# Conversation between God & an Angel



## Four (Jun 1, 2012)




----------



## Vmarsh (Jun 1, 2012)

Dumb


----------



## Four (Jun 1, 2012)

Vmarsh said:


> Dumb



nou


----------



## dawg2 (Jun 1, 2012)

I don't get it.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 1, 2012)

This is the last argument I would bring up to creationist if I were an atheist.

It seems absolutely ludacris to think that matter floating in space somehow became human DNA.

http://www.accessexcellence.org/AE/AEPC/NIH/gene03.php

DNA resides in the core, or nucleus, of each of the body's *trillions of cells*. Every human cell (with the exception of mature red blood cells, which have no nucleus) contains the same DNA. Each cell has 46 molecules of double-stranded DNA. Each molecule is made up of 50 to 250 million bases housed in a chromosome.


----------



## Four (Jun 1, 2012)

Its just poking fun at the ID people that point to how everything is so perfectly designed, etc. When the human body is filled with little vestige organs and inefficiencies as a result of evolution.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 1, 2012)

Four said:


> Its just poking fun at the ID people that point to how everything is so perfectly designed, etc. When the human body is filled with little vestige organs and inefficiencies as a result of evolution.



Have those particular organs always been ineffecient or obsolete?


----------



## Hankus (Jun 1, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Have those particular organs always been ineffecient or obsolete?



Depends on who you ask


----------



## Four (Jun 1, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Have those particular organs always been ineffecient or obsolete?



not to our evolutionary ancestors.. 

Appendix for example was used at some point to digest cellulose when our evolutionary ancestors were herbivores.

Goosebumps used to help insulate us when we were cold, but we don't have the hair to support it anymore.. (well some people might...)

our tailbone, from when our ancestors used to have tails, etc.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 1, 2012)

Four said:


> not to our evolutionary ancestors..
> 
> Appendix for example was used at some point to digest cellulose when our evolutionary ancestors were herbivores.
> 
> ...



So you're stating that even though they were used at some point, they are now ineffecient and could not have been designed that way?


----------



## Four (Jun 1, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> So you're stating that even though they were used at some point, they are now ineffecient and could not have been designed that way?



That they are no inefficient and potentially dangerous / deadly would not point to no design, but a poor or malicious design as illustrated in the pretend conversation


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 1, 2012)

Four said:


> That they are no inefficient and potentially dangerous / deadly would not point to no design, but a poor or malicious design as illustrated in the pretend conversation



You don't like the ways God has given us to die? Do you think it should be less, more or simply just different ways to die?


----------



## Four (Jun 1, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> You don't like the ways God has given us to die? Do you think it should be less, more or simply just different ways to die?



I'd rather not die in general. I'm just speculating that if you had a supreme being that created an organism I would speculate that said organism would be better designed than homo-sapiens. Deadly organs aside, some just don't do anything at all, wasted space, etc.

Naturally i'm just speculating, i'm not trying to prove that god doesn't exist with this point, just that looking at the human body as divinely created in the image of a supreme being seems odd considering the appendix, not to mention back hair


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 1, 2012)

Four said:


> I'd rather not die in general. I'm just speculating that if you had a supreme being that created an organism I would speculate that said organism would be better designed than homo-sapiens. Deadly organs aside, some just don't do anything at all, wasted space, etc.
> 
> Naturally i'm just speculating, i'm not trying to prove that god doesn't exist with this point, just that looking at the human body as divinely created in the image of a supreme being seems odd considering the appendix, *not to mention back hair*


You too?


----------



## Four (Jun 1, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> You too?




I also forgot to mention Male nipples....


----------



## Four (Jun 1, 2012)

Also, TIL (today i learned) this is freaking cool



> Not a structure but a vestigial behavior, the palmar grasp reflex appears at birth and persists until five or six months of age. When an object is placed in the infant’s hand and strokes their palm, the fingers will close and they will grasp it. The grip is strong but unpredictable; though it may be able to support the child’s weight, they may also release their grip suddenly and without warning. The reverse motion can be induced by stroking the back or side of the hand. The palmar grasp reflex is supported to be a vestigial behavior in human infants. When placing a finger or object to the palm of an infant, it will securely grasp it. This grasp is found to be rather strong. Some infants—37% according to a 1932 study—are able to support their own weight from a rod, although there is no way they can cling to their mother. The grasp is also evident in the feet too. When a baby is sitting down, its prehensile feet assume a curled-in posture, much like what is observed in an adult chimp. An ancestral primate would have had sufficient body hair to which an infant could cling unlike modern humans, thus allowing its mother to escape from danger, such as climbing up a tree in the presence of a predator without having to occupy her hands holding her baby.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jun 1, 2012)

Four said:


> That they are no inefficient and potentially dangerous / deadly would not point to no design, but a poor or malicious design as illustrated in the pretend conversation



Not from some of the studies and theories I have read. 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/mar/04/appendix-store-beneficial-bacteria


----------



## Four (Jun 1, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> Not from some of the studies and theories I have read.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/mar/04/appendix-store-beneficial-bacteria



Thats a cool article, thanks! Given that the appendix used to allow out ancestors to digest cellulose, it makes sense that it might provide some gut flora to our bowls, as in general we need bacteria to digest plant matter.

Kind of like how our toes help us balance even though we dont really need them to grab tree limbs anymore


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 1, 2012)

Four said:


> Also, TIL (today i learned) this is freaking cool



Dang that is pretty cool. My boy is a little over six months, and that is true about the grabbing thing, cool to learn why.


----------



## Four (Jun 1, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Dang that is pretty cool. My boy is a little over six months, and that is true about the grabbing thing, cool to learn why.



So you're past the point were you can get him to try to climb on your back hair like an ape?


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 1, 2012)

Four said:


> So you're past the point were you can get him to try to climb on your back hair like an ape?




He only tries that when the dog is chasing him.


----------



## Asath (Jun 6, 2012)

Joke Alert . . . 

It has always been observed that the human body is imperfectly designed.  For example, the ears should be mounted on the shoulders, thereby increasing stereo separation; the hair should be on the soles of our feet, as both insulation and protection against sharp objects; two more eyes, rear-facing, would provide much better protection against predators; and the sex organs should be mounted in the middle of the face, thereby eliminating the need for small talk.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Jun 6, 2012)

Four said:


> our tailbone, from when our ancestors used to have tails, etc.



What a crock.  the tail bone is an anchor point for muscle that help keep us erect and help control bowel movement and such.

Next thing you will blabbing about is how a human embryo goes through the stages of evolution as it grows.  Explaining all about gills and such.

Tommy rot.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 6, 2012)

NE GA Pappy said:


> What a crock.  the tail bone is an anchor point for muscle that help keep us erect and help control bowel movement and such.
> 
> Next thing you will blabbing about is how a human embryo goes through the stages of evolution as it grows.  Explaining all about gills and such.
> 
> Tommy rot.



Why are some babies born with tails?


----------



## Four (Jun 7, 2012)

NE GA Pappy said:


> Next thing you will blabbing about is how a human embryo goes through the stages of evolution as it grows.  Explaining all about gills and such.



We know this is wrong, scientifically. 

The unborn baby does turn from female to male, not male to female.....

Imagine the bible  if adam was made from eves rib and adam was blamed for the forbidden fruit.


----------



## Asath (Jun 7, 2012)

“ . . . the tail bone is an anchor point for muscle that help keep us erect and help control bowel movement and such . . . “

Really?  Explain that to us ignorant infidels.

The coccyx bone helps control bowel movements? ? ?

Remember here that we’re talking about a small triangular bone that forms the very lower extremity of the human spinal column, and consists of four ankylosed (that is: grown together, and no longer jointed or flexible)  rudimentary (that is, undeveloped or vestigial) vertebrae.

Your theory is that the presence of this assembly helps us crap properly?

Please, please, please, explain this to us – the fate of my entire sense of humor hinges on the answer . . .


----------



## fish hawk (Jun 8, 2012)

Asath said:


> “ . . . the tail bone is an anchor point for muscle that help keep us erect and help control bowel movement and such . . . “
> 
> Really?  Explain that to us ignorant infidels.
> 
> ...



Sometimes...............The tail bone is connected to the jaw bone.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Jun 8, 2012)

Asath said:


> “ . . . the tail bone is an anchor point for muscle that help keep us erect and help control bowel movement and such . . . “
> 
> Really?  Explain that to us ignorant infidels.
> 
> ...



QUOTED FROM http://www.ehow.com/about_4595962_the-tail-bone.html


The tailbone is commonly thought of as the remnant of an actual tail, left over from a time before we evolved into humans. Some describe it as a "vestigial tail," meaning it has no real purpose in our bodies. However, it does serve as an attachment site for muscles and ligaments, which makes this a misnomer. There are several muscles that attach to the tailbone, including the gluteus maximus, the levator ani, the sphincter ani externis and the coccygeus. These muscles all play important roles in standing, bowel control and pelvic floor support.

Read more: About the Tail Bone | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_4595962_the-tail-bone.html#ixzz1xCiPcRiF

hope your funny bone heals properly


----------



## bullethead (Jun 8, 2012)

The first sentence is awesome.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 8, 2012)

bullethead said:


> The first sentence is awesome.



What makes it awesome?


----------



## ted_BSR (Jun 8, 2012)

Ahhh the great mysteries. I think nipples for men is the most perplexing. They seamingly serve no purpose. Backhair, I understand, but nipples for men? No, I do not understand.


----------



## Asath (Jun 9, 2012)

“However, it does serve as an attachment site for muscles and ligaments, which makes this a misnomer.”

Nice try at redefining, but no, not really.  EVERY bone has muscles and ligaments attached, what with the bones being the framework that everything else is actually attached to.  If NOTHING was attached to this bone it would be a bit like a swinging pendulum inside everyone’s backside, which would certainly make dancing a far more fun thing to watch.  The purpose of the muscle and the ligament is to be attached to SOMETHING so that it can properly do the job it is assigned.  Upon the eventual evolutionary elimination of this vestigial ‘tail-bone’ people will not suddenly be unable to eliminate waste.  You have it backwards – the biological mechanism is not enabled by the attachment, the attachment is simply one of biological efficiency and convenience at the present time.

The contention that the PURPOSE of the coccyx bone assembly is so that we can actually crap properly remains one of the funnier things that have ever been proposed here, and fellas, THAT is saying a lot . . .


----------



## ted_BSR (Jun 9, 2012)

Asath said:


> “However, it does serve as an attachment site for muscles and ligaments, which makes this a misnomer.”
> 
> Nice try at redefining, but no, not really.  EVERY bone has muscles and ligaments attached, what with the bones being the framework that everything else is actually attached to.  If NOTHING was attached to this bone it would be a bit like a swinging pendulum inside everyone’s backside, which would certainly make dancing a far more fun thing to watch.  The purpose of the muscle and the ligament is to be attached to SOMETHING so that it can properly do the job it is assigned.  Upon the eventual evolutionary elimination of this vestigial ‘tail-bone’ people will not suddenly be unable to eliminate waste.  You have it backwards – the biological mechanism is not enabled by the attachment, the attachment is simply one of biological efficiency and convenience at the present time.
> 
> The contention that the PURPOSE of the coccyx bone assembly is so that we can actually crap properly remains one of the funnier things that have ever been proposed here, and fellas, THAT is saying a lot . . .



If you have yours removed, let us know how it goes. Just curious.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Jun 9, 2012)

Asath said:


> “However, it does serve as an attachment site for muscles and ligaments, which makes this a misnomer.”
> 
> Nice try at redefining, but no, not really.  EVERY bone has muscles and ligaments attached, what with the bones being the framework that everything else is actually attached to.  If NOTHING was attached to this bone it would be a bit like a swinging pendulum inside everyone’s backside, which would certainly make dancing a far more fun thing to watch.  The purpose of the muscle and the ligament is to be attached to SOMETHING so that it can properly do the job it is assigned.  Upon the eventual evolutionary elimination of this vestigial ‘tail-bone’ people will not suddenly be unable to eliminate waste.  You have it backwards – the biological mechanism is not enabled by the attachment, the attachment is simply one of biological efficiency and convenience at the present time.
> 
> The contention that the PURPOSE of the coccyx bone assembly is so that we can actually crap properly remains one of the funnier things that have ever been proposed here, and fellas, THAT is saying a lot . . .



You wanted to know how it helped you crap right, and I told you.  Seems like someone may be back pedaling or his attachment points are not working correctly for him to eliminate his ignorance.


----------



## Asath (Jun 10, 2012)

With all due respect, sir, you told me nothing of the sort.  

You said, “There are several muscles that attach to the tailbone, including the gluteus maximus, the levator ani, the sphincter ani externis and the coccygeus. These muscles all play important roles in standing, bowel control and pelvic floor support.”

So you explained that there are several muscles involved in helping one to crap properly.  Though by no means an exhaustive list, the ones you cited are completely correct, and I thank you for not becoming terribly pedantic and listing the entire catalogue of muscles and mechanisms involved – it is enough to make a proctologist’s eyes water.  

But none of these muscles and mechanisms DEPEND on the tailbone for their functions.  Some of them are merely attached to it, and that is simply because it is there.  The function of the muscles is completely independent of the function of the tailbone, as the former actually do a job and the latter is merely a currently convenient anchor for them.  

The argument that the underlying structure enables the function is in many ways and in many cases true, in a way, but the truth in this case is much like contending that if not for the hull of the ship, as a structural enabling point, barnacles wouldn’t be growing and functioning.  Yes, a muscle does need a point of attachment, but it will make due with whatever is available if the overall function of the system is dependent not on the attachment point, but on the muscle itself.

Explaining the crapping mechanism, in other words, is a world away from explaining the tailbone.


----------



## Nastytater (Jun 10, 2012)

Sounds to me like a bunch of folks playing on theroy instead of actually knowing the God's Honest truth. With that being said,anybody could argue that your all wrong. Scientists always come up with a conclusion anyways to fit their needs and also to form yours. Not that it's "TRUTH",but to form a conclusion to make sound good.


----------



## gemcgrew (Jun 10, 2012)

Asath said:


> But none of these muscles and mechanisms DEPEND on the tailbone for their functions.  Some of them are merely attached to it, and that is simply because it is there.



Nice try!


----------



## Asath (Jun 11, 2012)

Sigh.

Has there ever been a more solid argument made to slash the taxpayer’s burden by gutting the publicly funded Education budget in this country?  

Clearly public education isn’t working.

I propose that we do it like this – every time someone who graduated from public schools in a given budget district or from a publicly-funded university says something like, “GOD made Mathematics!  It is laughable to think otherwise!,” we completely eliminate their funding.  Taking the government one better, we can call this, instead of ‘No Child Left Behind,’ something like ‘No Morons Allowed To Steal Our Money.’

Might be time to come to grips with the reality that some folks are just too fundamentally brainwashed for a real education to be of any use.


----------



## fish hawk (Jun 11, 2012)

The world according to asath....what a screwed up place that would be.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Jun 11, 2012)

Four said:


> We know this is wrong, scientifically.
> 
> The unborn baby does turn from female to male, not male to female.....
> 
> Imagine the bible  if adam was made from eves rib and adam was blamed for the forbidden fruit.



DUH???  what have you been smoking?

the baby turns from female to male??????? 

at the time of conception, the child either has 2 X chromosomes, being female, or 1 X and 1 Y chromosome, being male.  The sex of the child is established before the first cell ever splits.

What gives you the idea that the chromosomes change somehow after conception and changes the child from female to male?


----------



## Asath (Jun 11, 2012)

Sigh.  See what I mean?

Biologically, the chromosomal differentiation doesn’t kick into gear right up front at the initial stages of cell division, and all human fetuses develop in the same way up until a certain decisive moment – that is why human males have nipples.  We don’t really have a reason for them, except that the DNA sequence doesn’t seem to be all that decisive at the early developmental stages, so it puts all of us in the same basket at first, then at some point goes into gear and decides which way to go – we’re not 100% sure why this happens yet, but we’re quite certain that God doesn’t look around, fetus by fetus, worldwide, and decide whether HE needs a boy or a girl as the outcome of this particular pregnancy.  We DO know that men still end up with nipples – a purely functional female trait which is of no use whatsoever to the male.  Go figure.

Did anyone at all go to school and actually learn anything?    

This to say that if one views even a small part of the actual history of the world, and learns even a single thing from it, the part that cannot help but impress you is that the history of the world is filled entirely with the ill-effects of passionate belief in one form of undemonstrated nonsense or another – ALWAYS to tragic ends.

To stand and contend that one’s own form of passionate belief is different – THIS TIME – than any of the others who made the same claims over time concerning their own beliefs is laughably absurd.

The truth is that which can be demonstrated.  It is not that which is printed in pamphlets and bullied loudly from atop glorified and expensively decorated soapboxes.  The real truth is quite silent, and has no need to advertise, proselytize, or recruit followers – it simply is, and that is quite enough.

If your own particular ‘Truth’ needs to be somehow codified, legislated, interpreted, debated, compromised upon, and enforced then it ceases to be true in any independent and objective sense, and is simply the ‘truth’ of the moment, according only to your group of like-minded morons.  Real truth doesn’t need you to help it out by becoming its police force.

Anyone who was provided with even ten-seconds worth of education in the history of the world in which they live should see that as self-evident.  EVERYTHING that has EVER been ‘Believed,’ rather than Proven has turned out to be wrong.  Much of what has been thought to have been proven has turned out, upon more advanced and more sophisticated investigation, to have been close, but still wrong.  Upon further advances and refinements in the future, much of what is NOW thought to be proven will similarly turn out to have been closer to the bulls eye, but still wrong.  

The difference is that objective investigation and advancement does not resent being later proven wrong – they welcome it.  If the currently state-of-the-art technology available to them was able to move the idea forward, and their thoughts at the time contributed to later achievements, when the technologies and resulting discoveries similarly advanced, that is considered to be a life well spent.

Modern ‘Belief,’ on the other hand, does not advance at all.  It merely reacts, co-opts new discoveries, rationalizes them in increasingly vague and increasingly ignorant rhetoric, and tries desperately to fit each new development into a set of outdated, irrelevant, and purely fictional ancient stories, claiming time and again that THEY knew it all along . . . 

Nonsense.  We’re onto you, and the empires built on willful ignorance and control-minded dictatorial decrees are crumbling, yet again . . . 

How very unsurprising, to any student . . .


----------



## fish hawk (Jun 12, 2012)

NE GA Pappy said:


> DUH???  what have you been smoking?



Ive often wondered that myself,maybe the same thing that Bill Maher guy is on,he's my favorite atheist by the way!!!And on Bill Maher:I'd like to arm wrestle that punk,I bet i could put one of those twigs straight through the table.


----------



## Four (Jun 12, 2012)

NE GA Pappy said:


> DUH???  what have you been smoking?
> 
> the baby turns from female to male???????
> 
> ...



Asath likely did a better job explaining, but ill try to make it short.

The chromosome doesn't change, but the fetus develops distinctly female, then at a certain point hormones are introduced and turns the sexy parts male (among other things)


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 12, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> Ive often wondered that myself,maybe the same thing that Bill Maher guy is on,he's my favorite atheist by the way!!!And on Bill Maher:I'd like to arm wrestle that punk,I bet i could put one of those twigs straight through the table.



Oh my......

That's REALLY the best that you've got isn't it?   You want to beat him up (figuratively).  How quaint.


----------



## fish hawk (Jun 13, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Oh my......
> 
> That's REALLY the best that you've got isn't it?   You want to beat him up (figuratively).  How quaint.



Great....now were comparing arm wrestling to beating someone up.You dont beat someone up when you arm wrestle.Arm wrestling is a competition,man against man,best man wins.....Heck who knows, he might bust my knuckles on the table,he could wrap that grape vine of an arm around mine and BOOM!!!But i doubt it.I can here him now in that whinny voice of his,stop that hurts!!!Also Bill is a proud member of PETA,makes me like him even more.Are you a PETA member with Bill,ambush????????????????


----------



## bullethead (Jun 13, 2012)

fish hawk said:


> Great....now were comparing arm wrestling to beating someone up.You dont beat someone up when you arm wrestle.Arm wrestling is a competition,man against man,best man wins.....Heck who knows, he might bust my knuckles on the table,he could wrap that grape vine of an arm around mine and BOOM!!!But i doubt it.I can here him now in that whinny voice of his,stop that hurts!!!Also Bill is a proud member of PETA,makes me like him even more.Are you a PETA member with Bill,ambush????????????????



Personally I cannot stand Maher. No need to lump him in with others on here because they might have one thing in common. Some Christians I know get a little offended when linked with other Christians. I mean really...what are "they" smoking right?? If you want to arm wrestle Bill or give him an old fashioned thumping then step up and do it instead of talking about it from 2000 miles away. Go on his site and offer him the challenge. Sounds like a heck of a test of one's own strength to offer up to arm wrestle a spindly grape-vined armed twit like Maher. I mean are you SURE you can take him? Is there anything else you can do to stack the odds in your favor even more? Maybe a combination tuner upper arm wrestling match/100yd dash with Stephen Hawking to build up confidence..........?


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 13, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Personally I cannot stand Maher.



Good to hear that.  As I was reading this thread, before I got to this post, I was wondering if most atheists give credibility to like minded celebrities in the same way many Christians have given to Kirk Cameron, which is embarrassing.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 13, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Good to hear that.  As I was reading this thread, before I got to this post, I was wondering if most atheists give credibility to like minded celebrities in the same way many Christians have given to Kirk Cameron, which is embarrassing.



I don't like or dislike anyone because of their race, nationality or beliefs, my opinion of them is based off of their actions.


----------



## centerpin fan (Jun 13, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I mean are you SURE you can take him?



I am.  I'd mop the floor with Maher.  I've wrestled women much bigger than him:


----------



## bullethead (Jun 13, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> I am.  I'd mop the floor with Maher.  I've wrestled women much bigger than him:



Nail=Head


----------



## dawg2 (Jun 13, 2012)

dawg2 said:


> I don't get it.



OK.  Now I get it....and now this whole thread is funny


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 13, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> I am.  I'd mop the floor with Maher.  I've wrestled women much bigger than him:


----------



## fish hawk (Jun 13, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Maybe a combination tuner upper arm wrestling match/100yd dash with Stephen Hawking to build up confidence..........?



I'd rather challenge Billy Bowlegs to the foot race!!!


----------



## Asath (Jun 13, 2012)

And here they keep trying to tell us that they’ve progressed past ancient thoughts – yet when cornered by their own thoughts, and unable to think of anything new, they revert to the ancient default position – ‘Wanna Fight About It?’

Might Makes Right.  Laughably predictable.

One ought to be very careful, if that is the only fallback position.  Some of the Infidels are pretty well accomplished themselves, and can fairly embarrass folks on that level of presumption as well.

Does it ALWAYS need to be reduced to the lowest common denominator?  You really think that an arm-wrestling match, or a WAR, will settle the matter?


----------



## fish hawk (Jun 14, 2012)

Asath said:


> And here they keep trying to tell us that they’ve progressed past ancient thoughts – yet when cornered by their own thoughts, and unable to think of anything new, they revert to the ancient default position – ‘Wanna Fight About It?’
> 
> Might Makes Right.  Laughably predictable.
> 
> ...



Lighten up Asath,it's a joke!!!You know ha ha....Is there a shred of a piece of bone in your body that would allow you to laugh sometimes.We might not agree but we can laugh together,right????Wouldnt you get a kick out of watching me foot race Billy Bowlegs or arm wrestle Bill Maher????


----------

