Jump to content
In Memoriam: Mike (walnutcowboy) has passed away

4ofN

Members
  • Posts

    486
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by 4ofN

  1. 4ofN

    Argue

    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

    Argue

    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

    Argue

    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

    Argue

    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.
  16. Seriously? Even if those bad things are held to be the moral high ground? For instance, the bible is very clear about slavery. It's a GOOD thing (both old and new testament. And I'm not talking about the parts of the bible that talk about indentured servitude). Now please don't tell me that you are pro-slavery. Of course, if one held that the bible was the source of ones morality, I guess one would have to consider slavery to be "good".
  17. Hmmmm, you say that you understand the theory of evolution but immediately talk about the beginning of life. The theory of evolution does not (and is not meant to) have anything to do with the beginning of life. Pro tip: If you are interested in the begining of life, google "abiogenesis". So thats enough feeding of this particular troll for me. ttfn.
  18. I've read the bible cover to cover on several occasions. I've also read holy books from other religions as well and have also taken several courses related to religious thought through a religious college affiliated with my university. So I have a very good idea about the moral stance that it propagates. I can't imagine how someone could suggest that it is a source of morality with its position on things like slavery, the role of women, genocide, etc.
  19. Well it shouldn't be on the History channel if it is just propaganda. If it is entertainment then maybe it should be on the Oprah network or something. As for some people thinking it is the word of a god, I presume that those people would think of it metaphorically rather than literally. There are too many things that have been shown to be literally false (virgin births, talking snakes, a world wide flood, the repopulation of the earth from 2 people within the past few thousand years, etc.).
  20. Well, you obviously don't understand or accept evolution and I'm not going to be able to change your mind. Your position on the validity of science is answered in your own post when you say that the scientific use of the word theory is nonsense. If you dispute something as foundational as the basic scientific vocabulary then it is hard to imagine that you take the subject seriously As for the question about humans evolving into a non-theist species, what I or anyone else "believes" about the issue is irrelevant. What I know is that evolution is not guided (as discussed, there is no "law of evolution") so there is no way to specifically determine how evolution would affect cultural issues such as the percentage of a population that believes (or doesn't believe) in the existence of one or more gods.
  21. The problem is that if the nasty bits are left out, then it isn't really a way to "know more about the bible". If one only hears the "cherry-picked" version from their priest / pastor / or shows like "the bible" and one doesn't hear about the murderous, misogynous, immoral bits, then one can't really say that one has any real idea about the book at all. One might even come away thinking that the bible is a "good" book or that it is a source of morality or some other such nonsense.
  22. Excellent "I’m confident that the theory of evolution will always be a theory". Then we are in agreement. Of course I use the word theory in the scientific sense so to me that statement means that evolutionary theory is accepted. I suspect that you may be using the word theory in the non-scientific "just a theory" sense rather than the proper scientific one. Since this is "the scientists thread" I think that using the word in the correct scientific sense would be appropriate. I'm a little surprised that you even watch the big bang theory. The show is rooted in science which must be difficult for you since you seem to reject science - calling it "false".
  23. Well, I tried it out and it looks to be a typical white-washed piece of crap. I got as far as the part where Lot was about to leave Sodom. When the crowd came to get the angels at Lots house, they skipped over the part where Lot offers up his 2 virgin daughters to the angry crowd to do with as they please. Nope, we don't want people to know the nasty bits. That might cause people to start thinking and questioning and we can't have that. Why this show is on the History channel is beyond me. It would be OK if it was part of a show about cultural mythology, or perhaps something on influential literature. But to present a dramatization of a set of myths without actually being true to the source material is pure propaganda. I mean, there are people who believe this stuff and to show only a whitewashed version of the "events" is disingenuous. Shouldn't the history channel stick with things that actually happened?
  24. Bringing gravity into the discussion was not meant to somehow justify evolution, but rather, to point out that the terms theory and law have different meanings and refer to different concepts. From your response to wannamaker, you do seem to understand that difference (a law is like a rule and a theory is like a cause (or explanation)). Your assertion that evolution is a myth is, however, unjustifiable. You should really catch up on your reading before making statements like that. Evolution has been observed in the lab, is supported by fossil evidence, and has been confirmed by gene theory. We can see evolution at play in the mutation of flu viruses that require different vaccinations each year as well as the development of antibiotic resistance strains of various bacteria. This is the basis for all of modern biology. Unfortunately the "fundy right" down in the US are constantly undermining real science education in that country so the school system seems to be having a hard time getting a basic understanding of evolution into the main stream.
  25. (Not sigleing you out or anything SRAM) Why does anyone care if Penny uses a vibrator? It seems to me that a lot of women (and men) use them.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.