Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About 4ofN

  • Birthday 09/11/1959

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

4ofN's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (4/14)



  1. 4ofN


    There is also support for homosexuality within evolutionary theory. The following is about work done by Andrea Camperio Ciani and others at the University of Padova in Italy Homosexuality in males may be caused in part by genes that can increase fertility in females, according to a new study. The findings may help solve the puzzle of why, if homosexuality is hereditary, it hasn't already disappeared from the gene pool, since gay people are less likely to reproduce than heterosexuals. A team of researchers found that some female relatives of gay men tend to have more children than average. The scientists used a computer model to explain how two genes passed on through the maternal line could produce this effect. In 2004 the researchers studied about 200 Italian families and found that the mothers, maternal aunts and maternal grandmothers of gay men are more fecund, or fruitful, than average. Recently, they tried to explain their findings with a number of genetic models, and found one that fit the bill. "This is the first time that a model fits all our empirical data," said Andrea Camperio-Ciani, an evolutionary psychologist at the University of Padova in Italy who led the study. "These genes work in a sexually antagonistic way — that means that when they're represented in a female, they increase fecundity , and when they're represented in a male, they decrease fecundity. It's a trait that benefits one sex at the cost of the other." The researchers detail their findings in the June 18 issue of the journal PLoS ONE. If this scenario turns out to be true, it could help explain the seeming paradox of hereditary homosexuality. Since gay people are less likely to reproduce than heterosexuals, many experts have wondered why, if homosexuality is caused by genetic factors, it wouldn't have been eliminated from the gene pool already. But if the same genes create both homosexuality in men and increased fertility in women, then any losses in offspring that come about from the males would be made up for by the females of the family. So homosexuality might not be the choice that some people would like to beleive.
  2. 4ofN


    4ofN, on 08 May 2013 - 1:01 PM, said: See. See. I know that the bible is the word of god because it says so right here in the bible. Lol. Another knee slapper from the master. Please note that there was nothing in my post that scoffs at what "billions of people do believe". My post was merely pointing out a logical fallacy. Specifically, the fact that the bible contains statements implying that it is the word of god is not in itself proof that the bible is indeed the word of god. I am not trying to belittle your bible, and in fact I am not even saying that the bible is not necessarily the word of god. However if I were to write "this sentance was written by Queen Elizabeth", on a peice of paper and then I was to show that to you as proof that it was actually written by Queen Elizabeth, you would rightly tell me that that would "highlight my ignorance" (and gee, thanks for that!). Similarily, all you can really do about the bible is to say that you believe it to be true and therefore you believe it to be the word of god (or visa versa). I, on the other hand, do not accept it to be true and so quoting 2 Timothy 3:16 does not convince me and I doubt that it had the desired effect of bolstering your arguement against MJistheBOMB. .
  3. 4ofN


    See. See. I know that the bible is the word of god because it says so right here in the bible. Lol. Another knee slapper from the master.
  4. I assume you mean that people who are healthy (like me) don't need to go to a physician, so they spend that extra time doing interesting things like studying religion.
  5. 4ofN


    Since there is no "dislike" button, I'll make a post instead. What you are saying is disrespectful. The whole "We love the sinners but hate the sin" is just a way for you to feel good about yourself while making someone else feel bad. This is bullying. Please note that I have reported your post to Tripper. Why not just apoligize and perhaps drop this topic. After all, when you started this thread your own rule was "You must argue without getting personal or hurting the feelings of others."
  6. Perhaps you should read your posts before posting them. Beginning a post with "One of the most fascinating proofs that the Bible is the inspired word of God is..." without stating that this is just an article you think is interesting kind of gives the impression that you agree with what follows.
  7. In the future you might consider citing a source so that people don't get the mistaken impression that your posts are your opinion and not someone elses. Right you are. I do have a limited understanding - limited to reality that is.
  8. So, I'm confused. Isn't it appropriate to discuss the bible in a thread called the "bible on the history channel"?
  9. And furthermore, the bible was written by humans (divinely inspired or not) who have an interest in the end reader accepting the contents so it seems to me that they would write it in a way that would lead to people reading it. Writing and editing a book in a way that seems appealing or is easy to follow makes sense if you want people to read it (for instance you mention that "Every 8th verse in Psalm 119 begins this way" - what a great way to help a preacher keep track of their location in the text while reading it out to a congregation). To give a trivial example of this, if I were to create a list of names I might sort them so that they are in alphabetic order. This would make them neat and tidy. But imagine that someone found that list and exclaimed "Here is a list of random names BUT IT IS IN ALPHABETIC ORDER!!!!!. My god, it must have been divinely inspired to have such order and coherence." This is why I reject your "proof". Not because of "automatic rejection" but because it doesn't meet the requirements of proof.
  10. Well, let's see... You come to a forum about a show that has at it's core a scientific premise and start dissing science and even disputing common scientific vocabulary (From The Scientists Thread: "Yes, you are correct. I am using the word “theory” in the non-scientific sense. The scientific sense is nonsense"). Then you present something that you refer to as a "proof", when in fact it is just a collection of numerical coincidences. There is nothing in your post that comes close to being a proof of anything. Keep in mind that the bible was written by humans and has been edited and revised almost continuously since the individual books were written. Also, only a sub-set of the relavent documents available at the time were included in the bible and that different religious traditions include different sets of those books. As you note, your "proof" refers only to "The common "Protestant" ordering of the Old Testament". What about the others? Are they invalid? Are they not also "divinely inspired"? And as for your suggestion that a set of numeric coincidences is some kind of proof, I suggest that this is, instead, purely confirmation bias.
  11. LOL Keep 'em coming weazleman. This stuff is comedy gold.
  12. I think it would be great to add in some math jokes. Just like the good old days when they catered to people with some physics background. Remember the "Spherical chickens in a vacuum" - a classic physics joke. The fact that some people wouldn't understand shouldn't stand in the way of them adding in a few jokes for those who do.
  13. Its nice to see that Sheldon's real character is finally being discussed. I've noticed him changing from being a socially inept science nerd to a real jerk over the past few seasons, but very few people seem to see it. His attitude towards women is disgusting, his attitude towards his friends is disgusting, his attitude towards Amy is disgusting (I don't care much about this as I really don't like her character). Of course, they have also been working hard to ruin the other characters as well, but what they have done to Sheldon is astonishing.
  14. Sorry about all of this folks. Where I come from people don't take the bible literally and it is OK to not gloss over the nasty bits during discussions. I'll just bow out of this conversation as my intent was not to be rude.
  15. Well then, I suggest reading the entire bible. You'd be surprised at what is in there.
  • Create New...