Top Ten Favorite Creationist Arguments, Parts I and II

[D1B]

Problem is, you are putting someone out.



I know you'll agree that the world would be a better place without Islam.

It's the same thing with christianity and judaism.

Nope. I have a few Muslim friends. Got no problem with them. There is a difference between them and the radicals. Just like I don't identify with the whacks at Westboro or whatever it's called in Kansas.


Not sure I understand your obsession with a childs "pee-pee" though...

What obsession? It's an example of the danger of religion. Would you allow an old fucking Jew with a suitcase and bad breath to cut up your infant son's penis? Of course you wouldn't, that's insane. Well, a Jew thinks that's a wonderful thing to do to a child. That what religion does to people and it's fucking dangerous.

[JohnStOnge]

What obsession? It's an example of the danger of religion. Would you allow an old **** Jew with a suitcase and bad breath to cut up your infant son's penis? Of course you wouldn't, that's insane. Well, a Jew thinks that's a wonderful thing to do to a child. That what religion does to people and it's **** dangerous.

You know my son wasn't circumcised at birth because he had a platelet problem and my wife and I left it that way. Then when he was a pre-teen he started having all sorts of problems because he wasn't circumcised. Infection type stuff. So we had to have him circumcised then. And I think it was a whole lot harder on him than it would've been if they could've done it right after birth.

Of course it wouldn't have been by an old Jew with a suitcase unless that old Jew was an MD in a hospital setting. But he definitely would've had it easier if he'd have been circumcised at birth.

[JohnStOnge]

Ah the tangents we take. I just Googled this; from http://health.howstuffworks.com/sexual- ... ionary.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; :

While the American Academy of Pediatrics doesn't consider circumcision to be medically necessary, there are some medical reasons for performing one. Those include preventing recurring infections of the head of the penis, avoiding obstruction of urine flow that can result when the prepuce's opening narrows, and preventing a tight prepuce from retracting over the glans. Also, circumcision may reduce the incidence of penile cancer (a very rare condition).

Even barring these considerations, infections, including urinary tract infections in infants, are less common in a circumcised penis. That's because a circumcised penis is easier to keep clean. (By pulling back the uncircumcised foreskin and cleaning carefully, a man can reduce the formation of smegma, a cottage cheese-like substance that can lead to a foul odor and infection).

I actually never looked into it before. I just know we ended up having to have my son circumcised at a later age because we didn't have it done shortly after he was born and he had infection problems as a result.

[D1B]

What obsession? It's an example of the danger of religion. Would you allow an old **** Jew with a suitcase and bad breath to cut up your infant son's penis? Of course you wouldn't, that's insane. Well, a Jew thinks that's a wonderful thing to do to a child. That what religion does to people and it's **** dangerous.

You know my son wasn't circumcised at birth because he had a platelet problem and my wife and I left it that way. Then when he was a pre-teen he started having all sorts of problems because he wasn't circumcised. Infection type stuff. So we had to have him circumcised then. And I think it was a whole lot harder on him than it would've been if they could've done it right after birth.

Of course it wouldn't have been by an old Jew with a suitcase unless that old Jew was an MD in a hospital setting. But he definitely would've had it easier if he'd have been circumcised at birth.

Try using soap in your family, you disgusting filthy slob.

With decent hygiene, it's unnecessary. I'll take the pediatric specialists over your psychopath ass any day.

[youngterrier]

What obsession? It's an example of the danger of religion. Would you allow an old **** Jew with a suitcase and bad breath to cut up your infant son's penis? Of course you wouldn't, that's insane. Well, a Jew thinks that's a wonderful thing to do to a child. That what religion does to people and it's **** dangerous.

You know my son wasn't circumcised at birth because he had a platelet problem and my wife and I left it that way. Then when he was a pre-teen he started having all sorts of problems because he wasn't circumcised. Infection type stuff. So we had to have him circumcised then. And I think it was a whole lot harder on him than it would've been if they could've done it right after birth.

Of course it wouldn't have been by an old Jew with a suitcase unless that old Jew was an MD in a hospital setting. But he definitely would've had it easier if he'd have been circumcised at birth.

I'm not saying that circumcising children is always unnecessary or never reaps positive results, but rather the data suggests it's hit and miss. Either way, the practice of sawing off a child's genitalia for reasons other than medical purposes is quite sick and would not be considered moral in any context, if religion wasn't around. If you want to get yourself circumcised for the sake of commitment to your religion, fine, but don't abuse your child in such a way. Let them make the decision themselves.

[JohnStOnge]

With decent hygiene, it's unnecessary. I'll take the pediatric specialists over your psychopath ass any day.[/quote]

LOL! You have no idea as to how obsessive I was and am when it comes to hygiene when it comes to transmission of disease to other people (not so much if the risk is just to me). I wash my hands each time before I make coffee. If I want a drink I wash my hands each time before I touch the ice scoop in the freezer. Then if I touch anything else and want more ice I wash them again. And both my wife and I were particularly concerned about hygiene when it came to our sone because he had been burned (deafened) prenatally by a virus that is transmitted through personal contact.

I posted a link to an article citing the American Academy of Pediactrics as saying that, while it's not "medically necessary," there are medical reasons for doing so. Here is another interesting article I just Googled:

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsh ... cision.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's about circumcision and risk of HIV transmission. A quote:

Several types of research have documented that male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV acquisition by men during penile-vaginal sex.

I disagree with the way that's stated in that, as that authors note later in the article, they're talking about observational studies when it comes to actual incidence of disease. So, being me, I'd avoid making a direct cause and effect statement. I"d say something like, "Studies have documented association between circumcision and reduced risk of HIV..." Nevertheless, the studies do support a reasonable belief that the risk is reduced.

You can be as meticulous as you want in cleaning things but that doesn't mean that risk isn't reduced by having something that is easy to clean vs. something that is not. Ask your brother about the food business, for instance. I'm sure he's seen many rules about having food contact surfaces that are easy to clean. And the reason for that is that no matter how hard you try there's a greater chance that you're going to leave a critical mass of pathogens on an object if it's not easy to clean.

Bottom line is I'm just saying that there are indeed medical reasons for circumcision. It's not like it's something one HAS to do or there's this tremendous risk of horrible disease. But it's reasonable to make the decision to do it based strictly on looking at the risk/benefit picture with no religion involved.

Me, had no issue with my son not being circumcised at all until it started causing him problems. Another thing that happened...something I forgot to mention earlier...is that he had that thing mentioned in that earlier article I posted where the prepuce's opening narrowed.

[JohnStOnge]

I'm not saying that circumcising children is always unnecessary or never reaps positive results, but rather the data suggests it's hit and miss. Either way, the practice of sawing off a child's genitalia for reasons other than medical purposes is quite sick and would not be considered moral in any context, if religion wasn't around. If you want to get yourself circumcised for the sake of commitment to your religion, fine, but don't abuse your child in such a way. Let them make the decision themselves.

"Hit and miss," to me, is another way of saying it appears to reduce the risks of certain problems. A guy probably won't have that problem of the prepuce's opening narrowing if he doesn't get circumcised, for example, but there is some risk that he will. If he gets circumcised, the risk is zero.

I don't necessarily disagree with the idea of letting a guy make his own decision but one downside of that is that it's a lot bigger of a deal if it has to be done later. I know that from watching my son go through that after he had that narrowing prepuce problem at a later age. It was not pleasant for him.

[JohnStOnge]

I somehow put up the same post twice and I STILL don't know how to delete posts from this board so I had to edit it and type this. Then I'll post a picture to give you something to look at and not waste the space.

[JohnStOnge]

Here's another interesting one:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi ... ne.0008422" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Circumcision is associated with significant reductions in HIV, HSV-2 and HPV infections among men and significant reductions in bacterial vaginosis among their female partners.

I like the way that's stated too. Used the "associated with" approach instead of saying something like "results in." My Google search is on "Effects of Circumcision."

It looks like the other side of the coin is a reduction in sensitivity. Like there's a statement in the Men's Health article at http://www.menshealth.com/sex-women/cir ... s-and-cons" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; :

...according to a recent study published in the British Journal of Urology International. Researchers from the National Organization of Circumcision Information Resources Center report that circumcision removes the five areas of the penis most responsive to light touch.

I must say, though, that in my own experience as a circumcised male sensitivity has not been a problem. In fact, when I was in my prime, the problem was trying NOT to reach orgasim too soon. Like I'd have to do stuff like count backwards from 1000 or think about catching fish or ANYTHIHG to distract me from what was actually going on so my partner could get her thing before I did. And I'd bet a lot of guys have the same problem. It's not like being circumcised means it's DIFFICULT to reach orgasim when one is having sex with a woman one is attracted to.

[JMU DJ]

WTF is going on in this thread?




Anyway.... thought this was pretty cool from a few years ago... not evolution per se, but cool nonetheless

Creation of a Bacterial Cell Controlled by a Chemically Synthesized Genome

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/329/5987/52.full" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[JohnStOnge]

WTF is going on in this thread?




Anyway.... thought this was pretty cool from a few years ago... not evolution per se, but cool nonetheless

Creation of a Bacterial Cell Controlled by a Chemically Synthesized Genome

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/329/5987/52.full" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That IS cool. It'll take me a while to get through it and even approach understanding what they're talking about. But the first impression is...well...pretty mind boggling. Molecular biology is almost scary.

[SeattleGriz]

WTF is going on in this thread?




Anyway.... thought this was pretty cool from a few years ago... not evolution per se, but cool nonetheless

Creation of a Bacterial Cell Controlled by a Chemically Synthesized Genome

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/329/5987/52.full" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hey cool. An Intelligently Designed genome!

[SeattleGriz]

Very interesting article.

Seems we are not as much junk as many believe.

http://the-scientist.com/2012/06/01/hacking-the-genome/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Cap'n Cat]

You know my son wasn't circumcised at birth because he had a platelet problem and my wife and I left it that way. Then when he was a pre-teen he started having all sorts of problems because he wasn't circumcised. Infection type stuff. So we had to have him circumcised then. And I think it was a whole lot harder on him than it would've been if they could've done it right after birth.

Of course it wouldn't have been by an old Jew with a suitcase unless that old Jew was an MD in a hospital setting. But he definitely would've had it easier if he'd have been circumcised at birth.

Try using soap in your family, you disgusting filthy slob.

With decent hygiene, it's unnecessary. I'll take the pediatric specialists over your psychopath ass any day.

BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAAA!!!