Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Why did god make bisexual animals? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    God didn't say that homeosexuality is wrong...we've just assumed that he'd want that...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    The second they are unabstinent they also have the option of choosing to use condoms as well, because they have already had it. It isn't the Catholic churches job to do everything for Africa; the catholic church is already feeding them, if you really care then you are more than welcome to promote your agenda down there, they would certainly be greatful of the help.

    The catholic church are telling African people who get all their information on AIDS from that vile organisation. That condoms are engineered with holes in them in order to spread the virus. The fact you are even trying to defend this makes you look ridiculous.

    The survey of 32,000 people was asking them what their charitable donations were, it proves that people with faith give more than like for like people without faith. Like I said, you have to disprove this fact for your hypothosis to hold any sway. You also have to prove that a religious person is more likely to kill than a non-religious one, but you haven't... I am not just saying things, they are referenced and yours are not.
    And i put it to you again. What other reason could a father and young man have for flying a passenger plane into the two towers, but the approval of an almighty being and the promise of heaven? That is the proof that a religious person is more likely to kill than a non religious one.

    Now name me a situation in which only an atheist could kill and a theist couldn't?

    Science doesn't show us either way, nor does it shed light on how probable or improbable it is.
    Of course it does you absolute idiot. Are you seriously tellling me that there are no scientific theories and rules which make the existence of god improbable? Seriously?! :lolwut:

    You are merely reading science in your favour because of what you believe, it's like me putting forward the argument that the universe is too complex and perfect not to be made by God, but you wouldn't buy that, so don't expect me to buy your crap.
    Just because you can't prove or disprove God's existence, this does not mean that the probability for his existence is equal to the opposite probability

    You are adding on unecessary bodies to a simple explanation. A more apt analogy would be me saying that the universe is so perfect, nothing could have created it. Which would be equally fallacious.

    I am saying that the likeliehood of their being a god as described in any of the abrahamic religions, is of the highest order improbable, science just happens to back up the historical and logical arguments which go with that statement.

    It isn't the big bang or God, evolution or God, or any other part of science you want to pervert towards your agenda. There cannot be any scientific information that adds or detracts from the idea of God, or does your own biasedness and reading of the information blind you that much? If you would just take your head out of Richard Dawkins crotch for five seconds you might realise how biased you are, you are basically as bad as a fundamentalist.

    Oh yes, because i must have been reading richard dawkins in order to learn waht is really primary school level science. :rofl: Even a child taking their sats could probably recognise how improbable your god is.

    LOL So scientific truths make me biased? Knowledge and reason make me biased? You are nothing but an ignorant hypocrite with your fingers in your ears. I am basing my conclusion on modern day science, one of the most miraculous things to emerge from the human mind. And you are basing you conclusion on......... copies of copies of copies of copies … of copies of ancient myths and stories, concucted and created by prmitive man. :yy:

    If you want to trust the words of bronze age, illiterate peasants(the story of which, it has been widely accepted is a complete fiction), or a "messiah" The like of which was seen countless times in the ancient world, and was nothing new, instead being almost completely unoriginal. Over modern day, scientists, the collective knowledge of whom is infinitely more vast than that of your prophet or messiah. Then be my guest. :mmm: Just don't expect me to respect your ridiculous belief, nor to tolerate it as anything other than a private one.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theBOON)
    [B]Well I asked that many times and always ended up concluding the contrary. If you want information and counter arguments .....etc browse happily through this.
    I didn't think you would be capable of making any counter arguments. :rolleyes:

    And linking to other sites? You may aswell just type in big bold letters: I CANT ARGUE BACK BUT DON'T WANT TO ADMIT IT.

    You don't see me lazily linking you to Richard dawkins.net or infidels.org

    No I don't believe I'd feel the same. I'll be be just like culture. [/COLOR]
    Exactly. Doesn't that devalue your idea of the god your culture tells you to believe?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theBOON)

    When read in the context of that time it's really is not.
    What do you mean ''context of time''. Eternal torture is eternal torture how ever you want to perceive it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    I didn't think you would be capable of making any counter arguments. :rolleyes:

    And linking to other sites? You may aswell just type in big bold letters: I CANT ARGUE BACK BUT DON'T WANT TO ADMIT IT.

    You don't see me lazily linking you to Richard dawkins.net or infidels.org



    Exactly. Doesn't that devalue your idea of the god your culture tells you to believe?
    Well I don't have the time to go to the site type in all your relevant arguments, read them, understand them and then rephrase them on here. You are the only one complaining about this. There is a counter argument for every thing you can imagine of on that site. It's you who is refusing to face the end (irony nah?).

    How so? I didn't just blindly believe in God and wouldn't have if not for the impact God had on my life. I would be agnostic if I didn't experience his might and wisdom.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Charzhino)
    What do you mean ''context of time''. Eternal torture is eternal torture how ever you want to perceive it.
    I was talking about the wars of the people of Isreal found in the Bible.

    About eternal torture. That's not God's fault. It's like the eternal darkness of an empty universe, away from any source of light.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theBOON)
    I was talking about the wars of the people of Isreal found in the Bible.

    About eternal torture. That's not God's fault. It's like the eternal darkness of an empty universe, away from any source of light.
    Are you talking about a physical place where humans get dismembered? If so then it's entirely Gods fault since he's created it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theBOON)
    Well I don't have the time to go to the site type in all your relevant arguments, read them, understand them and then rephrase them on here. You are the only one complaining about this. There is a counter argument for every thing you can imagine of on that site. It's you who is refusing to face the end (irony nah?).

    This is about you and your beliefs. Do you not even have your own defences of these beliefs? Do you have to ask a website what you think everytime they are challenged?

    If you cannot personally answer my points or arguments, then i will assume you are incapable of doing so. Why should i waste my time ona website i can't argue back against? The onus is on you to provide answers, not for me to look for them.

    Most probably that site will consist of the same crap i find on almost every pro religion website, crap which i am entirely capable of arguing back against.

    How so? I didn't just blindly believe in God and wouldn't have if not for the impact God had on my life. I would be agnostic if I didn't experience his might and wisdom.
    But how can you justify belief in a christian god if you freely admit the only reason you believe in him is the culture you were bought up in. ! culture and 1 interpretatioon among thousands. It just sounds like wishfull thinking, and as you reveal above, when you say you typ questions into a christian webiste for your opinions. Mindless obedience and adherence. Do you not think for yourself?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    This is about you and your beliefs. Do you not even have your own defences of these beliefs? Do you have to ask a website what you think everytime they are challenged?

    If you cannot personally answer my points or arguments, then i will assume you are incapable of doing so. Why should i waste my time ona website i can't argue back against? The onus is on you to provide answers, not for me to look for them.

    Most probably that site will consist of the same crap i find on almost every pro religion website, crap which i am entirely capable of arguing back against.



    But how can you justify belief in a christian god if you freely admit the only reason you believe in him is the culture you were bought up in. ! culture and 1 interpretatioon among thousands. It just sounds like wishfull thinking, and as you reveal above, when you say you typ questions into a christian webiste for your opinions. Mindless obedience and adherence. Do you not think for yourself?
    You keep getting out of topic. I just gave the biggest source of information to quench your thrust and you just refuse it on the basis that it not posted in here. There's two explanations for that:

    1. You don't want to admit defeat.
    2. You don't give a damn about anything related and are just trolling.

    Moreover you misunderstand and misinterpret every single counterargument I give you demanding answers on every single one of you out of topic misinterpretations always leading the thread off topic. If anything start a new thread with you questions.

    Also the only reason I still respond to your posts is not because of you but because of some user thinking you arguments have just disproved all of religion.

    Oh and in response to this (inb4 you pop the champagne bottle open) I never said I believe in him just because of cultural belief. I said, I would still be agnostic if it wasn't for me experiencing him in my life because if I didn't, I would have lost interest and wouldn't have reached and get involved and would still be facing doubts.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theBOON)
    You keep getting out of topic. I just gave the biggest source of information to quench your thrust and you just refuse it on the basis that it not posted in here. There's two explanations for that:

    1. You don't want to admit defeat.
    2. You don't give a damn about anything related and are just trolling.

    No, im not sure if you have noticed but this is a General Discussion forum. Where we discuss our beliefs and debate them. We do not lazily link to other sites when we find ourselves being defeated in debates, as you just have.

    Otherwise i could just say. Refute all the arguments on this site or you are completely wrong about everything lulz. :dunce:http://richarddawkins.net/

    You wouldn't accept me doing that, so why should i you? If you are not prepared to discuss things from your own perspective. Then why are you even posting in this forum. Which again, i remind you is called General Discussion.

    Moreover you misunderstand and misinterpret every single counterargument I give you demanding answers on every single one of you out of topic misinterpretations always leading the thread off topic. If anything start a new thread with you questions.
    If you think i have misunderstood, then explain how i have misunderstood and correct me.

    The real reason you are saying i have misunderstood, is again because you are incapable of refuting, or arguing back against my points. Hence you childishly stamping your feet and declaring that i cannot possibly understand. Something even my 6 year old nephew has grown out of.

    Also the only reason I still respond to your posts is not because of you but because of some user thinking you arguments have just disproved all of religion.
    :rolleyes: Yet you are still incapable of arguing my points. If anything you are harming religions case to other users who read this exchange.I am the only one who seems to be putting forward my own arguments, interpreted by me. You are just linking to other sites and avoiding grown up discussion with childish character attacks.

    Oh and in response to this (inb4 you pop the champagne bottle open) I never said I believe in him just because of cultural belief. I said, I would still be agnostic if it wasn't for me experiencing him in my life because if I didn't, I would have lost interest and wouldn't have reached and get involved and would still be facing doubts.

    And i put it to you again, that if you were born in any other culture at any other time, your illusion would be a different one.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    The catholic church are telling African people who get all their information on AIDS from that vile organisation. That condoms are engineered with holes in them in order to spread the virus. The fact you are even trying to defend this makes you look ridiculous.



    And i put it to you again. What other reason could a father and young man have for flying a passenger plane into the two towers, but the approval of an almighty being and the promise of heaven? That is the proof that a religious person is more likely to kill than a non religious one.

    Now name me a situation in which only an atheist could kill and a theist couldn't?



    Of course it does you absolute idiot. Are you seriously tellling me that there are no scientific theories and rules which make the existence of god improbable? Seriously?!



    Just because you can't prove or disprove God's existence, this does not mean that the probability for his existence is equal to the opposite probability

    You are adding on unecessary bodies to a simple explanation. A more apt analogy would be me saying that the universe is so perfect, nothing could have created it. Which would be equally fallacious.

    I am saying that the likeliehood of their being a god as described in any of the abrahamic religions, is of the highest order improbable, science just happens to back up the historical and logical arguments which go with that statement.




    Oh yes, because i must have been reading richard dawkins in order to learn waht is really primary school level science. Even a child taking their sats could probably recognise how improbable your god is.

    LOL So scientific truths make me biased? Knowledge and reason make me biased? You are nothing but an ignorant hypocrite with your fingers in your ears. I am basing my conclusion on modern day science, one of the most miraculous things to emerge from the human mind. And you are basing you conclusion on......... copies of copies of copies of copies … of copies of ancient myths and stories, concucted and created by prmitive man.

    If you want to trust the words of bronze age, illiterate peasants(the story of which, it has been widely accepted is a complete fiction), or a "messiah" The like of which was seen countless times in the ancient world, and was nothing new, instead being almost completely unoriginal. Over modern day, scientists, the collective knowledge of whom is infinitely more vast than that of your prophet or messiah. Then be my guest. Just don't expect me to respect your ridiculous belief, nor to tolerate it as anything other than a private one.
    No, you are twisting things with the Catholic church here; some rogue bishop said that, not the Catholic church itself - again human nature. I don't even like the Catholic church, and think that Christians would be better off withou them.

    What other reason? Perhaps anyone who is sick of American geopolitics enough to get amped up and do it? Terrorist attacks aren't completely confined to religions you know. This would not constitute evidence for you, so why are you trying to put forwards such crap arguments as evidence to me? I have put fowards a book based on a scientific study which shows religion makes us give more, so why don't you find a study that shows religion directly makes us kill more..?

    I do not think that there are any scientific theories that conflict with the concept of there being a God. I do not think the two subjects overlap. Quite simply no scientific theory brings us closer to making God probable/improbable.

    It is rather funny how all you seem to try and espouse on this forum is liberties, rights and freedoms, but you are strictly against tollerating religion - specifically Christianity. There is no conflict between science and religion; religion has left you almost completely free to learn and develop science for the last 200+ years, even being the main financer of important research in many times.

    Like I have said all throughout this thread; you cannot even dream of a way that science could concievably prove or disprove God. It seems you, like Dawkins, need atheism to feed your superiority complex. But then, what more could we expect from someone who actually thinks people want to read their blog about how 5* hotels aren't really as advertised, and other such drivel. It seems your life just isn't riveting enough; if this is how you fill the time you gain by not having a religion I really do pity you. LOL.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    No, you are twisting things with the Catholic church here; some rogue bishop said that, not the Catholic church itself -
    :facepalm2: Does your ignorance know no bounds?
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/oct/09/aids

    The Catholic Church is telling people in countries stricken by Aids not to use condoms because they have tiny holes in them through which HIV can pass - potentially exposing thousands of people to risk.

    The church is making the claims across four continents despite a widespread scientific consensus that condoms are impermeable to HIV.

    A senior Vatican spokesman backs the claims about permeable condoms, despite assurances by the World Health Organisation that they are untrue.

    In Lwak, near Lake Victoria, the director of an Aids testing centre says he cannot distribute condoms because of church opposition. Gordon Wambi told the programme: "Some priests have even been saying that condoms are laced with HIV/Aids."


    If it was one rouge Bishop, then why was it repeated by a senior cardinal and not refuted nor condemned by the Pope? The message from the highest levels of the Vatican, is that they agree with telling Africans that condoms have holes in them which spread AIDS. It's irrefutable, it's disgusting, it's evil.

    What other reason? Perhaps anyone who is sick of American geopolitics enough to get amped up and do it? Terrorist attacks aren't completely confined to religions you know.
    Im talking about suicide attacks, not simple terrorism. I provided you with examples also. Now show me an example of a non religious person flying a plane into a building knowing he is about to kill thousands and himself.

    This would not constitute evidence for you, so why are you trying to put forwards such crap arguments as evidence to me? I have put fowards a book based on a scientific study which shows religion makes us give more, so why don't you find a study that shows religion directly makes us kill more..?
    As for scientific study, i will quote you the one i posted earlier, which you ignored. I let it slip but you have shot yourself in the foot by bringing it back up again. It is a study which linked higher levels of religion with higher murder, rape and crime rates. Especially in the bible belt America.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...y-gregory-paul

    and i notice the user above has also quoted the study in the Times case you were going to commit genetic fallacy. :yy:

    I do not think that there are any scientific theories that conflict with the concept of there being a God. I do not think the two subjects overlap. Quite simply no scientific theory brings us closer to making God probable/improbable.
    Science cannot disprove or prove flying space pigs. But a) it suggests their existence is highly improbable and b) there is absolutely no evidence for them.

    The same goes for god. Seeing as you deal in absolutes you surely must believe in the space pigs also? If not you must admit you are a hypocrite for disbeliving the existence of these divine creatures for the same reasons i disbelieve your divine master.

    Also, science and history disprove most of the Bible, including Genesis,Exodus and the majority of the new testament. Why is an apparently smart guy like you (2:1:yy Allowing himself to bellieve fully in these fallacious, inaccurate stories? Surely it's quite insulting to your 'intelligence' to claim these thingss to be true in the face of modern science, logic and reason?

    What is it exactly which causes you to believe in the ancient myths of primitive man?



    It is rather funny how all you seem to try and espouse on this forum is liberties, rights and freedoms, but you are strictly against tollerating religion - specifically Christianity. There is no conflict between science and religion; religion has left you almost completely free to learn and develop science for the last 200+ years, even being the main financer of important research in many times.
    This is the stupidest argument you have made yet. You will notice that the reason scientific study was allowed to bloom was because of the renaissance, which was a rejection of the totalitarian power of mother church. If you would take a peek before that revolution of thought and ideas, you would find that christianity sought to stifle scientific and philosophical challenges to it's supreme authority by the most brutal of means, mean which make the Taliban look kind and loving. I believe the pre renaissance christian term for scientist was 'heretic'.


    Like I have said all throughout this thread; you cannot even dream of a way that science could concievably prove or disprove God.
    Just because you can't prove or disprove God's existence, this does not mean that the probability for his existence is equal to the opposite probability. That much is obvious to even a child.


    It seems you, like Dawkins, need atheism to feed your superiority complex.
    Says the guy who believes that a being of supreme power created an unimaginably vast universe with him in mind. That he created all biological beings for his use and rule, and that he created him in the image of this hyper complex being no less. :rolleyes:

    And you say I have a superiority complex for accepting the reality of our near non-existence on a universal scale? :eyebrow:


    But then, what more could we expect from someone who actually thinks people want to read their blog about how 5* hotels aren't really as advertised, and other such drivel. It seems your life just isn't riveting enough; if this is how you fill the time you gain by not having a religion I really do pity you. LOL.

    Ad Hom!? :zomg: Who would've expected?

    I said it in my post before and i will say it again. Insults to my intelligence fail when they come from you. If you want to trust the words of bronze age, illiterate peasants(the story of which, it has been widely accepted is a complete fiction), or a "messiah" The like of which was seen countless times in the ancient world, and was nothing new, instead being almost completely unoriginal. Over modern day, scientists, the collective knowledge of whom is infinitely more vast than that of your prophet or messiah. Then be my guest. But accepthow ridiculous you look when trying to be insulting to others.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    No, you are twisting things with the Catholic church here; some rogue bishop said that, not the Catholic church itself - again human nature. I don't even like the Catholic church, and think that Christians would be better off withou them.
    as shown above this is bull crapso are you christian during the reformation large chunks of the bible were removed as they wanted to only use some of it, the same thing happened when they removed some books at the founding of the early roman church. if god is real you book is most likely the farthest one away from what he is
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    What other reason? Perhaps anyone who is sick of American geopolitics enough to get amped up and do it? Terrorist attacks aren't completely confined to religions you know. This would not constitute evidence for you, so why are you trying to put forwards such crap arguments as evidence to me? I have put fowards a book based on a scientific study which shows religion makes us give more, so why don't you find a study that shows religion directly makes us kill more..?
    give me one example please, i'll throw ten back at you. i'm the person that was supposed to bring up the bible belt, but i was too slow getting the articles
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    I do not think that there are any scientific theories that conflict with the concept of there being a God. I do not think the two subjects overlap. Quite simply no scientific theory brings us closer to making God probable/improbable.
    :teehee: try almost all laws of physics.
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    It is rather funny how all you seem to try and espouse on this forum is liberties, rights and freedoms, but you are strictly against tollerating religion - specifically Christianity. There is no conflict between science and religion; religion has left you almost completely free to learn and develop science for the last 200+ years, even being the main financer of important research in many times.
    :banghead: now you are lying, without religion we could be flying hover cars by now. One word allumni - lol spelling fail please correct me.
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    Like I have said all throughout this thread; you cannot even dream of a way that science could concievably prove or disprove God. It seems you, like Dawkins, need atheism to feed your superiority complex. But then, what more could we expect from someone who actually thinks people want to read their blog about how 5* hotels aren't really as advertised, and other such drivel. It seems your life just isn't riveting enough; if this is how you fill the time you gain by not having a religion I really do pity you. LOL.
    :woo: your insluts make me want to go cut myself in a corner.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    No, im not sure if you have noticed but this is a General Discussion forum. Where we discuss our beliefs and debate them. We do not lazily link to other sites when we find ourselves being defeated in debates, as you just have.

    Otherwise i could just say. Refute all the arguments on this site or you are completely wrong about everything lulz. :dunce:http://richarddawkins.net/

    You wouldn't accept me doing that, so why should i you? If you are not prepared to discuss things from your own perspective. Then why are you even posting in this forum. Which again, i remind you is called General Discussion.



    If you think i have misunderstood, then explain how i have misunderstood and correct me.

    The real reason you are saying i have misunderstood, is again because you are incapable of refuting, or arguing back against my points. Hence you childishly stamping your feet and declaring that i cannot possibly understand. Something even my 6 year old nephew has grown out of.



    :rolleyes: Yet you are still incapable of arguing my points. If anything you are harming religions case to other users who read this exchange.I am the only one who seems to be putting forward my own arguments, interpreted by me. You are just linking to other sites and avoiding grown up discussion with childish character attacks.




    And i put it to you again, that if you were born in any other culture at any other time, your illusion would be a different one.
    I'll answer only the ones in bold, being the only phrases minimally related to the topic in question.

    About the site, I already browsed around it hundreds of times; whenever I feel I need a boost of faith. I provided to you the alternative to do the same since your so sure of you belief then it would only enhance you faith, no?

    The second phrase I already replied to a million times. It wouldn't be the same thing because it's not an illusion I have but this is something you won't be able to understand.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theBOON)
    I'll answer only the ones in bold, being the only phrases minimally related to the topic in question.
    Being the only points you are not incapable of answering you mean? :rolleyes:

    About the site, I already browsed around it hundreds of times; whenever I feel I need a boost of faith. I provided to you the alternative to do the same since your so sure of you belief then it would only enhance you faith, no?
    I have browsed countless sites just like it. I want to know what you believe and what your response is to my arguments. I have concluded that you do not infact have a response. The fact you lazily link to a generic apologetics website, pretty much proves this.

    I will ask you again. Would you accept me linking Richard Dawkins.net or iinfidels.org as if i just won the argument?

    You cannot discuss the points raised within these websites. Hence why i am on a forum deidicated to Discusssion. If you are incapable of discussing your beliefs then just admit you are. (Although linking to another site instead of answering yourself pretty much coonfirms this anyway)

    it's not an illusion I have but this is something you won't be able to understand.
    An excuse given by countless disturbed individuals everywhere. You wouldn't deny them their illusion would you? Would you accept this view as it was given by the terrorists who flew the planes into the WTC? I bet they said the exact same thing.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Being the only points you are not incapable of answering you mean? :rolleyes:



    I have browsed countless sites just like it. I want to know what you believe and what your response is to my arguments. I have concluded that you do not infact have a response. The fact you lazily link to a generic apologetics website, pretty much proves this.

    I will ask you again. Would you accept me linking Richard Dawkins.net or iinfidels.org as if i just won the argument?

    You cannot discuss the points raised within these websites. Hence why i am on a forum deidicated to Discusssion. If you are incapable of discussing your beliefs then just admit you are. (Although linking to another site instead of answering yourself pretty much coonfirms this anyway)



    An excuse given by countless disturbed individuals everywhere. You wouldn't deny them their illusion would you? Would you accept this view as it was given by the terrorists who flew the planes into the WTC? I bet they said the exact same thing.
    You got me. I'm just about going to dismiss every statement I did as false and live the rest of my atheist life.

    No, really I feel, it time I stop this madness. In fact, looking back at the last few reposts, of you vs me one can clearly see what game you are playing. Enough to dismiss your stupid debating techniques. See you next thread hopefully.:jebus:
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    It may be prevalent throughout nature - but why does this suggest there's a evolutionary advantage to it?

    My actual point was that homosexuality seems evolutionarily disadvantageous (in that those who have sex with only their own gender lack the opportunity to pass on their 'gay gene').
    Even if homosexuality is advantageous to a society, I have yet to see why it is evolutionarily advantageous. I don't see why a particular animal being homosexual helps it to reproduce before it dies.

    The existence of homosexual animals can be used as an argument against God - why did God make them that way if he doesn't like homosexual behaviour?
    But it also seems contrary to the idea of natural selection, and survival of the fittest (i.e. fittest to reproduce before death).

    Someone answered by question by saying "there are plenty of theories, but we don't know for sure yet".
    In which case, one could easily provide the same answer in response to the question about God.
    Well, if it was evolutionary disadvantageous or non - advantageous then via differential mortaility homosexuality would disappear in the wide population. Certain traits and characteristics in humans have more complex and wider benefits to a society or popualtion, than common argument: oh he is less likely to reproduce so how is it natural. In a number of studies it has been found homosexuals on average have a significantly higher IQ than their heterosexual counterparts. This data would suggest a wider benefit to society form homosexuals, thus a clear evolutionary benfit to the wider population. Also it has been found that females related to homosexuals and the alleles carried on the maternal line which predispose/ cause homosexuality greatly increase the average fertility. A significant overalll benefit of homosexuality's prevelance in nature.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by roachy1)
    Certain traits and characteristics in humans have more complex and wider benefits to a society or popualtion, than common argument: oh he is less likely to reproduce so how is it natural. In a number of studies it has been found homosexuals on average have a significantly higher IQ than their heterosexual counterparts. This data would suggest a wider benefit to society form homosexuals, thus a clear evolutionary benfit to the wider population. Also it has been found that females related to homosexuals and the alleles carried on the maternal line which predispose/ cause homosexuality greatly increase the average fertility. A significant overalll benefit of homosexuality's prevelance in nature.
    Look, here's the problem - you're confusing benefit with evolutionary benefit. They're not the same thing. Just because something is beneficial does not make it evolutionarily beneficial.

    Homosexuals may be super intelligent creatures who help society progress brilliantly. This may be a benefit, but it is not an evolutionary benefit, unless it makes them more likely to reproduce before death.

    A person may be the biggest benefit to society ever - but if they die before having kids, they're not going to pass on their brilliant genes.

    Well, if it was evolutionary disadvantageous or non - advantageous then via differential mortaility homosexuality would disappear in the wide population.
    That's exactly my point. In theory it should be disappearing in the wider population, but it isn't. Which suggests that either homosexuality is not an inherent genetic trait, and has nothing to do with biological evolution - or that the current theory of natural selection has some kind of flaw associated with it.

    The point is that there is no definite answer as to why homosexuality exists in the face of evolution. There are plenty of hypotheses about it, but no certain answer.
    It doesn't mean we should start running around saying "I've disproved evolution!" there may well be some reasoning behind it that we don't know about.

    Similarly, there is no definite answer as to why bisexuality exists in the face of God. There are plenty of hypotheses about it, but again, no certain answer.
    It doesn't mean we should start running around saying "I've disproved God!" Once again, there may well be some reasoning behind it that we don't know about.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    Look, here's the problem - you're confusing benefit with evolutionary benefit. They're not the same thing. Just because something is beneficial does not make it evolutionarily beneficial.

    Homosexuals may be super intelligent creatures who help society progress brilliantly. This may be a benefit, but it is not an evolutionary benefit, unless it makes them more likely to reproduce before death.

    A person may be the biggest benefit to society ever - but if they die before having kids, they're not going to pass on their brilliant genes.



    That's exactly my point. In theory it should be disappearing in the wider population, but it isn't. Which suggests that either homosexuality is not an inherent genetic trait, and has nothing to do with biological evolution - or that the current theory of natural selection has some kind of flaw associated with it.

    The point is that there is no definite answer as to why homosexuality exists in the face of evolution. There are plenty of hypotheses about it, but no certain answer.
    It doesn't mean we should start running around saying "I've disproved evolution!" there may well be some reasoning behind it that we don't know about.

    Similarly, there is no definite answer as to why bisexuality exists in the face of God. There are plenty of hypotheses about it, but again, no certain answer.
    It doesn't mean we should start running around saying "I've disproved God!" Once again, there may well be some reasoning behind it that we don't know about.

    All the reasons i gave were evolutionary beneficial. We do not need this discussion to disprove God as there are far better disproofs available (firstly there is no evidence for God)). Homosexuality is clearly a genetic trait. The vast majority of the scientific community agree with that. Only pseudo scientists sponsered by creationist crackpot orgainsations would suggest otherwise. Also there is no flaw in Darwinian evolution, it is close to the perfect theory of life and our existance.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rrea436)
    as shown above this is bull crapso are you christian during the reformation large chunks of the bible were removed as they wanted to only use some of it, the same thing happened when they removed some books at the founding of the early roman church. if god is real you book is most likely the farthest one away from what he is

    give me one example please, i'll throw ten back at you. i'm the person that was supposed to bring up the bible belt, but i was too slow getting the articles

    try almost all laws of physics.

    now you are lying, without religion we could be flying hover cars by now. One word allumni - lol spelling fail please correct me.

    your insluts make me want to go cut myself in a corner.
    Large chunks of the bible weren't removed you tool, the only difference post reformation is that everyone could interpret the bible for themselves. If every law of physics contradicted with Chrisitianity i'm pretty sure my Christian girlfriend wouldn't be doing a masters in it...She knows more physics than either you or Aeolus will ever know.
 
 
 
Poll
Do I go to The Streets tomorrow night?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.