Evidence for God from Science

JustHuman: The question should be "when was it a chicken?".

Wrong question! Question should be: HOW can there be a chicken - or anything else, for that matter. What is the original Source?

Philip wrote:

JustHuman: The question should be "when was it a chicken?".

Wrong question! Question should be: HOW can there be a chicken - or anything else, for that matter. What is the original Source?

The original source? The Devine source or the Evolutionary source?

JustHuman: The question should be "when was it a chicken?".

Philip: Wrong question! Question should be: HOW can there be a chicken - or anything else, for that matter. What is the original Source?

JustHuman: The original source? The Devine source or the Evolutionary source?

The ORIGINAL source - which has to be A) eternal, B) supremely intelligent, and C) unfathomably powerful - as it is the Source of all physical things, a good 11 billion years BEFORE, before there was yet anything yet in physical existence, much less, life, or even the necessary building blocks existed, so that anything would have been able to evolve. ALL physical things came from that original Source. Evolution arguments are about supposed processes supposedly at work FAR after what they would have been entirely dependent upon coming into existence - which is what the real question should be about. Evolution arguments are but a sideshow to that far more important question.

Evolutionary arguments can only address actions that are in the betterment of the individual or the species as it comes to reproduction.
They can't address actions and choices that go against the driving force of the "selfish gene" ( such as abortion, homosexuality, abstinence, etc)

Philip wrote:

JustHuman: The question should be "when was it a chicken?".

Philip: Wrong question! Question should be: HOW can there be a chicken - or anything else, for that matter. What is the original Source?

JustHuman: The original source? The Devine source or the Evolutionary source?

The ORIGINAL source - which has to be A) eternal, B) supremely intelligent, and C) unfathomably powerful - as it is the Source of all physical things, a good 11 billion years BEFORE, before there was yet anything yet in physical existence, much less, life, or even the necessary building blocks existed, so that anything would have been able to evolve. ALL physical things came from that original Source. Evolution arguments are about supposed processes supposedly at work FAR after what they would have been entirely dependent upon coming into existence - which is what the real question should be about. Evolution arguments are but a sideshow to that far more important question.

Why does the original has to be your ABC? Is it because you cannot imagine it any other way or is it because...???
There are good arguments for evolution, and also for an evolutinary Big Bang. They are not about 'supposedly anything' but about 'probable somethings'. You downplay evolution to upplay your Original Source (which is... God?).

PaulSacramento wrote:Evolutionary arguments can only address actions that are in the betterment of the individual or the species as it comes to reproduction.
They can't address actions and choices that go against the driving force of the "selfish gene" ( such as abortion, homosexuality, abstinence, etc)

Evolution is inderminate. It doesn't have to be betterments, just what works. Abortion, homosexuality, abstinence do not matter for evolution. It is us humans that are actively controlling, maybe even withholding and obstructing, evolution.

Justhuman wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Evolutionary arguments can only address actions that are in the betterment of the individual or the species as it comes to reproduction.
They can't address actions and choices that go against the driving force of the "selfish gene" ( such as abortion, homosexuality, abstinence, etc)

Evolution is inderminate. It doesn't have to be betterments, just what works. Abortion, homosexuality, abstinence do not matter for evolution. It is us humans that are actively controlling, maybe even withholding and obstructing, evolution.

The driving genetic and biological force of natural selection is reproduction.
A trait that benefits reproduction will be "selected" as "beneficial" and will be "passed on".
What works from an evolutionary stand point is what allows the species ( the individual gene) to survive to reproduce.

Homosexuality would not be viewed as a "beneficial" trait for obvious reasons.
Biology would not "drive" a "desire" or "impulse" or "instinct" to abort a pregnancy.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Justhuman wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Evolutionary arguments can only address actions that are in the betterment of the individual or the species as it comes to reproduction.
They can't address actions and choices that go against the driving force of the "selfish gene" ( such as abortion, homosexuality, abstinence, etc)

Evolution is inderminate. It doesn't have to be betterments, just what works. Abortion, homosexuality, abstinence do not matter for evolution. It is us humans that are actively controlling, maybe even withholding and obstructing, evolution.

The driving genetic and biological force of natural selection is reproduction.
A trait that benefits reproduction will be "selected" as "beneficial" and will be "passed on".
What works from an evolutionary stand point is what allows the species ( the individual gene) to survive to reproduce.

Homosexuality would not be viewed as a "beneficial" trait for obvious reasons.
Biology would not "drive" a "desire" or "impulse" or "instinct" to abort a pregnancy.

Agreed. Though homosexuality does occur in nature, be it very limited.
'Passive' abortion, the expelling of a miscarriage, does also occur in nature.

Justhuman wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Justhuman wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Evolutionary arguments can only address actions that are in the betterment of the individual or the species as it comes to reproduction.
They can't address actions and choices that go against the driving force of the "selfish gene" ( such as abortion, homosexuality, abstinence, etc)

Evolution is inderminate. It doesn't have to be betterments, just what works. Abortion, homosexuality, abstinence do not matter for evolution. It is us humans that are actively controlling, maybe even withholding and obstructing, evolution.

The driving genetic and biological force of natural selection is reproduction.
A trait that benefits reproduction will be "selected" as "beneficial" and will be "passed on".
What works from an evolutionary stand point is what allows the species ( the individual gene) to survive to reproduce.

Homosexuality would not be viewed as a "beneficial" trait for obvious reasons.
Biology would not "drive" a "desire" or "impulse" or "instinct" to abort a pregnancy.

Agreed. Though homosexuality does occur in nature, be it very limited.
'Passive' abortion, the expelling of a miscarriage, does also occur in nature.

Homosexuality doesn't occur in nature, as much as many people want it to.
Bisexuality does, as does asexuality.
Homosexuality is the exclusive sexual partnering of two members of the same species and same gender.
Naturally, homosexual partners can't reproduce and would, naturally, die out.
Bisexuality does exist of course and is quite observable.
It should be noted that because something exists in nature in another species doesn't make natural for every species or any other species, nor does it even make it right ( as moral creatures the right and wrong of things matter deeply to us).
Rape exists in nature ( dolphins for example), infanticide, and many other acts that no moral person would condone.
It is important to always realize that what exists in nature and "natural" for other species has nothing to do with our species.
We are a rational and intellectual species, not just and instinctual one.
That is why we CAN and DO over come instinctive inclinations and impulses.
IE: free will, we choose freely among the choices we are presented with, even if the choices are limited or undesirable.

Free will is really about one thing: Responsibility for ones actions.
People that believe we have free will believe in responsibility for one actions ( to what ever degree one can eb responsible).
Those that don't believe say that we are not responsible for our actions and simply "slaves" to our "selfish genes".

paulS wrote:
Homosexuality is the exclusive sexual partnering of two members of the same species and same gender.

Which dictionary did this come from?

I haven't found any dictionary that doesn't define homosexuality as specific to people.

RickD wrote:

paulS wrote:
Homosexuality is the exclusive sexual partnering of two members of the same species and same gender.

Which dictionary did this come from?

I haven't found any dictionary that doesn't define homosexuality as specific to people.

Not sure what you are asking...
I didn't grab a "officially approved" definition, I defined base don the core words:
Homo
Sexuality.

Of course it is between people exclusively because, as I mentioned, it doesn't exist in nature ( animal kingdom).

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:

paulS wrote:
Homosexuality is the exclusive sexual partnering of two members of the same species and same gender.

Which dictionary did this come from?

I haven't found any dictionary that doesn't define homosexuality as specific to people.

Not sure what you are asking...
I didn't grab a "officially approved" definition, I defined base don the core words:
Homo
Sexuality.

Of course it is between people exclusively because, as I mentioned, it doesn't exist in nature ( animal kingdom).

I agree that homosexuality is pertaining to people only. But I disagree as to why. I say it's because by definition, it only pertains to people.

Just like murder pertains only to people. Animals kill other animals, but it's not murder. Animals have sex with animals of the same sex, but it's not homosexuality.

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:

paulS wrote:
Homosexuality is the exclusive sexual partnering of two members of the same species and same gender.

Which dictionary did this come from?

I haven't found any dictionary that doesn't define homosexuality as specific to people.

Not sure what you are asking...
I didn't grab a "officially approved" definition, I defined base don the core words:
Homo
Sexuality.

Of course it is between people exclusively because, as I mentioned, it doesn't exist in nature ( animal kingdom).

I agree that homosexuality is pertaining to people only. But I disagree as to why. I say it's because by definition, it only pertains to people.

Just like murder pertains only to people. Animals kill other animals, but it's not murder. Animals have sex with animals of the same sex, but it's not homosexuality.

As far as I know homosexual means between members of the same sex, not being specifically human.
When is spoken of homosexuality in the animal kingdom everybody knows what is meant by that.
It is more often homosexual behaviour, than longlasting homosexual humanoid love.
I'm not sure how reliable wikipedia is in this, but searching there one can find some 'intersting' results.

As far as I know homosexual means between members of the same sex, not being specifically human

Little history of the word (from Wikipedia):

The word homosexual translates literally as "of the same sex", being a hybrid of the Greek prefix homo- meaning "same" (as distinguished from the Latin root homo meaning human) and the Latin root sex meaning "sex".

The first known appearance of the term homosexual in print is found in an 1869 German pamphlet 143 des Preussischen Strafgesetzbuchs und seine Aufrechterhaltung als 152 des Entwurfs eines Strafgesetzbuchs für den Norddeutschen Bund ("Paragraph 143 of the Prussian Penal Code and Its Maintenance as Paragraph 152 of the Draft of a Penal Code for the North German Confederation"). The pamphlet advocated the repeal of Prussia's sodomy laws.

The first known use of homosexual in English is in Charles Gilbert Chaddock's 1892 translation of Richard von Krafft-Ebing's Psychopathia Sexualis, a study on sexual practices.[15]

I have never heard of one case of homosexual animals.
Animals that engage bisexual, what I like to call "available sex", yes there are many records of this BUT no record of any animals engaging SOLELY and EXCLUSIVELY in homosexual sex.
Not that I have head of anyways.