Posted on 08/23/2009 11:49:00 AM PDT by neverdem
” A simple yes or no will be adequate.” Ummm...Not for me and you don't get to choose my answers for me.
I don't think you have a point.
Have the I.D. folks sued to keep religious displays off public property? or complained about prayers offered at public school functions? or the use of government owned property for religious functions? or “In God We Trust” on money? or members of Congress holding a prayer meeting on the Capitol grounds?
Those things mutate, they do not evolve.
Sexual reproduction is the more evolved form of reproduction. Said it yourself, you did...
P.S. A VIRUS IS NOT A LIVING THING!
"Sexual reproduction is the more evolved form of reproduction. Said it yourself, you did..."
Yes I did. I was comparing asexual reproduction and sexual reproduction as drivers of evolution. You may perhaps recall that this point of discussion began after you stated, without preamble or condition, that "Evolution can only occur with HETEROSEXUAL relationships."
That is a limited, and macroscopic view. Most reproduction that occurs on this planet does so asexually, (numerically speaking).
As regards this statement: "Those things mutate, they do not evolve." That is, by definition, untrue. Mutation is change, and change begets evolution. Among bacteria, this occurs so rapidly it can almost be observed in real time.
The fact remains that evolution requires HETEROSEXUAL relationships, a fact that makes a lot of erstwhile secularists a little squeamish.
Humans are the highest form of evolved life known and since we are talking about humans and our education, getting caught up in the details of the example and splitting hairs on the matter is a tactic of distraction and distortion away from the topic. Nice try though...
Evolution can only occur with HETEROSEXUAL relationships, since sexual reproduction is the more evolved process.
Ants who are man's only rival for the mastery of the earth also reproduce sexually, they have wars and slavery. Ants build bridges, keep livestock, and do other interesting things.
When a slime mold or a protozoa produces a spacecraft or builds an interstate transportation system, let me know.
The creationists also believe HETEROSEXUAL relationships are the normal, more evolved process and this is also confirmed by the Jewish account of creation in Genesis.
But that's the problem for you, isn't it?
The evidence in nature is irrefutable, but despite this these religious evolutionists who are nothing but pathetic Anti-Christians will continue along with the phantasmagoric fallacies of the Left just like the religious faggots who think homosexuality has God's blessing.
I don't believe that bullshirt...
Do please try to stay focused. It's obvious that you have a hangup about the existence of other than heterosexual relationships, but as you have correctly noted, the existence of such does not contribute directly to ongoing higher animal evolution.
Why then have such relationships continued to exist, when it is obvious that such activity is, (to coin a phrase), "fruitless"?
If you are comfortable with maintaining a philosophical distance from any personal involvement with such goings-on, you may realize that other than heterosexual activities may have a non-reproductive social aspect related to social bonding and the care of non-related offspring. Such activity is noted frequently among the ants, bees, termites and social wasps. It is also noted among primates and other mammals.
All of that is of course irrelevant, because my original response to you dealt with the existence of evolution and its driving factors. You had stated, as you have continued to insist, that only heterosexual activities can contribute to evolution. That is patently inaccurate. Among bees, for example, reproduction takes place sexually, heterosexually if you will, but all subsequent raising of the young and responsibility for the welfare of the hive falls to the "sisters" of the queen. That's more slavery than homosexuality, but the close genetic relationship between the worker bees and the queen induce a cooperative function from them. By sustaining the hive, the sterile workers promote the survival of their own genes.
My splitting of hairs on the matter of evolution and its causes is not mere argumentation. Your statement is false. Evolution is driven by heterosexual procreation, among other factors, but not exclusively by it. As I have pointed out, non-sexual reproduction also produces evolution, because those creatures practicing it are quite phenomenally successful and wide-spread across the globe. It is a proven method of evolution, as evidenced by their irrefutable existence.
"When a slime mold or a protozoa produces a spacecraft or builds an interstate transportation system, let me know."
Interesting that you should make such a suggestion, for the possibility that single-cell protozoa have somehow managed to cross space, not only between planets, but perhaps even between stars, is the concept at the heart of the hypothesis called panspermia. It is one of the suggestions that life, persistent indefatigable life, has found a way to sow its seed across the Galaxy. Only when we find evidence of life on other worlds will this theory gain substantial credence. But that will surely be an exciting moment!
Some evolutionary Christians around here have no problem with just saying "Yes". What is your problem?
How would you describe Him if not as The Intelligent Designer, amongst other attributes?
'Intelligence' and 'designer' are attributes we attach to humans. God cannot be describe with human attributes. Those that do are reducing the Aura of God.
” A simple yes or no will be adequate.” Ummm...Not for me and you don't get to choose my answers for me.
Ok. It still amazes me that you and other 'Christians' on this board push the ID concept but will not declare that God is the ID. Perhaps you are leaving the issue open?
There is nothing about the terms “intelligent” and “design” that limits them to humans and prohibits the application to God. That you try to do so shows how little you comprehend of what the Scriptures say about God and what is the English language.
But yet you feel free to speak of “the Aura of God”, when Aura is a character from pagan mythology, a nymph, a companion of Artemis.
Perhaps you can point out where in the Bible this so-called “Aura of God” is found? No? I didn't really think so.
In mysticism it is used to describe an imaginary emanation flowing from living things, more nonsense.
Why are simple words so difficult for you to understand?
I take it that you determined God to be intelligent because that is what the Bible says?
The Greek philosopher Xenophanes (570–480 BC) said that “the greatest god” resembles man “neither in form nor in mind.”
To try to define God in human terms makes him a lesser God.
It is your Bible, not mine. You try to limit my God with your human attributes. You do not get to define my God.
Speaking of mythology ...
Main article: Anthropotheism
In religion and mythology, anthropomorphism refers to the perception of a divine being or beings in human form, or the recognition of human qualities in these beings. Many mythologies are concerned with anthropomorphic deities who express human characteristics such as jealousy, hatred, or love. The Greek gods, such as Zeus and Apollo, were often depicted in human form exhibiting human traits.[citation needed] Anthropomorphism in this case is referred to as anthropotheism.[1]
Numerous sects throughout history have been called anthropomorphites attributing such things as hands and eyes to God, including a sect in Egypt in the 4th century, and an heretical, 10th-century sect, who literally interpreted Book of Genesis chapter 1, verse 27: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”[2]
From the perspective of adherents of religions in which humans were created in the form of the divine, the phenomenon may be considered theomorphism, or the giving of divine qualities to humans.
[edit] Criticism
The Greek philosopher Xenophanes (570–480 BC) said that “the greatest god” resembles man “neither in form nor in mind.”[3] Anthropomorphism of God is rejected by Judaism and Islam, which both believe that God is beyond human limits of physical comprehension. Judaism’s rejection grew after the advent of Christianity, which claimed Jesus was a physical manifestation of God, until becoming codified in 13 principles of Jewish faith authored by Maimonides in the 12th Century.
wikipedia.com
If your “astral body” is a bit chapped from trying to find the meaning of “intelligent” and “design” in Wikipedia I'll help you out with “Aura” from that same font of wisdom:
“AURA
In parapsychology and many forms of spiritual practice, an aura is a field of subtle, luminous radiation supposedly surrounding a person or object (like the halo or aureola of religious art) that some people are claimed to be capable of observing by means of their third eye. [1][2] The depiction of such an aura in religious art usually connotes a person of particular power or holiness.
According to the literature of Theosophy, Anthroposophy, and Archeosophy, each color of the aura has a precise meaning, indicating a precise emotional state. A complete description of the Aura and its colors was provided by Charles Leadbeater, a theosophist of the 19th century.[3] The works of Leadbeater were later developed by Palamidessi[4] and others.”
No, I would never try to limit or define your god....nor would I confuse it (don't want to assign human attributes to it) with the God of the Bible.
And, then why do you try to limit and define your God? I think you are trapped in your little human shell which is bounded by the fairy tales you were taught when you were young. BTW. Perhaps we both have the same God and your use of 'god' is blasphemy? At least, it is very discourteous. Or, do you believe that everyone that does not worship your limited 'God' definition is wrong? Perhaps you are wrong.
I understand you from your last post. You do not worship God. You worship the Bible.
“Perhaps we both have the same God”
You’ve already made clear we don’t:
“It is your Bible, not mine.”
And “discourteous” is not a word you should use.
“Perhaps you are wrong”
I have been and will be but I’ll never worry about being wrong when standing for the truth of God’s Word just as Christ Jesus did. “Your word is truth” he said at John 17:17.
I don’t believe in “fairy tales”. Never did. Certainly not in ‘Auras’.
So off you go, I've better things to do than respond to silliness.
Correct, homosexuals are an evolutionary dead end. Humans and sexual procreation are at the top of the evolutionary ladder (as far as we know). Further evolution is only possible with heterosexual relationships.
Meiosis is a more evolved process than mitosis is.
Only when we find evidence of life on other worlds...
Logic is the evidence...
There is no more evidence that any type of life has evolved on this planet than there is for it to have been delivered or engineered by extraterrestrials.
The earth is not of itself and came from somewhere else, therefore all life came from somewhere else as well.
But how would these fanatic religious evolutionists feel about teaching that life came from outer space? Universities already teach the Big Bang theory, a clever immaculate conception (pun intended) of a Jesuit astronomer.
To say that life is unique to the earth is like professors as witch doctors instructing students to dance around totems and throw living sacrifices into the fire to appease the educational bureaucracy gods...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.