Homosexuality, Heterosexuality and the Choices in Between

[Bodi]

True, however the theory claims that with adaptation, comes new features, like the ability to talk when according to evolution, no other lifeform on earth has for over 200 million years.

And like you said the Religious are looking at it wrong in order to dismiss it in the first place AND this thread is about homosexuals. Lol

 

[What if...?]

It is 100% a choice. And a choice you ought to take responsibility for.

It's true, people have varying degrees of sexual drive... it may be easier for some and not for others... but that is never an excuse, and it can never be an excuse. What separates humans from animals is impulse control, we can actively choose to go against our nature for a greater purpose, and we can choose not to.

Yet greed and power hunger are championed in our society. Above criticism.

And both of those are also animal impulses.

Just food for thought.

 

[celticwar17]

Yet greed and power hunger are championed in our society. Above criticism.

And both of those are also animal impulses.

Just food for thought.

I think that's an inaccurate portrayal... criminal greed is incredibly frowned upon, and being an overall greedy person won't make you many friends. Being Power Hungry can also be frowned upon. But people are complex...

 

[enderpotato00]

Those are examples of adaptation rather than evolution. All examples had the genetic make up to produce the adaptation to begin with but was only brought into fruition by eviromental circumstances. What creationists want as evidence for evolution (macro evolution to be exact) is a mutation that creates something that didn't exist before. i.e. a dog developing the genetic make up and brain capacity to talk.

Yea adaptation is part of evolution.

 

[CLAX1911]

You are blatantly wrong! Gravity is an established scientific law. Something is not a theory once it is proven to occur with constant results every time it is tested.

I'm actually absolutely correct the law of gravity is theoretical.

There are levels of evolution.

I am only talking about evolution of life so I'm going to delete irrelevant things.

MacroEvolution: Species evolved from separate species
MicroEvolution: Different kinds evolved within their own species

There is only evidence for Microevolution, such as multiple breeds of dogs or Darwin's finches, and yet scientists claim that those results prove the other six. If I find a cat skeleton that died 50 years ago in the dirt and a dog skeleton from 100 years ago, does that prove that dogs were ancestors of cats? No! All that it proves is that two different organisms died at different time periods and became fossils. It doesn't give any evidence that one evolved into the other and then died.

It's all the same thing the difference is the time frame microevolution takes place in 70 years. Macro-evolution is microevolution but we're looking that we're looking at hundreds of thousands of years.

And we have that in the fossil record I find it interesting you didn't address anything about the fossil record.

 

[CLAX1911]

It would also mean that life emerged from nonliving things.

that's what has to happen no matter what you believe if God made Adam and Eve out of clay life emerged from non-living things.

Life absolutely had to emerge from non-living things otherwise there is no beginning of Life it just always was.

Does that make as much sense to you?

it has to make sense to you because that is what you believe. If life began then there was a time before there was a life and that time that the was life if it didn't come from nonliving things what did it come from?

So if you believe God made a man out of clay and breathe life into him life emerged from clay which is not living.

And if that is how it happened, then why isn't it still?

from The Young Earth creationist position it's probably because God isn't making people out of clay anymore.

From the more secular point of view who says it isn't?

If evolution happened for so long over millions of years, why isn't it still happening?

it is still happening. What makes you think it isn't because you can't see it all when a few days it takes hundreds of thousands of years you won't live long enough.

It's not like it would have stopped right as we rolled around.

nobody thinks it did stop. In fact I can prove it to you that it's happening right now if a dog has puppies those puppies are not the exact same DNA is it the parents. Why do you think that is? Anybody or anything that's born but it's not an exact replica of its parents DNA is evolution you may not see the babies with horns or a third arm being a regular occurrence because those sorts of changes take a lot longer then your lifetime.

 

[CLAX1911]

How did we get on creation vs evolution anyway? I thought this about homosexuality.

The discussion is bound to evolve over 80 pages. You'll just have to go back and read. And if you want to talk about sexual orientation post a response I don't doubt you'll get a discussion.

 

[RAMOSS]

Those are examples of adaptation rather than evolution. All examples had the genetic make up to produce the adaptation to begin with but was only brought into fruition by eviromental circumstances. What creationists want as evidence for evolution (macro evolution to be exact) is a mutation that creates something that didn't exist before. i.e. a dog developing the genetic make up and brain capacity to talk.

Uh.. Just to point out, adaptation IS evolution.

 

[CLAX1911]

Those are examples of adaptation rather than evolution. All examples had the genetic make up to produce the adaptation to begin with but was only brought into fruition by eviromental circumstances. What creationists want as evidence for evolution (macro evolution to be exact) is a mutation that creates something that didn't exist before. i.e. a dog developing the genetic make up and brain capacity to talk.

First there's no macro and microevolution there's Just evolution. The difference is the time frame.

So called "macro-evolution" just simply takew some more time then the Bible says the earth existed.

What it seems like creationists want is to believe in their creation story. So Into You can pick that apart and learn to accept that creation may not have happened exactly as the Bible said you are not going to progress in this conversation.

I do commend people for making up microevolution to explain the evolution we absolutely know that has occurred but it's odd that people deny it over a long period of time.

If you want to see evidence of evolution there is a lot. There is absolutely zero evidence for young Earth creation. In fact it's absolutely proven that the younger Earth is false.

I've heard the claim that God created the Earth to look like it was 4 or 5 billion years old. But that claim doesn't hold much weight I could claim it was created last Thursday or 5 seconds ago and it was created to look old and we were created with the memories and it has the exact same level of credibility as the previous claim.

What young Earth creationist want is for their opinions to be respected on the same level as evolution. I'm sorry but they're not going to be they have been disproven. Saying they want evidence for evolution is like saying they want evidence that the Earth is spherical. There is plenty of evidence they are just not willing to look at it.

 

[Jek4141]

It is still happening we just can’t see it. We’ve only been on this Earth for 300,000 years


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And believing in something we can't see is... what exactly? Because, when Christians say that about God, they're called idiots. However, when it's said about evolution, people treat it as science? Seems a bit partisan to me.

 

[Jek4141]

Those are examples of adaptation rather than evolution. All examples had the genetic make up to produce the adaptation to begin with but was only brought into fruition by eviromental circumstances. What creationists want as evidence for evolution (macro evolution to be exact) is a mutation that creates something that didn't exist before. i.e. a dog developing the genetic make up and brain capacity to talk.

Thank you. My point exactly.

 

[Jek4141]

Yes you can prove it but your understanding of science is so poor I dont see a point trying to explain it.

Funny how me being 'stupid' exonerates you of having to provide proof.

 

[Jek4141]

Adaptation is the core of evolution.

No, adaptation is the core of survival. However, it does not indicate the drastic change that evolution preaches. If a plant that lives in the desert acclimates to less water, is it then a new species? No. It merely adapted to its environment. The Galapagos Finches were still Finches. They were the same type of bird, despite differences that gave them distinct species names. They probably all came from an original finch, even. But that finch didn't come from a lizard, or a fish.

 

[ecofarm]

True, however the theory claims that with adaptation, comes new features, like the ability to talk when according to evolution, no other lifeform on earth has for over 200 million years.

Dolphins and whales talk. Parrots can use words as symbols. 200m y/a they couldn't, they didn't even exist.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

The problem with your response is that gravity is a law, something that can be tested and proven with no discernible discrepancies in results to date. Evolution has never been tested because it can't be tested. Scientists claim that it is because it happens over millions of years as an excuse. You can't prove that anything you find in the dirt had kids, only that it died.

Actually, evolution is one of the two foundation laws of biology. Fossil evidence is not even the strongest evidence for evolution. Even if we did not have a single fossil, we would still have mountains of evidence for evolution in the genome.

The following is an excellent analogy on this:

Creationists are deeply enamored of the fossil record, because they have been taught (by each other) to repeat, over and over, the mantra that it is full of "gaps": "Show me your 'intermediates!' " They fondly (very fondly) imagine that these "gaps" are an embarrassment to evolutionists. Actually, we are lucky to have any fossils at all, let alone the massive numbers that we now do have to document evolutionary history—large numbers of which, by any standards, constitute beautiful "intermediates." We don't need fossils in order to demonstrate that evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution would be entirely secure even if not a single corpse had ever fossilized. It is a bonus that we do actually have rich seams of fossils to mine, and more are discovered every day. The fossil evidence for evolution in many major animal groups is wonderfully strong. Nevertheless there are, of course, gaps, and creationists love them obsessively. Let's use the analogy of a detective coming to the scene of a crime where there were no eyewitnesses. The baronet has been shot. Fingerprints, footprints, DNA from a sweat stain on the pistol, and a strong motive, all point toward the butler. It's pretty much an open-and-shut case, and the jury and everybody in the court is convinced that the butler did it. But a last-minute piece of evidence is discovered, in the nick of time before the jury retires to consider what had seemed to be their inevitable verdict of guilty: somebody remembers that the baronet had installed spy cameras against burglars. With bated breath, the court watches the films. One of them shows the butler in the act of opening the drawer in his pantry, taking out a pistol, loading it, and creeping stealthily out of the room with a malevolent gleam in his eye. You might think that this solidifies the case against the butler even further. Mark the sequel, however. The butler's defense lawyer astutely points out that there was no spy camera in the library where the murder took place, and no spy camera in the corridor leading from the butler's pantry. "There's a gap in the video record! We don't know what happened after the butler left the pantry. There is clearly insufficient evidence to convict my client." In vain, the prosecution lawyer points out that there was a second camera in the billiard room, and this shows, through the open door, the butler, gun at the ready, creeping on tiptoe along the passage toward the library. Surely this plugs the gap in the video record? But no. Triumphantly the defense lawyer plays his ace. "We don't know what happened before or after the butler passed the open door of the billiard room. There are now two gaps in the video record. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my case rests. There is now even less evidence against my client than there was before." The fossil record, like the spy camera in the murder story, is a bonus, something that we had no right to expect as a matter of entitlement. There is already more than enough evidence to convict the butler without the spy camera, and the jury was about to deliver a guilty verdict before the spy camera was discovered. Similarly, there is more than enough evidence for the fact of evolution in the comparative study of modern species and their geographical distribution. We don't need fossils. The case for evolution is watertight without them, so it is paradoxical to use gaps in the fossil record as though they were evidence against evolution. We are lucky to have fossils at all.

Excerpt: Richard Dawkins's New Book on Evolution

 

[Jek4141]

I'm actually absolutely correct the law of gravity is theoretical.

I am only talking about evolution of life so I'm going to delete irrelevant things.


It's all the same thing the difference is the time frame microevolution takes place in 70 years. Macro-evolution is microevolution but we're looking that we're looking at hundreds of thousands of years.

And we have that in the fossil record I find it interesting you didn't address anything about the fossil record.

Newton's Law of Universal Gavitation: https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/features/yba/CygX1_mass/gravity/more.html

How does the fossil record date fossils. A legitimate question, that I want you to answer, in your own words.

 

[Jek4141]

that's what has to happen no matter what you believe if God made Adam and Eve out of clay life emerged from non-living things.

Life absolutely had to emerge from non-living things otherwise there is no beginning of Life it just always was.

it has to make sense to you because that is what you believe. If life began then there was a time before there was a life and that time that the was life if it didn't come from nonliving things what did it come from?

So if you believe God made a man out of clay and breathe life into him life emerged from clay which is not living.


from The Young Earth creationist position it's probably because God isn't making people out of clay anymore.

From the more secular point of view who says it isn't?

it is still happening. What makes you think it isn't because you can't see it all when a few days it takes hundreds of thousands of years you won't live long enough.

nobody thinks it did stop. In fact I can prove it to you that it's happening right now if a dog has puppies those puppies are not the exact same DNA is it the parents. Why do you think that is? Anybody or anything that's born but it's not an exact replica of its parents DNA is evolution you may not see the babies with horns or a third arm being a regular occurrence because those sorts of changes take a lot longer then your lifetime.

1st, but they are still puppies. This is exactly what I said before. Mircoevolution does not constitute macroevolution over time.

2nd, evolving to life from nothing and being made up by nonliving components and given life by a living Creator are not the same thing.

 

[Jek4141]

The discussion is bound to evolve over 80 pages. You'll just have to go back and read. And if you want to talk about sexual orientation post a response I don't doubt you'll get a discussion.

Just like I'm bound to evolve into something new over 80 million years?

 

[Jek4141]

Uh.. Just to point out, adaptation IS evolution.

Adaptation does not equal evolution. A cactus that lives in the desert and therefore has adapted to survive with less water is STILL A CACTUS. It will pass on its genes for needing less water to its offspring, but they will also still be CACTI; not grasses or bushes, but cacti.

 

[TheGoverness]

Mircoevolution does not constitute macroevolution over time.

That is really stupid. Yes, it does.

When there are small changes over small periods of time, eventually they become large changes over time. Because small changes stacking on top of each other leads to a drastic change. "Micro" evolution becomes "Macro" evolution over time.

 

[Jek4141]

First there's no macro and microevolution there's Just evolution. The difference is the time frame.


If you want to see evidence of evolution there is a lot. There is absolutely zero evidence for young Earth creation. In fact it's absolutely proven that the younger Earth is false.

You talk an awful lot without giving proof. If yours is so irrefutable, why not use it for once?

 

[RAMOSS]

Adaptation does not equal evolution. A cactus that lives in the desert and therefore has adapted to survive with less water is STILL A CACTUS. It will pass on its genes for needing less water to its offspring, but they will also still be CACTI; not grasses or bushes, but cacti.

Do know know what that scientific definition of biological evoltuion is?? If so, please give it here, so I know you know what you are talking about.

If you knew what the definition was, you would know your post was 100% totally incorrect.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

1st, but they are still puppies. This is exactly what I said before. Mircoevolution does not constitute macroevolution over time.

What is the genetic barrier that prevents speciation then?

 

[Daisy]

No, adaptation is the core of survival. However, it does not indicate the drastic change that evolution preaches. If a plant that lives in the desert acclimates to less water, is it then a new species? No. It merely adapted to its environment. The Galapagos Finches were still Finches. They were the same type of bird, despite differences that gave them distinct species names. They probably all came from an original finch, even. But that finch didn't come from a lizard, or a fish.

Exactly...

“A family or group of living creatures or things that are interfertile among themselves, but not fertile with others outside their family. (That is, whose sex cells will unite to form, or begin to form, an offspring; but with those of another ‘kind’ or family are absolutely incompatible and unable to unite.)” This definition is the same as the old definition once given to “species.” Then “species” was used to mean the offspring of a single specially created pair. But with the advent of the false theory of evolution “species” has changed meaning and according to present-day scientific usage numerous species may all be of the one Biblical kind. When variations occur within the one kind evolutionists speak of some of them as new species and as evidence that species change; according to their narrowed-down definition of “species” it is true, but species do not change if we hold to the old definition of the term and which coincides with the above definition of the Biblical kind." Make Sure of All Things; pages 112,113

 

[minnie616]

And believing in something we can't see is... what exactly? Because, when Christians say that about God, they're called idiots. However, when it's said about evolution, people treat it as science? Seems a bit partisan to me.

I believe in Sciece and I believe God.

It is possible to believe in fact many of the Bible’s so called miracles have a scientific explanation.

Take the story Mary and cousin Elizabeth for example:

From women in the Bible. Net:

Elizabeth's Story

The two pregnant women met, and at that moment Elizabeth's unborn baby responded by suddenly moving and kicking in her womb. Twenty-eight weeks, the end of a woman's second trimester, is the normal time to expect an unborn baby to kick in the womb, and this may well have been the first time Elizabeth's unborn baby moved - an exciting moment for any mother. She took this sudden movement, at this particular meeting, as a sign.

ELIZABETH, John the Baptist's mother protected her cousin Mary


Normal, natural occurances and explanations happen in the Bible ...
It does not mean they are not miracles.

Was it not miraculous that at very moment Mary spoke to her cousin Elizabeth ( whom we presume have not spoken together for quite some time ) was the first time she felt her unborn kick?

You have to remember Elizabeth and her husband were old and she was past the childbearing age and yet by a mircle she was expecting.
She had to be very worried about her pregnancy and if everything was going well.
When she felt the kicking she must of been overjoyed and relived that all was well with her pregnancy.


Take the story of Moses and turning the sea blood red.

Red tide can turn the oceans a red color and kill the fish and other sea cheaters because s it robs them of oxygen.

From:

An outbreak of red tide is killing fish off the southwest Florida coast.

The Naples Daily News reports that fish kills have been reported off Lee County and in Florida Bay. The paper says numerous dead fish were spotted Sunday off a North Naples beach.

Red tide outbreak killing fish off Florida Gulf Coast - Sun Sentinel


But even if was red tide and not blood is any less of a miracle that it occurred when Moses put his staff in the water?

And the day turned night...solar eclipse possibly?