Evolution and the Sex Drive
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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[^].
73Zeppelin wrote:
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?
We went over this a while back and you conceded that the four gospels were all written in the lifetimes of their respective claimed authors. Your anti-Christianity is based on the idea that these documents were somehow falsified. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary and none to support your claim. So much for "logic", huh?
-
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.
Red Stateler wrote:
I think you argue against religion as science
Indeed true.
Red Stateler wrote:
but you seem to embrace science as religion
Not at all. It has nothing to do with belief. It has to do with an opinion of how the world works. I don't know why there is such a thing as photons, but the evidence suggests they are there. I have no need to appeal to the divine. I am comfortable knowing that physics is the best methodology we have for understanding the behaviour of the universe. I believe asking "why" is quite irrelevant because with the current state of knowledge it is a futile exercise. In my opinion, "God" is simply a jeuvenile attempt at asking "why". It's not even original - there's lots of "prior art".
-
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:
I think you argue against religion as science
Indeed true.
Red Stateler wrote:
but you seem to embrace science as religion
Not at all. It has nothing to do with belief. It has to do with an opinion of how the world works. I don't know why there is such a thing as photons, but the evidence suggests they are there. I have no need to appeal to the divine. I am comfortable knowing that physics is the best methodology we have for understanding the behaviour of the universe. I believe asking "why" is quite irrelevant because with the current state of knowledge it is a futile exercise. In my opinion, "God" is simply a jeuvenile attempt at asking "why". It's not even original - there's lots of "prior art".
73Zeppelin wrote:
I am comfortable knowing that physics is the best methodology we have for understanding the behaviour of the universe.
I agree. Christianity simply does not concern itself much with the natural world. Beyond Genesis (which Judaism focuses on far more than Christianity does, since its concepts are not at the philosophical core of Christianity), there is very little attempt to explain anything in the natural world. The two simply don't overlap, which is why I say they are two distinct types of philosophies (physical and metaphysical). I find it odd (or rather improper) that atheists attempt to wield science as a weapon against Christianity when science was actually born from it.
-
My curiosity is actually regarding how any sex drive developed to start with. What heralded the change from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction?
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
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?
We went over this a while back and you conceded that the four gospels were all written in the lifetimes of their respective claimed authors. Your anti-Christianity is based on the idea that these documents were somehow falsified. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary and none to support your claim. So much for "logic", huh?
First of all, the best historical evidence suggests the earliest gospel account of the life of Jesus was written 70 years after his existence. The rest of them were written more than 100 years after. That makes them second-hand or hearsay accounts unless one can establish evidence for an earlier document. So far this has been hypothesized as the "Q-document", but there is no physical evidence for it and historians differ in their opinions on the existence of Q. Furthermore, I don't believe they were falsified. I believe they were written with a specific bias to glorify the subject of the writings and to get across a moral message. Combine that glorification with subjective and non-first-hand accounts and we hardly have a reliable source. Additionally, the claims of acts that establish divinity are found in religions much older than Christianity. Virgin births, saviours, etc... had been around the block in religious ideologies before. That's why the development of Islam isn't a surprise. It just uses Christianity as a template, just like Christianity borrowed aspects of the creation myth and acts of divinity (like floods, etc...) from previous religions. There is no concrete pretext on which to establish the basis for divine acts or the holiness of Jesus. Thus how Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Bhuddists, what-have-you can each claim to be correct is beyond me. It all boils down to which ideology you prefer on a whim. That's hardly a basis for the cultural backdrop of a society. Why reject Islam? Just because you don't like it? It doesn't appeal to you? What evidence do you have that the Christian god is "right" and "Allah" is wrong?
-
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
Having 2 distinct parents gives a species both a progenitor and separate protector of its young rather than having to both create, birth, feed and then protect to maturation any young: a huge drain on individual resources. Also allows for diversity from variant gene pools. Just a thought.
-
It certainly can be. Look at Islam and atheism.
Red Stateler wrote:
Look at Islam and atheism
Atheism is not a religion.
Matt
if ( ! pMatt->isEnjoying("Sales") )
{
pMatt->retrain("Computer Science");
pMatt->getNewJob("Developer");
} -
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.
The main reason I am attracted to scientific views of our world and its history rather than religious ones is that science is itself continually evolving. Every generation challenges the assumptions of the past and comes up with techniques and theories to deepen our understanding. The religious view of things is immutable and unchallengable, mainly because it is solidly based on a set or sets of ancient writings (applicable to most major religions, not just Christianity). It is this inability to accept that some things may be found out to be inaccurate that I just can't stomach.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
I am comfortable knowing that physics is the best methodology we have for understanding the behaviour of the universe.
I agree. Christianity simply does not concern itself much with the natural world. Beyond Genesis (which Judaism focuses on far more than Christianity does, since its concepts are not at the philosophical core of Christianity), there is very little attempt to explain anything in the natural world. The two simply don't overlap, which is why I say they are two distinct types of philosophies (physical and metaphysical). I find it odd (or rather improper) that atheists attempt to wield science as a weapon against Christianity when science was actually born from it.
Red Stateler wrote:
atheists attempt to wield science as a weapon against Christianity when science was actually born from it
What complete and utter rubbish: do you really believe that there was no science before the advent of Chritianity? Or none outside of it? No wonder you get the urine extracted when you make such silly statements. Would you care to rephrase?
-
Brady Kelly wrote:
What heralded the change from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction?
Sharing genetic code with the inherent chance of random mutation and increased adaptation.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
Yes, but since there was never a decision, such as "Hey, sharing genetic code rocks! Let's share some more!" I'm curious as to where this sharing thing took off.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
I am comfortable knowing that physics is the best methodology we have for understanding the behaviour of the universe.
I agree. Christianity simply does not concern itself much with the natural world. Beyond Genesis (which Judaism focuses on far more than Christianity does, since its concepts are not at the philosophical core of Christianity), there is very little attempt to explain anything in the natural world. The two simply don't overlap, which is why I say they are two distinct types of philosophies (physical and metaphysical). I find it odd (or rather improper) that atheists attempt to wield science as a weapon against Christianity when science was actually born from it.
Red Stateler wrote:
wield science as a weapon against Christianity when science was actually born from it.
Uh, no. The foundations of modern science came from the Greek tradition of philosophy, mathematics and rhetorical argument. If anything the Christian church suppressed scientific evidence until the evidence was so strong the church could no longer refute it. When that happened, the church renounced the literal truth of the gospels and began interpreting them in a more allegorical sense. What they did, in effect, was to pick and choose which portions of the bible were literal and which were not.
