FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.

Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Reload this Page Douglas / Scigirl Peanut Gallery 3
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM
Search

 
Page 2 of 4 1 2 34
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-27-2002, 07:39 AM   #11
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Lexington, Ky, USA
Posts: 32
Post
But what will they do tomarrow night, Brain?
Senlathiel is offline  
Old 03-27-2002, 08:24 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Heaven, just assasinated god
Posts: 578
Post
Quote:
Originally posted by Senlathiel:
<strong>But what will they do tomarrow night, Brain?</strong>
Why take over the world of course ! Pinky.
kctan is offline  
Old 03-27-2002, 08:31 PM   #13
Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Snyder,Texas,USA
Posts: 4,411
Post
Over in the debate thread, Douglas said:
Quote:
Human males would be "roused to lust" by pictures in a magazine (or actual, "live", women) ONLY IF they ALLOWED themselves to be. Men are not "animals" (neither are women). I don't see where men ever attempt to actually mate with 2-dimensional pictures, whether of Heidi Klum or Heather Locklear, or of anyone else, so I don't see how it can be claimed that their "reproductive systems" are "fooled".
Aside from the fact that men and women both are most obviously animals, I should point out that even though 14-year old boys are not legally men, they have certainly been rumored to "attempt to mate" with portions of discarded or stolen copies of Playboy.
Coragyps is offline  
Old 03-27-2002, 09:52 PM   #14
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Seattle
Posts: 4,261
Post
D'oh.

well I won't have time to post a reply till may or june. Feel free to help out. . . (hint hint!)

scigirl
scigirl is offline  
Old 03-28-2002, 12:18 AM   #15
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Alibi: ego ipse hinc extermino
Posts: 12,591
Post
Quote:
Originally posted by Coragyps:
<strong>Over in the debate thread, Douglas said:

Aside from the fact that men and women both are most obviously animals, I should point out that even though 14-year old boys are not legally men, they have certainly been rumored to "attempt to mate" with portions of discarded or stolen copies of Playboy. </strong>
On 'attempt to mate with' pictures, I certainly remember reading back in my Classics days that several Greek statues of Aphrodite etc were, erm, molested... And what to make of the numerous cases seen in casualties across the world of vacuum cleaner and other injuries...

I'd like Douglas to explain why it is so clear that humans are not animals... what criteria are you using? It is certainly NOT anatomy, physiology, biochemistry or genetics...

Oolon
Oolon Colluphid is offline  
Old 03-28-2002, 01:19 AM   #16
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: NW USA
Posts: 93
Post
Quote:
I should point out that even though 14-year old boys are not legally men, they have certainly been rumored to "attempt to mate" with portions of discarded or stolen copies of Playboy.
I read in the book "Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors" by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan (husband and wife) that chimps that are raised by or among humans have been observed masturbating to pictures of naked humans.

Brooks
MrKrinkles is offline  
Old 03-28-2002, 01:39 AM   #17
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Alibi: ego ipse hinc extermino
Posts: 12,591
Post
Quote:
Originally posted by MrKrinkles:
<strong>

I read in the book "Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors" by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan (husband and wife) that chimps that are raised by or among humans have been observed masturbating to pictures of naked humans.
</strong>
And need I mention the reverse: I hate to say I know this, but there's an awful lot of porn out there on the net featuring animals. (Though I suppose it's people with animals, not just animal pics... though who knows? Maybe some odd people are turned on by animal pics, it's just they don't need to use their credit card details to see them! )

Oolon
Oolon Colluphid is offline  
Old 03-28-2002, 04:20 AM   #18
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: WI
Posts: 4,357
Question
Rhetorical question:

How come Douglas claims scigirl doesn't understand "intelligent design theory" but fails to explain it himself?
hezekiah jones is offline  
Old 03-28-2002, 09:41 AM   #19
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: anywhere
Posts: 1,976
Post
Quote:
Originally posted by hezekiahjones:
<strong>Rhetorical question:

How come Douglas claims scigirl doesn't understand "intelligent design theory" but fails to explain it himself?</strong>
Ooh, I love rhetorical questions. The answer is that Douglas doesn't need understanding or thinking. He just needs to regurgitate whatever his God tells him.

50$ bucks that my explanation about units down in RRP, so simple that I can use to teach 2nd graders with it, won't make it pass his skull. *sigh*

My rhetorical question: Is being stubborn and stupid a prerequisite for being a fundie?

SC
Principia is offline  
Old 03-28-2002, 10:24 AM   #20
Synaesthesia
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Question
As a matter of curiosity, does anyone know what Douglas means by "Specified" complexity? Is he presupposing that it was specifically made by someone or does it simply refer to some aspect of a complex system that is specified by an observer?
 
 
Page 2 of 4 1 2 34

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:33 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.