The latter is definitely the case, but I don't think that it was just a taboo but that it also occurred less often. I'd really be interested in numbers although I doubt someone could raise such a statistic based on facts.

My understanding of evolution is, that it tries out something and if it works then it'll survive. If not it'll just die out and evolution will try something different.
So the outside influence doesn't start it, but it'll stop it if it's not working.
The theory I provided implies that the make-up for being homosexual has spread among the general population and is only sporadically leading to actual homosexuality or it would kill itself since homosexuals are much less likely to reproduce. The tendency for certain diseases or traits to not show up on your child, but on your grandchild has been observed often enough.
Bear in mind that this theory is just something that struck me as a "what if", and while I don't believe it I also can't fully disprove it. I just thought I'd throw it in so others can share their opinion on it.

I think it's funny when trolls think they have the right to make demands.
If you wanna discuss then you have to provide an actual argument and not just throw in a bunch of remarks that lead nowhere.

... That was a mess. Explain it in English, now. Make up for being homosexual has spread? What make up? How does this relate to "nature fighting back against overpopulation"? The only thing I can think of is that you're saying that something like a genetic disease that increases the risk for homosexuality is spreading... but you're not honestly going to try and argue something that... stupid, right?

I think it's funny when people who know nothing about the subject matter talk out of their ass. I love it.

My understanding of homosexuality is that it used to be quite widespread among the Greeks and Romans. Then it died down to a large extent, as Christianity spread over the civilized world. As Christianity has shrunk significantly in many Western countries, homosexuality has increased again. Is evolution trying something that already failed previously? Was the world overpopulated at the time of the ancient Greeks? Your argument doesn't really hold together.

He doesn't have an argument. He's saying something unverifiable based on no scientific facts. It's like advocating creationism in every sense.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Mar 2 2011, 1:32 am by Centreri.

Faz:

That what you meant?

Damn, he owned you right thur. What do you have to say back to that? Especially the first part. Also, those reports were my bad; MISCLICKS!

I wouldn't call it a disease but that's the idea. And right I'm not going to argue that.

Well it depends. If you connect it to overpopulation (like I did) then yes. Then it does seem like a higher plan behind.
If you believe it's a random genetic occurrence then evolution is probably at work (which I think is more likely). The reason I even mentioned it is because it's pretty convenient that it coincides (?) with over population. Well that and that I find it astounding how random DNA changes can lead to millions of species, all seemingly perfectly designed. But I'll stop here, as I didn't actually plan on participating in the discussion.

Read de first post mon.

Homosexuality doesn't cause any of those things, but it causes them to be more propagated. Why that is I'm not sure, but it's probably due to a correlation between promiscuity and liberalism. Anyway, that's way off topic.

Overpopulation could not be the cause of something like this, as it could not be a genetic response to environmental stimuli. Evolution has no plan, saying that it does is drastically misusing the term.

@ Jack, yeah, that was it. I edited it in, thanks.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Mar 2 2011, 5:09 pm by FaZ-.

First off, concerning fossils: there is an argument that the garden of Eden was shielded and then lost, meaning the world would have been created at the same time Eden was. So the rest of the world was growing/evolving what have you, and when Adam and Eve were outcast they ended up in a world that had already been created and living. It just wasn't the paradise God intended them to have.
The perception of the word "world" has changed over the years. Before the orient was found, or the Americas discovered, the "world" was much smaller in perspective to now. More so, the Bible was written off of oral stories recorded by man, so it is perfectly plausible that someone along the way generalized the known world was the whole world. There was no evidence at the time saying one way or another about the rest of the world. Here's the reality: we don't know exactly what God said to Noah. We never will. but the story? It could make sense.

I think Bill Hicks answers this one in the best way possible.



If God created Earth (and presumably the universe and everything that exists), you would think the bible might make a slight mention of dinosaurs. Or of the countless interstadial and glacial advances periods we now know about (thanks to ice-cores and quaternary science), instead of just talking about the 'flood' - which was one singular event which ALL major religions and ancient cultures give reference to.

Sigh. #1, the world is 6000 years old. Actually, 6015 years old, give or take a few months or years. This guy should get his facts right before trying to mock something.
#2. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=dinosaurs+bible The Bible most definitely mentions dinosaurs, to quite a large extent.

Did you not just pwn yourself? If all major religions and ancient cultures tell of one event which was observed by all, then do you not think that just possibly this fits the definition of empirical evidence of something?

You sincerely believe this? Or does "give or take a few" mean +/- a dozen billion years?

I sincerely believe this. Carbon dating requires some presuppositions that I don't consider to be conducive to good evidence. Geological rock formations have other problems.

Why?

This is a discussion topic, not Bible class. You can't use a secondhand source as evidence and pretend that there aren't hundreds of other documents from before that time period and throughout the next 2500 years that give not even a cursory mention of dinosaurs, leviathans, behemoths, or whatever you'd like to call them. Though I'm sure you're scarcely aware of it, if not outright frightened by the truth, there were people in the world recording history long before Christians were.

On top of that, no fossil has ever been found of a dinosaur which has died within the last 5000 years. Creationists love to claim evolution isn't disprovable: there's one pretty easy way. Find a SINGLE recent dinosaur fossil. Remember those few hundred transitional fossils on Wikipedia that weren't good enough for you a few days back? Yeah, people supporting your side can't even find one. Care to guess why?

Even ignoring both of those gaping holes in creationist logic, the terrible explanations that creationist sites give for dinosaurs in the bible are easily counterpointed: there were literally thousands of species of dinosaurs that existed. The bible mentions, AT BEST, even going out on massive stretches of word manipulation and outright ignorance of context, three types of dinosaurs. What happened to the other hundreds?

Let's take a look at one nice example of apologists blatantly ignoring their own divinely inspired text. Using your quite condescending Google search, every single link on the first page refers to Job 40:


That's definitely indicative of a pretty sizable herbivore. Most of the sites then use the evidence of "Its tail sways like a cedar" and the size of a cedar tree to confirm that it is indeed a brontosaurus, completely ignoring the obvious use of metaphor. Sure, I'll even be kind enough to go along with that ridiculous line of reasoning. What troubles me is that somehow, not a single one of those sites manage to mention the next two verses:


... Yeah. It's a brontosaurus, and it hides under small plants. That makes sense. The other common reference to dinosaurs in the bible is that of Leviathan, a seven headed sea monster that breathes fire. I searched for dinosaurs with seven heads that breath fire and surprisingly came up empty. Apologist explanations of dinosaurs in the bible don't even match the bible's description of these dinosaurs.

Think
for
yourself.


Also, you're conveniently ignoring the evidence of evolution I provided to you. You asked for it and cited a source which I took the time to prove completely wrong, and then you ignored me anyway.

Why I believe this? Because the Bible says so and good science doesn't not say so, but that's offtopic.


The Epic of Gilgamesh talks of dinosaurs (well, dragons. Same thing.). I daresay there are numerous other documents from before that time period and throughout the next 2500 years that give mention of dinosaurs and dragons. Ever heard of George and the Dragon? And I realize that there were a lot of documents recorded by people before the Bible was written down. Of course, it's been handed down by word of mouth for a very long time, but for example, the Sumerians kept records using their cuneiform writing. Oh yeah, speaking of the Sumerians? Guess what, they had dragon myths too. http://www.richeast.org/htwm/dragons/dragons.html

Wait what? All dinosaur fossils have been from the last 5000 years. Well, last 6015 years.

The Bible doesn't mention a huge amount of animals, although many animals certainly existed at those times. Are you trying to say that because the Bible doesn't mention squid, somehow I believe that squid didn't exist at the time?
Small plants? Lotus trees aren't especially small. It says plants (or trees, depending on translation) plural, meaning several. I can imagine a large dinosaur hiding in the Jordan riverside covered by lotus trees fairly easily.

Where does the Bible say that leviathan had seven heads? As for fire breathing dragons/dinosaurs, many dragons can breathe fire in stories involving them. It certainly isn't biologically impossible.

You ignored me when I showed you that you were using ad populum. I couldn't be bothered arguing anymore; maybe I'll argue now that you made a topic about it.

This is Lite Discussion on SEN, big difference.

Don't answer FaZ-, Jack, it's pointless. I'm interested though.

What do you mean carbon dating is not good evidence?
There are tons of fossil records that support the long existence of the Earth, for example deposits of sand in the sea made from remaints of diatoms. Now please know that diatoms are microscopic beings, how can they form sand deposits (and many of them) just in 6000 years?
Also, the bible didn't mention the first genii (or genuses, w/e) of humans, like the Neanderthals. Also, how can the bible actually KNOW that god made them to resemble him? According to the bible (assuming it is true), god can assume many forms, and who is to say that he didn't take humanoid forms just to appeal to humans?
Also, how do you explain crap like this:

Carbon dating presupposes (1) that C-14 decayed in the past as it does today; (2) that the C-14 in the atmosphere of the past was the same as today; (3) that the system is uncontaminated; (4) the laws of probability; and (5) the equivalence of C-14 atoms.

Uhh, by dying lots? 6000 years is a rather long amount of time.

No, it didn't, because they don't exist. Well, they did exist, but they were homo sapiens.

IGXACTLY WHAT Bible did that come from? I certainly have never seen anything like that in the Bible.