Nipples

Unless of course the designer was deviously attempting to fool us into thinking we had not been designed. Of course then believing that we *had* been designed would be purposefully defying the creator...

quote:

---

Yes, Even toes can get pleasure during sex...human sex makes no sense really there seems to be more pleasure involved then is necessary for procreation to take place. Now that is well designed!

---

Except that there are numerous limits placed on sex through religion; no sex with two unmarried people, no sex with someone else's married partner, no sex with anyone else than your marriage partner, no sex with the same sex, so sex with any other orifice, etc. Making sex so pleasurable as it is is unnecessary and even detrimental to the behavior required through religion. That is poor design, or at least unhelpful design. It actually makes sense through evolution where we want the maximum amount of sex that we can possibly attain.How about another process of life, such as death? Death is inevitable and according to your views is not the end of the road, but it often seems needlessly painful to fulfill its required function. Did God just decide to get one last torture session in before you get pampered in heaven? After all you cannot really argue that you are supposed to learn some life lesson from the agonizing pain before death; you are going to die moments later!

Therein lies your problem. Religion assumes that human society is included in the overall plan, and the fact that human urges run contrary to what society expects of us is at the very least unhelpful design.The evolutionary perspective on the other hand does not have anything *in mind* when it does its thing; even if the rampant sexual exploits of a human cause huge problems for the society, if those problems can be overcome without resulting in the death of the offspring, such traits will tend to proliferate. You are still trying to apply the misguided notion that there is a designing intelligence behind even the evolutionary perspective. The fact is that the organism most fit to reproduce will proliferate directly results in our inherent desire to bonk anything that moves. This is ridiculous, so I shall. STDs come with the territory, and with suitable screening they are a small price to pay for access to a wide array of booty. From an evolutionary perspective there *are* no unwanted pregnancies otherwise you would not have hit it in the first place. Besides, you are again assuming that there is some hidden designer that is sitting in our testicles and adjusting the next generation to fit with societal norms. Aborted pregnancies have no affect on evolutionary progression, the sperm don't pull their punches because the previous batch didn't make it. So you are either:
A) Asserting that through your belief you will not die. (Boy are you in for a surprise!)
B) Asserting that nobody in the history of the world ever got a payoff from your religion. (Chances don't look good for you, eh?)
or C) Quibbling pointlessly over intentionally twisted semantics.I am actually leaning toward option B from your post, which is certainly an interesting take on the situation. Not only is your deity fallible but also apparently wholly incapable of rectifying the situation its incompetence caused, and you are depending on the unlikely prospect that it will get its act together during your lifetime as opposed to the thousands of years predating it. God and Jesus are also frikkin' liars since everyone they ever met or preached to ultimately died; the deity and its son never even managed to save one person! Thief on the cross: You are forgiven... but you die anyways!

You can distinguish between desire and behavior, so don't pretend that you cannot. Even beyond that the argument is weak; much of humanity wears a tie on a daily basis without being genetically predisposed toward doing so. It is a learned behavior just like restraining yourself from straying from a monogamous relationship. I think I missed the "Argument from Hygiene" chapter in logic class. Besides, it was you who suggested that sperm were somehow getting scared straight by societal norms, and I don't even want to know how you thought that functioned.

An excellent point. Evolution can even lead to contradictory situations, such as leading to pair bonding but also a persistent biological urge to mate outside the pair. In evolution this is normal, but if we were to assume design it would make little sense.

Of course many ignore that, as a part of the ecosystem, that which we do to cultivate ourselves is cultivating the ecosystem as well.