Creation/Evolution

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
its a flawed argument noobster for there is lots of animal behaviour that when you begin to equate it with human behaviour the consequences are disastrous, especially sexual behaviour!

You said homosexuality was unnatural, Andrew and i have just demonstrated it isn't. Other than that as usual i don't know what you're talking about.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
You said homosexuality was unnatural, Andrew and i have just demonstrated it isn't. Other than that as usual i don't know what you're talking about.

This debate is just strange. What I take from it is that the intellect of some of the participants is subordinate to their agenda.

For example, those who wonder whether the same process that can beget the eye might produce a radical transformation in the digestive tract due to the activity of individuals who are unlikely to leave many grandchildren really haven't thought it through have they?

Now, I don't think they are intellectually deficient. Some of them no doubt have intimidating chess ratings. But what this reminds us of is, as Hume pointed out, the intellect is the slave of the passions.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
You said homosexuality was unnatural, Andrew and i have just demonstrated it isn't. Other than that as usual i don't know what you're talking about.

you have demonstrated nothing of the sort, you failed to even address the original premise, let me remind you of it noobster, that if the main function, according to the evolutionary hypothesis is for the organism to pass the genetic code from one generation to the next, then the only way for it to be accomplished is through procreation of differing genders, your utterly contemptible and vain attempts to equate human behaviour with animal behaviour does not nullify this fact, infact, i don't even think its particularly relevant. At least Andrew had the insight to try to address the issue and state that evolution sometimes throws up anomaly's, but that in itself does not mean that the natural state of affairs, according to the very basic function of your beloved evolutionary hypothesis is for the genetic code to be transferred, in humans, heterosexually!

is it contrary to the norm. when we see someone who has suffered some debilitating illness, for example i watched this beautiful lady try very hard to walk down the street the other day, she had a club foot and found it really difficult to walk, was that normal? was that natural? no you can bet your life that it was not! it was contrary to the norm, it was unnatural for her to be in so much anguish and my heart went out to her. This idea that genetic or hormonal anomaly's due to the evolutionary process is solely conducive to homosexual tendencies is a piece of propaganda that has been ruthlessly waved like a huge banner by the gay rights movement, nope it is not normal and it is not natural!

why was your attempt to equate humans with animals so offensive? for one, what about those animals among whom those males who are unable to to fight for predominance over bigger larger and fitter males may resort to trying to molest young females, is that natural, in human terms, tell me noobster, is it? no i don't think so! what about my rabbits, Hammy and Hazel, brother and sister, is that natural for humans noobster? no i don't think so! so enough of your equating humans with animals, its is a non argument as far as sexulaity is concerned!

Originally posted by Lord Shark
This debate is just strange. What I take from it is that the intellect of some of the participants is subordinate to their agenda.

For example, those who wonder whether the [b]same process that can beget the eye might produce a radical transformation in the digestive tract due to the activity of individuals who are unlikely to leave many grandchild t what this reminds us of is, as Hume pointed out, the intellect is the slave of the passions.[/b]

============================
For example, those who wonder whether the same process that can beget the eye might produce a radical transformation in the digestive tract due to the activity of individuals who are unlikely to leave many grandchildren really haven't thought it through have they?

Now, I don't think they are intellectually deficient. Some of them no doubt have intimidating chess ratings. But what this reminds us of is, as Hume pointed out, the intellect is the slave of the passions.
====================================

I think that this is a logical fallacy. Agendas do not make Evolution wrong simply for that sake.

You have to examine the ideas. The motives of the theorist is secondary.

Passion of belief does not make the belief right or wrong simply because of the passion.

Originally posted by CalJust
There have been 245 threads on evolution since 2004.

Just kidding - I haven't actually counted them!!

But I am somewhat curious - after all those innumerable discussions, is anyone from either side willing to confess that they have been - even a little bit - influenced by the opposite point of view?

C'mon, be honest!!

I think it can be confirmed that those on either side have not been swayed by the other and those on the fence are still on the fence.

Given such predictable outcomes, I just glance at creationist/evolutionist threads. For the most part they are a bore.

Originally posted by CalJust
Hi vistesd,

Thanks for this input and insight. I must admit that several "opposing" posts have also given me food for thought.

Firstly, the abbreviation for OP escapes me .. please help? (Although I could possibly deduce it from your later comments)

Secondly, to know more about you I went to your home page. Rather a secretive fellow (or fellowess) ...[text shortened]... se position is (unfortunately) inherently untenable and contradictory...

In peace

CJ

OP = opening post

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
its a flawed argument noobster for there is lots of animal behaviour that when you begin to equate it with human behaviour the consequences are disastrous, especially sexual behaviour! for example multiple partners, one need not harp on about sexually transmitted diseases, breakup of family and the emotional turmoil that ensues, abortions, profusion of single parent families, etc etc etc

Some animals eat their own too, if an animal does it, it doesn't mean
that makes it natural for a human too.
Kelly

Originally posted by CalJust
#1: It is NOT true that "facts speak for themselves". All facts need to be interpreted, and the interpretation depends on the particular frame of reference of the individual.

But I thought you said you were a "a career scientist". Surely you know that in science we simply cannot accept interpretations that are solely dependent on the interpretation of the individual?
Surely, for any given set of facts for which there are two alternative explanations, we should not just throw up our hands in defeat but should rather look for more evidence that will point to one or the other explanation? The whole premise of science is that when more than one explanation is possible, we make predictions from the various explanations then look for the evidence to match the predictions and thus rule out one of the explanations (assuming the predictions were different).

#2: In the book I mentioned "In Six Days" (New Holland Publishers, 2001) there are short article by 50 well known scientists that state why they were forced to the conclusiion that the earth is young and consequently a 6 day creation. Their arguments convinced me, and I am not going to repeat them here.
Obviously the "consequently a 6 day creation" is not a valid conclusion. That must necessarily be based on the Biblical account - unless they actually presented some evidence pointing towards a six day creation (which I am sure they did not).

#3: This is my main reason: I did not reach God by sound arguments, but He found me and overwhelmed me. It was AFTER that, that I came to the realisation that the whole thing made sense, and that fath in Christ was inherently congruent with creationism. It is for that reason that I don't want to debate the issue of what makes sense and what not. Certain things will make perfect sense for you in YOUR world view, but they seem folly to me. (and, of course, vice versa). hence such arguments are not only unwinnable, but like comparing apples with orangutangs.
I disagree. Why are the arguments unwinnable? Surely only one of us can be right and hence unless one of us is profoundly delusional one could in theory persuade the other of the validity of their argument. If things make perfect sense in your world view, why would you not want to discuss them? Are you unable to communicate your view to others with a different world view?

Surely as a 'career scientist' you must believe that there are some bits of evidence that when looked at carefully would indicate either an old earth or a young earth and could not be biased by ones world view?
For example, suppose there is a tree that I believe is 100 years old and you believe is 150 years old. Can we never determine its true age to a point that we can both agree simply because we start out with different beliefs? Is there no evidence that could point us to the trees true age?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Some animals eat their own too, if an animal does it, it doesn't mean
that makes it natural for a human too.
Kelly

Only the most egregious simpletons would actually use 'natural' and 'unnatural' to justify their position in a discussion such as this.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Only the most egregious simpletons would actually use 'natural' and 'unnatural' to justify their position in a discussion such as this.

well in your great erudition, why don't you add something with content instead of whimpering around the periphery!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
well in your great erudition, why don't you add something with content instead of whimpering around the periphery!

Nothing bores me more than the idiot's argument of 'homosexuality is unnatural'. It's part of human behaviour -- deal with it and let the rest of the world get on with their lives.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Nothing bores me more than the idiot's argument of 'homosexuality is unnatural'. It's part of human behaviour -- deal with it and let the rest of the world get on with their lives.

why is your opinion here, and let us not delude ourselves into thinking that it is anything else, masquerading in the guise of some type of truth? the very premise of natural and unnatural, are not ends in themselves, but it is the process of establishing whether either is the case, that is of interest, if it bores you, then why are you here?. the assertion has been made that equates animal behaviour with human, we are trying to establish if this is valid, or otherwise, perhaps we should just take your word for it and deal with it, that would really further our understanding, now wouldn't it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
why is your opinion here, and let us not delude ourselves into thinking that it is anything else, masquerading in the guise of some type of truth? the very premise of natural and unnatural, are not ends in themselves, but it is the process of establishing whether either is the case, that is of interest, if it bores you, then why are you here?. the a ...[text shortened]... our word for it and deal with it, that would really further our understanding, now wouldn't it.

You're quite right, I'm absolutely wasting my time here. Thanks!

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
You're quite right, I'm absolutely wasting my time here. Thanks!

cya!

Originally posted by jaywill
I think that this is a logical fallacy. Agendas do not make Evolution wrong simply for that sake.

You have to examine the ideas. The motives of the theorist is secondary.

Passion of belief does not make the belief right or wrong simply because of the passion.

I'm afraid you have missed the point. I'm not saying that agendas make things wrong or right, but I am saying that our agendas will influence both our choice of lines of enquiry and possibly our appraisal of the evidence encountered. Sometimes people know the conclusion they want to reach, for example about evolution or homosexuality, and they use their intellect to validate that conclusion.

In summary, I am saying that this particular type of debate is such that each side might appear credulous or a bit dim to the other side, but I don't think it is necessarily the case that the faculty of reason is where the deficiency lies.