EA Forums

This was taken from here

http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/brain20051117/

The scrotum

Regardless of whether you are male or female, there has come a point at which you have looked at the male sexual anatomy and asked yourself the obvious question: "What is going on here?" Just look at it—the design is ridiculous. The two testicles are hanging in a little sack called the scrotum, so they are out in the open and completely exposed.

If man is created by an Intelligent Designer, then why in the world would he design human males like this? Why aren't the testicles packaged neatly inside the body like every other important organ?

If you are a male, you know about the several problems that go with external testicles:

It can be uncomfortable to run because the testicles have a tendency to flap around. This is why male athletes wear jock straps.

Because they are outside and unprotected, the testicles are quite sensitive to pain. Any male who has ever been "kicked in the balls" or fallen in the wrong way on his testicles knows how excruciatingly painful it can be.

Because there are loose flaps of skin involved, you get problems like chaffing, jock itch, etc. that develop in and around the scrotum.

Anyone who looks at the design of the testicles and the scrotum can see that there are major flaws. Why are the testicles designed this way?

The testicles hang in a sack outside of the body on most mammals for a very simple reason. The ideal temperature for sperm production happens to be about three degrees Celsius lower that normal body temperature. By hanging the testicles in an external sack, the testicles can more easily maintain this lower temperature. Two types of mammals solve the temperature problem with something other than an external sack: cetaceans (dolphins, whales) and seals. They compensate for the temperature problem with elaborate blood circulation schemes to keep the testicles cool.

If an Intelligent Designer created the human body, the obvious question that you have to ask yourself is this: Why didn't he simply design the testicles so that they function at the normal body temperature? Why in the world would an Intelligent Designer make them temperature-sensitive? If the testicles functioned at normal body temperature (instead of three degrees cooler) then the testicles could be inside the body like every other organ.

Why create such a ridiculous design?

What if we hypothesize that there is no Intelligent Designer? In that case, the human body was designed by a natural process. The fact that the sperm-producing organs are temperature-sensitive is an accident of that natural process. The problem was solved by nature by hanging the testicles of most mammals in a little sack outside the rest of the body. In that case, this whacky design makes sense.

...so its easy to get them chopped off !!!



later for more..

Your assumption about an Intelligent Designer is flawed; though it is not without reason, but it is not reasonable enough. To postulate that the location of the testicles, which hang outside the body, is a validation of evolution and not the work of an Intelligent Designer is illogical. The scrotum itself is a marvel to consider. It expands and contracts to pull up the testicles out of harms way and to maintain the best temperature to keep sperm viable. The "cremaster muscles" also work to accomplish the preservation & protection of the testicles. The testicles are extremely tough. Yes, they are vulnerable to pain & injury, but that's an inbuilt safeguard. Also, the incidence of testicle injury is rare, I would surmise that the majority of testicular injury is a result of rough play, though that's my assumption. It's also true that the testicles themselves are extremely durable and difficult to injure. Even a swift kick to them usually will not have an adverse or long term effect. Pain is also an effective way to preserve and protect the testicles. It is logical to conclude that an Inlligent Designer would create testicles in this way to give man pleasure, enjoyment, and the abilitiy to procreate. If they were so easily harmed and so vulnerable, I doubt that civilization as we know it would exist. Men have not been hindered from accomplishment by the location of their testicles, hanging outside the body. The evidence proves that the location of the testicles have not been a threat to man's survival nor an impediment as you postulate. As for an Intelligent Designer. Complexity is one of the major tenants of Creationism and creation scientists would state that the scortum & testicles, being complex organs that function harmoniously together, are reasonable evidence of an Intelligent Designer. Ask yourself the question, "Can complex creatures, organs, develop by themselves, even if all the conditions are right and enough time elapses?" I realize that the evlountionary theory postulates that given enough time, anything can happen, but I'm sorry, I just can't buy that assumption. Time is relative and things do happen over time, but the complexities of the human body are just to great for me to believe that life began in a primeval swamp. I must believe in an Intelligent Designer.

If that designer had any of intellegence, there wouldn'd be so mush violence and hatred in the world. But if you take the evolutionary point of view, you'll see that hatred and violence are just moving evolution ahead. So many scientific discoveries were made for military purposes first, that is to find easier ways of killing human beings with and without those "marvellously designed scrotums". Fuck that designer!

Jeanio, you keep referring to the Intelligent Designer as "he" and it is difficult to understand why an Intelligent Designer who is male would place the male genitals on the outside where they are vulnerable. An Intelligent Designer who is male would place the male genitals on the inside where they are protected. Maybe that's the problem, maybe the Intelligent Designer isn't male, maybe She is female.

It is understandable that an Intelligent Designer who is female would place the male genitals on the outside where they are much easier for women to get hold of and thus much easier for women to use them to control men.

Please excuse me for answering this question in terms of my own personal religious beliefs. But if by Intelligent Designer you are referring to what most people would call God, I view and perceive of God as being female, as being Goddess. So that I suppose explains my answer to your question.

You asked why would an Intelligent Designer place the male genitals on the outside of the body where they are vulnerable and can cause the man all kinds of problems? My answer is, because the Intelligent Designer is female and She placed the male genitals on the outside so it would be easier for women to get hold of them and easier for women to use them to control men.

Thanks for your reply, I Worship Women. As for why I call the Designer "he", I do it unconsciously, the reason originating somewhere in my mother tongue, which is the Russian. In Russian every word must be one of the three genders - male, female and neuter. For instance we call a table "he", a bed "she" and a window "it". Designer (which sounds in Russian the same) is a male word, like most other profession words and all the words of english origin ending with "er". Computer is always "he" in Russia. And those words that originated from English ones ending with "tion" are female, "she-words". So castration and evolution are of female gender.

I agree with you that an Intellegent Designer could hardly be male.

In one of my stories I was talking a little bit about intellegence and mammal testicles.

http://www.eunuch.org/Alpha/P/ea_44928pussy_en.htm

And these are just my words from another story, number 15, where I just think about Nature's gender in the same way as you, I Worship Women.

...Later in the evening I stood naked in my room looking at the mirror on the wall, my wet clothes lying on the floor. I touched my balls. The ache hadn't left them yet. I took the hand off to see my genitals better in the mirror. I stared at my penis and scrotum. I wondered how many nerves were in that small skin sack - scores, hundreds, thousands, millions or billions. And how many of them had been hit by those whipping branch. What did Nature mean when she made this sack so vulnerable. What did she... or is that the answer? SHE! She was she, that is a female. Nature couldn't have balls because Nature is she, she must have a womb and a pussy to give birth to everyone and everything. So she did it just for kicks, I mean giving the males balls, hanging outside. That was a real pun - giving balls for kicks...

...I didn't hear the girls laugh, though no doubt they were laughing. One can blame them of extreme cruelty for laughing at the moments when I wanted to die. But it was not their fault at all. Nature meant it. She meant it when she bestowed the males with vulnerable testicles. She meant it that when a guy would be writhing in testicular agony there would be females realizing their advantage of not having those balls and feeling satisfied with Nature's decision. A funny decision. Nature meant it. As well as I meant it when I let my groin land on the beam. I meant that there would be two girls hysterically laughing at my pain and sufferings. Nature does everything on purpose. She meant it when she gave the elephant a trunk to help it in reaching the food. She meant it when she gave the monkey a tail to help in climbing the trees. And she meant it giving the males vulnerable balls. She meant fun and advantage for the females. Why? Because Nature is a female. And if so, she must have a vagina not a pair of balls. And she meant it that there always would be some guy like me, discontented with what she'd given him and always be letting girls to have fun with his balls...

Jeanio (imported) wrote: Tue May 29, 2007 12:32 am If that designer had any of intellegence, there wouldn'd be so mush violence and hatred in the world. But if you take the evolutionary point of view, you'll see that hatred and violence are just moving evolution ahead. So many scientific discoveries were made for military purposes first, that is to find easier ways of killing human beings with and without those "marvellously designed scrotums". Fuck that designer!

This is a question so often asked. "God why do you let there be so much violence, poverty etc in the world?" The answer that I fear is God answering by asking us "Why is there so much violence poverty etc in the world? You are my people, my physical doers in this world."

truly committed (imported) wrote: Mon May 28, 2007 9:17 pm ...so its easy to get them chopped off !!!



later for more..

very true!! plus i think they have a quirky charm too - kinda like the really ugly one in 'the goonies' - look pretty strange, but can't help liking 'em!

As to the question of

I Worship Women (imported) wrote: Tue May 29, 2007 12:59 am why would an Intelligent Designer,

a loving God, allow things like violence, hatred, suffering, etc in the world. When I was a child I heard a minister deliver a sermon on that question, and what that minister said has always stayed with me, so I have never had to ask that question of why.

The minister said that because of God's love for us God gave human beings free will, and when God gave human beings free will, God gave up total control. Yes, God is all powerful, God is almighty, God is omnipotent, but God is not all controlling. Because God loves us God wants us to grow and develop, so God gave each of us free will so we could each grow and develop, and when God gave us free will God gave up having total control.

So after that I never again questioned why a loving God allows things like violence and hatred and suffering in the world. It was like I was ok with that explanation and I understood.

I think for me the only answer is the line from the play J. B. by Archibald MacLeish. "If God is good, He is not God; If God is God, He is not good."

The eternal problem of evil.

Well for thoes who beleave in God we have to relise God died for us and wants a relationship with us this is why we are here because of that love.Man chose sin and God will take it away

If God is omnipotent, he is an infinite being outside of time and space. He would know everything that has happened and that will happen. By definition, if everything is known, there is no free will, and God is determining who will and will not be "saved." By definition, too, if God is infinite, he is everything and all is him. Good and evil, therefore, don't exist, because they are just two aspects of God, as are we, aspects of God. If you're defining God as the God of the Jews, the God of the Christians, or the God of the Muslims, you aren't defining an infinite god. You might as well be talking about Baal or Zeus or any other pagan god -- any other man made god.

If the god you believe in is an infinite being, by definition, you can't know him. He can't be described or explained in a book like the Koran or the Bible. Any one that tries to prove God -- or disprove God -- though scientific means is on a fool's errand. It can't be done. You may or may not be able to experience God, but you can't prove his existence, know him, or explain him. It's beyond our experience as finite beings.

Free will is a meaningless crock of shit. It can't be proven any more than God can.

And lest you misinterpret what I'm saying, no where do I say there isn't a god. I have certain beliefs, but they are just as wrong as any one's beliefs. I prefer the Buddhist approach to religion, but don't practice it. Someday, this illusion I'm living will end, and I'll either know the truth, or I won't.

There is no universal good or evil. Good and evil are man made constructions. God doesn't care. He can't; because as an infinite being, he can't be separated into good and evil. He has to contain both. If he doesn't, he's not god. God has to be ALL, everything, good and evil, right and wrong, yin and yang, God and Satan. Logic doesn't prove or disprove the existence of god, but it does disprove the existence of the Christian and Muslim gods. As described, they cannot be gods, by definition -- by logic.

As for violence, poverty, murder, war. If we dare look at the Biblical answer, it states that man sinned against God, "sin" is the answer to why men & women kill each other, why Cain killed Able, why there is poverty, war, ect. That's what the Bible says. Of course God also remedied the "sin" problem, by sending the Lamb of God, Messiah, Jesus, though few want to acknowledge or believe in this cure. A sacrifice was needed to pay for our sin, so God came, took on human flesh, died, & rose again, those who believe and place their faith in the Redeemer, secure for themselves a heavenly eternal home. So that's God's answer to the problems of the earth, take it, believe it, or leave it. Shake your fist, be angry at God, yell & scream obscenties if you must. But God still loved you enough to die for you. That's what the Bible says.

If a psychic knows the future or what will happen, surely that does not mean the psychic is making this happen? If i knew what would happen next thursday, i would still have free will....

If God knows, does not mean he is making things happen...he knows what will happen, but we still have free will. Saying we dont have free will is a terribly dangerous thing to say...

I like what u said i worship women..thats good good good....i like it

i know!

my post is kinda hard to understand makes sense to me anyway! maybe not to anyone else...

just because i know what wil happen next week, does not make me make it happen..

truly committed (imported) wrote: Wed May 30, 2007 12:26 am i know!

my post is kinda hard to understand makes sense to me anyway! maybe not to anyone else...

just because i know what wil happen next week, does not make me make it happen..

But if God knows what is going to happen next week, next year, a thousand years from now, then nothing you can do will change that. If you can do nothing to change what will happen, then where is free will? If God doesn't know what will happen, then he is not omniscient. That's the definition of omniscient-- to know all. You can't have both an omnipotent, omniscient, god and free will. It's logically impossible. If god is omniscient, he had to know when he created man that man would fail, which given this scenario, makes god some weird, sadistic, dude.

om* ni* scient

1 : having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight

2 : possessed of universal or complete knowledge

Is the god you believe in not an infinite being? If he's not, then there must be a god over him. You believe in only one of the minions of the real god, because if he's not infinite, there must be some god more powerful than he is. I'm not arguing the existence of god. I'm arguing logic. If an infinite god exists, then there can be no free will. An infinite god knows all,

Slammr (imported) wrote: Tue May 29, 2007 4:27 pm everything that has happened and that will happen,

which makes the future immutable. If you can do nothing to change your future, where is free will?

I'm not saying this is absolutely the case -- there are other explanations, including infinite universes in which each contains a different outcome, infinite possibilities equalling infinite universes -- but without access to those infinite universe, it really doesn't matter whether they exist or not.

I'm just saying that from a logical point of view, the god of the Bible can't exist. He makes no sense. And why should anyone believe something because it's written in the Bible or written in any other book? J.K. Rowling creates an interesting world in her Harry Potter books, but does that mean we should believe in that world? Hell, at least her world is more consistent than the muddle of contradictions that the Bible is.

Slammr,

I think Spock would disagree with you. It is logical to assume the existence of God based on several specific observations, which is also good science. Observe the world close up, and the evidence indicates order, not randomness, which points to an Intelligent Designer. Observe the things around you, look under the microscope, consider your own body, and then deny the existence of an intelligent designer. I would say that the God of the Bible not only exists, the God of the Bible can be known, otherwise we wouldn't have the Bible. But as most theologians will tell you, the key has been and always was, faith.

Hash (imported) wrote: Wed May 30, 2007 6:26 am Slammr,

I think Spock would disagree with you. It is logical to assume the existence of God based on several specific observations, which is also good science. Observe the world close up, and the evidence indicates order, not randomness, which points to an Intelligent Designer. Observe the things around you, look under the microscope, consider your own body, and then deny the existence of an intelligent designer. I would say that the God of the Bible not only exists, the God of the Bible can be known, otherwise we wouldn't have the Bible. But as most theologians will tell you, the key has been and always was, faith.

Hm-mm...God exists because the Bible says he does. The Bible is right because it's the word of God. How can I attempt to argue with that logic? You're right in one aspect: religion is a matter of faith. I have no argument with that. I just object to trying to prove the existence of God with any scientific argument. It can't be done. Neither can you disprove the existence of God with science. I wasn't trying to do that. I was just pointing out that the idea of free will is inconsistent with the idea of an omniscient God.

This is a very interesting discussion, although normally I wouldn't participate.

Overall, I find Slammr's arguments the most compelling even though:

1. I consider myself a Christian who is loved by my creator just as non-Christians are loved.

2. I have absolutely no problem with evolution, having studied it extensively in grad school.

3. There's no conflict for me between evolution and a Creator. The creation of the universe in the big bang was the most creative thing that we know of. I see no reason why the creator could not have embued the singularity of the big bang with everything needed to result in the development of stars, galaxies, galactic clusters, black holes to power galaxies, supernovas to create heavier elements, planets and living creatures. In my view, it's also possible that the Creator (God) didn't know exactly how the new creation would unfold. The ongoing creation is far beyond anything we can imagine.

4. We cannot fathom the true nature of God. I'm rephrasing something a physicist once said about the universe here: "Not only if God stranger than we imagine, he/she/it is stranger than we can imagine."

5. I want to point out that many scientists are believers of one kind or another. An astrophysicist once said on looking back in time, I think to with 100 million years of the creation, that it was like "looking at the face of God."

Sorry, I don't have references.

6. I respect everyone's faith, or lack of it, because no one has a complete picture and never will.

7. Just so you know where I'm coming from, I have a PhD in Chemistry and an MS in Evolutionary Biology/Plant Ecology. Does this make me biased? Absolutely! But I've been very spiritual my entire life,too. Thinking of creation starting with the big bang and continuing through the evolution of stars, planets, life, etc. fills me with great wonder for the creative force behind it.

I hadn't intended to go on and on and I really do respect other's beliefs. The older I've gotten, the more I realize how little I know about anything. And I've been in a really bad mood all day and writing this has changed that for the better.

Peace,

Todd

So long as you respect one another in this thread fine.

Thanks Paolo best advice yet as see we could talk until the end of time on this one and probley no one would change anyones mind

Danya (imported) wrote: Wed May 30, 2007 11:26 am This is a very interesting discussion, although normally I wouldn't participate.

Overall, I find Slammr's arguments the most compelling even though:

1. I consider myself a Christian who is loved by my creator just as non-Christians are loved.

2. I have absolutely no problem with evolution, having studied it extensively in grad school.

3. There's no conflict for me between evolution and a Creator. The creation of the universe in the big bang was the most creative thing that we know of. I see no reason why the creator could not have embued the singularity of the big bang with everything needed to result in the development of stars, galaxies, galactic clusters, black holes to power galaxies, supernovas to create heavier elements, planets and living creatures. In my view, it's also possible that the Creator (God) didn't know exactly how the new creation would unfold. The ongoing creation is far beyond anything we can imagine.

4. We cannot fathom the true nature of God. I'm rephrasing something a physicist once said about the universe here: "Not only if God stranger than we imagine, he/she/it is stranger than we can imagine."

5. I want to point out that many scientists are believers of one kind or another. An astrophysicist once said on looking back in time, I think to with 100 million years of the creation, that it was like "looking at the face of God."

Sorry, I don't have references.

6. I respect everyone's faith, or lack of it, because no one has a complete picture and never will.

7. Just so you know where I'm coming from, I have a PhD in Chemistry and an MS in Evolutionary Biology/Plant Ecology. Does this make me biased? Absolutely! But I've been very spiritual my entire life,too. Thinking of creation starting with the big bang and continuing through the evolution of stars, planets, life, etc. fills me with great wonder for the creative force behind it.

I hadn't intended to go on and on and I really do respect other's beliefs. The older I've gotten, the more I realize how little I know about anything. And I've been in a really bad mood all day and writing this has changed that for the better.

Peace,

Todd

I agree with everything Todd has said. Religion is a matter of faith. As I'll say again, I'm not arguing against the existence of God. I have no idea whether God exists or not, and I don't think anyone can

Slammr (imported) wrote: Tue May 29, 2007 4:27 pm prove or disprove the existence of

God. I think the whole argument about Intelligent Design is useless, whichever side one might take. That's what I was trying to point out.

If God is an infinite being, then we can't -- as finite beings -- know him. We can, however, use any interpretation that we wish to try to make sense of him, realizing that all of them are only representations of what he is and are -- therefore -- false and inadequate. I primarily use Zen and other Buddhist teachings to explain God to myself, but my view of God is as flawed as any Christian's or Muslim's view of God. If Christianity serves someone, far be it for me to attempt to dissuade him of his beliefs. His beliefs are as accurate as mine. Believe what serves your needs. Just don't try to convince me that the Christian God or the Muslim God or any other god is the only god.

Interesting Slammer and as you have said and I also we probley wont change to many on how they beleave or think.But for me I do have that relationship with God and I can look back and see his hand in all my life and the things he has done for me.Take my doctors giving me this surgery just because I asked them and knew I needed it and as I prayed I knew befer the doctors that they would do this and yes I guess you can call that faith.How many doctors do you know let alone two that will give a man csatration surgery and not ask for a shrinks openion but do this just becaues it was asked and done in a large hospital to boot.I dought their are not many in here that can say that but as I know my God I do know he has always wanted the very best for me and it shows in all my life.I dont want to offend anyone when I talk about God because I know many dont understand what I am saying.But for me the power of prayer has been with me all my life and so has his hand in my life. I can only say what has worked for me and I hope others will know this one day also.God bless you all my friends.

Sag:

I'm not saying there isn't a god, or that he can't affect your life. I'm just saying that he doesn't care what name you call him by or which road you take to find him. No one religion has a corner on God. No one religion has all the answers. I'm not arrogant enough to think I do. I resent others thinking they do.

Sag:

Slammr (imported) wrote: Wed May 30, 2007 10:25 pm I'm not saying there isn't a god, or that he can't affect your life. I'm just saying that he doesn't care what name you call him by or which road you take to find him. No one religion has a corner on God. No one religion has all the answers. I'm not arrogant enough to think I do. I resent others thinking they do.

I once saw a bumper sticker that I thought said it as well as anything. It said, "God Is Too Big To Fit Into Just One Religion."

On the question of creation or evolution, I believe God created everything through a process science calls evolution. In The Bible when it says, "and God said let there be light, and there was light," I think of that as what science calls The Big Bang.

I believe what I believe and I'm willing to share my beliefs with others and I listen with an open mind as others share their beliefs with me. But I don't try to impose my beliefs on others, and I don't want them to try to impose their beliefs on me.

I try to respect the beliefs of others, I think we have to respect each other's beliefs, and maybe we can even learn from each other. The world would certainly be a much better place if we could all respect each other and each other's beliefs and accept each other's right to believe what they believe.