Jump to content

4ofN

Members
  • Posts

    486
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by 4ofN

  1. 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.

    • Like 1
  2. 4ofN, on 08 May 2013 - 1:01 PM, said:snapback.png

     


    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.

     

     

    The Master is God, and God's word is the Bible.

     

    Obviously you don't believe that, which is your right.... However, your mockery and scoffing at what billions of people do believe only goes to highlight your ignorance.

     

    Job 17:2  Are not mockers with me? And does not my eye dwel upon their provocation?

     

    Psalms 35:16  With ungodly mockers at feasts they gnashed at me with their teeth.

     

    2 Peter 3:3  Knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts.

     

     

    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.

     

    .

    • Like 1
  3. You make valid points. However, the Bible is recorded in the way God intended.

     

    2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

     

    The problem is not one fraud but one of interpretation and cherry picking. 

     

    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 SOOO hate getting involved in this agrument BUT I just can't let THIS go.

    Please keep in mind I have SEVERAL close family members that prefer different life styles.

    We love the sinners but hate the sin (and in no way am I saying I'm sinless, I'm just TRYING to sin less)

    POINT of the First) In the BIBLE, GOD says homosexuality is an abomination.

    It does NOT say it's an Abomination except for...________(fill in the blank, as you would LIKE it to be).

    POINT of the Second) IF GOD did change HIS mind just because someone living in sin prayed to HIM to make it Okey-Dokey,

    then that would make GOD a liar, which He is NOT!

    POINT of the Third) If GOD did lie, (which HE DIDN'T/ CAN'T/WON'T) then that would make GOD & the BIBLE useless, so WHY would your wife pray to HIM?

    POINT of the Forth) In the BIBLE, it says,that GOD is The WAY (to get to heaven), The TRUTH (what we NEED hear to get to heaven), and The LIFE (Eternal Life in heaven).

    While the enemy is the father of lies (who tells is what we WANT to hear) to prevent those who listen to him (the enemy) from getting to heaven.

    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."

  5. Again, you make the mistake of saying I have claiimed proof when I have not.

     

    Please read carefully before you post, that way you will avoid error.

     

    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.

  6. Please show me where I claim to provide proof in my post on the books of the Bible. You should know that post is a cut and paste article, an article that I find interesting.

     

    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.

     

    Your understanding is limited to physical science only. And without the ability to accept the non-physical you are limited.

     

    Right you are. I do have a limited understanding - limited to reality that is.

  7.  Can anyone tell me why you all are ARGUING here when there is a perfectly good thread just for ARGUING called ARGUE ??

    This thread SHOULD be talking about a TV show.

     

    So, I'm confused. Isn't it appropriate to discuss the bible in a thread called the "bible on the history channel"?

  8. 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.

  9. I think it's a reasonable assumption to say that you are probably displaying a trait know as "automatic rejection". This happens when a person firsts hears something they have never heard before, when the subject matter does not conform to their preconceived ideas, or long held beliefs.

     

    Rather than call it comedy, maybe you could actually provide something constructive. Perhaps you could give your reasons why you disagree with my post. I'm assuming you have knowledge on the orgin on the books of the Bible.

     

    On another note, my usename is Catweazle. Calling me weazleman comes across as discourteous.

     

    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.

  10. God’s stamp of approval

     

    One of the most fascinating proofs that the Bible is the inspired word of God is found in how God inspired His servants to number and order the books of Scripture.

     

     The common "Protestant" ordering of the Old Testament canon includes 39 books, containing the same content that the Jewish ordering grouped into 22 differently-arranged books.  For example, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings were combined into one book.   When Ezra and Nehemiah finished the final canonization of the Old Testament, there were only 22 books.   Writing around 100ad, Josephus states: “We have not a countless number of books, discordant and arrayed against each other; but only 22 books, containing the history of every age, which are justly accredited as divine.”  From 170ad on, dozens of additional Christian scholars affirm the 22 books of the Old Testament. 

     

    So, what is the significance of the number 22?  In Psalm 119, notice that before verse number one there is a symbol with the name Aleph by it.  Then before v. 9 there is another symbol with the name Beth.  Every 8th verse in Psalm 119 begins this way.  The names next to the symbols are letters of the Hebrew alphabet, and in the Hebrew language each verse within that grouping of eight verses begins with that Hebrew letter.  This style of poetic writing is called an acrostic, and Psalm 119 is a perfect, complete acrostic praising God’s perfect law, because every letter of the Hebrew alphabet was used; all 22 of them.    

     The Old Testament Holy Scriptures, as the Jews preserved them, were considered a perfect acrostic.  Twenty-two books of Scripture – 22 letters in the Hebrew alphabet.  There was nothing else that could be added to the Old Testament.  All the letters were used up.

    Peter was responsible for the first canonization of the New Testament, and John was responsible for the second canonization before his death in the late 90s ad.  The numbering of the 27 New Testament books is not disputed, but the ordering is. 

     

    Peter and John placed the general epistles, James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2, 3 John directly after the four gospels and the book of Acts.  However, in the 400s, Jerome moved Paul’s letters forward to be directly after the four gospels and the book of Acts.  Writing for Roman leaders, it is believed that Jerome wanted to give Paul’s writings prominence over the general, supposedly “more Jewish in tone” epistles.

    Here are some amazing numerical facts based on the original inspired grouping and ordering of the Bible: 

    1. The Old Testament contains seven (God’s number of completion) parts:  the Law, the Former Prophets, the Major Prophets, the Minor Prophets, the Poetic books, the Megillot, and the Latter Restoration books.
    2. The four Gospels (which tell the story of Jesus’ life) and Acts (which continues the story of what Jesus did through the Church) is the center of Scripture.  There are 22 books that come before and 22 that come after, making Christ the center of the Bible and the chief cornerstone.
    3. Peter, the apostle to the Jews, canonized 22 books, which is exactly the number of books that existed in the Old Testament.
    4. Together, the 22 books of the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New Testament equal 49, or 7 x 7, God’s number of completion squared. 

    The Bible was written over a period of 1,500 years in many different locations by more than 40 authors.  Yet, through His consistent use of a complex pattern of numbers and order, God places His divine stamp of approval upon it.

     

    LOL

     

    Keep 'em coming weazleman. This stuff is comedy gold.

  11. Me too! But pure math is a bit difficult for getting the audience entertained. As I see it only applied mathematics would make some sense in the show. The audience needs at least a known topic ... or something like Sheldon's "73" --> math riddles! :)

     

    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.

    • Like 1
  12. 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.

    • Like 3
  13. How is the path to salvation & everlasting life, bad? Just because bad things happen in the Bible, doesn't make the book itself bad. Besides, truth isn't always pretty.

     

    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".

  14. You are wrong I do understand evolution. Evolution is a necessary belief for the non-theist. As even the non-theist understands life had to have a beginning, the evolution myth, explain how that is possible without intelligent design.

     

    I maintain that the scientific sense of the word “theory “with regard to the evolution myth is nonsense. Just as a hypothetical particle is no longer hypothetical after observation, a theory is no longer a theory upon undeniable proof of fact. Evolution does not fit those criteria.

     

    Maybe as you’ve failed to answer my question with regard to humans evolving into a non-theistic species you can answer this one..... In your evolutionary opinion, why have humans evolved with a theistic majority?

     

    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.

  15. If you've read & understand the entire book, you'd know that it is.

     

    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.

  16. Actually the Bible is claimed by the believers to be the word of God.

    Myself I do not follow religious studies to the core and don't have a great knowledge of the sacre scriptures.

    So I gather that a program like that would appeal to people as a sheer curiosity and entertainment, having the time to watch it.

     

    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.).

  17. Yes, you are correct. I am using the word “theory” in the non-scientific sense. The scientific sense is nonsense!!

     

    You are surprised that I watch TBBT. Maybe, if you research the show's viewers you may discover a wide variation in opinions and occupations. Are you really suggesting that the viewers not employed in the field of science find the show difficult? 

     

    If you read my post carefully you'll notice that I'm calling evolution false. Where did you see me call all science false?

     

    By the way, you didn’t answer my question. It’s a real question. Do you believe that humans will evolve into a non-theist species?

    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.

  18.  If the History Channel "stuck with things that actually happened" the would take 4,000 years to make!

    In making of this miniseries somethings have to be left out.

     

     Now that being said, I TOTALLY agree with you about what "THEY" have been leaving out!

    Leaving Lot's daughters out was just plain wrong!! 

    As I've said elsewhere, I think that this series is a SIMPLE guideline for those who would like to know more about the BIBLE and NOT an END ALL/ BE ALL text of the BIBLE

     

    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.

  19. Yes, there is probably error in my quotes on law and theory. Maybe my statement should have simply been, “I’m confident that the theory of evolution will always be a theory”. However, bringing gravity into the discussion does indeed highlight the subject as an example evolutionist use as a paradigm for theory/fact. Do you have another example of theory/fact as using gravity does not work?

     

    My assertion that evolution is a myth is not an assertion, it is a fact. However, I don’t expect you to see that as you are obviously convinced by the false science. I don’t foresee my convincing you of that, and I know you cannot convince to the contrary. So, I’m assuming an exchange of evolution/creation subject matter will only result in circular argument. I do have some knowledge of the false science of evolution. But, do you have any knowledge of theology?

     

    I agree that the “fundy right” (which I am not part of) creates confusion. However, the confusion they cause is theology error.

     

    Tell me. In your evolutionary opinion, when will humans evolve into a non-theist species?

     

    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".

    • Like 1
  20. 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?

  21. I've heard the claim by those that believe in the evolution myth, that evolution is both a theory and fact. In order to give that claim credibility they use gravity to demonstrate a similarity, as gravity is also considered both theory and fact in the eyes of science. Obviously, that is absurd.

     

    There is no similarity between evolution theory/fact and gravity theory/fact. Linking the two is just a failed attempt to divert attention away from the truth that evolution cannot be classified as fact, whereas gravity can.

     

    Gravity is apparent to every human being on the face of the Earth, and cannot be denied. Gravity can be observed.We all observe and feel the force of gravity, therefore gravity is a fact. Because science does not know how gravity works, theory comes into play.... But, the theory is only based on how it works.

     

    Unlike gravity, evolution is not apparent to every human being on the face of the Earth, and billions of people deny and reject it's claims. Evolution cannot be oberseved, therefore evolution cannot be considered fact. Any claim that states evolution can be observed is nothing more than a claim.

     

    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.

    • Like 1
  22. I don't know, since they associated it with the dead goldfish she forgot she had, I sort of think it suppose to something she had forgot about too, a while ago.  I don't really see it meaning she was using her vibrator now.

     

    (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.