Eagel4Jesus

Since I attempted to leave the argument and you just kept talking...I am going to respond to some people and not others.

I plan to take Philosophy, Logic and physics courses (Physics will most likely be one of the minors I receive...) but I never enjoyed biology, and I won't need to take any of the classes so I won't be taking any biology.

What I suppose I should have said instead of stating my age was that I just came on here and made a wrong decision, I acted before learning anything about this site. If I had read any number of other posts I would have realized that everyone hear rips an argument apart piece by piece and do not stop until the other person starts to cry.

And this is an honest question:
If humans have been around for millions of years or whatever is the theoried age, how then did it take so long for a Pythagoras and Archimedes and then just 2-3,000 years later we have the internet...now I can understand the exponential growth of technology...but a few million years for a^2 + b^2 = c^2? It just seems odd to me...

Matt

Doubting Didymus

Well, every other species on the planet has made no technological progression at all. Its not so much a matter of time as it is a question of what features are actually being evolved in that time. We just happen to rely on our brains for survival, and ended up with a really good one. Now we've only had brains quite this good for about a hundred thousand years, and in that time we have lost, rediscovered, and lost again a whole variety of mathematics and sciences and whatnot. This is just the first time technology has really taken hold.

Doubting Didymus

Well, it's your choice, but I think you're really missing out. I'm biased in favour of my on field, of course.

We're not very forgiving, are we? However, putting every idea under heavy scrutiny is a pretty good way of separating the wheat from the chaff. If we accepted things at face value, who knows what falsehoods we'd end up believing?

Roland98

If you're not even going to bother to take biology, and indeed don't enjoy it, then why do you feel you're prepared or qualified to debate on a forum of this nature (which contains many professional biologists, as well as many highly educated non-scientists?) We've spent years studying bio--you've probably internalized what your pastors or AIG/ICR/Dr. Dino etc. told you without examining the other side of the story. What were you expecting, exactly?

Yeah, we're all about making people cry.

Instead of complaining because your "argument" got ripped to shreds, perhaps you should follow up on an earlier suggestion, ask some honest questions, lurk in some of the threads, and actually learn a bit about what evolution means and claims? Trust me, it's nothing like those wacky creationists claim.

Well, hominids have been around that long...modern humans, significantly less. But anyway--keep in mind that for most of man's history, our ancestors weren't concerned about math or learning--but simply about finding enough food and shelter to get by. There are many reasons why this changed (domestication of crops/animals, leading to farming settlements, leading to early villages, .....(skip a few steps)...throw in the invention of language and writing...leading to leisure time and people who were able to specialize in more "cultural" aspects, such as math and the arts...which were able to build on each other in a relatively short amount of time...to, voila! Modern technology.

Just because something "seems odd to you" in no way means that it's no plausible, or that there's not an explanation--if you just bother to go look for it.

Machiavelli

Homosexuality is natural,

So is Muscular Sclerosis, Cancer, Sickle Cell Anemia, etc...Natural isn't always desirable.

Homosexuality is a deviation from the common denominator of genetics: replication. Therefore it is genetically deviant to be homosexual.

Didn't say socially, economically, or politically deviant. Just genetically.


I posed a question on another very similar thread that was never answered.

If given the choice in some "Gattica" type world, which would you choose your child to be Homosexual, or Heterosexual.

Why?

abe smith

Well, yguy; if you prefer not to learn/know anything about the biologies, including about HUMAN biology, Person .... you are choosing deliberately to be/remain ignorant (= uninformed). If that's your choice (your privilege to choose to remain IGNORANT, of course), you're wasting your time here at EyeEye; and wasting ours as well. Why not fade-away? Cordially, Abe

abe smith

for having posted the just-prior post naming *yguy* instead of (correctly) *eagel4...* ( For this and for all the sins of my past life I am truly sorry. ) Hence, I advise *EAGEL4....* to decide to learn something about the biologies, or slope-off. After all, EAG..., according to your beliefs, you're rejecting knowledge of sompthing YOUR DIVINE ORIGINATOR made!; contrary to all the philosophical, logical blahblahblah etc, wh are MANmade.

Ensign Steve

This might be the case if homosexuals did not replicate, but they have and they do. It is true that one cannot reproduce by homosexual sex alone, but as many examples have shown, the desire to reproduce, to create and nurture offspring, can be strong in homosexuals. What was that cheesy line in Jurassic Park? "Life finds a way." Homosexuals can and do reproduce.

Nowhere357

This point is valid, of course.

This point is not. Some animals change their sexual orientation (even their sex, period) due to environmental pressures - I am sure this is not due to genentic "deviance". It merely is another tool in the natural selection toolbox.

I would choose hetero, for two reasons. One, I am still homophobic; and Two, society is still very cruel to homosexual people, so of course I would not wish that on my child.

Intellectually, I understand homosexuality is natural and harmless, in and of itself. It is a personal issue, and does not violate the rights of others. I expect my emotions will catch up eventually.

Dr Rick

No more than it's genetically deviant to have blue eyes. Homosexuals, like blue-eyed people, can and do reproduce. On the other hand, many organisms, such as worker ants and bees, can't and don't. None of them are "genetically deviant."

Heterosexual, because homophobes make life harder for homosexuals.

If given the choice, I would choose to have him look like Pierce Brosnan, not Don Rickles, but it's not immoral to look like Don Rickles.