|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
 Posted - 02/13/2006 : 19:45:19 [Permalink]
|
(bill) I then said I would draw the line at same sex adoption and I gave the reason why.
And I argued against that and you have yet to respond.
(bill)I empirically displayed that the results of NS which was that man and women was not only to be the basic foundation for society, but the only one.
And now for the third time: The RESULTS of natural selection are that (drum roll) gay couples are raising children. I know this to be true because everything happening right now in the natural world is a RESULT of natural selection, and right now gay couples are raising children. Just as successfully as heterosexual couples, I might add.
(bill)Fitly then agreed with me and said it did seem to go against design intent, or the results of NS, take your pick.
Filthy did not agree with you. Filthy admitted to being uncomfortable with male homosexuality. He's explicitly made it clear that he thinks gays can raise kids just fine.
(marfknox)Again, I will say you seem to no little to nothing about biological evolution. It is far more complicated than: “everything that maximizes the population is good.” Overpopulation is just as dangerous to the survival of a species as disease.
(bill) Like, I said when NS results change the same sex relationships to produce offspring, which advance the survival of the species, then you might have a leg to stand on.
Uh…. *perplexed look* Well, if at first you don't succeed: Again, I will say natural selections is far more complicated than: “everything that maximizes the population is good.” Overpopulation is just as dangerous to the survival of a species as disease.
The only question we should be asking when deciding whether gays should be permitted to adopt is this: Are gay people as nurturing to their adopted kids as straight people? If the answer is yes (and thus far, it is) then they should be able to adopt. By letting them adopt we then HELP the survival of the human race because otherwise those kids end up in foster homes or orphanages. And don't even try to argue that there are enough hetero couples trying to adopt, because while that might have been true a couple decades ago, with fertility clinics all the rage now, there are way more kids not getting adopted – especially sick, older, groups of siblings, and non-white kids. Letting gays adopt would give at least some of those kids a permanent, loving home.
(bill)Until then I don't see two male lions taking up a penthouse and raising a lion cub together, as their own. It would be a vary unnatural thing for the lions to do.
Indeed. Do you know what happens to baby lions whose mothers abandon them or get killed? They die.
I notice you have not countered my argument that it is natural for mothers to raise babies, and thus, all forms of adoption from your argument would be unnatural and should be not permitted. Hell, from your definition of what is natural (maximizing human population growth) birth control should be outlawed. After all, birth control definitely limits the growth of the human population!
(bill) Well, one can look at the waistlines of average America and one can see the NS has a long time to figure out "limited resources" as the Americans, at this point and time, do not have to murder so that there will be enough big macs for their family at the end of the day.
The majority of human beings on the planet live in abject poverty and are malnourished and you are using fat Americans as evidence of bountiful resources? Wow.
Not to mention that you didn't effectively counter my point. Do you admit that at some point human beings could fill the carrying capacity of the earth's resources? Do you admit that our population has steadily increased since the dawn of our existence? If you agree to both, then clearly it is in the interest of longterm human survival to stabilize our population growth. Since some couples are going to have more than 2 |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
 |
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2006 : 19:45:23 [Permalink]
|
| "Slugs! He created slugs! They can't hear, they can't speak, they can't operate machinery. If I were creating the world, I wouldn't mess about with butterflies and daffodils. I would've started with lasers, eight o'clock, day one." |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2006 : 20:29:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Bill is blowing out Irony Meters
I like the Bad Astronomer's take on the irony thing....
When talking about the recent NASA fiasco with Mr Dousche Deutsch and his attempts to censor some scientists...
"<BANG!> That is the sound of my Irony Gland exploding."
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2006 : 20:41:54 [Permalink]
|
(bill) So NS, a completely immaterial mechanize agent for evolution is concurred, and involved in the emotions of people?
I'm not sure what you mean by “evolution is concurred”, but of course NS is involved with emotions. Human emotions are part of us. Emotions are affected by our physical nature (such as when we get in a bad moon due to low blood sugar, or act impulsively due to teenage hormones). Some animals have emotions too. Apes and elephants show great sadness when those close to them die. This makes evolutionary sense; social animals must feel some emotional fondness for each other because they need each other to survive.
You have horribly simplified Val's “pairbonding” explanation. Human females do not advertise it when they ovulate. We may desire sex at all times during the month, and men may desire sex at all times too. Our closest living genetic relative, the bonobos, are almost entirely bisexual in behavior. Clearly sexual attraction and mutually pleasurable sexual stimulation serves a broader purpose than pure procreation in our species.
You make fun of skeptics because we admit to not having all the answers. But you act the fool by claiming to have answers you don't really have. You are the one making all the rigid claims, Bill: Homosexuality is absolutely morally wrong. Homosexuality is unnatural. Where's the proof? We've brought forth evidence from nature and studies. You've brought forth only your own arm-chair philosophizing. If sitting around thinking about stuff got us all the answers, then the Greeks would have figured it all out instead of being absurdly wrong about tons of things. Results of scientific testing and observation must be part of your explanation, and you have produced none of that.
(Bill)As if NS is concerned with the feelings of individuals, as well as survival of the species...
As NS is not a conscious entity, it isn't “concerned” with anything. But since peoples' feelings affect their choices, and their choices affect their survival, NS certainly is involved in conditioning human emotions. Read all about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology
(bill) Procreation is the equation, without it civilization dies!
Procreation includes quality, as well as quantity, especially in higher mammals. You would simplify us into being like bunny rabbits. Or worse, turtles.
(bill) Is NS just being nice since it denied same sex the ability to procreate?
Many people who identify as either straight or gay are in fact bisexual. This is supported by surveys as well as observation (notice that many “straight” people manage to engage in homosexual sex in isolation with others of their own sex, like prisons or societies where men and women are heavily segregated.) I have seen this in my personal life; very many friends and relatives of mine have dated both sexes. If a flexible orientation was beneficial to survival of modern humans (beneficial because it enhanced social relationships), then we would expect to see mostly straight and bi people, with a minority of gays, and indeed that is what we see. We have the minority of exclusively gay people because inevitably there will always be a minority of recessives who carry the extreme of a generalized trait.
Skeptic: Look, NS did not leave a manual behind with intent. So despite all the evidence and logic and anatomy charts pointing us toward the fact that same sex couples cannot reproduce I can ignore that fact and tell you that " gay sex was intended for the sole purpose of pairbonding" and you cannot deny that it is plausible since NS did not leave a manual behind to clear the air.
Talk about putting words in our mouths. Natural selection has no intent. Intent requires a conscious mind. Natural selection is a process. It's not even a creature or otherwise physical thing, much less something that has a conscious mind.
(bill) Then people look at the art made of |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2006 : 20:54:37 [Permalink]
|
| Bill, if you want as many as possible to read your post, you should try to learn how to format your posts better than your latest one. Just a friendly advice. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2006 : 21:18:27 [Permalink]
|
Well, I took my best shot. Bill cannot wrap his mind around the idea that some people are just naturally gay. There is too much at stake for Bill to do that, apparantly. If a person is attracted to another person of the same sex, I don't understand how that can be unnatural since the attraction occurs naturally. And since most homosexuality in and of itself poses no danger to Bill or me or anyone, really, why anyone would care about it, without the justification of a religious taboo, is beyond me. And since religion is inherently illogical, and even some of the more reasonable people who profess to a religion agree on that, what we have with Bill is a religiosity that really is dangerous. When the obvious can be denied in favor of that which is completely unsupportable in this realm of existence, and when so many people are of that mind, it might make sense to study, as one would any natural phenomena, what goes into making the Bill's of this world with an eye on taming this kind of creature rather than trying to change its mind…
(Okay, I admit to being influenced by Danial Dennett's lecture at TAM4. Actually, Bill seems pretty tame to me all things considered. But I don't think his kind of thinking is harmless… Sorry about the rant.)
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2006 : 21:37:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
...with an eye on taming this kind of creature rather than trying to change its mind...
I'd suggest lobotomies but Bill reasons as if he's already had one.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
nescafe
New Member
USA
19 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2006 : 22:45:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by nescafe
That is very nice. Can you tell me what the female orgasm is intended to do? What selection pressures led to its existence (or, if you wish, why did God design it)?
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Or nipples on men.
An excellent example, but a bit prosaic for my tastes -- to the best of my knowledge, there are no debates in evolutionary circles about the lack of utility of male nipples. :) |
Insert witty saying here. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2006 : 07:42:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by nescafe
quote:
Originally posted by nescafe
That is very nice. Can you tell me what the female orgasm is intended to do? What selection pressures led to its existence (or, if you wish, why did God design it)?
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Or nipples on men.
An excellent example, but a bit prosaic for my tastes -- to the best of my knowledge, there are no debates in evolutionary circles about the lack of utility of male nipples. :)
OK. here goes.
Several excuses reasons for
Female orgasm
Religious: as a parting gift for that whole "pain of childbirth" thing
Pragmatic: Who cares? Just enjoy it
Psychological: provides an emotional release and deepens pairbonding between females and mates
Scientific: Yeah, what the shrink said. And since it had a benefit for early man, it was selected in.
Nipples on men
Religious: Ummmmm. Because God meant it that way
Practical: very sensitive and useful for sexual stimulation much like female nipples
Piercing set: Another place to hang an ornament
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
| Edited by - Valiant Dancer on 02/14/2006 07:44:35 |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2006 : 10:42:48 [Permalink]
|
Orgasms in women act as a suction mechinism for the cervix to deliver more sperm to the uterus. FYI
Nipples on men (some of which still work as far as producing milk is concerned) are outdated practically like the appendix. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2006 : 11:23:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
Orgasms in women act as a suction mechinism for the cervix to deliver more sperm to the uterus. FYI
Nipples on men (some of which still work as far as producing milk is concerned) are outdated practically like the appendix.
But couldn't nature provide the muscle suctioning action without the emotional release?
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2006 : 11:46:45 [Permalink]
|
But couldn't nature provide the muscle suctioning action without the emotional release?
Nature could have provided that childbirth work without being painful, too, but it didn't. Natural selection goes with the first thing that works. It doesn't care about side affects unless they disturb how well the thing works. And women feeling pleasure during sex certainly can't be bad for reproduction.
In regards to both female orgasms and nipples on men, there is also the simple fact that male and female bodies are based on the same template in the womb, and males become males when the y chromosome causes testosterone and another hormone that I forget the name of to modify the embryo and make it turn out male. There are all kinds of sex disorders where this process gets screwed up. Like in males who aren't receptive to testosterone - they're born with a vagina and don't even realize something's fishy until they hit puberty and don't get their period like all the other girls. And there's another where the person isn't receptive to that other hormone (that I can't remember the name of), so they are born with either a vagina or ambiguous genitalia, but when they hit puberty their vagina turns into a penis. How fucked up is that? Not to mention all the people born with xyy, xxy, xxx, and just one x. (Just one y means you miscarry in the first trimester.) There was an olympic athelete a few years ago who was disqualified because when they did the genetic (swab in the mouth) test to make sure she was a woman, they found that she had a tiny bit of a y on one of her x's, and disqualified her. Imagine her shock! |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 02/14/2006 11:49:53 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2006 : 12:11:58 [Permalink]
|
Kil said:
quote:
And since religion is inherently illogical, and even some of the more reasonable people who profess to a religion agree on that, what we have with Bill is a religiosity that really is dangerous. When the obvious can be denied in favor of that which is completely unsupportable in this realm of existence, and when so many people are of that mind, it might make sense to study, as one would any natural phenomena, what goes into making the Bill's of this world with an eye on taming this kind of creature rather than trying to change its mind…
So you DO agree that he qualifies as delusional! Ha!
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2006 : 12:12:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
VD: The one I have repeatedly been making concerning the role of sex. Sex in humans deepens emotional ties with people considered to be mates.
(bill) So NS, a completely immaterial mechanize agent for evolution is concurred, and involved in the emotions of people? NS, is concerned in the "pairbonding" of same sex partners, even though they play little if any role in the survival of the species. Look, if this is true then I can see why NS wants to pairbound heterosexual couples as they are the key to the future. Since same sex relations do not proliferate the species I could not see why NS would want the pairbonding? As if NS is concerned with the feelings of individuals, as well as survival of the species...
NS is concerned with the feelings of the species as it relates to longevity of the pairbonding in order to assist in child rearing. As pairbonding is adventageous to the species as a whole, it exists. NS does not act differently in a same sex situation. That it occurs in same sex situations (arguably a sexual identity formed in part by genetics) is not odd, nor against any supposed intent of a Creator.
quote:
Procreation is only part of the equasion.
(bill) Procreation is the equation, without it civilization dies!
I realize that you need this to be true for your own position to be the least bit valid. Problem is, reality does not follow this model.
(bill) So NS is concerned with the feelings of individuals? Why else would pairbounding exists between males like you say? In this case the pairbounding would not be to strengthen the bond between mates so the species can move forward, but rather to build the pairbond between same sex because, well, because NS is just nice like that, right?
It is an effect which is consistant across the entire species, Bill. It doesn't differentiate between heterosexual or homosexual. The emotional pairbonding occurs in those couples which have selected mates (different sex or same sex). That there is no procreation to support in the case of same sex pairings is immaterial.
quote:
No, Bill. It isn't a strawman. It goes to the heart of intent. Sex is not only for procreation. It is also for strengthening emotional ties for pairbonding.
(bill) So is NS concerned with the emotions and feelings of individuals? Why else would NS be concerned for the emotions and pairbonding of the same sex partners if getting them to mate and mate more for the proliferation of the species if procreation is not even an option for them? Is NS just being nice since it denied same sex the ability to procreate?
So here it is. You've not decided that since you've been blasted away from your strawman, you've selected another of NS being concerned for the emotions of the subjects. Again, Bill, NS doesn't differentiate between heterosexuals or homosexuals. The drive for pairbonding is a species wide phenomenon which has certian benefits to child rearing.
quote:
Mighty interesting shift on "intent", Bill. You take a outwardly obvious physical trait which has social and physical function and ascribe the intent of the Creator that it have such a trait.
(bill)Umm.... I never said I knew for a fact what God intended the tail for... only that the tail was flat. However, through observations, I can make a calculated decision and speculate with reason the intent of the flat tail. Let me explain:
Bill: It appears the intent of God, or the results of NS, wanted the beaver to swim using his flat tail.
Skeptic: Why do say this?
Bill: Watch a beaver swim.
Skeptic: I see your point.
or
Skeptic: NS intended for some men to be involved in gay sex and raise children.
Bill: What makes you say that?
Skeptic: Some men have gay sex and adopted children.
Bill: What about the fact that only heterosexuals can reproduce? What about the fact that when you look at the anatomy of human male body that this does not fit there? If the intent of NS was for some men to have gay sex and raise families then why can't gay men procreate?
Skeptic: Look, NS did not leave a manual behind with intent. So despite all the evidence and logic and anatomy charts pointing us toward the fact that same sex couples cannot reproduce I can ignore that fact and tell you that " gay sex was intended for the sole purpose of pairbonding" and you cannot deny that it is plausible since NS did not leave a manual behind to clear the air.
Bill: Ok???
Skeptic: Can you prove that no pink Pokka dotted elephants exist in the universe.
Bill: Well no....
Skeptic: My point exactly.
Bill: Oh good grief.....
Wonderful little story. Too bad it has nothing to do with my position. You have clearly stated here that the only reason for sex is for procreation. I have said that it is not and shown you an additional species wide reason which does not differentiate between heterosexual or homosexual. You have somehow magically devined intent based on the mechanics of sexual reproduction and devined that not only is it against intent of a Creator, but that ones sexuality is a conscious choice.
NS provides the basics to assist in the raising of children. Sexuality is immaterial to the raising of children.
quote:
No, Bill. They cannot. People for decades have used screws and nuts for artistic expressions. Likewise, simple machines such as screws have been used for a myriad of functions which were never concieved by their original creator.
(bill) Then people look at the art made of screws and nuts and ask what in the xxxx is that?
Just as we look at the male anatomy and wonder, your going to put that there when dealing with same sex. I would advise against that
Some people do, some people say, "that's interesting." What you advise for or against is immaterial to the conversation. The intent of the creator cannot be devined from examining the parts.
quote:
And what is the reason that beavers have flat tails? That one isn't as clear as the beaver uses it in a multitude of ways. Sort of denies your single intent argument for sex.
(bill) I certainly tell you what the beavers tails were not intended to do.
Based on what, Bill? Based on how the beaver uses it? If so, your misuse argument fails for homosexuals and heterosexuals who engage in anal sex.
NS is concerned with the feelings of the species
(bill) So now NS, an immateri |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2006 : 12:13:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
But couldn't nature provide the muscle suctioning action without the emotional release?
Nature could have provided that childbirth work without being painful, too, but it didn't. Natural selection goes with the first thing that works. It doesn't care about side affects unless they disturb how well the thing works. And women feeling pleasure during sex certainly can't be bad for reproduction.
In regards to both female orgasms and nipples on men, there is also the simple fact that male and female bodies are based on the same template in the womb, and males become males when the y chromosome causes testosterone and another hormone that I forget the name of to modify the embryo and make it turn out male. There are all kinds of sex disorders where this process gets screwed up. Like in males who aren't receptive to testosterone - they're born with a vagina and don't even realize something's fishy until they hit puberty and don't get their period like all the other girls. And there's another where the person isn't receptive to that other hormone (that I can't remember the name of), so they are born with either a vagina or ambiguous genitalia, but when they hit puberty their vagina turns into a penis. How fucked up is that? Not to mention all the people born with xyy, xxy, xxx, and just one x. (Just one y means you miscarry in the first trimester.) There was an olympic athelete a few years ago who was disqualified because when they did the genetic (swab in the mouth) test to make sure she was a woman, they found that she had a tiny bit of a y on one of her x's, and disqualified her. Imagine her shock!
The other hormone is 'androgen'. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
