hmm .. evolution .. lets see...

let me see if i get it at least half right .. im not allowed to talk about mutation cos i dont understand that .. i seem to remember...

...so .. natural selection .. thats part of evolution right?

so ..

homosexuals - natural selection will wipe them out.

abortionists - natural selection will wipe them out.

liberals (any kind) - wary of overpopulation so natural selection will decrease their numbers

fundamentalist christians - go forth and multiply.

i dont care how much science i understand - who do you think will rule this planet?

This is the best news I have heard in weeks. Fundie theology and ID do not belong in the classroom.

Oh, and the stipe guy who posted above appears to be an asshat.

I am so sick of ignorant people. All the questions you ask are answered at http://www.talkorigins.org/.

By the way there are these things called books. Do me a favor and pick one up and READ IT! Why should I have to suffer from your ignorance? I'm tired of people like you. All you do is throw BULLSHIT around and don't even bother to educate yourself in the matter.

LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE then make a critical assessment of it then we might have something to discuss.

Hoo-frikkin'-ray!

Ignorance goes down to ignominious defeat...for awhile. The fact is that stupid MF'ers are dangerous critters, while thinkers will equivocate and compromise.

I'd rather die with the intelligent folks, thanks very much.

@stripe, so, you doubt evolution. your right, you're welcome. develop a better theory.

but don't replace it by some utter nonsense, just because it's religious nonsense.

This episode belies the notion that most people are for the oversimplifacation of science with the shrugging one's shoulders and saying that God did it. The vote left only two conservatives on the panel, leaving the impression most people in Kanas, reilgious or otherwise, don't want to see political monkeying with the school system.

Mixing science with religion is like brushing you teeth and downing a glass of orange juice.

And, again, all the dire prognostications of impending doom at the hands of Christian fundies prove to be melodramatic. The beauty of a self-correcting system.

Stipe,

All things considered, religous fundamentals seem pretty belligerent. For example, most every war in the world. Maybe they procreate so much because their ranks diminish daily.

new science standards that local and national science groups charged were a product of religious zealotry because they challenged Darwin's theory

herein lies either a conservative bias in the media or horrible reporting. scientists aren't mad at the challenge to Darwin's theory really. for the millionth time it's because the challenge to Darwin's theory is categorically UNscientific.

I wonder if Pat "P-Rob" Robertson will make the claim that Kansas has 'voted god out' of their state or some other crap like that.

You know it occured to me the other day that if humans did not have the ability of foresight and hindsight, the explanation that 'god did it' would seem perfectly reasonable, as the idea of time prior to or in advance of 'right now' would be inconcievable, and thus the concept of change would not register. Appearantly this is just the way many people actually are.

The problem with science in this regard is that its not easy to understand - particularly geologic time. Comprehending such a large time scale is mind boggling, which is why it seems to be left only to those who pursue such knowledge and not encouraged for everybody to consider. The common lame religious arguments against evolution that push the 'cold and bleak' implications that we are here by 'accident' (for which they are clearly confused on the subject, as evolution is simultaneously random and nonrandom) demonstrates such narrow-visioned perception. Its equivalent to, say, a historian making the statement:"History tends to repeat itself." and a layperson responding with "No it doesnt, I didnt do the same thing today as I did yesterday."

How long before Pat Roberstson tells the people of Kansas that god is going to get'em because they voted him out of their state?

When tornado season hits Kansas this year, it will not be part of a yearly cycle, but a special punishment from a loving but very politically motivated god.

The never ending problem with a god created in the image of the believers, not the other way around, as they love to claim.

I'd like to ask Stipe what group of living things he thinks will be on top when his religious fanatics supposedly dominate the planet via higher reproduction breach the carrying capacity (even though appearantly that law of ecology doesnt apply to humans because "god's" will is for mass human domination) and by way of overcrowding of humans and overconsumption of everything else send the globe into an ecological collapse and mass human extinction? Bacteria. That's who. This is of course assuming that an entirely religious planet of humans would survive that long without killing themselves off with mass genocide and ethnic cleansing.

Please don't lump all of us together as "ignorant and stupid." Just because a religious minority is able to sneak into power and change the science guidelines doesn't automatically make the students dumb or everyone in the state dumb. By that reasoning, every state is dumb based on who is in the White House.

Stipe, since you love religious fantasy so much, pick up Pier Anthony's books from the Incarnation series.

Of special interest is the book called "For love of evil" which is written from Satan's point of view. Satan here is actually a mortal man who assumed the office and has good in his soul.

Also read the last book in the series called "And eternity" whereby Piers Anthony clearly articulates the positions of a religious fundamentalist with a evolution supporter based on his understanding of Richard Dawkin's book, "The Blind Watchmaker."

Since you are incapable of accepting the views of scientists that runs contrary to yours, you should have no problems reading from a fantasy writer.

Once you finish reading these 2 books, just chuck them away and say it's just fanatasy. But I guarantee that the points made will stay with you : >

hehe .. i made so many friends..

and thanks for the talkorigins site .. it explains so well that if i accept evolutionary theory then it can explain itself ...

evolution MUST be responsible for homosexuality, abortion and other bad things .. otherwise the people who actually practice such activities are responsible.

neither option is very appealing either logically or morally.

evolution is change by mutation and natural selection .. there is NO WAY anyone can justify the emergence of some trait that radically undermines the theory of evolution without simply making up a story.

and as we see .. talkorigins.com .. evolutionist arguments against my point are varied and imaginitive. doesnt make me right .. sure makes people who support it look silly though .. ho ho ..

yeah i know .. i used to be such a reasonable poster as well...

molecules to man is a fairy tale. evolution by natural selection is a useful observation, but its been extended too far in an attepmt to excuse the bad things people do.

that most here are incapable of engaging in a logical and scientific debate with people like me is not because i am intractible .. it is because you reject god.

Objection.

that most here are incapable of engaging in a logical and scientific debate with people like you is not because you are intractible .. it is because you reject SENSE.

Beagle - what regligious 'minority' would that be? Last I checked the Christian coalition prided itself in the statistic that over 80% of Americans are Christians. Nobody is saying that people of faith are stupid, or students are stupid, or even that faith itself is necessarily stupid (I for one don't practice faith, but to each his own). What we are saying is that it has no place in the science classroom or to claim itself to be science when its method or lack thereof does not even closely resemble a scientific theory or principle.

Stipe - I dont know why I am even continuing a dialogue with you, as you have not yet presented anything of substance other than inflamatory remarks with nothing behind them. If you were in the least bit familiar with what evolution is, you would understand that it cannot be responsible for homosexuality, much less abortion or other 'bad things' as you call them. The fact that genes can emerge randomly be it as mutation or as homosexuality in no way disproves evolution. I must say though, I've heard many illogical rebuttles to evolution, but I've never heard anyone reject it on its major principles but then conveniently blame it for what they consider to be "bad things" in the world.

I disagree that if you accept evolutionary theory than it will explain itself. But I do think that if you try logic and reason on for size then evolution will start to make a lot more sense. Or you can just stay in your religion bubble and make outlandish statements that all scientists are atheists. Its your call. Unlike religion, science really doesnt care if you agree with it or not.

yet you make no sense in return ..

you promote evolutionary theory which specificly indicates that a reproductive advantage is its driving force .. and that force is responsible for life as we know it.

now you cant imagine how that theory could possibly account for homosexuality which is the very antithesis of reproductive ability ..

unless of course homosexuals are just being different .. you could admit that and defeat my argument and hold onto your precious evolution ....

youre desperate to have a tank for an argument to run me over with .. truth is though youve got 3 flat tyres and a ball point pen...

Stipe,

You had previously implied that evolution would eliminate homosexuals, as they obviously cannon reporoduce with others of the same gender. Thus, evolutionary processes could not produce homosexuality via natural selection. YOU proved my point. Homosexuality, as it is studied with regards to genetics, has thus far shown to be a region of the X chromosome, Xq28, that appears more strongly in some bloodlines/families than others as passed on through the mother, but does not necessarily denote 'inheritance' of homosexuality. Humans are not the only living things to experience homosexuality - other mammals have shown it as well. The role of evolution in this is still somewhat unclear. However you cannot state that the only alternative is that homosexuality is a choice by those who are 'just being different' as homophobes often do. Biology is complex, difficult, and dynamic. Because you don't want to understand it does not make its processes false or invalid.

@stipe, hilarious. you question evolution because you can't explain homosexuality with evolution. so you explain it with creationism. so god created homosexuals. so you're against god's creations. great logic you have there ;)

oh yeah .. god created homos and then told them to not be homos .. smart god your one ..

the point is i have a coherent story explaining things clearly .. you lot reject it ..

you lot have an incoherent story that you keep having to add bits onto .. and you mock me for rejecting that...

http://www-2.dc.uba.ar/profesores/becher/ns.html

I am sorry Stipe, what exactly is your coherent story?

We have a perfectly coherent "story", it just requires logic and reason to comprehend.

god created a good world .. you reject him.

theres a coherent story.

whats yours?

SEE! it took me all of 14 seconds to think up and type that simple story .. but its so simple it cant be true right..?

.. i mean .. even a 4 year old could understand THAT story....

no no .. the truth has to be far more complicated or else what are all our university degrees for? pomp and show? a 4 year old cant understand the nature of the universe while we're considering super string theory .. surely not.

stipe has to be wrong because so many people in this thread have called him names and mocked him ... that counts as refuting his story doesnt it?

has ANYONE come up with a coherent story on how the world works yet that cant be dissembled by toddlers?

i'll wait ...

opens an umbrella

dont think i isnt protected neither...

"even a 4 year old could understand THAT story"

My 4yr old had a lot of trouble understanding the part where if god loves everyone, how could he allow or even command his people to do things he says are wrong.

Like thou shalt not kill, and then telling some of them to go smash the babies against the rocks. Fuck man Im 40 and I cant get my head around an all loving god that would command such hatefulness.

Your story is full of contradictions, and they are ignored or supressed by its believers.

Dumb all over...and maybe a little but UGLY on the side... :Frank Zappa.

C.

Ok, I'll bite. Why is "simple" better? That the universe is so vastly complex is what makes it so beautiful. It seems to me that if the "story" was meant to be understood by a four year old, we would not need this big brain of ours. Why bother to give humans the ability to reason if we should not use it? Do you think free will is a test? Does it all come back to that pesky apple? Knowledge is temptation.

It's impossible to communicate with someone like Stipe. His comments show that he cannot think clearly, so it's impossible to have a conversation with him.

Simple explanations satisfy simple minds.

@stipe, so, there is no "coherent" story for the existance of human beings. get over it. there was no coherent story for thunderstorms a while ago.

I would actually like to point out that just because an explanation is short doesnt mean its simple. 'Simplicity', scientifically speaking, comes from making the least number of assumptions to make the most number of accurate predictions. "God did it" is in that respect, the MOST complicated explanation, utterly lacking in simplicity. It requires one to assume "God created 'x'" for every x in the domain of elements you wish to explain. In return for these many assumptions, one gets zero predictions. Evolution, on the otherhand, using a small number of well formed hypotheses, predicts and accurately conforms to an overwhelming amount of data. This conformance with data, and the ability to predict more of the data without the need for additional assumptions amounts to evidence for evolution.

I have seen too many creationist invoke 'Occam's Razor', saying their statement is simpler. This is the reason why that argument is wrong, and why Occam's razor actually favors evolution. Occam's razor states that given two equivalent explanations to a phenomenon (and by equivalent, it means same accuracy of predictions, and same predicting power), then the one that is 'simpler' (lesser assumptions/axioms) is accepted. ID/Creationism fails in both respects due to utter lack of predictive power and utter lack of simplicity.

Beagle,

"religious minority," huh? What is that code for extremist and/or fundamentalist?

As Steven Waldman reported in Slate, 61% of all democrats pray; 92% believe in the afterlife; 51% believe in jew's right to Israel. It's clear that is the fundamentals who are being denied powers because not everyone who's religious follows their point of view.

Stipe,

Your arguments carry no weight not because you involve god, but because they follow absolutely no logical train of thought. Homosexuals will continue to exist in spite of natural selection because of at least two very obvious points: 1) Homosexuals can still reproduce in the conventional way. Not that this guarantees the perpetuation of homosexuality; my father is gay, and I am not. Which brings me to my next point: 2) Homosexual children are born to heterosexual couples all of the time. So, clearly, no matter what the situation is, homosexuals can continue to exist.

Abortionists? I'm not sure that there is such a thing. There are those that believe in the right of a woman to choose what she does with her body, but most of these people have never had or participated in an abortion. Likewise, those that perform the abortions are not generally aborting their own children.

Being wary of overpopulation has little to do with being liberal, and everything to do with being able to follow simple patterns. Finite space and resources = finite support for the creatures living on this planet. Granted, these resources can be replenished, but it takes time. So, if you use resources and space faster than they can be replenished, you run out of either or both. Those that abide by this concept aren't prevented from reproducing, they merely choose not to reproduce irresponsibly.

Finally, fundamentalist christians can suffer from the same reproductive issues as anyone else. They are not a seperate species, they are a group of people that identify with each other due to a common set of beliefs.

As someone already mentioned, the universe is impossibly complex. There isn't a simple explanantion for everything. If there were, then we would all understand the meaning of life and the intricacies of the universe. Some of us are not frightened by the prospect of not having all of the answers, some of us are.

If you are interested in exploring your ability to reason and think, I would be happy to discuss any of these points, or any others you may want to discuss, with you.

One amendment...

Beagle, I forgot to emphasis my point: in the beginning of this thread, Norm clearly states that it's the fundamentalist who are under attack, not the reasonable religous.

see .. im slow, incoherent, simple minded and illogical..

shakes off umbrella

but the only stories given to defend simple observations about human behaviour that undermine evolutionary theory insist that there are issues ignored when trying to state that evolution produced biological beings.

tell me .. given that evolution cannot explain homosexuality ... what can?

I don't understand why any person should care if someone is a homo- or hetero- sexual. What difference does it make in your own life? What's the big deal?

Truthinator, you made good points, especially this one:

"Being wary of overpopulation has little to do with being liberal, and everything to do with being able to follow simple patterns. Finite space and resources = finite support for the creatures living on this planet. Granted, these resources can be replenished, but it takes time. So, if you use resources and space faster than they can be replenished, you run out of either or both. Those that abide by this concept aren't prevented from reproducing, they merely choose not to reproduce irresponsibly."

People like Stipe believes that the world was built for human beings and human beings alone and they do not accept any points of view that God can be less than perfect in bequeathing to them a less than perfect world, that can run out of gas, air, food or land.

That's why they have so much problems accepting any restrictions on human activities, with the exception of abortion, because they believe that Planet Earth is God's blank check to man to use and waste whatever he sees fit.

and jo-ann and kes promote anything that kills off humans ..

they dont seem to realise that they too are human ...

Stipe promotes slavery, oppression of women and sexuality along with violent acts for faith which are enshrined in the Bible he places such faith in.

Pro-life is a hokey or looney bin position for Christians because supporters oppose to the exercizse of free will, which is a right Christians claim God gave to men.

Stipe, bring it on.

Tell you what. I'll support anti-abortion if you find a way that can make it penalise guys and girls equally.

That is the my other major objection to the religious pro-life position.

I'll invite a debate readily on the topic of morality as I, as an atheist, practise conservative values more religiously than any religious person here, especially in the matter of abstinence, non-gambling, non-drinking.

So don't give me that crap that religious people are more moral than atheists.

'bout frigging time ..

which is worse kes - god says dont screw animals or god says kill everyone in that city?

people screw animals and we get aids .. hundreds of millions die .. or the city dies and the world is a safer place.

which is worse?

god says women who want to be mothers are responsible for their babies or mothers are allowed to choose for themselves .. which is worse kes? hundreds of millions of children die or women look after and raise their kids.

you want to support abortion only if it penalises people yet it saves peoples lives .. youre view is entirely twisted.

you believe what you do makes you a moral and righteous person. i place absolutely no value on the efforts of humans to do good when the efforts of humans are responsible for all justification of murder ... you can have all the religion you like .. i choose life.

so like you say .. bring it on

The world is worse off because of God, the Bible and Christians, especially if they impose a literal view of the Bible on the world.

Your religion passes the death penalty on those who would not believe your God or preach about other Gods.

“Whosoever would not seek the LORD god of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.”

• “If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son…entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods,…kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death…”

Hell. I say that is worse, Stipe.

===

I say what is even worse that the Bible champions the oppression and punsihment of women for the sins of man. Here's proof.

• Leviticus 19:20, if you have sex with a slave woman while she's engaged to be married to a slave man, she shouldn't be put to death. Just scourged. Not you. Her. Scourged. Not a word about the immorality of slavery, by the way.

-The Bible also says that wives who lose their virginity prior to marriage should be put to death. Stoned, in fact. Check Deuteronomy 22:13-21.

• “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.”

And what about phrases in the Bible that condones slavery that saw fruit in the hundreds-year old slavery of negores in Christian America?

“And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property.”

Christianity has brought much more calamity and sufferings to the world than the salvation it promises.

Bring it on. Your religion makes the world worse. FACT.

you dont read too well do you...

god said to his chosen people israel .. if you reject me you should die .. and that was after hed led them around the desert for however many years dressed as a cloud and fire and dropped food on them every now and then.

how many people does god kill today for not believing in him? honestly .. you havent thought this through at all...

and when you read bible verses .. try and read the whole verse and its context .. and dont make crap up ..

Leviticus 19:20 "If a man sleeps with a woman who is a slave girl promised to another man but who has not been ransomed or given her freedom, there must be due punishment. Yet they are not to be put to death, because she had not been freed.

and quit feeling so sorry for the girls .. what does the bible say should happen to a guy if he commits adultery kes? oh .. you dont know that verse?

yes .. people who dont know how to read should not be allowed to teach .. like you .. you shouldnt be allowed to speak about the bible when you show such a willful desire to usurp it.

your last piece of homework before you are allowed to come back here with any sense of decency is show me any similarity between slavery as portrayed in the bible and slavery as portrayed in the USA ...

religion makes the world worse. the rest of the world makes the world worser .. only godly standards make it better.

Stipe, you are the one who don't read your Bible as I quoted from the New Terstaments. And the Jewish God of Jesus is the same as the Christian God worshipped by you. So stop fibbing.

You tell me God tell you to something.

I tell you God to do others.

Simple English. I have read through and collected whole pages of quotations from the Bible that supports sins and human atrocities like slavery (NEVER ONCE WAS IT CONDEMNED), oppression of women.

So far the Godly standards of Christians of Christians have made the world much worse such as the fact that more Christians have been killed by other Christians in history, as compared to other religions.

What Godly standards? Ungodly is more it.

Stipe, if you wannt to preach about a godly religion or standards, kindly make sure it is supported by history and real facts.

Sad to say, other religions such as Buddhisms holds a higher moral standard than Christianity in terms of human affairs anytimes.

That's why Europe suffers from Bible fatigue and has turned to secularism and to Eastern Religions. Funny that the continent where Christianity grew into being has given up on its soc-alled Godly standards. Evidently Europeans can see that Christiniaty failed to prevent the World Wars or the Jewish Holocaust which happened in Christian countries.

Kes,

Thanks for the compliment. You have a very well thought out position, and are clearly passionate about your convictions. I admire both qualities.

Stipe,

Honestly, I admire your passion as well. It is also important to temper that passion with reason, and that is where you lose ground in your arguments.

At no point did I claim that you are "slow, incoherent, simple minded and illogical." I simply said "Your arguments carry no weight...because they follow absolutely no logical train of thought." You seem to be very eager to turn friendly discourse into a fight, and in fairness, many of the other posters are doing the same.

Nobody said that evolution can't explain homosexuality. I refuted your claim that natural selection, merely one small concept within the much greater and more complex idea of evolution, will cause the extinction of homosexuals.

I can not and will not claim to have all of the answers. As I mentioned in my previous post, the universe is vast, and to a large degree incomprehensible. Not having an answer is ok. We don't even know all of the questions much less all of the answers, but I can assure you that god is not an answer. God, if it does exisit, is a portal to an entirely new set of questions.

Is religion responsible for the ails of the world? Some of them, but only indirectly. It's a human construct and therefore not only imperfect, but the responsibility of humans. Is god responsible? Absolutely not. God can't cause any more problems than the tooth fairy or the bogey man. However, even if you believe in a god I doubt that if you really searched your soul that you would find that you honestly believe that this god is so fragmented and insane as to contradict itself so thoroughly at every turn. There are bound to be flaws in the reporting of your god's divine mandate when the reporting is done by humans. Believe what you will, but at least be present enought to recognize that.

I can truly appreciate your desire to understand the universe and your place in it, but a wholesale rejection of reason in favor of blind faith is not the best way to go about it. Blind faith can't result in answers unless entirely by accident. Faith (not blind faith), whether directed toward god or humanity, is needed because it provides us with the motivation to keep looking for the answers.

So please, keep that passion but use it to find answers rather than to perpetuate a lack of understanding between those that believe in your god and those that don't. If you truly believe, then help us to see why. We atheists don't believe because we see no reason to. If you have compelling arguments, please use them. We are open to any information and argument if the information is verifiable and the argument is supportable by some means other than blind faith.

It is profoundly simple to make statements without any basis in reality. It requires a little more time and effort to form a coherent argument and support it with example and logic. If you choose to reveal some of your personal motivation behind your statements, then do so. Just make sure that your position is strong enough to stand on its own first.

Again, I invite you to discuss anything in the spirit of discovery and open-mindedness.

yeah .. youve read collections of verses from various different translations all aimed at making god look bad ... good on you .. i could do that with lord of the rings and make it look gay .. doesnt show a thing except that you have an internet connection.

try reading the story and understanding the characters .. dont pretend youre telling me anything i wouldnt readily share in a relevant situation when all youre doing is cherry picking ...

and even when you butcher a quote .. i still know youre quoting pauls letter to someone from the new testament .. which has nothing to do with the leviticus quote which is fromt he old testament.

buddhism holds to your moral standards perhaps .. but it doesnt hold to gods. the old testament is all about when god sees something bad he does something about it .. like kiling a whole lot of people .. when ghandi sees something bad he sits on the ground and hopes the enemy is nice to him .. how well do you think that might work generally?

Ghandi practiced Hinduism not Buddhism, and he effected the release of a nation from imperial British rule through peaceful protest. That sounds extremely effective to me.

He did not expect or hope that the "enemy" was nice to him, nor did he see them as the "enemy." He realized that we're all brothers and sisters in humanity and that adding violence to a situation does not solve a problem, it merely adds violence.

My conscience is clear. The Bible is the word of God and I quoted from it.

You have a problem with that? Take it up with God.

So far you have provided no basis for your God says comment while I have.

That's why you are mad with me.

===

You obviously don't know Gandhi very well.

Unlike Jesus who talks about turning the other cheek, Gandai truly beluieves in forgiveness, mercy and reconciliation as universal human themes.

That is why he is against non-violence but his movement is driven by those who believe in his convictions and dreams for India to the point that they will sacrifice their lives for it, even without fighting back.

The British tried to use force to oppress Gandhi's movement but realised global condemnation for oppressing a legitmate nationaalistic movement was not worth the diplomatic stigma that UK will be braned with.

For all his faults i.e. negligent father, Gandhi was able to bring about an independent India, which is an achievement that you can't deny.

Do study history before making snide comments about other people.

ok .. you have no conscience. what would you say to me if i admitted taking an evolution book written by carl dawkins and compiled a list of all the things they said that sounded like arguments against evolution .. would that be laughed at a little bit or a lot?

you truly do not know what youre saying do you?

ghandi i dont know well but esus i know better. jesus did say turn the other cheek .. but he said it for situations where it might be of benefit to the offender .. ghandi followed jesus' advice correctly here .. he could trust the british to be a little bit nicer than say .. the germans at the time...

do you know what ghandis advice was to the allied forces during WWII? theres your history homework kes.

and if ghandai truly believed in forgiveness, mercy and reconciliation as universal human themes then he would have been swift and relentless is condemning evil actions and thoughts.

its only when people know they are doing something bad that they have a chance to repent. and without repentance there can be no forgiveness.

unfortunately its difficult to repent. you have to admit youve done something wrong. you have to admit that killing your baby was murder .. not easy .. you have to admit that gods standards dont allow for homosexual behaviour .. you have to show some humility. then there can be forgiveness.

unfortunately people just do not want to humble themselves .. they think they know better than god.

What makes you think that Gandhi was not swift and relentless is condemning evil actions and thoughts?

Your reasoning is BS. Even if abortion is legal, people will not necessarily use it unless they really have to. It's not simply an issue of what is good or evil.

Killing the baby that is begeted by a rapist is not murder.

It is an act of mercy as the baby can never be expected to be treated by the mother without hate and disdain.

NEWSFLASH1

Christians have been known to keep repenting for the same sins that they do over and over again.

So it is clearly BS that when people know they are doing something bad that they have a chance to repent. The fact that they keep repeating such acts shows that repentance is not really in their heart.

And for people who think they know God's words, standards and the turth, how can they ever repent when they are so filled with self-righteousness?

Sorry to burst your bubble about Christianity? Hubris is ever its fatal flaw.

my reasoning may be poor but youre research is non-existant. ghandi advised the jews to practice peaceful resistance against hitlers regime .. and also led india to a position of peaceful resistance as support for the allies. both worthless actions regardless of his opinion on the matter.

jesus on the other hand addressed both situations and acted accordingly each time. when fighting evil he resisted strongly, when helping others he submitted peacefully.

abortion is legal and people do use it for their own convenience. just how else do you explain the millions of murders every year? millions of rapes?

and the child of rape is not worthless and hated. you forget a mothers capacity for love even in the most evil of circumstances. there are hundreds of stories out there of real people who will never know their fathers .. and rightly so .. how do you factor them into your twisted opinions?

christians do not keep repenting for the same thing over and over again. nobody does. if you keep doing what you know is evil then you havent repented. i know english isnt your first language, but please ... that statement is just inane.

tell you what stipe, when your wife gets raped, and pregnant, tell me how you feel about raising the child of the man who violated your wife. Tell me then if you still think plan B is a bad idea.
What, you think every woman raped is magically unwed...?

Until then your opinion is just bullshit

what, no reply...?

you mean, after the rapist gets out of jail, and sues for visitation OF HIS CHILD, you your wife and him and his kid can all go out for a picnic.

maybe you'll luck out, and get to spend every other weekend and holiday with the man who fucked your wife against her will, and his kid

Or maybe you'll get a restraining order, so he has to stay away from your wife, and Him and his kid can sit around and talk about what a mean lady mommy is for sending daddy to jail

won't that be special!

btw, whose name will you have on the birth certificae?

no you evil piece of trash.

the justice system should KILL THE RAPIST .. not grant it visiting rights.

Stipe, I really have a problem with you. You really crossed the line calling homosexuals evil. Go to fucking hell asshole. I have a cousin who is gay, and he is one of the smartest, kindest, and most moral and well rounded people I know. And if their really is a God, then I think he would definitely pick a person like my cousin, who is a prominent Jewish writer -I'm sure he knows much more concerning theology then you- over an shithead like yourself any day.

Stipe, you said

"my reasoning may be poor but youre research is non-existant. ghandi advised the jews to practice peaceful resistance against hitlers regime .. and also led india to a position of peaceful resistance as support for the allies. both worthless actions regardless of his opinion on the matter."

PROVE IT. I'm not going to do your homework for you this time.

Btw, do recall that Gandhi secured India's independence from UK.

And that the Jewish leaders worked with the Nazis in the 1930s to repatriate Jews from Europe. Gandhi did not tell the Jews to put themselves at the whims of the Nazis. The Jews did it to themselves.

no you evil piece of trash. the justice system should KILL THE RAPIST .. not grant it visiting rights.

I pointed out a glaring oversite in YOUR argument about why a raped woman shouldn't have to carry a child she doesn't want, and I'm an evil piece of trash?

the idea that a married woman might get raped never occured in your little mind did it? you simply assumed all raped women were single and young. well they're not. and why should a husband be saddled with a child that's the product of a rape against his wife?

PLEASE JUSTIFY THAT, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT YOU ARE ARGUEING FOR

You don't want to raise a rapists kid, then you better rethink you're argument against abortion... dumbass

oh, and doesn't YOUR BIBLE say something about not killing?

oh, and fine, kill the rapist. You still gonna want to raise his child?

Unlike you, I'm looking at the reality of your suggestion, not the warm fuzzy wouldn't the world be great version of it...

Oh and by the way stipe, something for your consideration...

Killing the Rapist WOULD BE MURDER, and isn't that the whole basis of your argument why Plan B is wrong?

we call that a logical fallacy

so Murdering the Rapist... Good

Murdering the product of the Rapist... Bad

Raising the child of the man who raped your wife... Good

A fathers to right to see his child... Bad

Woman ending unwanted pregnancy... Bad

State killing people... Good

Well don't you have the moral high ground...

Guess you best repent your violent ways and thoughts come Sunday...

no kes .. i'll let you remain ignorant.

max .. god isnt going to like anyone because of how good they are.

god says homosexuality is wrong .. so does evolution in its own twisted way .. who am i to argue ..?

god picks the weak and untrained people in the world to shame those who reject him. so its highly unlikely hes going to choose someone who can convince you they are a good person when you cant even admit they reject gods standards..

Stipe says:

max .. god isnt going to like anyone because of how good they are.

shiver Religious people are creepy! shiver again

First of all, there is no god. We are alone on ths fucking planet. And second of all you should no that Jesus preached tolerance above all things. Third, God never said homosexuality was wrong, because the bible was crafted by man. All of it is gospels were written by people. And fourth, Science explains that homosexuality is hardwired into the brains of five to ten percent of the male population. If that is so, and god loves all his creations, then god loves gay people.

Whoa, this godblessit thread's taken a few tangetal turns. It went from plan B, to gayhood and evolution, to the whether God exists. I wonder were it will take us next?

Honeslty I don't see what the fuss is about: people who need the Bible--i.e. stipe--to be true in every literal sense are in minority here. The peoples of Kanas have spoken; many of whom are religious, yet they want science to continue to expand our understanding of the universe around us, even if occasionally it challenges our beliefs.

I wouldn't waste my time convincing those unwilling to find a commonality.

Yes, and Stipe is not an American. Whatever country he's from (I think it's Australia) they can have him!

new zealand .. and they would have me if i lived there...

homosexuality is hardwired into the brains of 10% of males?

oh yeah .. did evolution do that?

Come on stipe I've given you the link before, you can look up the answers to your own questions if you'll just take the time to read. Here is the link to your question on homosexuality. If you have further questions on other topics on evolution first look it up here and we'll use that as a beginning point for the discussion.

Let me add to my previous comment, "Societal condemnation of homosexuality may contribute to its genes being propagated by causing latent homosexuals to behave heterosexually" Evidence that stipe is the one creating the climate that allows homosexuality to be passed on to future generations. I think Stipe's God is going to send him to the hot spot for this one.

What's really frightening is that if people like Stipe, who are Christian fundamentalists, had their way, the penalty for homosexuality would be the death penalty. What confounds me is how some Christians reconstruct the Bible as suits them. I'll never understand how they justify which parts of the Bible to reconstruct and which parts to take literally.

yeah the death penalty would stop the spread of aids far more effectively than aids will stop the spreading of homosexuality.

norm .. i DID read that link, allow me to quote directly:

"there are several possible explanations for this"

so when i said they are making stories up .. was i wrong?

lets see how many of these stories actually agree with each other.

"Although homosexuality probably has a genetic component, much of its cause, perhaps most of it, appears to be nongenetic. To the extent it is not genetic, selection would not affect it."

so what causes the parts of homosexuality that are not genetic? human cultural and emotional responses? what causes human culture and emotions? environment? whats the leading factor outside genetics that is used by evolutionary thinking? environment?

aw jeez norm .. look at that .. circular reasoning.

"Homosexuals still have children. Sexual orientation is not an either-or trait but exists as a continuum. Those with some heterosexual orientation can still contribute homosexual genes (to the extent it is genetic). And even the most extreme homosexuals sometimes have children."

yes .. and this is a genetic advantage how? doesnt a trait have to be advantageous or fitter or SOMETHING for evolutionary theory to be able to use it? or does evolution take place in large sudden jumps?

"The most manifest heterosexuals may have homosexual tendencies, too. Homophobic male heterosexuals showed more arousal to homosexual images than did nonhomophobic heterosexuals. Societal condemnation of homosexuality may contribute to its genes being propagated by causing latent homosexuals to behave heterosexually."

people will show arousal to ANYTHING. why on EARTH would a normal person show arousal at something outside their previous experience? shock? how would you react? what kind of people would even submit themselves to such testing in the first place? psychological tests are notoriously unreliable .. but there is so much more wrong with this one ...

and ..oh .. what have we here? social condemnation helps propogate the genetic part of homosexuality? so social condemnation of homosexuality arrived on the scene before homosexuality itself? no just condemnation in general... so the animals also display this condemnation to help this mutation survive?

"Genes for homosexuality could be beneficial on the whole. In bonobo chimpanzees, homosexual interactions are a form of social cement. It is possible that homosexuality evolved to serve social functions in humans, too. After all, social cohesion is still a main function of sex in humans."

BENEFICIAL .. thats the word .. a gene has to be beneficial for evolutionary theory to be able to use it. so now in animals the practice is accepted and helps form a social cement which allows the genetic component to pass itself on .. by .. osmosis i presume... but in humans its condemned which forces homosexuals to have children to pass the genes on. nice theory. very consistent.

social cohesion is a main function of sex in humans? are you talking about people who find a different partner every night and pass around disease? if thats social cohesion, im having spaghetti.

"The genetic etiology of homosexuality may come from a collection of traits that, when expressed strongly and in concert, result in homosexuality; expressed less strongly or without supporting traits, these traits contribute to the robust nature of our species. The genes for these traits persist because they usually combine to make us better at survival and reproduction."

translation: we dont know what the hell is going on so we're going to pretend its too difficult to explain so just accept on faith that we're right and there is no reasonable challenge to evolutionary theory ok? whining from the gallery: no .. thats a good theory posited by real scientists. response: what combination of traits?

"Genetic factors linked to homosexuality in men apparently boost fertility in women. Female relatives of gay men, on their mother's side of the family, had more children than female relatives of heterosexual men."

finally .. some numbers .. er .. somewhere.

"It should be noted that the question of explaining homosexuality is not limited to humans. Homosexuality exists in hundreds of animal species."

yeah we noticed .. the only problem is they are two completely different questions.

Stipe,

They're animals and we're animals. Beneficial is not an either or question and certainly not circular. New partners, error of composition, polygamy aside. That you could read the link and so totally misrepresent the information it provides, demonstrates for the umpteenth time that your purpose here is not to engage in rational conversation but to defend your literal fundamentalist view of the bible at all costs. Your posts bring out the worst in everyone, and lower the level of discourse. You are a net minus to this blog and I've grown tired of reading not only your comments, but the responses to them. You're no longer welcome here.

ok bye