Evolution and the Sex Drive
-
It certainly can be. Look at Islam and atheism.
Red Stateler wrote:
It certainly can be. Look at Islam and atheism.
And Christianity! By far the worst as it's been around for about 2000 years.
-
My curiosity is actually regarding how any sex drive developed to start with. What heralded the change from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction?
Sex drive was created when the first man saw the first woman bending over a creek washing clothes. Not only was she doing what women are supposed to do (domestic chore), but she was leaving herself in a pretty much indefensible position (kneeling down and bending forward, and her hands were full - it's difficult to get up and run in such an instance). Added to all that, she was probably naked. Now, our hero strolls by, and is pretty full of himself because he just single-handedly killed a wolly mammoth, and he's thinking that a perfect way to end the day would be to "get some". As he emerges from around a rock, he sees this chick with her ass in the air and doing something in the water (he doesn't notice what she's doing because all he sees is ass). This is, curiously enough, also where religion gets its start because he claps his hands together as if in prayer, looks up at the sky, and says to himself, "There IS a god!". Without so much as a how-do-you-do, he runs up behind the woman and begins fornicating. Thus, "sex drive" is realized, and as a side-note, so is religion.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
:laugh:
Red Stateler wrote:
As I said, any answer will be completely made up BS. If anybody here gives you any single answer, there's no way you can assume that it ever actually happened or even could have happened given past environments.
What's funny about that? Are you saying that you can give specific and certain reasons for evolved traits.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
It certainly can be. Look at Islam and atheism.
And Christianity! By far the worst as it's been around for about 2000 years.
73Zeppelin wrote:
And Christianity! By far the worst as it's been around for about 2000 years.
Believing in Christianity is every bit as rational as believing Caesar existed.
-
What's funny about that? Are you saying that you can give specific and certain reasons for evolved traits.
Red Stateler wrote:
What's funny about that? Are you saying that you can give specific and certain reasons for evolved traits.
Are you suggesting that you can give specific and certain reasons that evolution isn't true? And support those criticisms with certain and specific reasons that God did the work?
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
And Christianity! By far the worst as it's been around for about 2000 years.
Believing in Christianity is every bit as rational as believing Caesar existed.
Red Stateler wrote:
Believing in Christianity is every bit as rational as believing Caesar existed.
So is believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. And the Greek pantheon. And the Great Turtle. And Buddha. What's your point?
-
Red Stateler wrote:
What's funny about that? Are you saying that you can give specific and certain reasons for evolved traits.
Are you suggesting that you can give specific and certain reasons that evolution isn't true? And support those criticisms with certain and specific reasons that God did the work?
73Zeppelin wrote:
Are you suggesting that you can give specific and certain reasons that evolution isn't true?
I never said evolution isn't true. I said it shouldn't be treated like religion (as you're doing here by claiming stories, which are based in fantasy, can be derived from it) or as a social philosophy. I have no problem with evolution as science. I have a big problem with science as religion.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
Are you suggesting that you can give specific and certain reasons that evolution isn't true?
I never said evolution isn't true. I said it shouldn't be treated like religion (as you're doing here by claiming stories, which are based in fantasy, can be derived from it) or as a social philosophy. I have no problem with evolution as science. I have a big problem with science as religion.
Red Stateler wrote:
I have a big problem with science as religion.
That's all I've ever said on here.
-
It certainly can be. Look at Islam and atheism.
-
Could one of the evolutionists here explain, or direct me to a good, thorough explanation of the evolution of the sex drive so necessary for survival. Of all potential ID arguments, this one seems to present at least a valid threat to conventional natural selection.
"A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again.", by Alexander Pope My Blog
God did it.
Pardon Libbey!
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Believing in Christianity is every bit as rational as believing Caesar existed.
So is believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. And the Greek pantheon. And the Great Turtle. And Buddha. What's your point?
73Zeppelin wrote:
So is believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
So you think the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is just as likely as Julius Caesar?
73Zeppelin wrote:
Greek pantheon.
Do you mean Roman? Or do you mean Parthenon? In either case those were buildings whose ruins still exist.
-
Quote: It certainly can be. Look at Islam So only other peoples religions are irrational?
The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. - John Adams
No. Only Islam and atheism.
-
Insofar as attempting to apply any of those creationist beliefs to reality, you're right. Saying that X evolved because of Y is every bit as irrational as a creationist saying that bananas were created for culinary convenience. However, evolutionists seem to do this with impunity.
Red Stateler wrote:
However, evolutionists seem to do this with impunity.
Other than the grief given by people who don't accept the likelyhood of evolution. :rolleyes: Or would you prefer evolutionists be arrested? ;) By the way, creationists use the whole "cause / effect" thing all the time. In fact, the ENTIRE premise of creationism is an unprovable "cause / effect" scenario. Creationist: "God made it." Intelligent bystander: "Why?" Creationist: "Don't question God! Just accept it!" :-D
-
Sex drive was created when the first man saw the first woman bending over a creek washing clothes. Not only was she doing what women are supposed to do (domestic chore), but she was leaving herself in a pretty much indefensible position (kneeling down and bending forward, and her hands were full - it's difficult to get up and run in such an instance). Added to all that, she was probably naked. Now, our hero strolls by, and is pretty full of himself because he just single-handedly killed a wolly mammoth, and he's thinking that a perfect way to end the day would be to "get some". As he emerges from around a rock, he sees this chick with her ass in the air and doing something in the water (he doesn't notice what she's doing because all he sees is ass). This is, curiously enough, also where religion gets its start because he claps his hands together as if in prayer, looks up at the sky, and says to himself, "There IS a god!". Without so much as a how-do-you-do, he runs up behind the woman and begins fornicating. Thus, "sex drive" is realized, and as a side-note, so is religion.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001:D
-
No. Only Islam and atheism.
I will not comment on the atheism part, that has been run into the ground in the soapbox so many times. But if only Islam and atheism are irrational, does that mean that you think voodoo is rational?
The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. - John Adams
-
Red Stateler wrote:
I have a big problem with science as religion.
That's all I've ever said on here.
73Zeppelin wrote:
That's all I've ever said on here.
I think you argue against religion as science, but you seem to embrace science as religion. I argue that neither should be the case since they're distinct types of philosophies.
-
Could one of the evolutionists here explain, or direct me to a good, thorough explanation of the evolution of the sex drive so necessary for survival. Of all potential ID arguments, this one seems to present at least a valid threat to conventional natural selection.
"A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again.", by Alexander Pope My Blog
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
So is believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
So you think the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is just as likely as Julius Caesar?
73Zeppelin wrote:
Greek pantheon.
Do you mean Roman? Or do you mean Parthenon? In either case those were buildings whose ruins still exist.
Red Stateler wrote:
So you think the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is just as likely as Julius Caesar?
Do you think that anonymous accounts of a person written 100 years after their hypothesized death is evidence for the divine? And not just anonymous accounts, but accounts and writings selectively chosen by consensus several hundred years later? If I form a council and choose my selection of anonymous writing regarding the Spaghetti Monster, does that guarantee it divinity just like it did the Christian idea of God?
Red Stateler wrote:
Do you mean Roman?
No.
Red Stateler wrote:
Or do you mean Parthenon?
Uh, no. I mean Greek Pantheon[^].
-
Could one of the evolutionists here explain, or direct me to a good, thorough explanation of the evolution of the sex drive so necessary for survival. Of all potential ID arguments, this one seems to present at least a valid threat to conventional natural selection.
"A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again.", by Alexander Pope My Blog
-
Red Stateler wrote:
However, evolutionists seem to do this with impunity.
Other than the grief given by people who don't accept the likelyhood of evolution. :rolleyes: Or would you prefer evolutionists be arrested? ;) By the way, creationists use the whole "cause / effect" thing all the time. In fact, the ENTIRE premise of creationism is an unprovable "cause / effect" scenario. Creationist: "God made it." Intelligent bystander: "Why?" Creationist: "Don't question God! Just accept it!" :-D
That's right. The entire premise of Creationism is that God created the universe in 6 literal days. Going by that belief, it's consistent to say simply that "God made it". It doesn't attempt to physically study the universe. Evolutionists, however, claim that their belief system is based on "logic" (intentionally in quotes) and science. Yet they frequently defy logic by making claims based in fantasy about evolutionary influences. By making such claims, you're immediately diluting the science with your religious attitudes in a fervent attempt to draw a storyline for your belief system. Doing so is every bit as absurd as proclaiming that banana peels were made for culinary convenience.