Creation vs. Evolution

[AXL72]

It is quite simple, Mike. We do so without God cause we have Santa Claus.

See below link We want santa to bring us chit.

http://jesusfightssanta.ytmnd.com/

 

[sandjeep]

Quickly,

As I just got back in, I have read some of the replys. Ok, Andy, Lets look at Murder, which is the term I should have been using to begin with. (sorry)

Is it wrong to murder in itself or is it wrong because of our legal code?

I'll reply to some of the rest tomorrow as its late.

Good Diving to all

 

[H2Andy]

Quickly,

As I just got back in, I have read some of the replys. Ok, Andy, Lets look at Murder, which is the term I should have been using to begin with. (sorry)

Is it wrong to murder in itself or is it wrong because of our legal code?

I'll reply to some of the rest tomorrow as its late.

Good Diving to all

"murder" is a legal term. there is no "murder" outside of a legal code. "murder"
and "kill" are not the same thing. if i kill someone i may be found guilty of murder, but i may not (self defense, for example, or a state-sponsored execution -- the guy who presses the switch isn't guilty of murder, though he has certainly killed someone).

do you mean is it wrong to kill in itself or is it wrong because of our legal code?

if killing is absolutely wrong, then any killing would be wrong, correct?

 

[AXL72]

Sandjeep,

Go take a tour of some prisons, will ya. Look at the tats on the backs, chest, and arms of the prisoners. You will see alot of crosses and a lot of virgin mary's and a lot of jesus'. However, I don't need the belief in God to keep me from doing what some of those prisoners have done, but they have Jesus and God, as evidenced by their tats.

So tell me again with a straight face (no pun intended if u r gay...its ok if u r, though) that I need God in my life to prevent me from putting a gun to a convenient shop owner's head to get some money. A convenient shop owner probably has a family he or she is trying to support in a legal and rightous manner. I ain't in jail. Oh wait...you don't know that...I could be typing to you from prison. well, have faith in me that I am not in prison

Toodles...and good diving to you too.

 

[redacted]

The whole question cracks me up too. The thought of a bunch of chemicals deciding what they think is good for them seems totally out of wack to me. That's really at the heart of the matter though isn't it? Those who believe in God just don't believe that any process absent God can result in anything thinking or caring about anything.

Perhaps that is one of the reasons so many folks need to believe in a creator. Otherwise they would be nothing more than a chance combination of $1 worth of chemicals.

 

[H2Andy]

it's a harsh truth

it's a harsh universe. well, no ... more like "completely uninterested"

which is why i love booze

 

[AXL72]

DELETED ------ Contained useless smart allecy remarks...sorry

 

[lamont]

I think I didn't express myself properly. I never meant to suggest that a gene had to enhance survival or reproduciton of an organism inorder for that gene to survive within a population - the thousands of detrimental genes that we have are proof against that.

What I was trying to point out is that homosexuality appears to have a genetic base, and is very common in the human populaiton - far more common then many benificial traits. This suggests a positive selection for homosexuality, which suggests there is some benifit to it. This benifit is obviously not via reproduciton, seeing as homosexuals rarely have children.

If homosexuality were purely detrimental to our population we should see a decrease in the frequency of it; a decrease to a level simular to that of other detrimental genes. We do not see this decrease. This essentially leaves 2 possibilities:

1) Homosexuality has no significant benifit or cost, and the current levels are purely a product of random genetic drift, or

2) Homosexuality has some benifit, and has been positivly selected to the current levels.

Bryan

Yeah, I was actually agreeing with you, but probably making my point poorly...

I was trying to back up the idea that you can have benefit to a gene without the instance of the organism that expresses it reproducing directly -- the example I chose was detrimental, but I wasn't trying to argue that homosexuality was detrimental (and I tend to agree with you that it probably has positive effects to have a percentage of the population be homosexual -- to decrease overpopulation if nothing else...)

A lot of people make an argument that sex and love must be between a man and a woman in order to procreate, which presupposes that every instance of every organism must procreate, and that's just false. Its too bad that so many people have such an immature 15 year old "peg must fit in hole" approach to sexuality...

 

[H2Andy]

DELETED ------ Contained useless smart allecy remarks...sorry

good call!



(imho)

 

[AXL72]

good call!



(imho)

Andy...be my lawyer will ya. Keep me out of legal trouble. j/k

Thanks for the support