Evolution of the mammalian vagina

| 12 Comments
pussy hox

Q: What unique organ is found only in mammals, but not in fish, amphibians, reptiles, or birds?

The title and that little picture to the left ought to be hint enough, but if not, read on.

Continue reading "Evolution of the mammalian vagina" (on Pharyngula)

12 Comments

The c*nt. Next question, please!

What about the mammary gland? Or better known as tit.

Nice to see Beavis and Butthead visiting The Thumb.

We would like PT to be accessible to schools and libraries. The needless use of obscenity prevents that. Grow up.

Gary a word in your ear Can I suggest the obvious :)

We would like PT to be accessible to schools and libraries.

Substituting an asterisk isn’t enough to achieve that – is there an administator in the house?

It is interesting that the individual making the argument that the mammalian vagina supports the evolutionary model, does so from a non-scientific argument. Please note his opening statements: “It doesn’t make sense from a design standpoint to have our reproductive and excretory systems so intimately intermingled, but it does make a heck of a lot of sense from a purely historical point of view.” Notice, his argument, “If God did exist, or if God did create life, surely He would not have done it this way.” This is a philosophical/theological argument outside the realm of science. This is a valid question that can be open for debate, yet not in any scientific discussion. This is a hypothetical question attacking the nature of a fathomed Deity that the atheist does not believe in, in the first place. If God does indeed exist, and He is omnipotent, does He not have the right to create as He chooses? What “God” is this evolutionist attacking? Certainly not the God of the Bible. The God of the Bible has the right to do such things. The God of the Bible clearly states throughout the Bible that He does indeed create life (humans and other forms) for purposes beyond and contrary to our own understanding. Since this evolutionist has delved into the realm of theology, I will respond with a theological argument. (After all, he isn’t arguing scientifically though he has intermingled hypothetical postulates using scientific jargon to spice up his theological argument). If something about God does not make sense to us and if it seems foolish to us, then it is proof of His revealed nature according to the Bible: “For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their own craftiness”; and again, “The LORD knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile.”–1 Corinthians 3:19-20.

The negative-theological argument made by this evolutionist is an attack on a man-fabricated idea of a Deity constructed during the Victorian era of Europe. This same fabricated Deity was attacked by Darwin, being the foundation by which Darwin sought to prove his theory. Darwin, relying on these type of negative theological arguments, became readily accepted not on the basis of his sound science (which we now know was shamefully superstitious and in error), but on the basis of his attack on a falsely-fabricated Deity.

However, the Creator of the Bible was not disproved or shown in any way to be in error. If evolutionists fail to recognize that their success and acceptance has not been based on the strength of their science (evolutionary reasoning and supposed proofs are constantly evolving), but on their attack on the Victorian conception of God, they are being willfully ignorant.

No, I make no judgement about how a god would have done it – he could have done it any way. He could have had us pooping out of the tops of our heads and copulating with our toes. In that sense, that theological argument is completely meaningless, since it can accommodate any situation.

The meaning of the phrase “it makes a heck of a lot of sense from a purely historical point of view” means that viewing it from the perspective of historical additions and modifications is consistent and informative and allows us to test predictions. It is not arbitrary, unlike your god.

The negative-theological argument made by this evolutionist Uh… you misspelled “evilutionist”

rofl I notice Ben there takes a swipe at the initial off-the-cuff remarks of PZ’s article and then conveniently ignores everything that follows…

If God does indeed exist, and He is omnipotent, does He not have the right to create as He chooses? What “God” is this evolutionist attacking? Certainly not the God of the Bible. The God of the Bible has the right to do such things.

And once again we see that ID has nothing whatsoever to do with religious apologetics, and all those atheistic god-haters who SAY it does, are just lying to us. Just you wait till that judge in Dover agrees with me.

(snicker) (giggle)

Ya know, even an earthworm is capable of learning from unpleasant experiences…

However, the Creator of the Bible was not disproved or shown in any way to be in error. If evolutionists fail to recognize that their success and acceptance has not been based on the strength of their science (evolutionary reasoning and supposed proofs are constantly evolving), but on their attack on the Victorian conception of God, they are being willfully ignorant.

there goes that projection defense so common amongst creationists again.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PZ Myers published on November 1, 2005 9:05 PM.

Ask Prof. Steve Steve #2 was the previous entry in this blog.

Intelligent Design around the world is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter