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/CreationismCreationism 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.