Arctic

Yes, that's right. The existence of homosexuality apparently disproves the theory of Evolution, or at best, homosexuals shouldn't believe in it.

Ugh. This is a cut and paste from another forum I regularly visit. FYI, this guy is a young earth creationist and a fundamentalist Christian who claims that god's existence can (and has been) proved by both philosophy & science.

Do your worst.

Ehud

Would gays then be covered under the endangered species act?

WinAce

Isn't there some kind of rule against mentioning absurd posts without giving the link?

lunachick

Hey, that's gold!

I wonder if he realises he's completely undermining the most common argument theists use against homosexuality (besides "God doesn't like it"), and that is that homosexuality is a choice, not genetic. But this guy is saying it's genetic - and anti-evolutionary! Fantastic stuff.

hehe...
...and we all know where we are going to be seeing that quote again - don't we, WinAce. lol.

Arctic

Haha, good point.

http://tutorialforums.com/showthread...=608679#vbform

Head down the bottom, the user in question goes by the name of 'Celldss'. It's a rather low quality debate. It started out when I was an 'apatheist' if you like, I wasn't religious, but nor was I an atheist. As it progressed I essentially became a weak atheist, and it's got to the stage of me getting rather irritated at two of the Christian members. One (Amplify) is a catholic who thinks that science will never contradict the Catholic church, and tends to base his entire case off the cosmological argument, whilst Celldss is a YEC who thinks Pascal's wager is a perfectly sound argument, and (as you can see) thinks that gay people disprove the theory of evolution.

Unfortunately, I'm not doing a particularly good job of rebutting them, as I'm a relatively 'new atheist' so to speak, and although I'm trying to learn, my knowledge of religion & philosophy isn't that good.

A. Uiet bhor

as far as i understand natural selection...

nature creates gays, and other atypical peoples through natural variation, thay are not meant to have kids biologicaly and are their own population control, the same goes for impotents and other conditions or variations that reduces the chance of that member of a species procreating. Evolution likes a balance, nature keeps gays to a steady low level, about 5%, so they are a part of normal evolution theory, and perfectly exceptable, as they don't effect the overal progress of humanity's journey.
The same applies to gays in other animals.

A genetic disorder or hereditary disease is what nature wishes to get rid of through the screening process of natural selection, and what science can solve though medical gene tech. Persecution of gays, mentaly ill etc is irrational, as nature has it all in hand, it makes errors and some it deals with ruthlessly, slow, weak pray etc, and we give evolution a helping hand when curing disorders, but gays are not a problem and nature has it well in hand, it lets them be, so should we.

their cultural effect is another matter entiraly

quartodeciman

Evolution doesn't say that every individual must mate with some individual(s) of opposite gender and produce offspring. Evolution merely says that changes in a population are transmitted that way. Many individuals among various species don't mate very well or very successfully. Some don't mate at all. I think it is male gazelles or (maybe) antelopes that lose their sex drive if they fail to gather any females on their plot of ground. Worker bees can't and don't mate, yet they unflinchingly kill themselves defending the hive and the new generation produced by the queen and drones. These latter have short lives, since they are kicked out of the hive and left to die after they have done their only job. Specialization?

All that is necessary is that a population thrive sufficiently and guarantee a burgeoning of successors.

Another point: no one can push his or her characteristics forward by reproduction; they can only push forward characteristics they themselves have inherited.

Jet Black

hey, doesn't that mean that many people in sub saharan africa can't believe in evolution either, since they carry a sickle cell allele, and since sickle cell anaemia is detrimental, that gene should die out?

paradigm9

sickle cell is an evolutionary trait...it protects against malaria

i'm sure everyone already knew that- just felt like posting

Gregg

I have a question:

If you could prevent all people with homosexual or strong bisexual urges from procreating (not that I'm advocating this of course), over time would you see a reduction of people with homosexual or bisexual urges in the population?

It seems to me that for most of human history most homosexuals and bisexuals probably have engaged in heterosexual sex and procreation, due to tribal/societal pressure. Marriages were usually arranged affairs and were not based on mutual attraction. If they really WERE prevented from passing on their genes for a couple dozen generations, would it have any effect at all on the percentage of homosexuals/bisexuals in the population?

Sorry if this is a stupid question...