Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: columbusdude82 on February 01, 2008, 10:25:36 AM
-
http://www.kkmslive.com/MP3/15013108-Simmons%20&%20Myers.MP3 (http://www.kkmslive.com/MP3/15013108-Simmons%20&%20Myers.MP3)
Beach Bum, this one's for you. It's a radio program with PZ Myers, biology professor, and the author of "Billions of Missing Links" Dr Simmons.
-
How embarrassing is it when you write a book called "Billions of Missing Links" and claim there is no evidence for whale evolution, when you don't even know the names of whale fossils.
This creationist literally did minutes and minutes of research for his book ::)
-
Tres funny content here by PZ Myers about the debate. He has a good sense of humor. I always liked his blog.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/
I liked the musings on whether Simmons has a clue what a female orgasm is. :)
And how Simmons had the title of the debate changed at the very last second, in an attempt to reflect badly on evolution. Typische.
Two days ago I was asked to participate in a radio debate with a Discovery Institute fellow. I asked about the topic and the format, and they said, "the evidence of Evolution vs. evidence of Intelligent Design" and "each would get a 5 minute opening statement and then we would debate the issues brought out in the opening statements." OK, sure, I said, while rolling my eyes at the ridiculous expectations.
I'm supposed to call in in an hour and a half. I just got this email.
I just received an e-mail from Dr. Simmons requesting the title of the debate to change to "Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?" When you agreed to the debate I proposed the title and format to you but did not consult with Dr. Simmons. I was corresponding with you while I was in the middle of a show that day and didn't think to pass that specific information to Dr. Simmons. When he learned of the original title he requested this change but sent it to our Producer last night and I just learned of it now.
Well, isn't this just so incredibly typical of frauds? Bait and switch, juggle the terms, move the goalposts, play games.
The show will go on. I had absolutely no respect for my opponent's intellectual honesty in the first place, so I can't argue that this has diminished it.
-
Yeah. I love how Simmons did not present ONE SHRED of evidence in favor of his creationist/ID views, while expecting PZ to tutor him in biology 101 during a radio program. ::)
-
The Theory of Evolution is like a picture in a big puzzle already put together with a some missing pieces, but the picture is clear.
-
The Theory of Evolution is like a picture in a big puzzle already put together with a some missing pieces, but the picture is clear.
How long have you been waiting to use this brilliant analogy? ;)
-
How long have you been waiting to use this brilliant analogy? ;)
I've been reading some books lately. Combined with a few things here on the forum, it just makes sense to me that way now.
-
Creationists, while they flog and beat at the theory of evolution and science left and right, seem to be awfully obsessed with being taken seriously on a scientific level. I don't get that. Spit on the science but then try to prove your faith is reality-based using scientific methods (well, pseudo-scientific granted, but you know what I mean.) That's demented. :-X Why not just shout from every rooftop that creationism is based on one's heartfelt, unfaltering faith... and just be proud of that?
Anyway, the illustrious Dr. Simmons is of course, a well-respected fellow of that similarly illustrious organization, the Discovery Institute. What else would be expected? :D
Ever notice how these wacky religious fundies try to surreptitiously hide behind this "scientific think tank" facade, lying about their real intent, covertly working to impose their secret agenda on an unsuspecting society? They kinda behave in the same way satanic cults are depicted in typical B horror movies.
-
Creationists, while they flog the theory of evolution and science left and right, seem to be awfully obsessed with being taken seriously on a scientific basis. I don't get that. Spit on the science but then try to prove your faith is reality-based using scientific methods (well, pseudo-scientific granted, but you know what I mean.) That's demented. :-X Why not just shout from every rooftop that creationism is based on one's heartfelt, unfaltering faith... and just be proud of that?
Anyway, the illustrious Dr. Simmons is of course, a well-respected fellow of that similarly illustrious organization, the Discovery Institute. What else would be expected? :D
Ever notice how these wacky religious fundies try to surreptitiously hide behind this "scientific think tank" facade, lying about their real intent, covertly working to impose their secret agenda on an unsuspecting society? They kinda behave in the same way satanic cults are depicted in typical B horror movies.
Creationism couldn't even qualify as pseudo science
-
Creationists, while they flog the theory of evolution and science left and right, seem to be awfully obsessed with being taken seriously on a scientific basis. I don't get that. Spit on the science but then try to prove your faith is reality-based using scientific methods (well, pseudo-scientific granted, but you know what I mean.) That's demented. :-X Why not just shout from every rooftop that creationism is based on one's heartfelt, unfaltering faith... and just be proud of that?
Anyway, the illustrious Dr. Simmons is of course, a well-respected fellow of that similarly illustrious organization, the Discovery Institute. What else would be expected? :D
Ever notice how these wacky religious fundies try to surreptitiously hide behind this "scientific think tank" facade, lying about their real intent, covertly working to impose their secret agenda on an unsuspecting society? They kinda behave in the same way satanic cults are depicted in typical B horror movies.
You are a very sharp person. These think-tanks are a disgrace to legitimate academic pursuits. Whether religious or political, many thinktanks are polluting our national discourse with the blather they produce.
Evolution is not a dicey theory. Period. A little academic legwork will bear that out. But these hucksters have a prejudicial ax to grind so we end up spending our time having to point out that their song 'n dance act is scam.
If we do not continue the good fight, we see problems arise...like in Kansas where a local schoolboard gave equal time to Intelligent Design in its biology classes.
-
Deedee, I like you.
I'm glad you're on here and hope you stay with us :)
-
im sorry this creationist is a moron, he keeps being corrected and then tries to keep saying that its complex and you cant know everything.
for example he argues about brains having multiple types of neuropeptides and connections and that for some reason(oh ya because theres alot) that it is designed. However, he is quickly corrected by the doctor on how trial and error does occur, and how the multitude of brains cells is easily accounted for. then he decides to try and use another complex example which is easily corrected.
he also keeps going back to darwin and ad hominen attacks on him as if it has anything to do with his theory, "he said nasty stuff about blacks" LOL WTF? what does that have to do. this debate was ridiculous, DR. simmons should never be allowed to write another book on any subject, he is clearly an intellectual midget.
-
i would also like to point out to beach bum that attacking a theory for not having every answer without offering positive counters is retarded.
its like saying quantum physics doesnt have all the answers, god must of did it, throw out quantum theory.
-
http://www.kkmslive.com/MP3/15013108-Simmons%20&%20Myers.MP3 (http://www.kkmslive.com/MP3/15013108-Simmons%20&%20Myers.MP3)
Beach Bum, this one's for you. It's a radio program with PZ Myers, biology professor, and the author of "Billions of Missing Links" Dr Simmons.
O.K. I listened. Myers was acting like a kid. Arrogant. Condescending. The host actually had to ask the guy to be civil and stop name calling. Spent about the first five minutes whining about the title of the debate being changed. Waaaaa!
He would fit right in on this board. :D
Now what exactly are you trying to prove with this debate?
-
O.K. I listened. Myers was acting like a kid. Arrogant. Condescending. The host actually had to ask the guy to be civil and stop name calling. Spent about the first five minutes whining about the title of the debate being changed. Waaaaa!
He would fit right on this board. :D
Now what exactly are you trying to prove with this debate?
are you serious? he presented no evidence, and was patently false, your extremely closed minded if this never opened your eyes.
-
i would also like to point out to beach bum that attacking a theory for not having every answer without offering positive counters is retarded.
its like saying quantum physics doesnt have all the answers, god must of did it, throw out quantum theory.
Not retarded at all. Retarded would be basing an entire theory on something that doesn't make sense (the suddenly appearing cell that spontaneously reproduces).
The problem isn't just that there are unanswered questions, it's that some of these unanswered questions go to the heart of this theory: the origin of life and macroevolution. Those are enormous holes.
-
Myers was A LOT more polite than I. Simmons is a RETARD!!! How dare he dismiss a whole field of science of which he knows next to nothing?!
How dare he write a book about "missing links" when he can't even name whale fossils?
I would honestly have said, on live radio, "are you fuckin kidding me??????"
There are pimple-faced sophomores in OSU's 200-level biology classes who could destroy Simmons in a debate on fossils!!!
-
are you serious? he presented no evidence, and was patently false, your extremely closed minded if this never opened your eyes.
Oh please. Neither one of them presented evidence. They were talking. I wouldn't be persuaded by either one of them talking about their theories, etc. on the radio.
And the "if you don't agree with me you are close minded (or stupid)" line is tired man.
-
Not retarded at all. Retarded would be basing an entire theory on something that doesn't making sense (the suddenly appearing cell that spontaneously reproduces).
That statement alone quantifies your ignorance to enormous magnitudes. Who said there are suddenly appearing cells? Who said they spontaneously reproduce? You have been fooled by the Creationists into thinking that evolution is a theory of "chance," which it isn't.
OF COURSE there are no suddenly-appearing cells, and of course there is no such thing as "spontaneous reproduction"!
The problem isn't just that there are unanswered questions, it's that some of these unanswered questions go to the heart of this theory: the origin of life and macroevolution. Those are enormous holes.
No they aren't. First off, the origin of life isn't a "problem" for evolution. It's a separate field in its own right. Evolution is about what happens after "life" has "started"...
As for macroevolution, it is the sum of many, many microevolutions. If you say you "believe in" microevolution, then congratulations, you believe in evolution :)
-
Oh please. Neither one of them presented evidence. They were talking. I wouldn't be persuaded by either one of them talking about their theories, etc. on the radio.
And the "if you don't agree with me you are close minded (or stupid)" line is tired man.
That's not what Myers said. The line is: "If you write a book saying fossils don't exist, but you don't know the names of well-known fossils, then you're an idiot."
-
That statement alone quantifies your ignorance to enormous magnitudes. Who said there are suddenly appearing cells? Who said they spontaneously reproduce? You have been fooled by the Creationists into thinking that evolution is a theory of "chance," which it isn't.
OF COURSE there are no suddenly-appearing cells, and of course there is no such thing as "spontaneous reproduction"!
No they aren't. First off, the origin of life isn't a "problem" for evolution. It's a separate field in its own right. Evolution is about what happens after "life" has "started"...
As for macroevolution, it is the sum of many, many microevolutions. If you say you "believe in" microevolution, then congratulations, you believe in evolution :)
How did it all start c-dude?
-
Oh please. Neither one of them presented evidence. They were talking. I wouldn't be persuaded by either one of them talking about their theories, etc. on the radio.
And the "if you don't agree with me you are close minded (or stupid)" line is tired old man.
what? he countered everyone of his arguments, and proved that he hasnt a sweet clue about the subject.
he proved him wrong on the use of the word darwin, on brain development, whale fossils and the fossil record, the word theory, and showed just how ignorant and infantile his arguments where. He had no arguments, he even said that evolution was not open to debate and he showed him it was and offered him a book to educate himself on the topic.
it wasnt a debate, it was some moron raising ignorant objections that made no sense then being corrected over and over.
he didnt even know the names of the fossils the dr listed , and he wrote a book about evolution and used that as an argument?
absolutely ridiculous that science is impeded by objections that are absolutely ridiculous.
-
That's not what Myers said. The line is: "If you write a book saying fossils don't exist, but you don't know the names of well-known fossils, then you're an idiot."
I wasn't referring to Myers.
-
I wasn't referring to Myers.
why dont you read books by people who are educated in the field in question?
-
How did it all start c-dude?
I don't know, but there are some pretty good theories. See Chapter 2 of Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" for a detailed description of one of the more promising ones. In his other book "The Blind Watchmaker," he outlines another theory that uses an analogy to the formation of crystals.
To me, the bigger question is not, "How did the first cell come about?" since the first cells were little more than a membrane with some fluid inside. The bigger question is how did the eukaryotic cell (our kind of cell) come about, with its nucleus, mitochondria, and other organelles? That is surely the bigger question!
-
How did it all start c-dude?
Duh!!
In the beginning there was nothing in the universe except a formless chaos. However this chaos began to coalesce into a cosmic egg for eighteen thousand years. Within it, the perfectly opposed principles of yin and yang became balanced and Pangu emerged (or woke up) from the egg. Pangu is usually depicted as a primitive, hairy giant with horns on his head (like the Greek Pan) and clad in furs. Pangu set about the task of creating the world: he separated Yin from Yang with a swing of his giant axe, creating the Earth (murky Yin) and the Sky (clear Yang). To keep them separated, Pangu stood between them and pushed up the Sky. This task took eighteen thousand years, with each day the sky grew ten feet higher, the Earth ten feet wider, and Pangu ten feet taller. In some versions of the story, Pangu is aided in this task by the four most prominent beasts, namely the Turtle, the Qilin, the Phoenix, and the Dragon.
After the eighteen thousand years had elapsed, Pangu was laid to rest. His breath became the wind; his voice the thunder; left eye the sun and right eye the moon; his body became the mountains and extremes of the world; his blood formed rivers; his muscles the fertile lands; his facial hair the stars and milky way; his fur the bushes and forests; his bones the valuable minerals; his bone marrows sacred diamonds; his sweat fell as rain; and the fleas on his fur carried by the wind became human beings all over the world. The distance from Earth and Sky at the end of the 18,000 years would have been 65,700,000 feet, or over 12,443 miles.
-
why dont you read books by people who are educated in the field in question?
You mean other than the books they made me read in school?
-
I don't know, but there are some pretty good theories. See Chapter 2 of Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" for a detailed description of one of the more promising ones. In his other book "The Blind Watchmaker," he outlines another theory that uses an analogy to the formation of crystals.
To me, the bigger question is not, "How did the first cell come about?" since the first cells were little more than a membrane with some fluid inside. The bigger question is how did the eukaryotic cell (our kind of cell) come about, with its nucleus, mitochondria, and other organelles? That is surely the bigger question!
Why isn't "How did the first cell come about" a big question? I'd say that's pretty important if the entire theory is based on that first cell.
-
Duh!!
In the beginning there was nothing in the universe except a formless chaos. However this chaos began to coalesce into a cosmic egg for eighteen thousand years. Within it, the perfectly opposed principles of yin and yang became balanced and Pangu emerged (or woke up) from the egg. Pangu is usually depicted as a primitive, hairy giant with horns on his head (like the Greek Pan) and clad in furs. Pangu set about the task of creating the world: he separated Yin from Yang with a swing of his giant axe, creating the Earth (murky Yin) and the Sky (clear Yang). To keep them separated, Pangu stood between them and pushed up the Sky. This task took eighteen thousand years, with each day the sky grew ten feet higher, the Earth ten feet wider, and Pangu ten feet taller. In some versions of the story, Pangu is aided in this task by the four most prominent beasts, namely the Turtle, the Qilin, the Phoenix, and the Dragon.
After the eighteen thousand years had elapsed, Pangu was laid to rest. His breath became the wind; his voice the thunder; left eye the sun and right eye the moon; his body became the mountains and extremes of the world; his blood formed rivers; his muscles the fertile lands; his facial hair the stars and milky way; his fur the bushes and forests; his bones the valuable minerals; his bone marrows sacred diamonds; his sweat fell as rain; and the fleas on his fur carried by the wind became human beings all over the world. The distance from Earth and Sky at the end of the 18,000 years would have been 65,700,000 feet, or over 12,443 miles.
(http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/f/f4/200px-Jethro211.jpg)
-
You mean other than the books they made me read in school?
so what about science dont you get?
its not hiding or withholding info, it is based on facts and peer reviewed info has no personal sway either way. what is published in journals is objective proof irrespective of personal opinion.
Why isn't "How did the first cell come about" a big question? I'd say that's pretty important if the entire theory is based on that first cell.
no its not, thats abiogenesis. your incorrect.
-
(http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/f/f4/200px-Jethro211.jpg)
Why did you post your picture underneath this sacred story of Creation?
-
Why isn't "How did the first cell come about" a big question? I'd say that's pretty important if the entire theory is based on that first cell.
It is a big question, but what I mentioned was an EVEN BIGGER question.
Other questions at least as "big" as the first-cell question are the first DNA molecule, the first RNA molecule, the first nucleotide, etc...
I'd dig up the references from academic journals, but I've despaired of doing that since you folks never read them...
-
You mean other than the books they made me read in school?
Why do you respond to his question with a question. Why not actually respond to the question
God forbid you should actually learn something in contrast to the local jewish tribal myths that you seem to believe are factual
-
It is a big question, but what I mentioned was an EVEN BIGGER question.
Other questions at least as "big" as the first-cell question are the first DNA molecule, the first RNA molecule, the first nucleotide, etc...
I'd dig up the references from academic journals, but I've despaired of doing that since you folks never read them...
Hey Professor,
What do you think you've proven if someone can't answer that question?
The answer of course is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
-
Beach Bum, you accuse Real Science of having something to hide and censoring other view points. Let me tell you something that just happened.
As you know, Simmons is affiliated with the Discovery Institute, a creationist institute that promotes "Intelligent Design." So I went to the official ID website uncommondescent.com, registered under the screen name "Defender of Reason," and went to the article about Simmons' radio program.
I made the following post:
I just listened to the debate, and I hate to break it to you folks but PZ made minced meat of Dr Simmons.
How can you write a book called “Billions of Missing Links” and not know the names of whale fossils?!
It got deleted, and now I am banned from posting on there. Talk about free inquiry ::)
They are the ones with something to hide, not real scientists!
-
Beach Bum, you accuse Real Science of having something to hide and censoring other view points. Let me tell you something that just happened.
As you know, Simmons is affiliated with the Discovery Institute, a creationist institute that promotes "Intelligent Design." So I went to the official ID website uncommondescent.com, registered under the screen name "Defender of Reason," and went to the article about Simmons' radio program.
I made the following post:
It got deleted, and now I am banned from posting on there. Talk about free inquiry ::)
They are the ones with something to hide, not real scientists!
come on man - they can't have any opposing views that might shatter the fragile minds of the young children (or old Beach Bum's) that they are trying to indoctrinate.
Surely Jesus would approve
-
come on man - they can't have any opposing views that might shatter the fragile minds of the young children (or old Beach Bum's) that they are trying to indoctrinate.
Surely Jesus would approve
Apparently, Jesus hates whale fossils...
-
Not to go off topic, but another thing about the "first cell"... Evolution operates on single-cell organisms the same way it operates on us multicellular organisms: by small, gradual, minute changes. So when you ask where did the first cell come from, in all probability it came from something that looked very much like the first cell.
Presumably, the first cell was the first strand of DNA or RNA that managed to get a cover (the cell membrane) to shield it from the other molecules (DNA, RNA, etc) that were trying to tear apart its molecular bonds and incorporate it into themselves.
-
Why do you respond to his question with a question. Why not actually respond to the question
God forbid you should actually learn something in contrast to the local jewish tribal myths that you seem to believe are factual
Aw now ain't cute. Jethro is following me. :)
-
Not to go off topic, but another thing about the "first cell"... Evolution operates on single-cell organisms the same way it operates on us multicellular organisms: by small, gradual, minute changes. So when you ask where did the first cell come from, in all probability it came from something that looked very much like the first cell.
Presumably, the first cell was the first strand of DNA or RNA that managed to get a cover (the cell membrane) to shield it from the other molecules (DNA, RNA, etc) that were trying to tear apart its molecular bonds and incorporate it into themselves.
Hmmm, why do I think that somehow Bum isn't going to be satisfied with this answer.
Honestly, I don't see why Christians can't just decide to believe that God created the natural world and evolution is just part of God's process. Problem solved. No need to waste $$$ on Creation Musuems and make fools of themselves by taking pictures while sitting on a plaster dinosaur
Why do they go to such ridiculous ends to try to maintain literal belief in an ancient allegory
-
Aw now ain't cute. Jethro is following me. :)
Why are you so arrogant as to think I must be following you if I'm posting on this board
Get over yourself
-
Beach Bum, you accuse Real Science of having something to hide and censoring other view points. Let me tell you something that just happened.
As you know, Simmons is affiliated with the Discovery Institute, a creationist institute that promotes "Intelligent Design." So I went to the official ID website uncommondescent.com, registered under the screen name "Defender of Reason," and went to the article about Simmons' radio program.
I made the following post:
It got deleted, and now I am banned from posting on there. Talk about free inquiry ::)
They are the ones with something to hide, not real scientists!
And where did I "accuse Real Science of having something to hide"? News to me.
So you got banned from a website. Whoo hoo.
-
And where did I "accuse Real Science of having something to hide"? News to me.
So you got banned from a website. Whoo hoo.
Are you kidding? All your posts accusing scientists of not having open minds, comparing science to the tobacco and dairy industries, etc? Do I have to dig them up for you?
-
Are you kidding? All your posts accusing scientists of not having open minds, comparing science to the tobacco and dairy industries, etc? Do I have to dig them up for you?
Yes, please dig up the quote of me saying "Real Science has something hide." :)
-
PZ Myers on the debate:
That radio debate was a hoot and a half, but I can't take credit. All the joy came straight from the mouth and brain of my lovely opponent, who obviously didn't do a lick of research for either the debate or for his books. I was shocked for a moment when, after I'd mentioned the recent discovery of Indohyus, he went on to claim that there were no intermediates between that deer-like artiodactyl and modern whales … and when I tried to mention Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Rhodcetus, Basilosaurus, etc., he seemed to have never heard of them, claimed his information came from a Scientific American article some months ago (way to plumb the depths of the scientific literature, Dr Simmons!), and then started making stuff about them not exhibiting dorsoventral flexion in swimming, and not having dorsal blowholes. He wrote a whole book about "Billions of missing links"! His other book, What Darwin Didn't Know, needs to be retitled in a new edition, What Geoffrey Simmons Doesn't Know. It will be a very large book.
I shouldn't have been surprised at his performance, though. I have a secret: I read part of What Darwin Didn't Know before the show, and knew exactly what kind of creationist I was engaging.
I have to share a few tidbits with you from that hilarious book. It has a chapter titled "Purposeful Design" which purports to list 81 examples of design. He has very low standards. Basically, anything that works is evidence of design.
The mouth, vagina, urethra, and anus are sealed by mucus when not in use and yet can open and close in controlled ways as needs arise.
This is a man who thinks the fact that he isn't drooling and feces aren't dribbling down his leg is a miracle from god. After reading his book, I kind of agree.
The book is full of confessions like that.
Menopause: Are women designed not to have babies when they age or are physically less fit, or is it the reverse, that babies shouldn't be born to women who might not live until their children have grown up? Most women go through menopause around 52 years of age, and they all go through menopause in much the same way. It is clearly programmed. A similar pattern is found in men. As they approach 50, many have lower testosterone levels, lower sperm counts, and less interest in having sex.
What a bizarre argument. So, when the life expectancy was around 30 or 40 (say, in the time of Jesus), shouldn't women have entered menopause around the age of ten or twenty? And if a designer is setting the timers on women's fertility for optimum utility, I have a complaint: I want daughters' fertility switched off until they're old enough to handle it. Like around 30.
All women don't go through menopause in the same way. There is an underlying similar cause, but the symptoms and expression of that mechanism is different in everyone.
And, umm, how old is Geoffrey Simmons?
His age might not matter. I don't think he knows very much about sex. Look at this argument: women's bodies are perfectly designed to maximize their enjoyment of the missionary position!
Intercourse: Face-to-face intercourse is relatively rare in the animal world, found only among whales, dolphins, dugongs, manatees, beavers, sea otters, centipedes, some crustaceans, a aNew Zealand songbird, and some primates like orangutans and bonobos [and squid. "Relatively rare," huh? -- pzm]
One might ask, how did human males and females evolve to be so perfectly compatible? Pelvic thrusting during intercourse stimulates both individuals and deposits the sperm in the deepest possible spot. Vaginal rugae (folds) stimulate the penis. Every male aspect of intercourse—from the initial excitement set off by visual cues and pheromones, to a good mechanical fit, to stimulation, to the placement of sperm—matches up well with the female's equivalent interest, her means of being stimulated, the delivery of the egg, and her mechanisms to help the sperm on their voyage. Dopamine, a chemical responsible for feelings of reward and pleasure, is released into the bloodstream in males and females after sex, just as it is released after ingesting a good meal or certain illicit drugs.
Please, somebody, show Dr Simmons where the clitoris is and explain female orgasms to him…for the sake of Mrs Simmons!
After that mercy is taken care of, explain evolution to him. I will note that Dr Simmons is the product of parents who had sufficient interest in sex and sufficiently compatible plumbing that they could generate him, and that they in turn had parents with compatible genitalia, and they came from parents likewise, and on and on back into the past. There was never a point where anyone had two parents who did not have sex with each other, so his observation, from an evolutionary perspective, is completely trivial. Design is unnecessary.
I was really tempted to turn this debate into a sex education discussion, which would have been good for the Christian listeners. Imagine a Christian talk station that patiently explained to the male listeners what a clitoris was … there would be many happy smiling ladies in church.