brethren, the devil: "By their works, you shall know them." Disingenuous is a polite word for political assassination, which is their real goal. It's gratifying to see the 'thinkers' hit back with hard fact and reasoned rebuttal. It's time to get tough!

Thanks Pro_. Welcome to the discussion.

Does ID explain how a duckbilled platypus came to be ?

Well, AiG certainly thinks that it's a baffling animal:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio … atypus.asp

Most of the article is a typical "argument from incedulity" or "argument from ignorance" (you pick...).  You have to read to the end to get to the best part of the article where they claim that biologists were wrong on one thing (that platypi only ever lived in Australia), thus they must be wrong everywhere.

Then, it gets even better.  They note that fossil platypus teeth have been found in S. America AND go on to state that modern platypi HAVE NO TEETH.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong...but if they accept the toothed platypi of S. America, does it not follow that toothlessness EVOLVED????

For a fairly good summary of platypi evolution, and a critique of YEC craziness on this file, see:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/platypus.html

JakeTheTall wrote:

I saw some of the buggers in a zoo in Australia.  They're a LOT smaller than I thought they'd be.

I always figured that they were beaver-sized.  But that's probably because I'm Canadian.

How big are they?

JakeTheTall wrote:

Does ID explain why cancer exists ?  Or people with extra Y chromosomes, or other genetic birth defects?

In what way would the origin of cancer differ from a Creationist worldview or Darwinistic worldview?

JakeTheTall wrote:

Well, I guess for a Creationist...why would the Maker design something that could have the basic blueprint (genes) have a flaw, that created a sickness (cancer) ?  One that strikes a decent-sized number of people ?

That would apply to more than just cancer, wouldn't it?

Judging from what I see in the immediate past, cancer as diagnosed didn't become a huge issue until our last few generations. Is it a degradation from normal human wear and tear, or is it the result of a species not properly taking in the necessities of life, but still going on to reproduce?

jerwin wrote:

Fido the Gaul wrote:

Is it a degradation from normal human wear and tear, or is it the result of a species not properly taking in the necessities of life, but still going on to reproduce?

so, death is the result of impropriety? The wages of sin is death, and all that?

Ah, so you're saying the more one consumes of fast food and the culture it creates, the more one should be rewarded?