Philo,

You have dodged around my post in a less than admirable manner.

As CJ Morgan pointed out, you are also being very selective. You are obliged to answer satisfactorily his question.

For your interest, as with opposite sex oriented people, same sex oriented people do not all engage in anal intercourse.

Evolution has made sure sexual desire is a powerful force to ensure the continuation of the species. Not many people I have come across, excepting the vastly small minority of those busy with sexual encounters in trying to achieve conception, consciously consider every sexual act a reproductive one.

As an example, think of those who practise contraception by the pill, vasectomy, IUD’s etc. And of course, let us not forget good old masturbation by self or by others.

In the same light, evolution has made eating a function to supply energy to maintain sexual health for reproduction. How many people consciously consider this when hoeing into their Tofu and chips?

The net population growth rate is 70 Million yearly (200,000 daily) shows there are enough to kill the planet already. Total Great Ape population equals one day’s human increase.

“mostly among homosexual males”

Really!

http://www.avert.org/worlstatinfo.htm
Globally, around 11% of HIV infections are among babies who acquire the virus from their mothers; 10% result from injecting drug use; 5-10% are due to sex between men; and 5-10% occur in healthcare settings. Sex between men and women accounts for the remaining proportion – around two thirds of new infections.

David

Hi David (Atheist Foundation),

You wrote: "Evolution has made sure sexual desire is a powerful force to ensure the continuation of the species."

Whilst I'm not interested in a Atheist vs God debate, I would caution any Atheist in making presumptuous comments that are all too common.

I don't think you have a proof now, and I don't think you will be able to prove it either.

Your statement is actually a statement of belief, not fact.

GZ,

Trees, grasses, insects and animals all prolifically demonstrate sexual reproduction to be one of the most powerful instruments for continuing particular genetic strains. I am not sure of your objection to this fact. Could you be a little clearer?

David

David,

To claim that "Evolution" has led to a prolific sexual reproduction, or anything, is very dodgy.

I regard "Evolutionism" as a "belief system".

To accept "Evolution" as factual does funny things to many people. They start disliking those who believe in God, (thinking they are so stupid), but not realising Evolutionists themselves are believers in things unproven.

(Perhaps I should debate about "Evolution" elsewhere, some other time.)

GZ

You can regard evolutionary theory as a ‘belief system’, but science does not. You place yourself in a group of undisciplined rabble who appear not to understand or do not wish to know how science works by making such a ludicrous statement.

Please do not answer with, ‘but it is only a Theory’. This demonstrates a lack of knowledge.

As you have not bothered to explain it, I wonder which system you think supplies a better explanation? Is it a young earth ordained by a god? Is it an old earth ordained by a god? Is it one of those ordained by aliens? Is it something else? Please supply proof that the rest of science knows not of. When I say proof, I mean that which will be universally accepted by science and has been peer review in accredited scientific journals.

Allow me to give you the basic reason as to why evolution is accepted as the sole cause of incremental change of species and nature. I have posted this before but it won’t hurt to do so again.

“The deeper into strata, the less advanced are organisms.

Morphological and chronological investigation of fossils is consistent.

Hominid and dinosaur fossils do not exist in the same strata.

Hominid fossils do not exist in strata below strata containing dinosaur fossils.

Rare exceptions have scientifically based explanations. (Tectonic plate movement, local flood etc)

Many disciplines of science support evolution.”

Now, if you can dispute any of the above you have the opportunity to overturn evolutionary theory and make a name for yourself. Go for it.

People who accept evolution do not dislike those who believe in a god. Many religious people accept evolutionary theory. However, many of us are not tolerant of personal beliefs being indoctrinated into the malleable minds of children much to the disadvantage of society and the planet. When this is dressed up as science, most socially responsible adults abhor and reject such a process and attempt to change it. Those of us who recognise the problem would not be socially responsible if we did anything less.

David

GZ, if you're the same person as GZ tan, then why are you using multiple names at once? Are you aware this is a breach of the forum rules, and that the limits are there for a reason?
If you're not, then fine, but your views appear very similar.

Evolution doesn't require people to 'hate' god. In fact, the two beliefs are not mutually exclusive.

As an agnostic, I could potentially believe in a god that set evolution in motion. I could believe in a timeless entity beyond our scope to understand. Fortunately, such an entity wouldn't give a damn if I believed in it, so I'm lucky.
It's the idea of a god that judges silly harmless things like homosexuality and set in motion a fairy tale about a garden and snakes and so on, just a few thousand years ago, that I find a little childlike.

So when I say that evolution appears to be the likeliest origin explanation we've found, going by the evidence around us instead of leaping to superstitious answers, then I'm essentially just stating the scientific approach.

No 'faith' or jumping to conclusions needed.