Boards > Pirate's Cove

Creationism vs. Evolution

(1/16) > >>

TheChronicHotAir:
It's been popular debate in recent days-- with the weak Ham / Bill Nye 'debate'.

I know Ham got schooled and am not really interested in what he said.




That being said, there are several points that all the Atheist/Pro-Science types don't address:
1. What role does "sin" play in the rise and fall of civilizations??
2. How can Homosexuality be considered "normal" in an Evolutionist's/ScienceIsMyGod world when it's CLEARLY not a species promoting behavior??
3. Is Israel the most important Country on the Earth?? 
4. The Bible says that God places every world leader in power and also removes them.

Bucfucious:

God placed Hitler in power?

Interesting.

OneTruth:
The Bible also says that God is three persons in one yet simultaneously one single person.
...................................................


O wait the Bible doesn't say that at all...people say that.

spartan:

--- Quote from: TheChronicHotAir on February 06, 2014, 05:09:02 AM ---
I know Ham got schooled and am not really interested in what he said.


--- End quote ---

Not the way I heard it went down.

Not saying anything about Ham's arguments because I did not hear them, but I read that Nye got **CENSORED** slapped from a debate perspective

eoebucco23:
I think Nye was really respecting of the insanity being offered by Ham. The Q & A was a let down. Ham is very closeminded and he admitted that when he said nothing will change his belief in the bible.  Science is all about changing your views when presented with new evidence. Faith is about ignoring the new evidence or manipulating it to fit the doctrine

dalbuc:
Basically in a debate format Ham was able to say anything he wanted. Did Nye make more sense and was he right, yes. In the format they ran was he able to bring that to bear effectively, not really.

beardmcdoug:

--- Quote from: TheChronicHotAir on February 06, 2014, 05:09:02 AM ---It's been popular debate in recent days-- with the weak Ham / Bill Nye 'debate'.

I know Ham got schooled and am not really interested in what he said.




That being said, there are several points that all the Atheist/Pro-Science types don't address:
1. What role does "sin" play in the rise and fall of civilizations??
2. How can Homosexuality be considered "normal" in an Evolutionist's/ScienceIsMyGod world when it's CLEARLY not a species promoting behavior??
3. Is Israel the most important Country on the Earth?? 
4. The Bible says that God places every world leader in power and also removes them.

--- End quote ---

I'll have a go at this...



1) "sin" is a subjective term, all groups have a different list of things that are "sinful". 

Example, some current non-developed societies still practice bodily mutilation in very much a "non-sinful" (in their eyes) way.  In christian cultures this is unacceptable.  Same way that a woman wearing certain clothing is unacceptable in Islamic culture.

If by "sin" you mean general meany-ness, then yes, generally a population that exercises "meany-ness" instead of cooperation will not work together.  You should read the book Guns, Germs, and Steel.  It will make the globe small for you and explain how/why things look the way they do today.  The names of two chapters:  Why Africa is black,  Why China is Chinese.  It is a very interesting book.




2) Homosexuality can be considered "normal" in an evolutionist's view because everything is "normal" in an evolutionists view.  Nothing is "wrong", it is just different.  And for one reason or another, either works better or works worse.  Generally the mutations that "work better", are the ones that persist because they are passed down to their offspring, allowing their offspring to have an advantage, and be more prolific, and so on.  So although homosexuality will not produce the best possible chance to further the species, it is not a mystery why it has persisted in our gene pool, and in fact spread... think of the first gay dudes that realized its best to shut their mouths and f*ck a woman than die, and thus passing their "gay genes" to their kids, while appearing "normal" to society


Evolution is actually on perfect display in homosexuality.  It is a derivation of the "norm", yet it is a mild enough alteration that it does not completely inhibit the carrier's ability to procreate with the opposite sex.  (Could you imagine if not only did homosexuals desire the same sex, but were also genetically incapable of producing offspring with the opposite sex!?)

Homosexuality may not be the most advantageous way to procreate a new human, but that does not mean we should not tolerate their existence here on the planet, standing next to us.  Just as my hair being brown makes me different from many PR posters, their genetic difference makes them different from many PR posters.  It is as simple as that.  So if we run the experiment further into the future, and all homosexuals are true to their nature, and do not mingle with the rest of the "straight" population, Christians and Muslims will eventually get their wish, and the "gay gene" will eventually be weeded from the gene pool, because there will be nobody to pass their genes to, because they are mating male-to-male and female-to-female, both cases not producing offspring




3) Israel is only the most important plot of land on this earth if humans decide it is.  What significance does that little plot of land on the east coast of the Mediterranean have over any other bit of land surrounding it?  The soil produces crops at 1000x the rate of normal soil?  Is there some great store of mineral deposits below the land surface, that have been laid there by thousands of years of the Mediterranean sea washing up on its shores?  Is the beach there the most desirable, with the whitest white sands that the world has ever seen?  No, none of that?  Then, I'm not sure why, other than the generation of some other mysterious form of profit, would Israel be "the most important" piece of land on Earth.




4) Indeed, I believe a book that professes the powers of an omnipotent man in the sky would also include a statement about this man's power of appointment

Bucfucious:
I'm going to disagree with you on number two. Evidence suggests that with the more male children a woman has, there is an increasingly larger chance that they will be gay. It's been suggested that her body finds a way to counteract the testosterone in the fetus. From an evolutionary point of view, humans dwelled in small family units, hunter/gatherer units. These roles were well defined. Men still have better depth perception than women, like all hunters they need to judge the distance to their prey. Women, on the other hand, have better peripheral vision. Scanning a wider area makes you more efficient at gathering. (It's why they always catch you looking, even if you don't think they do) In small groups, it's important to maintain balance. If you don't, nutrition suffers. It would be an evolutionary advantage if individuals were able to assume the role of the other sex.

A good example of this is the awe inspiring cannabis plant. Under harsh conditions, female plants can produce pollen; sometimes the entire plant, sometimes just a single branch. This gives the plant a better chance of reproducing. Seeds usually drop straight to the ground, leaving them to struggle in the harsh conditions. Pollen can be carried by the wind, hopefully to a place with more fertile conditions. Smart growers take advantage of this fact by stressing one of their less viable female plants. The pollen it produces can be used to fertilize select lower branches on the other females. The seeds this produces will have only X chromosomes.

Let's look again at our small hunter gatherer clan. To avoid inbreeding, the males must leave. The core of the group will be genetically related females, who then reproduce with bands of males who temporarily hold dominance, and breeding rights, until they are ousted. An alternate theory is that males lived solitary lives and traded animal kills for sexual favors. Or a combination of these and possibly other strategies. No one really knows for sure, but it doesn't really matter to our scenario here. The point is males and females have very different reproduction strategies. Let's consider what that means to the next generation. Having a male child is a lottery ticket. He may have many, many children, but the majority of males won't have any children. Having a female child practically ensures reproduction, but at a much slower rate.

So now, say we have a small clan whose children are mostly male. They will disperse. They may reproduce, they may not, but the group that remains will become smaller and less viable. With a mechanism in place that causes role reversal during increased sexual ratio imbalance, the continuation of the clan has it's chances increased. The homosexual males may not reproduce directly, but he does increase the chances that the core group of females continues, and helps to diversify the reproductive strategy of their genetic code. And at low cost, since that particular genetic code has already produced a surplus of males in that location.

I really hate trying to have an actual conversation on this crappy damned phone.

beardmcdoug:

--- Quote from: Bucfucious on February 07, 2014, 11:47:40 AM ---I'm going to disagree with you on number two. Evidence suggests that with the more male children a woman has, there is an increasingly larger chance that they will be gay. It's been suggested that her body finds a way to counteract the testosterone in the fetus. From an evolutionary point of view, humans dwelled in small family units, hunter/gatherer units. These roles were well defined. Men still have better depth perception than women, like all hunters they need to judge the distance to their prey. Women, on the other hand, have better peripheral vision. Scanning a wider area makes you more efficient at gathering. (It's why they always catch you looking, even if you don't think they do) In small groups, it's important to maintain balance. If you don't, nutrition suffers. It would be an evolutionary advantage if individuals were able to assume the role of the other sex.

A good example of this is the awe inspiring cannabis plant. Under harsh conditions, female plants can produce pollen; sometimes the entire plant, sometimes just a single branch. This gives the plant a better chance of reproducing. Seeds usually drop straight to the ground, leaving them to struggle in the harsh conditions. Pollen can be carried by the wind, hopefully to a place with more fertile conditions. Smart growers take advantage of this fact by stressing one of their less viable female plants. The pollen it produces can be used to fertilize select lower branches on the other females. The seeds this produces will have only X chromosomes.

Let's look again at our small hunter gatherer clan. To avoid inbreeding, the males must leave. The core of the group will be genetically related females, who then reproduce with bands of males who temporarily hold dominance, and breeding rights, until they are ousted. An alternate theory is that males lived solitary lives and traded animal kills for sexual favors. Or a combination of these and possibly other strategies. No one really knows for sure, but it doesn't really matter to our scenario here. The point is males and females have very different reproduction strategies. Let's consider what that means to the next generation. Having a male child is a lottery ticket. He may have many, many children, but the majority of males won't have any children. Having a female child practically ensures reproduction, but at a much slower rate.

So now, say we have a small clan whose children are mostly male. They will disperse. They may reproduce, they may not, but the group that remains will become smaller and less viable. With a mechanism in place that causes role reversal during increased sexual ratio imbalance, the continuation of the clan has it's chances increased. The homosexual males may not reproduce directly, but he does increase the chances that the core group of females continues, and helps to diversify the reproductive strategy of their genetic code. And at low cost, since that particular genetic code has already produced a surplus of males in that location.

I really hate trying to have an actual conversation on this crappy damned phone.

--- End quote ---

ah, interesting, didn't know about that but it makes sense

thanks

BucNY:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/02/07/human-footprints-800000-years-old/5277059/

Here's a nice little ditty for your viewing pleasure. Let's see you refute this one OT.

I also am going to say that because a "civilized society" helps those to weak to help themselves, we may be losing some of the traits that made us what we are today.....

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version