The Myth of Christianity Founding Modern Science and Medicine

[MCWAY]

This is purely your perception. Very few irreligious people think this way.

I’m sorry!!! To what moral standard does matter hold you again? How accountable are you to matter?

[Deicide]

I’m sorry!!! To what moral standard does matter hold you again? How accountable are you to matter?

You have such a myopic vision.

Most irreligious people don't even think about this stuff.

That's the point. They don't think. Matter, oh well I am not accountable. Many irreligious people never even give a thought to gods or religion. It is simply irrelevant.

[MCWAY]

You have such a myopic vision.

Most irreligious people don't even think about this stuff.

That's the point. They don't think. Matter, oh well I am not accountable. Many irreligious people never even give a thought to gods or religion. It is simply irrelevant.

.......except for the "secular Scrooges", who bleat and wail about religion during the Christmas season (i.e. the issue in Washington state).

[Necrosis]

Scientists believe in either Creation or evolution. Dr. Robin Crossman (founder of BabyTooth Technologies, a stem-cell research company) is a scientist. He believes in Creation. Does that mean he doesn't use the scientific method? You're going to imply that he has not observed data, attempted to replicate results from that data, etc.?, just because he believes God created the heavens and the earth? What are his alleged violations of the scientific methods.

That argument would be that there's a big difference between stating that something can't be created or destroyed and saying that man cannot create or destroy something.

Having to find the answer to what?

It appears to me that the issue isn't necessarily finding THE answer. It's finding an answer, other than one that you don't like, one pointing to a supernatural being. That's based on a naturalistic philosophy, not mere scientific research.

First of all, to what "question" are you referring, how did life begin?

Your statement appears to say that, if someone says God created life on Earth, then there needs to be an explanation for God.

If that's the case, your argument fails, because an explanation for God would be no more complex than your explanation for life on Earth without a god. As I said, from where does this matter originate? You claim that it has always been, which puts us right back to what I said earlier. There is little difference between your claim of matter always existing and my claim of God always existing.

To demand that there must be an "answer" to a complex God (whom Creationists say has always existed) but there must be no such answer to matter (which evolutionists say has always existed) makes no sense.

The difference is simply philosophical. Matter requires no moral standards; matter requires no accountability for one's actions. Man wants to be held as the highest being in the world, if not the universe. Therefore, there must be no God (or other supernatural being) for such to be the case.

"Scientists believe in either Creation or evolution. Dr. Robin Crossman (founder of BabyTooth Technologies, a stem-cell research company) is a scientist. He believes in Creation. Does that mean he doesn't use the scientific method? You're going to imply that he has not observed data, attempted to replicate results from that data, etc.?, just because he believes God created the heavens and the earth? What are his alleged violations of the scientific methods.

That argument would be that there's a big difference between stating that something can't be created or destroyed and saying that man cannot create or destroy something."

scientists who beleive in creationism do not have a scientific platform to do so, how do you confuse beleif in god with creationsim? Francis collins beleives in god but not creationsim. I said creationism is not scientific. It is not.

nothing can create or destroy matter, not supernovas,atomic bombs, black holes etc.... you seem to have a misunderstanding.


"If that's the case, your argument fails, because an explanation for God would be no more complex than your explanation for life on Earth without a god. As I said, from where does this matter originate? You claim that it has always been, which puts us right back to what I said earlier. There is little difference between your claim of matter always existing and my claim of God always existing.

To demand that there must be an "answer" to a complex God (whom Creationists say has always existed) but there must be no such answer to matter (which evolutionists say has always existed) makes no sense."

I am suggesting there is a naturalistic explanation for existence and the laws of thermodynamics and of quantum physics support this, both backed by observable evidence. I have evidence for my beleif, it is not a faith concept. My answer is that energy is interchangeble with matter and there is a perfectly sound explanation for which doesnt add more complexity, it simplifies. You offer up a god that is a conscious organism existing outside of time creating universes out of nothing. You still fail to see the gross discrepancy? your suggestion fails occams razor terribly, you suggest something outside the universe to explain the universe, a argument with no axioms and further complexity which we could never explain.


"The difference is simply philosophical. Matter requires no moral standards; matter requires no accountability for one's actions. Man wants to be held as the highest being in the world, if not the universe. Therefore, there must be no God (or other supernatural being) for such to be the case."

what? this is the most obvious non-sequitor i have witnessed. Nothing has moral standards, they are malleable for the most part except for universal truths such as incest. They exist apart from god,the universe etc... they have evolutionary purposes and are possesesed even by animals becauset they increase fitness and likelihood of progeny.

If you hold that god is the only reason you are moral then, you have to admit that if god never existed you would be amoral. You would literally commit genocide,rape,torture because there is no absolute moral authority. Its obvious that is not true, hence your argument fails.

[MCWAY]

"Scientists believe in either Creation or evolution. Dr. Robin Crossman (founder of BabyTooth Technologies, a stem-cell research company) is a scientist. He believes in Creation. Does that mean he doesn't use the scientific method? You're going to imply that he has not observed data, attempted to replicate results from that data, etc.?, just because he believes God created the heavens and the earth? What are his alleged violations of the scientific methods.

That argument would be that there's a big difference between stating that something can't be created or destroyed and saying that man cannot create or destroy something."

scientists who beleive in creationism do not have a scientific platform to do so, how do you confuse beleif in god with creationsim? Francis collins beleives in god but not creationsim. I said creationism is not scientific. It is not.

Crossman is no less a scientist than Collins is. Belief in how life began on this planet doesn't disqualify one from being a scientist.

nothing can create or destroy matter, not supernovas,atomic bombs, black holes etc.... you seem to have a misunderstanding.

Once again, you are claiming that matter is eternal, which effectively put you in the same boat as someone who believes that God is eternal.

"If that's the case, your argument fails, because an explanation for God would be no more complex than your explanation for life on Earth without a god. As I said, from where does this matter originate? You claim that it has always been, which puts us right back to what I said earlier. There is little difference between your claim of matter always existing and my claim of God always existing.

To demand that there must be an "answer" to a complex God (whom Creationists say has always existed) but there must be no such answer to matter (which evolutionists say has always existed) makes no sense."

I am suggesting there is a naturalistic explanation for existence and the laws of thermodynamics and of quantum physics support this, both backed by observable evidence. I have evidence for my beleif, it is not a faith concept. My answer is that energy is interchangeble with matter and there is a perfectly sound explanation for which doesnt add more complexity, it simplifies. You offer up a god that is a conscious organism existing outside of time creating universes out of nothing. You still fail to see the gross discrepancy? your suggestion fails occams razor terribly, you suggest something outside the universe to explain the universe, a argument with no axioms and further complexity which we could never explain.

What gross discrepancy? Time is a concept necessary for man, for one simple reason: He is a FINITE CREATURE. At some point, he will die.

Eternal matter vs. an eternal God has little difference, execpt for a sentient being would likely require acknowledgement from lower being (i.e. man). Again, it's a philosophical thing. As long as man thinks there is nothing beyond the natural realm, the
"The difference is simply philosophical. Matter requires no moral standards; matter requires no accountability for one's actions. Man wants to be held as the highest being in the world, if not the universe. Therefore, there must be no God (or other supernatural being) for such to be the case."

what? this is the most obvious non-sequitor i have witnessed. Nothing has moral standards, they are malleable for the most part except for universal truths such as incest. They exist apart from god,the universe etc... they have evolutionary purposes and are possesesed even by animals becauset they increase fitness and likelihood of progeny.

Then, what evolutionary purpose does homosexuality have? It doesn't increase fitness, and it sure as heck doesn't increase the likelihood or progeny.

People do have moral standards. If I took your car without your permission, you'd claim that what I did was wrong. As for "universal truths, such as incest", if you believe that life came from a common ancestor or thing, that means that incest occur at some time and at some level.

If you hold that god is the only reason you are moral then, you have to admit that if god never existed you would be amoral. You would literally commit genocide,rape,torture because there is no absolute moral authority. Its obvious that is not true, hence your argument fails.

Wrong!! Morality is based on a set of standards and guidelines, put in place by a sentient being. The big issue is who gets to make the rules. Absolute moral authority is what's at stake. Who has it, God or man?

If man assigns himself as the highest being in the universe then effectively, he has absolute moral authority; he gets to make all the rules. If man decides it's kosher to kill babies in the womb, it's becomes "moral". If man decides that a certain race/ethnicity/religious group needs to go away, via the sword, that becomes "moral". And the list goes on and on.

You claim you are "moral", based on man's standard. I claim I'm moral, based on God's standards.

[Necrosis]

Crossman is no less a scientist than Collins is. Belief in how life began on this planet doesn't disqualify one from being a scientist.


Once again, you are claiming that matter is eternal, which effectively put you in the same boat as someone who believes that God is eternal.

What gross discrepancy? Time is a concept necessary for man, for one simple reason: He is a FINITE CREATURE. At some point, he will die.

Eternal matter vs. an eternal God has little difference, execpt for a sentient being would likely require acknowledgement from lower being (i.e. man). Again, it's a philosophical thing. As long as man thinks there is nothing beyond the natural realm, the
"The difference is simply philosophical. Matter requires no moral standards; matter requires no accountability for one's actions. Man wants to be held as the highest being in the world, if not the universe. Therefore, there must be no God (or other supernatural being) for such to be the case."

Then, what evolutionary purpose does homosexuality have? It doesn't increase fitness, and it sure as heck doesn't increase the likelihood or progeny.

People do have moral standards. If I took your car without your permission, you'd claim that what I did was wrong. As for "universal truths, such as incest", if you believe that life came from a common ancestor or thing, that means that incest occur at some time and at some level.


Wrong!! Morality is based on a set of standards and guidelines, put in place by a sentient being. The big issue is who gets to make the rules. Absolute moral authority is what's at stake. Who has it, God or man?

If man assigns himself as the highest being in the universe then effectively, he has absolute moral authority; he gets to make all the rules. If man decides it's kosher to kill babies in the womb, it's becomes "moral". If man decides that a certain race/ethnicity/religious group needs to go away, via the sword, that becomes "moral". And the list goes on and on.

You claim you are "moral", based on man's standard. I claim I'm moral, based on God's standards.

"Crossman is no less a scientist than Collins is. Belief in how life began on this planet doesn't disqualify one from being a scientist.


Once again, you are claiming that matter is eternal, which effectively put you in the same boat as someone who believes that God is eternal."

if he beleives that creationism is scientific then yes he is not scientific. You obviously cant comprehend the difference or are purposely being dishonest. We have evidence for my belief that is accesible to anyone, you have none. You also have an answer that requires even more of a explanation. Get it?

"Eternal matter vs. an eternal God has little difference, execpt for a sentient being would likely require acknowledgement from lower being (i.e. man). Again, it's a philosophical thing. As long as man thinks there is nothing beyond the natural realm, the
"The difference is simply philosophical. Matter requires no moral standards; matter requires no accountability for one's actions. Man wants to be held as the highest being in the world, if not the universe. Therefore, there must be no God (or other supernatural being) for such to be the case."

eternal energy is the concept, which can be converted to baryonic matter. Totally different, i suggest a cause from within, you suggest a cause from without. You cannot do that as you have no axioms to base your hypothesis on= failed argument.

"Then, what evolutionary purpose does homosexuality have? It doesn't increase fitness, and it sure as heck doesn't increase the likelihood or progeny."

acceptance, love, companionship,connection,support. It increases the likelihood of survival, being alone is a negative thing. Sexual gratification is a
required response. Look at dolphins. Evolution has more then just survival of the gene pool, individuals have survival instincts also. Granted its a good question. We see it in nature, indicating it has some role. It also can be seen as a pathology of the brain, if you want to take feminised brain development into accoutn when talking about men. Also you have to look at the role of prenatal androgen exposure, this has been demostrated. Im not saying homos are sick, just that they have abnormal brain formation and steroidogenesis for males and/or females.


"You claim you are "moral", based on man's standard. I claim I'm moral, based on God's standards."

sure, but if you admit that the only reason you are moral is because you beleive in god then you have to admit murder would be fine,rape would be fine etc... if god never existed.

[MCWAY]

"Crossman is no less a scientist than Collins is. Belief in how life began on this planet doesn't disqualify one from being a scientist.


Once again, you are claiming that matter is eternal, which effectively put you in the same boat as someone who believes that God is eternal."

if he beleives that creationism is scientific then yes he is not scientific. You obviously cant comprehend the difference or are purposely being dishonest. We have evidence for my belief that is accesible to anyone, you have none. You also have an answer that requires even more of a explanation. Get it?

Creationism, last time I checked, was the belief that God created the Earth and life on it. If you have some different definition, please let me know. As such has not been observed by human beings, it would not be "scientific" in that sense; neither would evolution, for that matter.

If there were no evidence of life being created by a sentient being, there would be NO Creationists (and you'd have one less group about which to complain). My "answer" requires no more of an explanation than yours. In other words, there's precious little difference between (to use your terminology) "God did it" and "Goo did it".....Get it?

"Eternal matter vs. an eternal God has little difference, execpt for a sentient being would likely require acknowledgement from lower being (i.e. man). Again, it's a philosophical thing. As long as man thinks there is nothing beyond the natural realm, the
"The difference is simply philosophical. Matter requires no moral standards; matter requires no accountability for one's actions. Man wants to be held as the highest being in the world, if not the universe. Therefore, there must be no God (or other supernatural being) for such to be the case."

eternal energy is the concept, which can be converted to baryonic matter. Totally different, i suggest a cause from within, you suggest a cause from without. You cannot do that as you have no axioms to base your hypothesis on= failed argument.

Says who?

You suggest a cause from within, because a cause from without, means deferring to a power higher and greater than yourself, something pride or ego won't allow you to do.

"Then, what evolutionary purpose does homosexuality have? It doesn't increase fitness, and it sure as heck doesn't increase the likelihood or progeny."

acceptance, love, companionship,connection,support. It increases the likelihood of survival, being alone is a negative thing. Sexual gratification is a
required response. Look at dolphins. Evolution has more then just survival of the gene pool, individuals have survival instincts also. Granted its a good question. We see it in nature, indicating it has some role. It also can be seen as a pathology of the brain, if you want to take feminised brain development into accoutn when talking about men. Also you have to look at the role of prenatal androgen exposure, this has been demostrated. Im not saying homos are sick, just that they have abnormal brain formation and steroidogenesis for males and/or females.

"acceptance, love, companionship,connection,support" have little to do with increase survival, especially given the higher rate of disease, suicide, and often times abuse, committed within their own ranks.

As for the pathology of the brain, that's more a case of "chicken vs. egg".  Many people, men in particular, who engage in homosexuality, were molested as children? Furthermore, if it were simply a matter of brain pathology, such would be detected BEFORE the parties engage in homosexual behavior, instead of afterwards.

"You claim you are "moral", based on man's standard. I claim I'm moral, based on God's standards."

sure, but if you admit that the only reason you are moral is because you beleive in god then you have to admit murder would be fine,rape would be fine etc... if god never existed.

It would be fine. Why? All I'd have to do is find a man, who claimed that such is fine for a specific purpose or reason. If there is no God, then your claim that rape and murder is bad would hold no more weight than that of someone else, who says that such was kosher. Again, it's all about who has the ultimate moral authority.

Doesn't the Declaration of Independence make a statement that man is endowed by his Creator with certain "inalienable" rights? What are "inalienable" rights? That would be rights, given to man, BY A HIGHER POWER, that CANNOT BE TAKEN AWAY OR DISQUALIFIED by other men. Without such authority, all I'd have to do is possess more political leverage, economic superiority, or sheer brute force of numbers than you do, and I can impose my will on you any time I want, for as long as I want, no questions asked.










[/quote]

[Necrosis]

Creationism, last time I checked, was the belief that God created the Earth and life on it. If you have some different definition, please let me know. As such has not been observed by human beings, it would not be "scientific" in that sense; neither would evolution, for that matter.

If there were no evidence of life being created by a sentient being, there would be NO Creationists (and you'd have one less group about which to complain). My "answer" requires no more of an explanation than yours. In other words, there's precious little difference between (to use your terminology) "God did it" and "Goo did it".....Get it?


Says who?

You suggest a cause from within, because a cause from without, means deferring to a power higher and greater than yourself, something pride or ego won't allow you to do.

"acceptance, love, companionship,connection,support" have little to do with increase survival, especially given the higher rate of disease, suicide, and often times abuse, committed within their own ranks.

As for the pathology of the brain, that's more a case of "chicken vs. egg".  Many people, men in particular, who engage in homosexuality, were molested as children? Furthermore, if it were simply a matter of brain pathology, such would be detected BEFORE the parties engage in homosexual behavior, instead of afterwards.

It would be fine. Why? All I'd have to do is find a man, who claimed that such is fine for a specific purpose or reason. If there is no God, then your claim that rape and murder is bad would hold no more weight than that of someone else, who says that such was kosher. Again, it's all about who has the ultimate moral authority.

Doesn't the Declaration of Independence make a statement that man is endowed by his Creator with certain "inalienable" rights? What are "inalienable" rights? That would be rights, given to man, BY A HIGHER POWER, that CANNOT BE TAKEN AWAY OR DISQUALIFIED by other men. Without such authority, all I'd have to do is possess more political leverage, economic superiority, or sheer brute force of numbers than you do, and I can impose my will on you any time I want, for as long as I want, no questions asked.

"Creationism, last time I checked, was the belief that God created the Earth and life on it. If you have some different definition, please let me know. As such has not been observed by human beings, it would not be "scientific" in that sense; neither would evolution, for that matter.

If there were no evidence of life being created by a sentient being, there would be NO Creationists (and you'd have one less group about which to complain). My "answer" requires no more of an explanation than yours. In other words, there's precious little difference between (to use your terminology) "God did it" and "Goo did it".....Get it?"



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism

Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) or deities.[1] In relation to the creation-evolution controversy the term creationism (or strict creationism) is commonly used to refer to religiously-motivated rejection of evolution as an explanation of origins

i am referring to the scientific thought that god created life and it can be proven or has a theorectical framework, the other option is purely religious. It is not scientific in the slightest since the hypothesis, god did it, is not subject to objective verification and god is outside our universe, hence unobservable. Simple, you can argue it all you want, but you are wrong. People believe in all sorts of things, like the world is held up by turtles, geuss people wouldnt beleive it unless it had some rationality and evidence huh? seriously you dont even form relevant arguments, its painful to watch you lie and contrive your answers to fit your agenda.

"You suggest a cause from within, because a cause from without, means deferring to a power higher and greater than yourself, something pride or ego won't allow you to do."

Im not sure if i should take this serious. If you suggest somethign outside of all that exists (the universe by definition) you are making a logical fallacy. You require the universe to have a cause from without, yet for some reason do not grant god this quality. You cant have it both ways. One makes the question more complex, one has evidence and can be demonstrated. If you still dont see the difference you are closed minded, simple as that.


"Doesn't the Declaration of Independence make a statement that man is endowed by his Creator with certain "inalienable" rights? What are "inalienable" rights? That would be rights, given to man, BY A HIGHER POWER, that CANNOT BE TAKEN AWAY OR DISQUALIFIED by other men. Without such authority, all I'd have to do is possess more political leverage, economic superiority, or sheer brute force of numbers than you do, and I can impose my will on you any time I want, for as long as I want, no questions asked."

a man made document? evolutionary psychology, evolution, game theory etc.. all have answers for this. Morality serves a innate purpose to potentiate the fitness of the species. If we had no morals and saw killing as acceptable for any practice then we would not survive.


"As for the pathology of the brain, that's more a case of "chicken vs. egg".  Many people, men in particular, who engage in homosexuality, were molested as children? Furthermore, if it were simply a matter of brain pathology, such would be detected BEFORE the parties engage in homosexual behavior, instead of afterwards."

correlation is not causation, well it is, causation is just a very strong degree of correlation. Another non-sequitor. It would only be detected if we looked for it, another failed attempt at an argument. The sexual dimorphic neucleus is feminine in homosexuals. Androgen secretion is deranged, and cognition is feminine with respect to mate qualities.

[MCWAY]

"Creationism, last time I checked, was the belief that God created the Earth and life on it. If you have some different definition, please let me know. As such has not been observed by human beings, it would not be "scientific" in that sense; neither would evolution, for that matter.

If there were no evidence of life being created by a sentient being, there would be NO Creationists (and you'd have one less group about which to complain). My "answer" requires no more of an explanation than yours. In other words, there's precious little difference between (to use your terminology) "God did it" and "Goo did it".....Get it?"



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism

Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) or deities.[1] In relation to the creation-evolution controversy the term creationism (or strict creationism) is commonly used to refer to religiously-motivated rejection of evolution as an explanation of origins

i am referring to the scientific thought that god created life and it can be proven or has a theorectical framework, the other option is purely religious. It is not scientific in the slightest since the hypothesis, god did it, is not subject to objective verification and god is outside our universe, hence unobservable. Simple, you can argue it all you want, but you are wrong. People believe in all sorts of things, like the world is held up by turtles, geuss people wouldnt beleive it unless it had some rationality and evidence huh? seriously you dont even form relevant arguments, its painful to watch you lie and contrive your answers to fit your agenda.

I need do nothing of the sort. What you believe is also unobservable as you have not witnesses lifeless matter become living entity, void of any sentient guidance or direction. Creation itself is not subject to observation, as I stated earlier; neither is evolution (i.e. a a fish evolving into a non-fish creature with no direction or sentient guidance).

"You suggest a cause from within, because a cause from without, means deferring to a power higher and greater than yourself, something pride or ego won't allow you to do."

Im not sure if i should take this serious. If you suggest somethign outside of all that exists (the universe by definition) you are making a logical fallacy. You require the universe to have a cause from without, yet for some reason do not grant god this quality. You cant have it both ways. One makes the question more complex, one has evidence and can be demonstrated. If you still dont see the difference you are closed minded, simple as that.

Why not? You apparently want it "both ways". You want something to be eternal, always existing, as long as that something is lifeless "goo" to which you have no accountability and need pay no homage or reverence. It's like saying, "you can be from everlasting to everlasting as long as I don't have to answer to you or worship you, placing myself (man) as sentient being supreme".

a man made document? evolutionary psychology, evolution, game theory etc.. all have answers for this. Morality serves a innate purpose to potentiate the fitness of the species. If we had no morals and saw killing as acceptable for any practice then we would not survive.

Species have survived without having a moral code (BTW, what ethics do wilderbeasts have?). Some species of humans have NOT survived, despite having a moral code.

The issue isn't whether we have morals or not. It's who makes the rules for those morals: God or man.

correlation is not causation, well it is, causation is just a very strong degree of correlation. Another non-sequitor. It would only be detected if we looked for it, another failed attempt at an argument. The sexual dimorphic neucleus is feminine in homosexuals. Androgen secretion is deranged, and cognition is feminine with respect to mate qualities.

Make up your mind, again, please. Is is causation or not? And what does any of this have to do the value of homosexuality (if any) with regards to fitness of the species? It doesn't increase likelihood of survivial; and, it certainly doesn't foster the progeny of the species.

[Decker]

But, those pre-ordained beliefs (whether it's for Creation or evolution) are already there, in the minds of the scientists involved. And, that method is limited by man's abilites.

The theory of evolution was not derived, because Darwin had absolutely NO idea how life began on Earth. It was developed for the specific purpose of explaining life on Earth WITHOUT a supernatural entity involved.

Those beliefs are not relevant to the operation of the scientific method in and of itself.

I wasn't aware that evolution was derived to explain life on earth without god.

Now, you're flip-flopping! You said earlier that "we don't know". That last statement is NOT one of uncertainty. Either you know something exists or you don't.  Make up your mind, please.

I'm not flipflopping.  Stating a fact that energy exists, (and matter), is no philosophical exposition on the genesis of life. 

[Necrosis]

I need do nothing of the sort. What you believe is also unobservable as you have not witnesses lifeless matter become living entity, void of any sentient guidance or direction. Creation itself is not subject to observation, as I stated earlier; neither is evolution (i.e. a a fish evolving into a non-fish creature with no direction or sentient guidance).

Why not? You apparently want it "both ways". You want something to be eternal, always existing, as long as that something is lifeless "goo" to which you have no accountability and need pay no homage or reverence. It's like saying, "you can be from everlasting to everlasting as long as I don't have to answer to you or worship you, placing myself (man) as sentient being supreme".

Species have survived without having a moral code (BTW, what ethics do wilderbeasts have?). Some species of humans have NOT survived, despite having a moral code.

The issue isn't whether we have morals or not. It's who makes the rules for those morals: God or man.

Make up your mind, again, please. Is is causation or not? And what does any of this have to do the value of homosexuality (if any) with regards to fitness of the species? It doesn't increase likelihood of survivial; and, it certainly doesn't foster the progeny of the species.

"I need do nothing of the sort. What you believe is also unobservable as you have not witnesses lifeless matter become living entity, void of any sentient guidance or direction. Creation itself is not subject to observation, as I stated earlier; neither is evolution (i.e. a a fish evolving into a non-fish creature with no direction or sentient guidance)."

why do you keep spouting off the same false claims? are you willingly ignorant or deceptive? Evolution also has tons of evidence from multiple fields of science, it is one of the most proven time tested theories in existence, with observable, theorectic,indirect evidence. Creationism is a bunch of liars preaching to the choir. Look at the lies contained in expelled, the verdicts handed to creationism in schools etc.. open your eyes man.

"Why not? You apparently want it "both ways". You want something to be eternal, always existing, as long as that something is lifeless "goo" to which you have no accountability and need pay no homage or reverence. It's like saying, "you can be from everlasting to everlasting as long as I don't have to answer to you or worship you, placing myself (man) as sentient being supreme"."

again you are either not comprehending my argument or purposely arguing peripheral points to avoid defeat. I suggest something within with evidence. You suggest something from without, that is even more complex to describe the complexity on earth, how rational is that? The answer, not at all. Your argument or hypothesis of god doing it has no axioms, hence it is not a god damn argument. I dont consider you stupid but you obviously have not read much logic and i dont mean to be rude, its just that you suggestion is clearly wrought with issues and you keep comparing the two. One is based on a LAW of physics, the other on mere speculation. One simplifies and contains axioms that are self evident to the stupidest person. Your answer contains no axioms, no evidence and complicates the issue. You have to explain how god creates, how there can exist intelligence before matter, how something can come from nothing(God existed before all, hence existed before something at all.)


"Species have survived without having a moral code (BTW, what ethics do wilderbeasts have?). Some species of humans have NOT survived, despite having a moral code.

The issue isn't whether we have morals or not. It's who makes the rules for those morals: God or man.

Make up your mind, again, please. Is is causation or not? And what does any of this have to do the value of homosexuality (if any) with regards to fitness of the species? It doesn't increase likelihood of survivial; and, it certainly doesn't foster the progeny of the species."

there is no such thing as causation in reality, just strong correlations, you cannot prove something 100%. Physics has shown causation to be false in a cause effect relationship and has suggested reverse causation. I simply dont know. It is a spectrum not a strict dichotomy. Kinsey showed people have qualities of both, find same sex attractive yet are heterosexual. You seem to think that everything requires an answer right now, which is not the case. Its ok to admit you dont know, like why life exists if it exists for a reason at all.

what im saying is that homosexuality serves gratification purposes, aids in health for numrous reasons. However, it can be viewed as pathological from a normative physiological aspect. We see it in nature. These are the arguments you present and the ramifications of them. You suggest we have morals obtained from god, and we choose to sin of which gay behaviour is a sin. You think we are special and have not evolved from lower primates. You also suggest that because animals do not verbalize morals or exhibit ethics (they do by the way) that this is evidence for god derived morals in special man. If you follow your argument, you have to explain why animals like humans exhibit homosexual behaviour. This would be seen as evidence that man is no different from animal, just more highly evolved. If humans choose to be gay, then do animals choose also?

Its obvious that gayness has genetic leanings as animals exhibit gay traits as well, just like humans.

[D-bol]

"Christian" Dark Ages?  And the Muslims were not conquering, ruling, killing and forcing people to convert during that time?

no!

the "muslims" 2000 years ago were Mohammedans - the pro roots of modern Islam, but very different to modern day Muslims.  they were much more civilized and embracive of sciences than Christian Jews and other peoples in the region at the time.

Algebra was born in the Arabic world, btw...