Proof Creationism Is BS

a reply to: Peeple

There can be the idea there's a discussion about what faith is, but that it is not. As far as I know the information the Bible presents has as a goal to make people receive faith from God.

If it hasn't been answered yet, I have not read the thread.
Adam was created at 1st, male/female.
It wasn't until Adam was put to sleep and genetically altered making Eve from his DNA where he was made male and a female by Yaweh.

originally posted by: Peeple
Men have nipples.

If a Creator would have made Adam first, why on Earth did he give him nipples?

I mean I'm open to read your answers, but I doubt you can come up with anything that would explain that.

Therefore I challenge you to prove me wrong, if I state:
The fact that men have nipples is conclusive proof there is no Creator.

originally posted by: Untun
a reply to: TerraLiga

The point is, what are you going to do in this timeline of the narcissist while the sun is shining? Do what you like. I myself like to believe some superior existence assembled all we live and breathe, I find it to be a fascinating concept. The more you hate, the more you lose.

I'm enjoying my life, thank you. This life, this time, this existence. Because there is no other.

a reply to: Peeple

I Disagree . Creationism " Could " Hold True for Non Self Aware Species on this Planet , but My Belief is that they were Imported to Earth from Somewhere Else . An Interesting " Theory " GOD's Work ? I would Believe.............

Creationism boils down to the existence of something.

Go scientists!

Does anyone here know what an argument from ignorance is?

Even if nobody can think of a good reason or purpose, or has not discovered a (biological) function for male nipples, that still won't justify the conclusion or assumption that male nipples serve no purpose or have no (biological) function or that there isn't a reason for them being part of the male body.

Vestigial Organs: Comparing ID and Darwinian Approaches (2012)

Live Science’s list of “5 Useless Body Parts” provides an opportunity to compare Darwinian and intelligent-design approaches to scientific investigation. Which one is the science stopper?

As Casey Luskin explained last month, the idea that the human appendix is a useless vestige of our animal past is a myth. Sure enough, The Live Science article had it first on their list of “5 Useless Body Parts” followed by the tailbone, male nipples, goose bumps and body hair, and wisdom teeth. Live Science begins with the usual bow to Darwin:

Charles Darwin pointed to these vestiges of anatomy in humans and other animals as evidence for evolution. Eventually, by noting how the vestigial organs in one species were similar to functioning organs in other species, biologists concluded two otherwise dissimilar creatures must have shared a common ancestor.

So the vestigial-organs argument, #9 on Casey Luskin’s Top Ten Problems with Darwinian Evolution persists to the present day. (Live Science didn’t tell its readers that their list is itself a vestige of a much larger list compiled by Wiedersheim, a Darwinist, in 1893.)

What would intelligent design theory bring to the subject of vestigial organs? Just because we don’t know something’s function doesn’t mean there isn’t one. An ID advocate would be curious to investigate and discover the function, not dismiss the whole question out of hand. He or she would start with the assumption that if it’s there, it probably has a function. This mindset would broaden the scope of hypotheses, and stimulate research. A function might be aesthetic, for instance, or serve a function during development but not in the adult.

A function might be degraded compared to its use in another organism. Evolutionists have applied this argument to the appendix, claiming that it is much larger and more functional in rabbits. That may be true, but rabbits have a much different lifestyle and diet. Eagles have much sharper vision. Does that mean human eyes are evolutionary vestiges of eagle eyes? An ID advocate would propose that each animal has the organ suited to its needs.

A function might be imperfect. The appendix becomes inflamed and threatens its host in 1 out of 15 people in the U.S. ID theory does not require that design be perfect, just detectable. Still, ID would promote further research. Is the U.S. statistic normal? Is it a function of diet, lifestyle, geography or other factors? Is it a recent problem that arose sometime in human history?

A function might not be found. After all, intelligent design does not require that everything is designed. That still would not necessarily imply that the organ under consideration is an evolutionary vestige of common ancestry. It might be an unused part of a designed system. We understand that from human design; not all parts of a modular building, or a software system, end up getting used in a given situation. Or, it might be a design that suffered a setback sometime since its inception.

The recently discovered function of the appendix as a rebooter for normal gut flora after infections shows that it operates in emergency situations. Firefighters are more likely to get burned, soldiers to get shot. If the appendix stores alien bacteria, it would not be surprising to see it suffer inflammation more often than other organs that are not under that kind of emergency stress.

A favorite criticism of ID is that it is a science stopper. The opposite is true. The Live Science article shows that the “vestigial organs” argument has not changed for over a century, since Wiedersheim coined the term and listed over a hundred examples. Evolutionary theory, in fact, has been worse than a science stopper: its predictions have been flat out wrong. Only a handful of alleged vestigial organs remains from Wiedersheim’s original list, and each of those is questionable. Recently Darwinians made the same kind of mistake with their myth of “junk DNA” (see David Klinghoffer’s take on that persistent myth).

Intelligent design, in contrast, offers a host of promising questions for research. One wonders how much further along science would be today if ID scientists had the power to direct research about “vestigial organs” and “junk DNA” instead of letting the Darwin power structure tell everyone, “there’s nothing to see here.” One wonders, further, how much pain and suffering might have been avoided.

Including the pain and suffering caused by compromised immune systems in those who have had their appendices removed a little too prematurely* when that was perhaps not absolutely necessary (also consider the reduced funding for and attention spent on research into healing/fixing the appendix when something goes wrong with it, all because of this myth that the human appendix is a useless vestige of our animal past, a claim and argument based on ignorance of what its function was). *: what is the word if you mean 'before it is really necessary'? Prematurely?

I guess removing appendices is more profitable for the medical industry (sector?), you get a nice steady stream of return customers with compromised immune systems.

originally posted by: TerraLiga

I'm enjoying my life, thank you. This life, this time, this existence. Because there is no other.

A shadow disappears when the light is cast upon it. The object that cast the shadow still has its existence, just in a higher dimension.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TerraLiga

I'm enjoying my life, thank you. This life, this time, this existence. Because there is no other.

A shadow disappears when the light is cast upon it. The object that cast the shadow still has its existence, just in a higher dimension.

Enjoy your paradise buddy

originally posted by: Peeple
Men have nipples.

If a Creator would have made Adam first, why on Earth did he give him nipples?

I mean I'm open to read your answers, but I doubt you can come up with anything that would explain that.

Therefore I challenge you to prove me wrong, if I state:
The fact that men have nipples is conclusive proof there is no Creator.

How do you know Adam had nipples? Don't really care if you know or not to be honest.
Regardless, Men have nipples because EVERY human being starts out the same, as a zygote and all fetal genitalia are the same and are phenotypically female.
Around 6 or 7 weeks the expression of the Y-chromosome, if present, begins to develop testes.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
... because EVERY human being starts out the same, as a zygote and all fetal genitalia are the same and are phenotypically female ...

Bible says no. Man came first.

originally posted by: TerraLiga

originally posted by: Quadrivium
... because EVERY human being starts out the same, as a zygote and all fetal genitalia are the same and are phenotypically female ...

Bible says no. Man came first.

OK

Ahhh, but did Adam have a navel?
That is controversial

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: Peeple
Men have nipples.

If a Creator would have made Adam first, why on Earth did he give him nipples?

I mean I'm open to read your answers, but I doubt you can come up with anything that would explain that.

Therefore I challenge you to prove me wrong, if I state:
The fact that men have nipples is conclusive proof there is no Creator.

How do you know Adam had nipples? Don't really care if you know or not to be honest.
Regardless, Men have nipples because EVERY human being starts out the same, as a zygote and all fetal genitalia are the same and are phenotypically female.
Around 6 or 7 weeks the expression of the Y-chromosome, if present, begins to develop testes.

originally posted by: Nevercompromise
Ahhh, but did Adam have a navel?
That is controversial

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: Peeple
Men have nipples.

If a Creator would have made Adam first, why on Earth did he give him nipples?

I mean I'm open to read your answers, but I doubt you can come up with anything that would explain that.

Therefore I challenge you to prove me wrong, if I state:
The fact that men have nipples is conclusive proof there is no Creator.

How do you know Adam had nipples? Don't really care if you know or not to be honest.
Regardless, Men have nipples because EVERY human being starts out the same, as a zygote and all fetal genitalia are the same and are phenotypically female.
Around 6 or 7 weeks the expression of the Y-chromosome, if present, begins to develop testes.

I don't know and I don't see how it matters. If I had to guess....
No as he was created outside of a woman's womb.

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: Peeple
Men have nipples.

If a Creator would have made Adam first, why on Earth did he give him nipples?

I mean I'm open to read your answers, but I doubt you can come up with anything that would explain that.

Therefore I challenge you to prove me wrong, if I state:
The fact that men have nipples is conclusive proof there is no Creator.

How do you know Adam had nipples? Don't really care if you know or not to be honest.
Regardless, Men have nipples because EVERY human being starts out the same, as a zygote and all fetal genitalia are the same and are phenotypically female.
Around 6 or 7 weeks the expression of the Y-chromosome, if present, begins to develop testes.

That's Peeple's point dude.

We know there is a 'scientific' answer as some have repeated above, but there is no Creationist answer that makes sense.

This Peeple's 'proof' is far more solid than any similar attempt by Creationists.

It gave me another thought.

Creationism can be bull# but at least we are some place. I know I didn't create it. I like the food here and there sure are a hell lot of people. There are things like enmity and friendship. People like it when they can get along and people like to be alone. There are many people to get to know and seemingly we all are fighting a battle too. What the heart is full of the mouth runs over. Some say God is freedom in here. I hope society can be structured to sustain life and the living.

originally posted by: rnaa

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: Peeple
Men have nipples.

If a Creator would have made Adam first, why on Earth did he give him nipples?

I mean I'm open to read your answers, but I doubt you can come up with anything that would explain that.

Therefore I challenge you to prove me wrong, if I state:
The fact that men have nipples is conclusive proof there is no Creator.

How do you know Adam had nipples? Don't really care if you know or not to be honest.
Regardless, Men have nipples because EVERY human being starts out the same, as a zygote and all fetal genitalia are the same and are phenotypically female.
Around 6 or 7 weeks the expression of the Y-chromosome, if present, begins to develop testes.

That's Peeple's point dude.

We know there is a 'scientific' answer as some have repeated above, but there is no Creationist answer that makes sense.

This Peeple's 'proof' is far more solid than any similar attempt by Creationists.

We don’t known if Adam had nipples.
He is starting from a false premise that has no bearing on creation. We can infer that Eve had nipples because she bore children.

If a Creator would have made Adam first, why on Earth did he give him nipples?

We, theists, create atheism for our benefit.

Why couldn't evolution theory simply be an explanation of the methodology an intelligent designer used?

a reply to: CoyoteAngels

In my mind evolution was linked to Neanderthal, some dark Medieval times, some gaps and future dinosaurs.

a reply to: Untun

I think you have it backwards. Mankind created its many, many gods to explain a world that they did not (yet) understand.