Comments on: Two Eggs – Hold the Sperm

By: Rodger Wrighthead

Rodger Wrighthead — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 08:04:16 +0000

Avoiding the blatant female sexism in the setup to this article, the topic itself is quite interesting.
One of the major ideas dealing with the destruction of our species before global warming hit the scene was some kind of loss of our ability to reproduce. Even more recently we have gone as far as taking stem cells and artificially producing sperm from them: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5154026.stm

But rather than focusing on the sociological impacts progressions in science like this has (I mean seriously, which straight guy would say “no!” to being the sex slave to an entire female civilization? And: If god seriously disliked something that we as ‘intelligent’ beings where doing, he would go Old Testament on our asses… seriously guys he wouldn’t f-about.) I think we should all e-hi-five at the fact that advancements like this mean one up on species extinction. Go us!

By: allduerespect88

allduerespect88 — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 06:16:53 +0000

I believe MC Hawking can shed some light on this situation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGNRYNdVT7g

By: Dropbear

Dropbear — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 05:42:03 +0000

I think you all are missing something terribly important here. In a strictly female society we WOULD ALL BE PMS-ing AT THE SAME TIME!!! If avoiding this means I will forever be putting the toilet seat down …. then I am willing to make that sacrifice. Besides… some boys are hot….

By: HiEv

HiEv — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 19:09:36 +0000

wargammer said: "evolution is not science

it is faith. there is zero evidence for it on the cell level see Darwin'x Black Box"

Evolution is most definitely science, as it is a working explanation for the evidence around us. Evolution is testable and makes predictions. On the other hand, creationism does not make any predictions and is not falsifiable. Accepting creationism, based on the current lack of evidence for it, is faith and not science. There is tons of evidence for it on the cell(ular) level. For example, one can see the commonalities in genetics across species that support it. Much of medicine, zoology, forensics, ecology, genetics, animal behavior, physiology, paleontology, and other sciences are based on evolution and work quite well. Furthermore, "Darwin's Black Box" is written by Michael Behe, who as I mentioned above agrees that common descent is real (including humans descending from earlier primates,) so if you hold his book up as proof for creationism I can only guess that you either didn't read it or you didn't pay attention to it if you did. Furthermore, his book is fraught with problems and unfounded assertions. See one of the many criticisms here: TalkOrigins: Darwin's Black Box - Irreducible Complexity or Irreproducible Irreducibility? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html Evolution was discovered by looking at the world around us, and is changed when new evidence comes in. It wasn't handed down from on high, it was discovered from the ground up. You'd have to totally redefine the word "faith" for it to include something that is based on the mounds of physical evidence in the world around us.

By: wargammer

wargammer — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 18:43:11 +0000

wh44 said: "Evolution, which provably exists at the micro level and has %&$!-loads of proof at the macro level, had hundreds of millions of years, at least, to produce this variety. Please don't try to provoke a flame war."

evolution is not science it is faith. there is zero evidence for it on the cell level see Darwin'x Black Box

By: disasterzone

disasterzone — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:47:43 +0000

Hmm…I’m not liking this. Things are fine as they are. And I’d rather not have a society of only women…I enjoy having guys around.

By: qolque

qolque — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 13:22:35 +0000

I did find another Jack Handy quote, which loosely relates. I mean, there was mentioned a certain Isaac Newton and how his time was before Darwin, so we can't hold up his beliefs as an objective example of the way scientists thought. This might also apply to some debates, although the Hiroshima one seems to be more emotional.

"We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients. But we can't scoff at them personally, to their faces, and this is what annoys me."

By: qolque

qolque — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 07:26:15 +0000

New to the site today (yesterday), have read a helluva lot. Found the article interesting, and the debate over evolution to be also informative. Good to read on the sites of Answers in Genesis, and also Scientific American’s 15 nonsense points of creationists. I had followed that 2nd Law of Thermodynamics reasoning myself, hadn’t seen the whole closed system limitation. Sincere thanks for aiding my understanding on that. I had also followed the complex system improbability line. Didn’t seem that nature creates highly ordered things, (hurricanes and tornados destroy) it takes mankind to build a Versailles. And serfs. Lots of serfs. However, it is only improbable, not impossible. And a living thing is a different creation altogether, not a pocketwatch (though that analogy does seem to be pleasant to accept)

And, in the baader-meinhof spirit, I found on my yahoo an Onion link which I found appropriate:

http://feeds.theonion.com/~r/theonion/weekly/~3/55326156/55807

Then, I thought of that Deep Thought by Jack Handy, although I was unable to find it. It goes something like: I think that instead of getting answers to math questions, we could get “impressions”. And if someone got a different impression than someone else, so what, can’t we all be brothers?

Anyway, I’m with wh44, Evolution has convincing examples, logic, and it makes sense. It doesn’t destroy my faith in a Creator. I like Cynthia Wood’s views also. Understanding how God did it (or learning about how it was done) is a worthwhile pursuit. Scientific Method is awesome! We’ve got vaccines, we’ve got computers (made from dirt!), we’ve got landmines. Oh wait, scratch the landmines. Those aren’t good. I suppose I am the ultimate fence sitter, a Christian Atheist. Well, it isn’t due to my unwillingness to commit. I honestly don’t feel that the two schools of thought are mutually exclusive. (they may have to bend or stretch a little…)