A Conversation for Ask h2g2
Stanley's faith is stronger than science
anhaga Posted Jun 29, 2009
I feel I should point out, based on past experience, that Stanley has no interest in learning anything from this thread: he is only interested in pointing out how ridiculous 'evolutionists' are and how obviously true the Bible and Qu'ran are. Evidence will be ignored. Scripture will become prominent.
and Star Trek. Always Star Trek. Garbled, ill-remembered episodes of Star Trek. Perhaps it would be better named Straw Trek, in Stanley's hands.
Stanley's faith is stronger than science
Xanatic Posted Jun 29, 2009
I have to admit seeing Stanley´s name made me wonder if I should stay away, he´s quite a piece of work. Still, even if phrased badly it still seems an interesting question. When and why did we start wearing clothes and covering up the genitals? Including in places where missionaries hadn´t showed up yet.
Stanley's faith is stronger than science
U13884368 Posted Jun 29, 2009
"""""""""When and why did we start wearing clothes and covering up the genitals? Including in places where missionaries hadn´t showed up yet."""""""""""
Thanks
This is my question to evolutionists. Since they believe man came from simians at what point did these simians realise they needed to cover up their private parts and why?
Stanley's faith is stronger than science
swl Posted Jun 29, 2009
Your problem is that you assume that all humans cover up their genitals, which isn't true. There are South American tribes who quite happily ran around naked until they encountered Westerners. Similar groups existed in Africa and South East Asia.
So the question for creationists is, why did your gods give some people shame and not others?
Is god a racist?
Stanley's faith is stronger than science
Xanatic Posted Jun 29, 2009
He probably just ran out of magic apples.
Even if not everybody covers up, it´s still interesting to find out why some do it.
Stanley's faith is stronger than science
Alfster Posted Jun 29, 2009
When they lost enough hair and moved to areas of the globe that meant if they didn't wear clothes they would freeze to death.
All animals feel the heat and cold. Birds will fluff their feathers up to keep in the warm and also migrate. Snakes do bugger all when it's cold.
The strange thing is the spread of humans around the globe to different areas of the world still ended in them losing their hair.
If you look in African countries they do not dress up that much and as I say it's sensible to cover the bits of you that might get snagged on stuff and are more tender parts than the rest of the body.
It tends to be religion that makes people embarrassed by their genitalia to the point that Catholic nuns have to dress without looking at their own bodies as an ex-nun mention on radio last week.
Stanley's faith is stronger than science
anhaga Posted Jun 29, 2009
Again, Stanley, rarely has it been a case of 'needing' to cover up their private parts: most often it is a case of desiring to *emphasize* the private parts.
If you really want to have an answer, go to your local library and get a copy of Darwin's 'Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex' where you will learn that your question is (of course) yet another straw man: the development of ornament is a continuum in the biological world, not something that started at a particular point in time.
Or, we realised the need to cover up as soon as we ate the quince and God got mad at us.
Seriously, if you want enlightenment, don't ask for it to be given while you stand on one foot.
Stanley's faith is stronger than science
anhaga Posted Jun 29, 2009
Oh, here you go Stanley, in case your library doesn't have it: http://darwin-online.org.uk/EditorialIntroductions/Freeman_TheDescentofMan.html
Stanley's faith is stronger than science
Alfster Posted Jun 29, 2009
Well seems Stanley follows 3 fictional sets of stories: Bible, Qu'ran and Star Trek. Personally, I find Star Trek more morally uplifting and true to human needs, fallibilities and striving for honesty in acceptance and dealings with others.
Thye Bible and Qur'an are wholly about stuffing everyone else apart from the people in your tribe and the area around you.
Stanley's faith is stronger than science
U13884368 Posted Jun 29, 2009
So uncle Darwin has all the answers.
Can you please paste a quote from his book were he addresses my question since Im not interested in reading through all his nonsense again.
Yes some tribes to this day don't wear any clothes. This destorys the argument that people cover up against the cold and the heat. This merely shows some do not have any level of modesty. Then why did the simians who had no modesty suddenly decided to cover their private parts?
Stanley's faith is stronger than science
Rod Posted Jun 29, 2009
>Then why did the simians who had no modesty suddenly decided to cover their private parts?<
Partly because they weren't simians any longer ?
Stanley's faith is stronger than science
anhaga Posted Jun 29, 2009
'Im not interested in reading through all his nonsense again.'
good job, Stanley: you've got all the answers already. Typical smug, arrogant theist.
I'm gone.
Stanley's faith is stronger than science
Secretly Not Here Any More Posted Jun 29, 2009
When they walked fully upright? It's quite hard to stop your penis getting you into trouble when you're fully erect.
Stanley's faith is stronger than science
U13884368 Posted Jun 29, 2009
"""""""""When they walked fully upright? It's quite hard to stop your penis getting you into trouble when you're fully erect.""""""""""
What about the female simians/early humans?
Stanley's faith is stronger than science
Alfster Posted Jun 29, 2009
Ah, Ok, he shows his true colours. I'm off.
Stanley's faith is stronger than science
Secretly Not Here Any More Posted Jun 29, 2009
Sorry Stanley, you seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that I wasn't making a cheap wang joke to show my contempt for your constant attempts to hawk religion under the pretense of debate.
Stanley's faith is stronger than science
HonestIago Posted Jun 29, 2009
>>Then why did the simians who had no modesty suddenly decided to cover their private parts?<<
Stanley, just how ignorant are you? Take a look at some simians - use wikipedia or Google Images. Is there anything that you notice about their appearance?
Now look at simians from equatorial regions and compare them with simians from higher latitudes and altitudes. Again, is there anything you notice?
>>Yes some tribes to this day don't wear any clothes. This destroys the argument that people cover up against the cold and the heat.<<
Show me a group from the polar regions or desert regions who don't cover up at least some of their body. Oh wait, you can't. The only areas where nudity is common is in relatively temperate climates without much season variation.
Stanley, we've all evolved from monkeys. Deal with it. Some of us have evolved further than others: with a bit of effort you could join the former group.
Stanley's faith is stronger than science
U13884368 Posted Jun 29, 2009
"""""Stanley, just how ignorant are you? Take a look at some simians - use wikipedia or Google Images. Is there anything that you notice about their appearance?"""""""
They are ugly? Im not into quizes, just get to the point please.
"""""""Show me a group from the polar regions or desert regions who don't cover up at least some of their body. Oh wait, you can't. The only areas where nudity is common is in relatively temperate climates without much season variation.""""""""
The vast majority of people cover up for modesty in todays world. If this wasn't the case you would find people walking around naked much more.
What type of modesty do you hold?
"""""""Stanley, we've all evolved from monkeys. Deal with it. Some of us have evolved further than others: with a bit of effort you could join the former group."""""""
Theory is not a fact. Get used to it.
Stanley's faith is stronger than science
Caractacus Posted Jun 29, 2009
religion is opinion, not fact.
evolution is fact, not theory.
Evolution by means of Natural Selection is theory and fact (as well as logical inevitability given the facts of heritable variation and differential reproductive success).
Religious trolling is not discussion, it is offensive insult.
Rodenberry's conception of Star Trek is as an atheist society free of the shackles of religion. Infinite diversity in infinite combination not conformity and submission.
I find your posts very offensive, stanley.
Key: Complain about this post
Stanley's faith is stronger than science
- 21: anhaga (Jun 29, 2009)
- 22: Xanatic (Jun 29, 2009)
- 23: U13884368 (Jun 29, 2009)
- 24: swl (Jun 29, 2009)
- 25: Xanatic (Jun 29, 2009)
- 26: Alfster (Jun 29, 2009)
- 27: anhaga (Jun 29, 2009)
- 28: anhaga (Jun 29, 2009)
- 29: Alfster (Jun 29, 2009)
- 30: U13884368 (Jun 29, 2009)
- 31: Rod (Jun 29, 2009)
- 32: anhaga (Jun 29, 2009)
- 33: Secretly Not Here Any More (Jun 29, 2009)
- 34: swl (Jun 29, 2009)
- 35: U13884368 (Jun 29, 2009)
- 36: Alfster (Jun 29, 2009)
- 37: Secretly Not Here Any More (Jun 29, 2009)
- 38: HonestIago (Jun 29, 2009)
- 39: U13884368 (Jun 29, 2009)
- 40: Caractacus (Jun 29, 2009)
More Conversations for Ask h2g2
Write an Entry
"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a wholly remarkable book. It has been compiled and recompiled many times and under many different editorships. It contains contributions from countless numbers of travellers and researchers."