[NGTM-1R]

Originally posted by Blaise Russel


So is yours. Evolution is a process, not an entity with the goal of making heterosexual creatures so that they might make more heterosexual creatures in turn. Biology is a field of science, not a value judgement of different sexualities.

Evolution is a process that has created heterosexual creatures so that they may create more heterosexual creatures. Goals are irrevalant.

I've always seen the defying nature argument as very weak. Humans defy nature all the time but I've never seen anyone apart from the most rabid social darwinist ever say that treating sick children or cancer patients as being fundementally wrong just cause it goes against nature.

Well, maybe you haven't noticed, but quite a few social animals will do their best to take care of other members of their group that have temporary injuries or sickness.

[Blaise Russel]

Originally posted by ngtm1r
Evolution is a process that has created heterosexual creatures so that they may create more heterosexual creatures. Goals are irrevalant.

Not according to what you just said. Evolution created heterosexual creatures so that they could create more? Doesn't the "so that" ring any alarm bells? What about if I substitute "for the purpose of"?

ngtm1r could have posted this, you know
Evolution is a process that has created heterosexual creatures for the purpose of creating more heterosexual creatures. Goals are irrevalant (sic).

Same thing, but now this idea of evolution having a purpose - of 'right' evolution and 'wrong' evolution - is made more obvious. 'S'also wrong. Evolution is a die roll.

To extend that: a roll of three may mean you can't roll any more dice, but that doesn't mean 3 = 0, does it? (And even that is incorrect, for homosexuality isn't the same as castration... rolling another die is fully possible.)

Well, maybe you haven't noticed, but quite a few social animals will do their best to take care of other members of their group that have temporary injuries or sickness.

Hold on. Are we deciding what's natural based on a preconceived idea of 'Nature' or according to what actually happens in the 'natural' world?

[NGTM-1R]

If you wish to argue semantics, I would point out that every creature on the planet makes some attempt to carry forward its line. How you wish to state that is also irrevalent.

Is evolution a die roll? Something guides it. Somehow certain things live and certain things die. Some are favored over others. No, evolution is not predictable, but it is not a game of dice. The end results are not totally random.

I spoke of what happens in the natural world. And yes, I know what you're going to cite, and I can cite huge numbers of counterexamples.

[aldo_14]

Presumably, then, homosexuality is a natural part of human evolution (on a social level) which has progressed to the point where homosexuals can establish social (physical) or technological (surrogate parent)means for procreation.

Im' not sure why homosexuality would be 'against' evolution - it doesn't prevent procreation, just makes it less appealing.  But unless the human race has stopped evolving, why couldn't it be a part of the natural development / diversification of the species?

Of course, Darwin - IIRC - pointed out that humanity contradicts 'survival of the fittest' in many occasions, such as in war; where it is (or was in his time) usually the brightest and best that are first forward and thus most likely to die.

Oh, and why would the end results of evolution be random?  I mean, natural selection prevents a complete diversification of species (those we know of, of course) anyways, because it directs evolution to only progress with the most suitable species.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by ngtm1r
There is nothing fundementally wrong with being gay...

...except of course the bit about going against a few hundred thousand years of evolution and directly defying your biology.

Which means that it's also fundementally wrong to be a priest, nun or monk by your definition surely? None of them breed either after all.

[Kazan]

i aree with [edit]I mean UT

mongoose: so long as you keep your "jesus off my penis" and "your crosses off my walls"

ie maintain the sep of curch and state that protects BOTH of us then I have no problem with you

it is a MASSIVE step backwards to break down that seperation- as right now.

[Kazan]

Originally posted by ngtm1r
Is evolution a die roll? Something guides it.

wrong

evolution IS a die roll - nothing guides it, nothing needs to guide it

[Kazan]

humanity could survive without religion - our survival in the long term would be infinitely greater without religion

and that void you're afraid of can be filled without religion

[Gank]

by what exactly?

[Kazan]

most of those questions arise from a faulty understanding of the universe - or a need to feel important, a need to have a "purpose"

people can be taught to define their own purpose in life, and that they don't need external things telling them they're important

and science education needs to be cleaned up - A LOT [the very reason our science education sucks is because of the religiousity of the us]

[Black Wolf]

Originally posted by Kazan

evolution IS a die roll - nothing guides it, nothing needs to guide it

That's a common misconception, and the root of a lot of creationist "tornado in a junkyard" type arguments. Evolution is not random chance - mutation is random chance. Evolution is guided by natural selection. It might seem trivial, but it's vitally important.

Now - everyone keep talking about, err...whatever it is we're supposed to be talking about. Either that, or lemurs.



I vote Lemurs BTW.

[Unknown Target]

This thread has advanced too fast for me to read all of it, so forgive me if this opinion is out of date: I don't think religion is a bad thing! Taken in moderation, or with an open mind, it is a very GOOD thing--I know plenty of times where faith and religion has saved people's lives. I'm simply saying that religion and values specific to a singular religion should move out of our government's decision making, and our schooling systems.

But, to reiterate: I do not support the banning of religion. I love my religion, and I love being able to have faith in and believe in my higher power(s). I don't subscribe to a religion where I have to fear my deities, so I enjoy participating in my particular religion. However, I realize that not everyone may accept my religion, or want to conform to its teachings and p[rinciples. Therefore, I don't WANT my religion to be accepted as the majority, or standard way to judge moral values (assuming for the sake of argument that it would ever be).

[Kazan]

Originally posted by Black Wolf
Evolution is guided by natural selection. It might seem trivial, but it's vitally important.[/COLOR]

"guided" implies intelligence

"Evolution is a function of natural selection and mutations" would be the correct statment

[aldo_14]

Lemurs.  Brilliant.

[Kazan]

Originally posted by Unknown Target
I'm simply saying that religion and values specific to a singular religion should move out of our government's decision making, and our schooling systems.

if all the religious people were like this there would be a much calmer and kinder kazan sitting before you

[as it is i have to defend myself from religious oppression daily]

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Kazan


"guided" implies intelligence

"Evolution is a function of natural selection and mutations" would be the correct statment

Albiet, I think evolution can be independent of physical mutations and also encompass sociological changes.  which is really nitpicky,granted, but I think it's a valid point.

[Black Wolf]

Originally posted by Kazan


"guided" implies intelligence

 

Perhaps (though not true IMO), but to claim that it's a roll of the dice clearly implies that the evolutionary process is pure chance. Which it isn't.

[Kazan]

aldo_14: yes "social environements evolve" is valid

Black Wolf: connotation, connotation, connotation

and you'll see dennotation too -- all these primary definitions imply intelligence http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=guided

[Black Wolf]

Definition 1.4 a Something that serves to direct or indicate.

Definition 2.2 To direct the course of; steer: guide a ship through a channel.

Definition 2.3 To exert control or influence over.

But my argument is that your words were wrong (that evolution is a roll of the dice), not that his words were precisely correct.

[Unknown Target]

Evolution is actually, when you think about it purely in your head, with no pretexts, is common sense: the things that can't survive, die, the things that are fit to survive, live, and pass on their traits.
You can't pass on your traits if you're dead, so therefore, those traits die.


The amount of religious hoopla that is assigned to it is purely from the literal interpretation of The Bible. More accepting Christians generally have no problem with it. Evolution is an example of where one religion's ideals is allowed to influence others.

Evolution is a neutral item. When it was created, it never had any connotations of going against the Christian religion, at least in Darwin's mind. He never made it specifically to go against what the Church, he just made a scientific theory that made sense.


And Kazan, thanks for agreeing with me