Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

This brilliant quote helped me come up with a brilliant idea.

What if we took 200 homosexual males, 200 homosexual females, and 200 heterosexuals(100 males, 100 females) and put each group on seperate bodies of land throughout the world.

Each group must build a society, which will bring "mankind" into the next great stage of evolution. However in order for them to do this, each group is forced to adhere to the following guidelines:



*Exclusion from using modern technology of any kind to build the civilization. Only primitive tools and materials can be used. This includes primitive hammers, pulleys, wood, rocks, etc,etc, etc. For those who are a bit slow on the uptake, this excludes cars, airplanes, modern medicine, etc, etc, etc.

*The groups are not able to leave the continent in which they reside nor are they able to have any form of contact with the other groups.


The groups consist of healthy individuals who are 21 years of age, and are of average height/build/intelligence.

Over a 50 year period, which group would have the greater chance of bringing mankind into the next stage of evolution?

Seeing as how there's an overabundance of Modern Evolutionary Theory supporters within this forum, I'll be expecting a lot of responses on this topic.

The race has begun!!!

The floor is now yours. I'll respond once this thread gets to 100 posts. And please let's try to make sure that our opinions are presented in a civil manner.

In 50 years? Nobody will really prosper faster then the other. The Heterosexual groups has the disadvantages of pregnancy's children and overpopulation though

But of course what you want to hear is that both homosexual groups will die out and that that heterosexual group will live on. Thats what your aiming at isn't it? Saying that homosexuals are inferior to heterosexuals because they will die out?

Hurray for topics made specifically to troll.

Originally posted by Fishy
In 50 years? Nobody will really prosper faster then the other. The Heterosexual groups has the disadvantages of pregnancy's children and overpopulation though

But of course what you want to hear is that both homosexual groups will die out and that that heterosexual group will live on. Thats what your aiming at isn't it? Saying that homosexuals are inferior to heterosexuals because they will die out?

This scenario also fails to consider that most organisms adapt to better suit their environment, whereas human beings have learned to manipulate the environment to better suit them, making human evolution a much slower process.

Originally posted by Lana
Hurray for topics made specifically to troll.

anyway, its always been a suspicion of mine that perhaps homosexuality is a product of human adaption to overpopulation. of coarse this is based on nothing, but neither is any of the excrement whob spews.

Originally posted by Fishy
In 50 years? Nobody will really prosper faster then the other. The Heterosexual groups has the disadvantages of pregnancy's children and overpopulation though

But of course what you want to hear is that both homosexual groups will die out and that that heterosexual group will live on. Thats what your aiming at isn't it? Saying that homosexuals are inferior to heterosexuals because they will die out?


The reality of the situation in my opinoin is that homosexuals will die but what we don't realize in this is that homosexuals might be born and add to the homosexual group and we are also limiting activity to heterosexuals.


Meaning Homosexuals can choose to have sex with a female and reproduce. The larger society gets we need to understand there will be change and not push that to the side. Homo, gay, *** whatever will be a part of our society even if you choose to "breed" them out.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
This brilliant quote helped me come up with a brilliant idea.

What if we took 200 homosexual males, 200 homosexual females, and 200 heterosexuals(100 males, 100 females) and put each group on seperate bodies of land throughout the world.


Nah, that's not fair, let's make four groups 200 homosexual males, 200 homosexual females, 200 heterosexual males and 200 heterosexual females....lets see how that'll work out.

or we can just throw 200 bible thumpers on an island, isolated in every way from the outside world. no tv, no radio...nothing.

come back in a decade and see that half of them were burned at the stake by their peers for being unchristian and the rest at constant war with eachother because one side views the other as unchristian. just a gigantic persecution-fest.

Originally posted by PVS
or we can just throw 200 bible thumpers on an island, isolated in every way from the outside world. no tv, no radio...nothing.

come back in a decade and see that half of them were burned at the stake by their peers for being unchristian and the rest at constant war with eachother because one side views the other as unchristian. just a gigantic persecution-fest.

Hmm yeah....sounds like a sound experiment to me...make the 200 a 2.000.000 and the world will be just fine....

Whob you got some radical shit to expose

This thread is valid because a 50 year period with a predetermined bias is a sound comparison to the actual evolution of the world which has taken million of years.

Whob, you never cease to amazing me at how you can always come up with new ways of failing to make whatever point you are attempting to make, no matter how stupid.

Youbdamannot.

Originally posted by Fishy
In 50 years? Nobody will really prosper faster then the other. The Heterosexual groups has the disadvantages of pregnancy's children and overpopulation though

But of course what you want to hear is that both homosexual groups will die out and that that heterosexual group will live on. Thats what your aiming at isn't it? Saying that homosexuals are inferior to heterosexuals because they will die out?

I think that exactly what he's trying to point out.

I got a better idea though. How about we put dog on an isolated island, for an undisclosed amount of time, full of homosexual men, and see how long it takes for him to lose his mind. I give him 2 days...

Two major things wrong with this scenario.

First of all, by banning access to technology and modern society you are not testing the original hypothesis that intellect is the driving force because you are denying the fruits of intellect. The next stage can only be achieved if you are actually in the stage directly below it, obviously enough.

Secondly, the test is only valid if you give the homosexuals the same chances as the rest- i.e. the opportunity to re-produce (and so therefore the presence of the oppsoite gender). You may then be of the opinion that they would choose not to but then die out, but that's a different argument; the opportunity still has to be there.

The second point could be solved by making it one island of two hundred heterosexuals and one island of two hundred homosexuals, both with an even gender split.

The first point can't really be solved- the test is simply useless.

Originally posted by Ushgarak

The second point could be solved by making it one island of two hundred heterosexuals and one island of two hundred homosexuals, both with an even gender split.

sounds like the premise for a porno or two.

Well..seeing as how you all are a bit slow to the uptake in replying, I guess I'm going to have to break the 100 post limit rule and give my response.

Let me first address the argument which relates to the distribution of the sexes on the respective bodies of land.

The argument being presented does not pertain to whether or not men/women can procreate with the opposite gender, despite their "sexual orientation and sexual activities." In actuality, the argument centers around various sexual "orientations and activities" that are necessary in the evolution of a species. Or to clarify things..as Adam so beautifully put it in simple terminology..we're trying to determine if..




With that being stated, it is not necessary to put 100 homosexual men, and 100 homosexual women on an island together, since it is their sexual "activity and orientation" which is being subjected to and tested by the evolutionary process, not their ability to procreate with the opposite sex.

The second argument that many have put forward is one relating to the "time" needed in order to begin the evolution. Unfortunately, what they are neglecting to take into account is that time is irrelevant in this particular scenario, due to the fact that only one group of individuals is able to procreate while engaging in sexual activities.

The amount of time we give the homosexuals won't compensate for their inability to "procreate" within a 50 year period. Procreation is essential for those attempting to build a society, particularly since the average human lifespan is roughly 70ish, and most average human beings start to show signs of health deterioration which accompany age around 35ish.

The degenerative effect of aging will be of little consequence to the progression of the society of heterosexuals, since they will undoubtedly have their offspring perform the physical/mental tasks they are no longer able to fully perform themselves.

The final argument, and the only somewhat reasonable one that has been presented is the one regarding intellect, which I seemed to have inadvertently overlooked upon posting this topic. With that being stated, let's now assume that only the heterosexuals are of average intelligence, and the homosexuals(both males and females) are of gifted intelligence. Gifted not meaning Steven Hawking, or Albert Einstein, but rather..slightly above average. All other mentioned rules still apply in this scenario. Remember that this includes the groups not being able to have contact with one another.

The floor is once again yours my friends. Thrill me with your responses. I can't wait to see what "rational" rebuttals you'll come up with to go against the "useless" arguments I've presented..

still with only 200 straights it won't be long before inbreading starts to take place...

"With that being stated, it is not necessary to put 100 homosexual men, and 100 homosexual women on an island together, since it is their sexual "activity and orientation" which is being subjected to and tested by the evolutionary process, not their ability to procreate with the opposite sex."

Then your test is still entirely invalid because without the opportunity to create a new generation there IS no evolutionary process. Evolution is a generational phenomenon.

Come up with a valid and intelligent test and people will play. Else you are simply wasting time. Each group MUST have equal opportunity to procreate.

And meanwhile, with your technology ban, you are still not testing the intellectual side. I'll repeat again, if you don't have the fruits of intellect available, then you are not testing whteher we can reach the 'next stage'. You are testing if the groups can reach a statge that was already reached millennia ago.

Any test such as this to see if humans can evolve now via intellectual means must have access to all modern technology, else the answer is clearly no.

The question should be whether Humans can evolve intellectually NOW, not whether they could in a half-assed attempt to re-create a situation of millions of years ago that does not even bear any resemblance to any form of realistic situation in which homosexuality might be present.


Not that I care a great deal anyway. I am a believer in Mark Renton's words- "We are heterosexual by default, not by design." This kind of test assumes that sexuality is an digital status, on or off, one or the other. It's not, it is a spectrum, a very wide spectrum that people exist at varying points along, from fully heterosexual at one end to fully homosexual on the other. This kind of test becomes completel irrelevant once you see things like this; your position on the sexual orientation scale is one of many complex factors in a person's make up and cannot be analysed for validity with a schoolboy test like this.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
..without the opportunity to create a new generation there IS no evolutionary process. Evolution is a generational phenomenon.

Come up with a valid and intelligent test and people will play. Else you are simply wasting time. Each group MUST have equal opportunity to procreate.


You're still missing the ball on this one Ush, the argument presented is not trying to test a man or women's "ability" to procreate, as stated before.

It has to do with how one's "sexual behavior" relates to the evolutionary process. But thank you for proving my point, homosexuality is not conducive to the evolution of a society, due to the inability of homosexuals to produce offspring during sexual intercourse.

So case in point, as you/others have alluded to...the real driving force behind the advancement of a society is indeed "men and women f*cking." Despite how intelligent a society might be, if it does not allow for procreation, then it is not going to evolve.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
And meanwhile, with your technology ban, you are still not testing the intellectual side. I'll repeat again, if you don't have the fruits of intellect available, then you are not testing whteher we can reach the 'next stage'. You are testing if the groups can reach a statge that was already reached millennia ago.

Any test such as this to see if humans can evolve now via intellectual means must have access to all modern technology, else the answer is clearly no.


Not true at all. As I stated in the previous post, the homosexuals are of "gifted" intelligence, while the heterosexuals are only of "average" intelligence. Certainly with all of earth's resources at their disposal and an intellectual advantage, the homosexuals should have no problem finding ways to build a more "evolved" society than the heterosexuals.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
The question should be whether Humans can evolve intellectually NOW, not whether they could in a half-assed attempt to re-create a situation of millions of years ago that does not even bear any resemblance to any form of realistic situation in which homosexuality might be present.


Repeat: The question being posed is "what is the true driving force behind the "advancement" of a society? Is it a society's sexual behavior/orientation or the "intellect" of it's members?

But let's say that we were to hypothetically give the homosexuals 100 members of the "opposite sex." How would that take away from the argument any? It would still prove..that the driving force behind the evolution of a society, would be "men and women f*cking."

Even in modern societies, the ability of a doctor to fertilize a women's egg with semen through artificial means, simulates the natural fertilization process that occurs through "heterosexual" intercourse. So quite frankly, even in modern times, "heterosexuality" is still the driving force behind a society's advancement.

So in summary, I'm assuming that we are all in agreement, that the advancement of a society, is indeed dependent upon "heterosexuality" whether it be through natural or artificially induced heterosexual means of procreation.

There that wasn't so hard to admit to, now was it guys..

*note* I skipped responding to the last part of your post Ush, because you kind of went of on a tangent, which was unrelated to the topic of the thread.

But wrong...

The evolution and continuing of society does not only depend on the creation of new humans but also on the death of those that are already here. To prevent overpopulation. China has a law that allows people to only have one child, because of overpopulation. If the world would become overpopulated we would need to do something to stop it. This is strange however because until this very moment Nature has always given us the answer. And it probably has again: homosexuality.

Homosexuality is just the next step in the evolutionary chain to make the human species survive, homosexuality does not want to create more humans it wants to stop it. By your own theory's of survival homosexuality is very important to the human race, its a natural way to limit the population growth. So if anything homosexuals are the antidote for heterosexual reproduction habits.

Of course if you would create isolated groups of small people then yes you theory is correct, but thats not how it works in the real world.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Not true at all. As I stated in the previous post, the homosexuals are of "gifted" intelligence, while the heterosexuals are only of "average" intelligence. Certainly with all of earth's resources at their disposal and an intellectual advantage, the homosexuals should have no problem finding ways to build a more "evolved" society than the heterosexuals.


Look whob, the gifted Homosexuals will probably be better off after fifty years, but there won't be a next generation to share the advancement...while the heterosexuals will have offspring but they will probably still try to figure out jsut how many corners a wheel should have...
They ill be more, certainly, but it is doubtful if they will be more advanced. Procreation is certainly a prerequisite of advancement, but it's not the only one there is.

Originally posted by Fishy
But wrong...
The evolution and continuing of society does not only depend on the creation of new humans but also on the death of those that are already here. To prevent overpopulation. China has a law that allows people to only have one child, because of overpopulation. If the world would become overpopulated we would need to do something to stop it. This is strange however because until this very moment Nature has always given us the answer. And it probably has again: homosexuality.

Homosexuality is just the next step in the evolutionary chain to make the human species survive, homosexuality does not want to create more humans it wants to stop it. By your own theory's of survival homosexuality is very important to the human race, its a natural way to limit the population growth. So if anything homosexuals are the antidote for heterosexual reproduction habits.

Of course if you would create isolated groups of small people then yes you theory is correct, but thats not how it works in the real world.


That's an interesting theory that you've presented above, but flawed on many levels. Since when did homosexuality become the modern response to mankind's problems with "overpopulation"?

Call me crazy, but I don't believe that China or any modern society for that matter, has ordered a small sample of the people to become "homosexuals", to enforce population control. Correct me if I'm wrong however.

Anyway...wouldn't sterilization and abstinence, be equal if not a better means of controlling an overpopulation epidemic? I would think so, particularly since both of these behavior's would discourage the spread of STD's, and there is little to no health risk involved in either.

Back to the topic of the thread. Does anyone else have any theories or responses as to why "intellect" is the driving force behind the evolution of society, as opposed to it being "heterosexual" means of procreation?

*note* Homosexuality has been around for 1000 of years, so I would hardly call it "modern" sexual behavior.

Intellect is the driving force of modern advancemeant...which for us nowadays is the most important form of it. Heterosexual procretion is just a way to keep the human race alive..not advance them.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
That's an interesting theory that you've presented above, but flawed on many levels. Since when did homosexuality become the modern response to mankind's problems with "overpopulation"?

Call me crazy, but I don't believe that China or any modern society for that matter, has ordered a small sample of the people to become "homosexuals", to enforce population control. Correct me if I'm wrong however.

Anyway...wouldn't sterilization and abstinence, be equal if not a better means of controlling an overpopulation epidemic? I would think so, particularly since both of these behavior's would discourage the spread of STD's, and there is little to no health risk involved in either.

Back to the topic of the thread. Does anyone else have any theories or responses as to why "intellect" is the driving force behind the evolution of society, as opposed to it being "heterosexual" means of procreation?

*note* Homosexuality has been around for 1000 of years, so I would hardly call it "modern" sexual behavior.

Its not a man made solution, its nature, evolution. Man made solutions are things like Napalm, Atomic Bombs, Cruise missiles, stuff like that.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Intellect is the driving force of modern advancemeant...which for us nowadays is the most important form of it. Heterosexual procretion is just a way to keep the human race alive..not advance them.

But well, you are wrong, we are not in agreement.....

Moving on. I'd like for some other people to explain how "intellect" is indeed the driving force behind a species "evolution" based on the scenarios given within this thread.

Originally posted by Fishy
Homosexuality is just the next step in the evolutionary chain to make the human species survive, homosexuality does not want to create more humans it wants to stop it. By your own theory's of survival homosexuality is very important to the human race, its a natural way to limit the population growth. So if anything homosexuals are the antidote for heterosexual reproduction habits.



you gotta be shitting me

cause you need it to survive, its not enough to produce offsprings , you need the intellect to make them survive and develop as well.

Originally posted by soleran30
you gotta be shitting me

Its more likely that then a disease...

So, what exactly is the point?

I'm guessing that the outcome will be lesbians will all be wearing lumberjack outfits and building tree houses, the gay men will all have sore asses and died of aids 10 years into it, and the straight people will be just fine since the first thing they did was to build churches?

Is that what you want?

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
the straight people will be just fine since the first thing they did was to build churches?

Without a priest to marry the people, or to baptise the youth there all doomed anyway...

Cause the straights can't have sex unless they are married, and they can't get to heaven without baptism... So there just breeding more people to go to hell....



lets hope they can at least circumcise themselves...

Originally posted by whobdamandog
This brilliant quote helped me come up with a brilliant idea.

What if we took 200 homosexual males, 200 homosexual females, and 200 heterosexuals(100 males, 100 females) and put each group on seperate bodies of land throughout the world.

Each group must build a society, which will bring "mankind" into the next great stage of evolution. However in order for them to do this, each group is forced to adhere to the following guidelines:



*Exclusion from using modern technology of any kind to build the civilization. Only primitive tools and materials can be used. This includes primitive hammers, pulleys, wood, rocks, etc,etc, etc. For those who are a bit slow on the uptake, this excludes cars, airplanes, modern medicine, etc, etc, etc.

*The groups are not able to leave the continent in which they reside nor are they able to have any form of contact with the other groups.


The groups consist of healthy individuals who are 21 years of age, and are of average height/build/intelligence.

Over a 50 year period, which group would have the greater chance of bringing mankind into the next stage of evolution?

Seeing as how there's an overabundance of Modern Evolutionary Theory supporters within this forum, I'll be expecting a lot of responses on this topic.

The race has begun!!!

The floor is now yours. I'll respond once this thread gets to 100 posts. And please let's try to make sure that our opinions are presented in a civil manner.


shit

Cripes..and you guys label me a "troll."

I haven't heard a legitimate argument yet from anyone relating to the topic..with Ush being the exception, however, his argument was quickly stricken down many posts ago.

Is this all you Neo-Darwinists can come up with? Come on now..I was expecting a bit more spunk, and a whole hell of a lot more tenacity. You guys have given me little more than a few smilies and a few one liners..lol..oh well, this is what happens when I get serious, people's arguments usually get beaten so badly, that they can do little else but straw man when responding.

Well at least you all have given me a bit of an ego boost for the day.

Damn I'm good..whobdamandog?

Me.

That's what I thought..

Fin

Do you seriously think anyone takes anything you say in this thread seriously? Your homophobia thread serves nothing...

Obviously the gays and lesbians are going to die out, while the straights will become so horribly inbred they will create a society of country hicks, these hicks will proceed to wipe each other out over the rights to marry debbie-joe there great cousin....

So what have you achieved here??? Nothing captain obvious, We all know gays can't have babies unless they have straight sex...

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Cripes..and you guys label me a "troll."

I haven't heard a legitimate argument yet from anyone relating to the topic..with Ush being the exception, however, his argument was quickly stricken down many posts ago.

Is this all you Neo-Darwinists can come up with? Come on now..I was expecting a bit more spunk, and a whole hell of a lot more tenacity. You guys have given me little more than a few smilies and a few one liners..lol..oh well, this is what happens when I get serious, people's arguments usually get beaten so badly, that they can do little else but straw man when responding.

Well at least you all have given me a bit of an ego boost for the day.

Damn I'm good..whobdamandog?

Me.

That's what I thought..

Fin

The only thing that would be more pathetic than posting this drivel, is actually believing this drivel.

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
Obviously the gays and lesbians are going to die out, while the straights will become so horribly inbred they will create a society of country hicks...


You mean like the Brits...

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
So what have you achieved here??? Nothing captain obvious, We all know gays can't have babies unless they have straight sex...




All right guys..it's been real...

Fin

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
Do you seriously think anyone takes anything you say in this thread seriously? Your homophobia thread serves nothing..."Does he really think anyone takes anything he says in any thread seriously?" Is an equally valid question.
Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
So what have you achieved here??? Nothing captain obvious, We all know gays can't have babies unless they have straight sex... Well an island of lesbians, or women in general, could survive well enough without whole human males. All they'd need is a sufficiently large sperm bank.

Societal advancement and cultural evolution is driven by intelligence and innovation. Societal and cultural advancements are passed onto and can be built upon by further generations, however this in itself does not drive advancement.

Women can f*ck women and men can f*ck men. At one point a man and a women needed to have sex in order to reproduce. This doesn't mean men and women didn't f*ck people in their own sex. So, if the point that you are trying to get across is that at one time a man and a women needed to f*ck in order to procreate, then congratulations captain obvious! You've won the opportunity to talk to 5th graders!
Whob. Our whole world is changing. If you can't accept that it's time for you to take your place in history and join the dinos.

Later.

"You're still missing the ball on this one Ush, the argument presented is not trying to test a man or women's "ability" to procreate, as stated before. "


Listen this time.

By removing the opportunity to procreate you remove the ability to test evolutionary process.

You have made the test unfair and invalid by not giving the homosexuals the ability to procreate.

ANY version of this test that does not give all participants equal access to the opposite sex is invalid.

No matter how many times you say "the test is not about procreation" you do not escape that point. All you would ever prove is not that society cannot survive if the people in it are homosexual, but that they cannot develop if they are all of the same gender. If the 200 men and 200 women on differing islands were all heterosexual, they would be just as doomed as the homosexuals. Hence- pointless test.

You test can only be a fair test if all groups have equal access to procreation, and then you would want to make the assumption that some would choose not to use it.

-

"Not true at all. As I stated in the previous post, the homosexuals are of "gifted" intelligence, while the heterosexuals are only of "average" intelligence. Certainly with all of earth's resources at their disposal and an intellectual advantage, the homosexuals should have no problem finding ways to build a more "evolved" society than the heterosexuals. "




What the hell difference does it make how smart they are? Your original test was about moving to the 'next statge' of evolution. As I told you, and as you ignored, intellect replacing simple mass reproduction as the mmeans of development is a modern phenomenon that can only take place in a world of modern society and technology. You have taken all that away and regressed the societies to a primitive stage where intellect was less important, simply to skew the test in your davour, and also, as I say, making it a totally unrealistic situation by putting a fully homosexual and/or heterosexual group IN such a situation, which does not reflect a genuine evolutionary situation, even if their statuses were digital like that, which they are not. And you thought that last bit was an irrelevant tangent? That goes a long way to show just how completely lacking in understanding you are. Running an argument on a schoolboy level, as you are, shows a lot about your lak of capacity.


Glad to see you are still living in tha tdream world where you think that you have ever, in your life, manage to repudiate anything I have said, whob. That fantasy world where you seem to think the objective of an argument is to convince yourself alone of your own brilliance is the only place you are going ton find any success, after all.

thats because USH is the perfect gentleman, wont find that courtesy fromthe rest of us thats for sure........................oh and USH`s argument was not stricken down at all except for in YOUR delusional mind

Originally posted by whobdamandog
You mean like the Brits...

Yes cause we have stereotypes about mass inbreds living in trailer parks... You Fail, Try again....

All this comes down to is you don't want to accept gays... and your trying to use base biology to defend yourself... Seeing as your preach the fact we are not animals as we have emotion why don't you show a little and accept your conman man???

I'll pose an equally morally wrong question... But with Base Biology Its the moral thing to do! To protect our precious society!

Seeing as there is no current cure of Aids/HIV, to save our self the hassle of bothering to find one, and to *cough* save the gene pool... Should we not just kill anyone infected off???

ah, another one of the famous whobdamandog/punker69 passive/aggressive racist/homophobic/christian supremacist threads.

Why don't the both of you just get together and make one thread with the topic-"I hate certain people/ideas, but I don't want to be a dickhole about it"

Originally posted by Ushgarak
"You're still missing the ball on this one Ush, the argument presented is not trying to test a man or women's "ability" to procreate, as stated before. "


Listen this time.

By removing the opportunity to procreate you remove the ability to test evolutionary process.

You have made the test unfair and invalid by not giving the homosexuals the ability to procreate.

ANY version of this test that does not give all participants equal access to the opposite sex is invalid.

No matter how many times you say "the test is not about procreation" you do not escape that point. All you would ever prove is not that society cannot survive if the people in it are homosexual, but that they cannot develop if they are all of the same gender. If the 200 men and 200 women on differing islands were all heterosexual, they would be just as doomed as the homosexuals. Hence- pointless test.

You test can only be a fair test if all groups have equal access to procreation, and then you would want to make the assumption that some would choose not to use it.

-

"Not true at all. As I stated in the previous post, the homosexuals are of "gifted" intelligence, while the heterosexuals are only of "average" intelligence. Certainly with all of earth's resources at their disposal and an intellectual advantage, the homosexuals should have no problem finding ways to build a more "evolved" society than the heterosexuals. "




What the hell difference does it make how smart they are? Your original test was about moving to the 'next statge' of evolution. As I told you, and as you ignored, intellect replacing simple mass reproduction as the mmeans of development is a modern phenomenon that can only take place in a world of modern society and technology. You have taken all that away and regressed the societies to a primitive stage where intellect was less important, simply to skew the test in your davour, and also, as I say, making it a totally unrealistic situation by putting a fully homosexual and/or heterosexual group IN such a situation, which does not reflect a genuine evolutionary situation, even if their statuses were digital like that, which they are not. And you thought that last bit was an irrelevant tangent? That goes a long way to show just how completely lacking in understanding you are. Running an argument on a schoolboy level, as you are, shows a lot about your lak of capacity.


Glad to see you are still living in tha tdream world where you think that you have ever, in your life, manage to repudiate anything I have said, whob. That fantasy world where you seem to think the objective of an argument is to convince yourself alone of your own brilliance is the only place you are going ton find any success, after all.


That was beautiful.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Listen this time.


It's definitely difficult to listen to words on a message board, however, I will attempt to reread what you've written..here goes..

Originally posted by Ushgarak
By removing the opportunity to procreate you remove the ability to test evolutionary process.

You have made the test unfair and invalid by not giving the homosexuals the ability to procreate.

ANY version of this test that does not give all participants equal access to the opposite sex is invalid.


This argument has already been addressed my friend, and shot down many posts ago.



Simplistic terms:

Heterosexual intercourse allows for procreation.
Homosexual intercourse does not allow for procreation.

Your argument is a circular one Ush. Regardless of the scenario, heterosexuality will always be the driving force behind a society's advancement, because of this need for procreation.

Don't believe me? Why don't you ask your buddy Darwin then. I believe he defined/termed this evolutionary need for procreation as Natural Selection.



Originally posted by Ushgarak
What the hell difference does it make how smart they are?


My point exactly. Regardless of the intellects or the contributions of it's members, a society can not advance if it does not possess the ability to procreate.

Fin

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Regardless of the intellects or the contributions of it's members, a society can not advance if it does not possess the ability to procreate.

Fin

It always strikes me as funny how you jump through all these hoops in your own mind and through various posts to pretend that basic sense is your point.

You're pretending that someone on this site has ever said that if a group of adult male homosexuals placed on an island without access to females are going to find some way to reproduce.

Also, as has been said many times, if homosexuals were not capable of having children via heterosexual intercourse, your argument would mean something.

This whole ridiculous thread is your pathetic attempt to indict both homosexuality and evolution. In fact, the "rules" of your little experiment show that you are poorly educated on the intricacies of both evolution AND homosexuality.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
In fact, the "rules" of your little experiment show that you are poorly educated on the intricacies of both evolution AND homosexuality.

May we add, "In fact, the "rules" of your little experiment show that you are poorly educated on the intricacies of both evolution AND homosexuality and also show that you lack any form of common sense, rational thought or a sense of humour.", please?

Originally posted by KharmaDog
May we add, "In fact, the "rules" of your little experiment show that you are poorly educated on the intricacies of both evolution AND homosexuality and also show that you lack any form of common sense, rational thought or a sense of humour.", please?

Indeed. Addition approved.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
You're pretending that someone on this site has ever said that if a group of adult male homosexuals placed on an island without access to females are going to find some way to reproduce.
















Using the aforementioned quotes above, I have gone through the trouble of summarizing the positions which support why a homosexual society will evolve quicker than the heterosexual one.



Intellect is the predominant force used to advance a species, not sexual behavior that allows for procreation. Being superior in intellect, the gifted homosexuals will create an advanced society much quicker than the simple minded heterosexuals, despite the heterosexuals ability to procreate.

Homosexual behavior encourages population control, therefore, the homosexuals would live on..while the heterosexuals would overpopulate and die out.


I will now summarize the arguments given as to why this experiment is illogical by a select few within the forum(sic)..


Despite their inability to procreate, 50 years is not enough time for the homosexual societies to evolve. Human beings manipulate the environment to better suit them, which in turn makes human evolution a very slow process.

The homosexual societies should have the ability to procreate using heterosexual means, which in no way supports the initial argument of heterosexual intercourse being the driving force behind a society's evolution.


If I missed any pertinent arguments, please let me know.


Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Also, as has been said many times, if homosexuals were not capable of having children via heterosexual intercourse, your argument would mean something.


Which again..supports the argument of..




I didn't respond to the rest of your post my friend, seeing as how it was more of an insult, rather than a rational rebuttal. I have to admit that I'm quite disappointed with the majority of your rebuttals. Many of them, have carried little to no substance. However I guess I shouldn't have expected them to have any real substantive information supporting them, particularly since you are arguing against "common sense" and all..

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Using the aforementioned quotes above, I have gone through the trouble of summarizing the positions which support why a homosexual society will evolve quicker than the heterosexual one.



Intellect is the predominant force used to advance a species, not sexual behavior that allows for procreation. Being superior in intellect, the gifted homosexuals will create an advanced society much quicker than the simple minded heterosexuals, despite the heterosexuals ability to procreate.

Homosexual behavior encourages population control, therefore, the homosexuals would live on..while the heterosexuals would overpopulate and die out.


I will now summarize the arguments given as to why this experiment is illogical by a select few within the forum(sic)..


Despite their inability to procreate, 50 years is not enough time for the homosexual societies to evolve. Human beings manipulate the environment to better suit them, which in turn makes human evolution a very slow process.

The homosexual societies should have the ability to procreate using heterosexual means, which in no way supports the initial argument of heterosexual intercourse being the driving force behind a society's evolution.


If I missed any pertinent arguments, please let me know.




Which again..supports the argument of..




I didn't respond to the rest of your post my friend, seeing as how it was more of an insult, rather than a rational rebuttal. I have to admit that I'm quite disappointed with the majority of your rebuttals. Many of them, have carried little to no substance. However I guess I shouldn't have expected them to have any real substantive information supporting them, particularly since you are arguing against "common sense" and all..

Once again, you assume that my point is sex. Nothing could be further from the truth. But, when you start a thread that indicts both sexual orientation AND evolution you are not being realistic. No one has ever said that procreation is not a basis for the advancment of a species. (considering to that species' longevity.) You are only pretending that some one has for the sake of your own arguments advancement. Post the entire comment by Adam_POE, in it's original context, and this will be evident to everyone.

Editing is often the tool of a weaker argument...and mind.

how far up was it before they dropped you on the head as a baby that created this grandeur of disillusion in your mind?

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
No one has ever said that procreation is not a basis for the advancment of a species. (considering to that species' longevity.) You are only pretending that some one has for the sake of your own arguments advancement.











Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Post the entire comment by Adam_POE, in it's original context, and this will be evident to everyone.


Ask and ye shall receive..



Below is a link to the original exchange between myself and Adam, in it's entirety, it lasted a couple of pages.

Adam Poe presents the argument of "intellect" and not "procreation" is the driving force behind a society's evolution.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Ask and ye shall receive..



Below is a link to the original exchange between myself and Adam, in it's entirety, it lasted a couple of pages.

Adam Poe presents the argument of "intellect" and not "procreation" is the driving force behind a society's evolution.

Not "EVOLUTION" ..."advancment"

Well he is right, intellect has always been more important for the advancement of the human species.

Without brains we could **** and have children all we want, but unless one of them would figure out how to light a fire, create a weel, create weapons to hunt with, create farms, fish and stuff like that the human species will not advance.

What about: one island of 1000 homosexual men of above-average intelligence, who are immortal (Yeah I know...run with it); and,

Another island of 500 heterosexual men and the same number of heterosexual women, who are very stupid.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Not "EVOLUTION" ..."advancment"









Well from a Darwinian perspective, the most "intelligent" and advanced society, would frequently engage in sexual activity that encourages procreation...

Oh thats just bullshit, the smartest people are not always those with children.

Sex is just a way to make sure that the human species continues to exist or fun for people, it does not ensure the advancement of the human species or that of society in general. Smart people however do. All that heterosexual sex does is ensure the survival of our species nothing more.

And actually thats not entirely true, 100 gay man and 100 gay woman could advance and create children at a fast rate without ever having sex.

Heterosexual sex is kinda absolute in todays society. Funny isn't it? The thing you claim is the most important factor in our lives is completely absolute at this moment in time. Brains however and intelligent human beings are not, they continue to exist, they are still necessary and they will be until the very end of our existance.

A study by psychologists at the Psychology Institute report that "highly-educated women are having fewer children, while less educated women are having many more."

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Well from a Darwinian perspective, the most "intelligent" and advanced society, would frequently engage in sexual activity that encourages procreation...


Again, you and your "definitions" are flawed. The process of Evolution, as in the theory of evolution is not the same as advancment. The advancement of a culture or society is not the same, and can not be compared to, the evolution of a species.

When someone says that "I have evolved a better sense of what is right and wrong" does not mean they are implying that they have developed into a new and different species.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
A study by psychologists at the Psychology Institute report that "highly-educated women are having fewer children, while less educated women are having many more."

But a society still needs women to have children, in order for it to continue to have highly-educated women within it.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic

Again, you and your "definitions" are flawed. The process of Evolution, as in the theory of evolution is not the same as advancment. The advancement of a culture or society is not the same, and can not be compared to, the evolution of a species.



You're going to have to take that one up with your buddy Darwin Cap, he doesn't seem to agree with you..

Originally posted by whobdamandog
But a society still needs women to have children, in order for it to continue to have highly-educated women within it.

Clearly, not the point:

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Well from a Darwinian perspective, the most "intelligent" and advanced society, would frequently engage in sexual activity that encourages procreation...



Your argument is that from an evolutionary perspective, those who are more intelligent would procrete more, when the opposite is true.

This is demonstrative of your lack of understanding of modern evolutionary theory.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
You're going to have to take that one up with your buddy Darwin Cap, he doesn't seem to agree with you..

Modern evolutionary theory is not the same as Darwinism. Another example of your lack of understanding of modern evolutionary theory.

Let me see if I can bring myself down to your level Whob and explain this to you in a manner that you can understand. Although, I don't think understanding what people say to you is the real issue, you just want to pretend that what people say to you doesn't make any sense.

This is a good response to your use of Darwin.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Modern evolutionary theory is not the same as Darwinism. Another example of your lack of understanding of modern evolutionary theory.

However, I'm going to go beyond it to explain the difference in the two concepts you don't seem to understand. The two terms are "Evolution" and "Advancment". More importantly, I'm going to place them in the context of the conversation, THIS conversation. The word 'Evolution" is not always used in regards to the theory that originated with the research of Charles Darwin. Like many terms that are commonly used in modern languages, 'evolution' has taken on a variety of meanings when used in different contexts and conversations, as I illustrated for you in an earlier post.

Evolution is the term applied to the theory that life forms will adapt to their environment and become (gradually or rapidly) more complex. It is applicable to the biological advancment of a species.

Advancment of society is not the same as evolution. Advancment, in this context, is the progress of the human species in regards to intellectual concepts and physical materials, like harnessing fire, shaping stone tools, combining metals into alloys, building temples, harnessing steam and electricity, building mechanisms like the computer and the combustion engine. It also includes the development and refining of morals, science and religion.

Now if you would like to use quotes out of context and confuse terminology so that people who aren't paying as much attention to the conversation will be fooled into thinking some one on the opposite side of the debate is not making sense, you feel free to continue doing so.

So I guess from a Darwinian and Modern Evolutionary perspective, an uneducated female that has recognized the necessity of producing offspring, would likely be more successful than an educated female of the same species who produced fewer offspring, since the former will have more progeny in the gene pool to advance her lineage.

I would assume from this that the more "intelligent" of the two females would be the one who recognized that more offspring would give her descendants a better chance of survival, however, that's just my opinion. It's not supported by any facts or anything.

What's your point? Actually, what's your response?

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Advancment of society is not the same as evolution.




Did you miss this quote?



def society: a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests.

PS. "Nation" is synonymous with "society."

PSS. Darwin believes that human societies are no different than those of animals. Like most Evolutionists, he characteristically believes that a society's advancement, is dependant upon the evolution of its members, which is only made possible through procreation.



Back on topic..

How is intellect the driving force behind the evolution of a society?

How will an intelligent species that can not procreate, become more evolved than a dull witted species that can?

Come on my friends, certainly you can give better answers than those that you have given thus far.

whob, you make no valid point, you have no point...you just suck.

all you do is present some convoluted argument meant to bash people based on attacking a point they never made.

gay people never claimed to be better than everyone else and meant to carry the torch that is the human race. all they ask is to not be routinely harassed by idiots like you, and pray that you never come out of the closet and bring your own special brand of idiocy to their side.

endyourselfkthxbye

Originally posted by PVS
whob, you make no valid point, you have no point...you just suck.




Ijole guey!

Originally posted by whobdamandog
So I guess from a Darwinian and Modern Evolutionary perspective, an uneducated female that has recognized the necessity of producing offspring, would likely be more successful than an educated female of the same species who produced fewer offspring, since the former will have more progeny in the gene pool to advance her lineage.

I would assume from this that the more "intelligent" of the two females would be the one who recognized that more offspring would give her descendants a better chance of survival, however, that's just my opinion. It's not supported by any facts or anything.

Your assumption falsely presumes that the woman who is producing more children is operating from an evolutionary perspective.



Originally posted by whobdamandog


Did you miss this quote?



def society: a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests.

PS. "Nation" is synonymous with "society."

PSS. Darwin believes that human societies are no different than those of animals. Like most Evolutionists, he characteristically believes that a society's advancement, is dependant upon the evolution of its members, which is only made possible through procreation.



Back on topic..

How is intellect the driving force behind the evolution of a society?

How will an intelligent species that can not procreate, become more evolved than a dull witted species that can?

Come on my friends, certainly you can give better answers than those that you have given thus far.

Did you miss the quote that you have beem continuously posting throughout this thread?



No one is arguing that intellect is the driving force behind evolution, but that intellect is the driving force behind the advancement of society.

Nice attempt at trying to switch terms in the middle of an argument.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Your assumption falsely presumes that the woman who is producing more children is operating from an evolutionary perspective.


How can one make a false presumption, against an assumption that they've made? It would kind of be like if I stated to you..

"Your scenario falsely presumes that your assumption of men and women f*cking is not the driving force behind a society's advancement."

Sounds a bit illogical, does it not my friend?

Moving on with the initial argument, from a modern evolutionary perspective, an organism that realizes more offspring will bring about better chances of its' progeny's survival, would be more evolved than an organism that did not realize this. It is my understanding that generally the more evolved organism is considered to be the more intelligent one. Correct me if I'm wrong however.




Semantic nonsense..

The term "evolution" is synonymous with the term "advancement." As are these additional words listed below:



Even Darwin uses the terms synonymously in his works.



Let's continue on past this silly word game which you have been proved wrong about multiple times. Just to clarify things, despite all of the evidence to the contrary, is it still your belief that "intellect" and not "procreation" is the driving force behind a society's advancement?

Originally posted by whobdamandog
How can one make a false presumption, against an assumption that they've made? It would kind of be like if I stated to you..

"Your scenario falsely presumes that your assumption of men and women f*cking is not the driving force behind a society's advancement."

Sounds a bit illogical, does it not my friend?

Moving on with the initial argument, from a modern evolutionary perspective, an organism that realizes more offspring will bring about better chances of its' progeny's survival, would be more evolved than an organism that did not realize this. It is my understanding that generally the more evolved organism is considered to be the more intelligent one. Correct me if I'm wrong however.

Your assumption is that a female who produces more children is more intelligent than a female who produces fewer children.

This assumpiton presumes that the female who produces more children is operating from an evolutionary perspective, i.e. she recognizes that producing more children gives her lineage an evolutionary advantage.



Originally posted by whobdamandog
Semantic nonsense..

The term "evolution" is synonymous with the term "advancement." As are these additional words listed below:



Even Darwin uses the terms synonymously in his works.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
However, I'm going to go beyond it to explain the difference in the two concepts you don't seem to understand. The two terms are "Evolution" and "Advancment". More importantly, I'm going to place them in the context of the conversation, THIS conversation. The word 'Evolution" is not always used in regards to the theory that originated with the research of Charles Darwin. Like many terms that are commonly used in modern languages, 'evolution' has taken on a variety of meanings when used in different contexts and conversations, as I illustrated for you in an earlier post.

Evolution is the term applied to the theory that life forms will adapt to their environment and become (gradually or rapidly) more complex. It is applicable to the biological advancment of a species.

Advancment of society is not the same as evolution. Advancment, in this context, is the progress of the human species in regards to intellectual concepts and physical materials, like harnessing fire, shaping stone tools, combining metals into alloys, building temples, harnessing steam and electricity, building mechanisms like the computer and the combustion engine. It also includes the development and refining of morals, science and religion.

Now if you would like to use quotes out of context and confuse terminology so that people who aren't paying as much attention to the conversation will be fooled into thinking some one on the opposite side of the debate is not making sense, you feel free to continue doing so.



Originally posted by whobdamandog
Let's continue on past this silly word game which you have been proved wrong about multiple times. Just to clarify things, despite all of the evidence to the contrary, is it still your belief that "intellect" and not "procreation" is the driving force behind a society's advancement?

When was the last time a man and woman ****ed and a computer popped out? Procreation does not produce societal advancements. Procreation only produces more people.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
This assumpiton presumes that the female who produces more children is operating from an evolutionary perspective


Of course it does, that was the initial point of presenting the scenario. To presume otherwise would mean that I'd be invalidating my own argument. But it's good to see that at least your understanding of the argument has "evolved", or I could just say that it's "advanced." After all, the words are synonyms you know..

Now I have a few follow up questions for you.

Is it logical to assume that an individual who understands that procreation is the key to advancing a species, is more intelligent than one who doesn't?

Wouldn't possessing the ability to understand this simple concept kind of represent..well..ahem.."common sense?"

If one is not able to understand such a simple concept, would that mean that they lack "common sense?"



Well I believe she f*cked first, had the baby second, the baby grew up third, and lastly he created the computer. All of this wouldn't have happened of course, if the woman hadn't f*cked in the first place..right?

Or do computers just mystically create themselves and put themselves together? Oh wait a second, I'm debating with an evolutionist..so yeah, I guess they do.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Of course it does, that was the initial point of presenting the scenario. To presume otherwise would mean that I'd be invalidating my own argument. But it's good to see that at least your understanding of the argument has "evolved", or I could just say that it's "advanced." After all, the words are synonyms you know..

Clearly, not the point. Your assumption falsely presumes that the female who produces more children is operating from an evolutionary perspective, i.e. she recognizes that producing more children gives her lineage an evolutionary advantage.



Originally posted by whobdamandog
Now I have a few follow up questions for you.

Is it logical to assume that an individual who understands that procreation is the key to advancing a species, is more intelligent than one who doesn't?

Wouldn't possessing the ability to understand this simple concept kind of represent..well..ahem.."common sense?"

If one is not able to understand such a simple concept, would that mean that they lack "common sense?"

One who recognizes that producing more children gives her lineage an evolutionary advantage is not necessarily more intelligent.

Common sense is not producing children that one does not have the means to raise to adulthood.



Originally posted by whobdamandog
Well I believe she f*cked first, had the baby second, the baby grew up third, and lastly he created the computer. All of this wouldn't have happened of course, if the woman hadn't f*cked in the first place..right?

Or do computers just mystically create themselves and put themselves together? Oh wait a second, I'm debating with an evolutionist..so yeah, I guess they do.

The argument "Procreation produces people, and people produce advancements for society, therefore procreation produces advancements for society," is valid but not sound, because it draws a particular conclusion from universal premises.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Clearly, not the point. Your assumption falsely presumes that the female who produces more children is operating from an evolutionary perspective, i.e. she recognizes that producing more children gives her lineage an evolutionary advantage.

One who recognizes that producing more children gives her lineage an evolutionary advantage is not necessarily more intelligent.

Common sense is not producing children that one does not have the means to raise to adulthood.


Again, I can't make false presumptions against my own assumptions. That would be illogical. I don't know if this is simply a grammatical error, or if you're just trying to twist wording around in order to confuse people into thinking you have a valid argument.

You made this same statement several posts ago as well, but unfortunately I overlooked it in the last post. Anyway, by making such a statement.. you would essentially be trying to get me to validate that my initial assumption is "false."

Be it a tricky word game or an inadvertent word mix up, your argument has no substance to it. The bottom line is that one who recognizes the need for procreation and has the means to provide for the offspring it produces, would be the more evolved species. This is a fundamental principle of evolutionary theory my friend.



Intellect can not produce offspring Adam. The ability to procreate, however, can produce beings intelligent enough to "advance" a society. The basic premise behind Modern Evolutionary theory is that "procreation" is necessary to advance a species. This is also basic common sense. If you have a problem with this rationale, perhaps you should present your new theory of "intellect" being the driving force behind "evolution" to the scientific community for review. Who knows, it may get you a Nobel Prize.

I say we just make Adam Poe and whobdamandog's avatars fight it out. I'll pick He-Man over Gary Coleman in best two-out-of-three.

Hang on whob... So you think that sex is the driving force over intelligence, Yet you think we are better then animals due to our emotions and intelligence...

Anyone else seeing a contradiction here???

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
Hang on whob... So you think that sex is the driving force over intelligence

I think a smart homosexual male can **** a smart homosexual female and the offspring will probably much more valueable than those of two average heteros.

"men ****ing women and producing "smart" babies..."

So now your preaching evolution?? just how much can you contradict yourself???

i may have glazed over, but the big reason why whob's argument is bullshit is this:

if the goal was procreation then yes homosexuals can reproduce. they would just have to have hetero-sex that they may or may not enjoy. maybe in whob's eight grade locker room mentallity, he believes that being gay makes one sterile or perhaps that gay men fear that a vagina might make their dick melt, but i assure you that if the fate of a dwindling population was at stake, gay people would most likely throw preference and enjoyment to the wind for the sake of procreation, especially since it only takes a couple of minutes to make a baby, and then its goodbye vagina... not that difficult to imagine, is it?

I have a novel idea. Lets not respond to this thread as its pertains to anything Whob says. Let's ignore everything he says but pretend like he actually is vaguely part of our argument. He could be like an invisible man who is incapable of speech. This way he might better understand what it is like to talk to a brick wall aka himself..

That's probably a good idea for his opponents. Usually people who make a living off of arguing (lawyers excluded, ahem) don't react too well when they fail to get attention, so good point, meep-meep.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Again, I can't make false presumptions against my own assumptions. That would be illogical. I don't know if this is simply a grammatical error, or if you're just trying to twist wording around in order to confuse people into thinking you have a valid argument.

You made this same statement several posts ago as well, but unfortunately I overlooked it in the last post. Anyway, by making such a statement.. you would essentially be trying to get me to validate that my initial assumption is "false."

Be it a tricky word game or an inadvertent word mix up, your argument has no substance to it. The bottom line is that one who recognizes the need for procreation and has the means to provide for the offspring it produces, would be the more evolved species. This is a fundamental principle of evolutionary theory my friend.

You have made an assumption.

Your assumption presumes certain things to be true that are not true.

What do you not understand?



Originally posted by whobdamandog
Intellect can not produce offspring Adam. The ability to procreate, however, can produce beings intelligent enough to "advance" a society. The basic premise behind Modern Evolutionary theory is that "procreation" is necessary to advance a species. This is also basic common sense. If you have a problem with this rationale, perhaps you should present your new theory of "intellect" being the driving force behind "evolution" to the scientific community for review. Who knows, it may get you a Nobel Prize.

First, I never stated that intellect is the driving force behing human evolution. I stated that intellect is the driving force behind the advancement of society. Stop trying to switch terms in the middle of an argument.

Second, the argument "Procreation produces people, and people produce advancements for society, therefore procreation produces advancements for society," is not sound, because it draws a particular conclusion from universal premises.

The following will illustrate why this is not a sound argument. "Procreation produces people, and people produce weapons of mass destruction, therefore procreation produces weapons of mass destruction." The truth of universal premises does not prove the truth of a particular conclusion.

Originally posted by PVS
i may have glazed over, but the big reason why whob's argument is bullshit is this:

if the goal was procreation then yes homosexuals can reproduce. they would just have to have hetero-sex that they may or may not enjoy.

Take out the "V" in your screen name and use a "B" instead. Add the word "Kids" to the end of it, and we'll have a name which accurately portrays your intellectual level.

Newsflash Bud. If homosexuals engage in "hetero-sex" to procreate, than as it has been stated countless times, this proves that "hetero-sex" is the driving force behind a society's advancement.

its not thought... Hetero sex sustains society.. But intelligence advances us, Otherwise by your logic all the other animals on this planet are advancing...

Last time I looked No other animal had the power or intelligence we have...

Originally posted by whobdamandog
If homosexuals engage in "hetero-sex" to procreate, than as it has been stated countless times, this proves that "hetero-sex" is the driving force behind a society's advancement.

Take out the words "society's advancment" and replace them with "species continuation" and you'll be right on the money. OH, WHOB! you're so close....keep going little red engine!

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
You have made an assumption.

Your assumption presumes certain things to be true that are not true.

What do you not understand?


I guess I gave you too much credit then, it was just poor grammar. An assumption is a presumption. To state that an assumption is presumptuous is redundant. Anyway, this still doesn't take away from the fact that your argument has no substance to it, as you will see in the next rebuttal.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
First, I never stated that intellect is the driving force behing human evolution. I stated that intellect is the driving force behind the advancement of society. Stop trying to switch terms in the middle of an argument.


This is obviously silly wordplay. Regardless, even with this statement being made, you still have backed yourself into a corner. Case in point, you're essentially stating that human evolution is not necessary for the advancement of a human society. Take note, that the only thing a society represents is a group of people cohabiting together and living under common guidelines. If the individuals that make up a society don't evolve(syn. advance), then how is it possible for a society to evolve(syn. advance)?

Answer: It isn't possible and you have once again, proved yourself to be the fool.


Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Second, the argument "Procreation produces people, and people produce advancements for society, therefore procreation produces advancements for society," is not sound, because it draws a particular conclusion from universal premises.

The following will illustrate why this is not a sound argument. "Procreation produces people, and people produce weapons of mass destruction, therefore procreation produces weapons of mass destruction." The truth of universal premises does not prove the truth of a particular conclusion.

More gibberish, and over-complicating simple concepts.

Oddly enough in a round about way, your statement above does represent a partial truth. Obviously we both know that weapons of mass destruction are not created from a man and woman having sexual intercourse, but humans are. So the natural act of hetero-sex between a man and woman creates human beings, who are then capable of building weapons of mass destruction. Simple enough for you?

You are clearly wrong about "intellect" being the driving force of a society's evolution(syn advancement). But at this point, you're too proud to admit it, as well as grasping at a reason to justify why your "homosexual" behavior can be deemed beneficial to the evolutionary process.

I definitely understand your dilemma, particularly since the modern homosexual doctrine which you proudly adhere to conflicts with the modern gospel of evolution which you also proudly adhere to. This Darwinian gospel clearly defines such sexual behavior as being "primitive" and incapable of advancing a species. Based on this rationale, homosexuals would be deemed the least "fit" genetically to survive in a primitive or a modern society.

With that being stated, I hope that you will understand the "foolishness" behind following both faiths, and hope that you are able to resign yourself to the fate that awaits all those who choose to believe in them.

Fin

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
its not thought... Hetero sex sustains society.. But intelligence advances us, Otherwise by your logic all the other animals on this planet are advancing...

Last time I looked No other animal had the power or intelligence we have...

The most intelligent animal in existence, will not advance it's species..if it does not possess the ability to procreate.

The most dullest animal in existence, can advance it's species, if it does possess the ability to procreate.

You've missed the ball on this Hit, as have many others..which is surprising seeing as how this basic principle is commonly used to support Modern Evolutionary theory.

Looking for the open corner pocket isn't Adams style.


You still haven't addressed the corner into which you've backed youself Whob.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
The most intelligent animal in existence, will not advance it's species..if it does not possess the ability to procreate.

Well the premise that the animal was born in the first place would lead me to believe that it can reproduce... The fact is that Animals are "Dumb" they don't have our creativity..(yes there are a few that can do great things.. Dolphins and such... Yet they aren't as advanced as us...) Yet your line of thinking should mean that dolphins should be at our level... After all They reproduce... Dur its not that simple... Just cause something reproduces doesn't dictate it will advance... its a part of advancing but its not the only factor...

Originally posted by whobdamandog
You've missed the ball on this Hit, as have many others..which is surprising seeing as how this basic principle is commonly used to support Modern Evolutionary theory.

No what people here are trying to do is go against your attempt to justify your evil thinking... "That cause Gays can't reproduce, Basic biology dictates that its wrong." Now humans aren't meant of dive to deaths of 100 meters... yet some do... we weren't designed for space.. yet we have been there... We had done alot of things that our bodies weren't designed for, So with your base biology thinking... we we not meant to do it, it must be evil...
Human adaption is one of our strongest survival traits, Now with all these activities we have done where we have no biological adaptations for, I ask you why Men have the ability to have an orgasm from prostate stimulation... Biology shows that this ability must be for something??? I wonder why we have it??? Care to attempt to answer this question?

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
Well the premise that the animal was born in the first place would lead me to believe that it can reproduce... The fact is that Animals are "Dumb" they don't have our creativity..(yes there are a few that can do great things.. Dolphins and such... Yet they aren't as advanced as us...) Yet your line of thinking should mean that dolphins should be at our level... After all They reproduce... Dur its not that simple... Just cause something reproduces doesn't dictate it will advance... its a part of advancing but its not the only factor...


"Intellect" can not produce more members of a society. Your assumption of it being the "driving force" is a fallacious one.

A sterile yet intelligent male, can not pass on his genes to create a more advanced species, while an unintelligent yet fertile male can. This basic principle is reiterated throughout modern evolutionary doctrine.





Common sense obviously dictates that intelligence does act as an important factor in the evolution of a society, however, it is not the primary factor or driving factor.

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
No what people here are trying to do is go against your attempt to justify your evil thinking... "That cause Gays can't reproduce, Basic biology dictates that its wrong." Now humans aren't meant of dive to deaths of 100 meters... yet some do... we weren't designed for space.. yet we have been there... We had done alot of things that our bodies weren't designed for, So with your base biology thinking... we we not meant to do it, it must be evil...


You are correct, human beings do a lot of things that our bodies are not designed for, however, to assume an organism's ability to "jump 100 meters", "go into space", or that similar actions are the "driving force" behind a species evolution is illogical, and contradicts the fundamental evolutionary principle of "procreation" being the essential ingredient in the advancement of a species.

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
Human adaption is one of our strongest survival traits, Now with all these activities we have done where we have no biological adaptations for, ?


According to Modern Evolutionary theory, human adaptation, is a strong survival trait, however, it is not a species primary survival trait. You are definitely "Missing" the mark on this one "Hit."

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
I ask you why Men have the ability to have an orgasm from prostate stimulation... Biology shows that this ability must be for something??? I wonder why we have it??? Care to attempt to answer this question


I can also stick a salami sandwich in my ass. Does that mean that the natural function of the ass is for people to eat stuff off of it?

I believe you need to go to a Medical Physician and ask them to clarify with you what the function of the rectum is, and why it is necessary to perform a colonoscopy. I'm sure they'll agree with your position that one of the primary functions of a colonoscopy is to check the rectum, and to ensure that large cylindrical objects can be inserted into it, to stimulate the prostate gland.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
I guess I gave you too much credit then, it was just poor grammar. An assumption is a presumption. To state that an assumption is presumptuous is redundant. Anyway, this still doesn't take away from the fact that your argument has no substance to it, as you will see in the next rebuttal.

An assumption is a premise. A presumption is the act of accepting something as true.

Your assumption is "a female who produces more children is more intelligent than a female who produces fewer children." This is your premise.

Your presumption is "a female who produces more children is operating from an evolutionary perspective, i.e. she recognizes that producing more children gives her lineage an evolutionary advantage." This is what you accept to be true.

Your presumption is the basis for your assumption. If your presumption is false, your assumption is false.



Originally posted by whobdamandog
This is obviously silly wordplay. Regardless, even with this statement being made, you still have backed yourself into a corner. Case in point, you're essentially stating that human evolution is not necessary for the advancement of a human society. Take note, that the only thing a society represents is a group of people cohabiting together and living under common guidelines. If the individuals that make up a society don't evolve(syn. advance), then how is it possible for a society to evolve(syn. advance)?

Answer: It isn't possible and you have once again, proved yourself to be the fool.

Someone is playing semantics games, and it is not me. I and everyone else in this thread are using the term "evolution" exclusively to mean "change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations." You are using the term "evolution" to also mean "development or progress."

The population of a society does not need to "change in genetic composition during successive generations" to "develop or progress."



Originally posted by whobdamandog
More gibberish, and over-complicating simple concepts.

Oddly enough in a round about way, your statement above does represent a partial truth. Obviously we both know that weapons of mass destruction are not created from a man and woman having sexual intercourse, but humans are. So the natural act of hetero-sex between a man and woman creates human beings, who are then capable of building weapons of mass destruction. Simple enough for you?

Thank you for proving my point. Procreation does not directly produce weapons of mass destruction, nor does procreation directly produce advancements for society. The only thing procreation directly produces is people. Is that simple enough for you?

If not, continue to commit the Existential fallacy by asserting that one can draw a particular conclusion from universal premises.



Originally posted by whobdamandog
You are clearly wrong about "intellect" being the driving force of a society's evolution(syn advancement). But at this point, you're too proud to admit it, as well as grasping at a reason to justify why your "homosexual" behavior can be deemed beneficial to the evolutionary process.

I definitely understand your dilemma, particularly since the modern homosexual doctrine which you proudly adhere to conflicts with the modern gospel of evolution which you also proudly adhere to. This Darwinian gospel clearly defines such sexual behavior as being "primitive" and incapable of advancing a species. Based on this rationale, homosexuals would be deemed the least "fit" genetically to survive in a primitive or a modern society.

With that being stated, I hope that you will understand the "foolishness" behind following both faiths, and hope that you are able to resign yourself to the fate that awaits all those who choose to believe in them.

Again, I never stated that intellect is the driving force behind the evolution or "change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations," of society. I stated that intellect is the driving force behind the advancement or "development or progress" of society.

Moreover, how many times must it be explained to you that Modern Evolutionary Theory and Darwinism are not the same thing?

Yes, I am foolish for believing in Modern Evolutionary Theory, and you are wise for believing in a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis. Since I am so foolish, I am confused about the creation account. And since you are so wise, perhaps you could answer some of my questions:

In Genesis 1:1-31, the creation takes six days, but in Genesis 2:4, the creation takes one day.

Which is correct?


In Genesis 1:11-27, God creates the plants before He creates man and woman, but in Genesis 2:5-25, God creates man first, the plants next, and then woman.

Which is correct?


In Genesis 1:14-19, God creates the stars before He creates the earth, but in Job 38:4-7, God creates the stars after He creates the earth.

Which is correct?


In Genesis 1:20-22, God creates birds from the water, but in Genesis 2:19, God creates birds from the ground.

Which is correct?


In Genesis 1:25-27, God creates the animals before He creates man and woman, but in Genesis 2:7-25, God creates man first, the animals next, and then woman.

Which is correct?


In Genesis 1:27, God creates man and woman at the same time, but in Genesis 2:7-25, God creates man first, then woman.

Which is correct?

Originally posted by whobdamandog
I can also stick a salami sandwich in my ass. Does that mean that the natural function of the ass is for people to eat stuff off of it?

I believe you need to go to a Medical Physician and ask them to clarify with you what the function of the rectum is, and why it is necessary to perform a colonoscopy. I'm sure they'll agree with your position that one of the primary functions of a colonoscopy is to check the rectum, and to ensure that large cylindrical objects can be inserted into it, to stimulate the prostate gland.

There is no organ in the ass to deal with a sandwich, What you are doing there serves no purpose, However we have a prostate, Which has a function which only gays seem to use, Unless you can provide us some reason as to why we have a prostate with this ability, I don't see your point as having much credit...

Again, Your example has no reasoning, However anal sex in men obviously has some merit as they are using a function of an organ... Now the function might just be for fun, But then again so is stimulation of the nipples in straight sex...

Nice try at avoiding the question whobethefool (WOW! I can make crappy name jokes aswell!)... But try again...

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
You have made an assumption.

Your assumption presumes certain things to be true that are not true.

What do you not understand?





First, I never stated that intellect is the driving force behing human evolution. I stated that intellect is the driving force behind the advancement of society. Stop trying to switch terms in the middle of an argument.

Second, the argument "Procreation produces people, and people produce advancements for society, therefore procreation produces advancements for society," is not sound, because it draws a particular conclusion from universal premises.

sup dude?

The following will illustrate why this is not a sound argument. "Procreation produces people, and people produce weapons of mass destruction, therefore procreation produces weapons of mass destruction." The truth of universal premises does not prove the truth of a particular conclusion.

Originally posted by omaga


Also, don't post in quotes of others.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Also, don't post in quotes of others.
Don't be like that bastard Botankus guy and screw up everyone's postings.


Que? You got a problem with me, Bardock? I'll be waiting outside for you when you're ready to box!boxing

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
An assumption is a premise. A presumption is the act of accepting something as true.

Your assumption is "a female who produces more children is more intelligent than a female who produces fewer children." This is your premise.

Your presumption is "a female who produces more children is operating from an evolutionary perspective, i.e. she recognizes that producing more children gives her lineage an evolutionary advantage." This is what you accept to be true.

Your presumption is the basis for your assumption. If your presumption is false, your assumption is false.


The statement is redundant, and you know it. It isn't necessary to state that one is "presuming" something when they make an assumption. It is already understood that they are presuming something when making an assumption. Seeing as how an assumption is generally defined as: "The act of presuming."

I guess I'll have to go back to my original opinion of you using such tricky terminology to deceive people, seeing as how the statement above predefines my argument as false, without using any substantive evidence to prove it as being false.

This is a classic example of how you debate, never really presenting any real arguments. You just use excessively complicated terminology that one has to research before they find out there is no true meaning to the argument being presented.

Or "gibberish." As our dear friend Ush would put it. Anyway, moving on my argument of..



...simply asserts the obvious, that from a "Darwinian and Modern Evolutionary Perspective" those who procreate the most, are the most likely to have their lineage survive. If one recognized this "common sense" argument as being true, I would think that would make them a bit more intelligent than one who didn't, despite how high the latter individual scored on an SAT test.

As we often see in life..book smarts do not = common sense smarts, and there are many examples of individuals on the forum who support this argument.






Yeah, we can clearly see from above that Futuyma obviously agrees with your assumption of "change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations", has nothing to do with the "evolution" of a society. I can also tell from above that he agrees with you about one intelligent sterile organism, would make more of an "evolutionary" change to a society, than one unintelligent fertile organism.





And the people produce the weapons of mass destruction, and people can't be produced without an organism's ability to procreate.

Am I missing something here? Why is this so hard to understand?



Universal premises? That's a pretty weak argument even for you my friend. You must be watching too much He-man. He is one of the Master's of the Universe you know.




Whatever the case, we both know that you would be wrong on both counts anyway. If people in a society can't f*ck and produce babies, it doesn't matter how intelligent the members of that society are, they will not advance over a group full of one armed, two toothed, big nosed, retards who can f*ck and produce babies. Simple as that.



Probably the same amount of times it must be explained to you that both theories recognize "procreation" as being the driving force behind a species advancement.



And for believing that homosexual behavior can offer any true advancements to a society, and for believing that intellect is the "driving" force behind the evolution of a society.

Regardless of how intelligent the homosexual's are in this little scenario I've created, or any scenario for that matter, their sexual behavior has no ability to "advance" a culture, and they would inevitably die out, if they did not choose to engage in heterosexual intercourse. Heterosexuality is essential to evolving a culture. Homosexual behavior from a biological or developmental perspective offers no true "advancements" to a society, unless of course, one considers the advanced abilities that many homosexuals possess when it comes to inserting large objects into their rectums.

Fin

Originally posted by whobdamandog
The statement is redundant, and you know it. It isn't necessary to state that one is "presuming" something when they make an assumption. It is already understood that they are presuming something when making an assumption. Seeing as how an assumption is generally defined as: "The act of presuming."

I guess I'll have to go back to my original opinion of you using such tricky terminology to deceive people, seeing as how the statement above predefines my argument as false, without using any substantive evidence to prove it as being false.

This is a classic example of how you debate, never really presenting any real arguments. You just use excessively complicated terminology that one has to research before they find out there is no true meaning to the argument being presented.

Or "gibberish." As our dear friend Ush would put it. Anyway, moving on my argument of..



...simply asserts the obvious, that from a "Darwinian and Modern Evolutionary Perspective" those who procreate the most, are the most likely to have their lineage survive. If one recognized this "common sense" argument as being true, I would think that would make them a bit more intelligent than one who didn't, despite how high the latter individual scored on an SAT test.

As we often see in life..book smarts do not = common sense smarts, and there are many examples of individuals on the forum who support this argument.






Yeah, we can clearly see from above that Futuyma obviously agrees with your assumption of "change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations", has nothing to do with the "evolution" of a society. I can also tell from above that he agrees with you about one intelligent sterile organism, would make more of an "evolutionary" change to a society, than one unintelligent fertile organism.





And the people produce the weapons of mass destruction, and people can't be produced without an organism's ability to procreate.

Am I missing something here? Why is this so hard to understand?



Universal premises? That's a pretty weak argument even for you my friend. You must be watching too much He-man. He is one of the Master's of the Universe you know.




Whatever the case, we both know that you would be wrong on both counts anyway. If people in a society can't f*ck and produce babies, it doesn't matter how intelligent the members of that society are, they will not advance over a group full of one armed, two toothed, big nosed, retards who can f*ck and produce babies. Simple as that.



Probably the same amount of times it must be explained to you that both theories recognize "procreation" as being the driving force behind a species advancement.



And for believing that homosexual behavior can offer any true advancements to a society, and for believing that intellect is the "driving" force behind the evolution of a society.

Regardless of how intelligent the homosexual's are in this little scenario I've created, or any scenario for that matter, their sexual behavior has no ability to "advance" a culture, and they would inevitably die out, if they did not choose to engage in heterosexual intercourse. Heterosexuality is essential to evolving a culture. Homosexual behavior from a biological or developmental perspective offers no true "advancements" to a society, unless of course, one considers the advanced abilities that many homosexuals possess when it comes to inserting large objects into their rectums.

Fin

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/entertainers/child-stars/gary-coleman/81gary1.jpg

Originally posted by whobdamandog
And for believing that homosexual behavior can offer any true advancements to a society, and for believing that intellect is the "driving" force behind the evolution of a society.

Regardless of how intelligent the homosexual's are in this little scenario I've created, or any scenario for that matter, their sexual behavior has no ability to "advance" a culture, and they would inevitably die out, if they did not choose to engage in heterosexual intercourse. Heterosexuality is essential to evolving a culture. Homosexual behavior from a biological or developmental perspective offers no true "advancements" to a society, unless of course, one considers the advanced abilities that many homosexuals possess when it comes to inserting large objects into their rectums.

Fin

http://www.trimpe.org/jr/pictures/disappointed-bongo.jpg

Is anyone else fed up with hearing whob try to justify labeling homosexuals as wrong???

I see you refuse to give an answer to the question I posed about the prostate... Its obvious you don't want to accept any homosexual POV... Its sad that you are soo close minded...

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
There is no organ in the ass to deal with a sandwich, What you are doing there serves no purpose, However we have a prostate, Which has a function which only gays seem to use, Unless you can provide us some reason as to why we have a prostate with this ability, I don't see your point as having much credit...

Again, Your example has no reasoning, However anal sex in men obviously has some merit as they are using a function of an organ... Now the function might just be for fun, But then again so is stimulation of the nipples in straight sex...

Nice try at avoiding the question whobethefool (WOW! I can make crappy name jokes aswell!)... But try again...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/75/Anorectum.gif

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectum



The rectum ampulla acts as a temporary storage facility for feces.



Hey guess what everybody since the rectum is a "storage facility" that means a person can store food in it. What's the purpose of having a lunch bag, if you have the good ol rectum to keep your food in?

And guess what, since the muscles in one's buns will allow them to tighten like a vice, that means that the crack of the ass can be used as a napkin holder. Since people can use these body parts to do these things..then that means that God "designed" these body parts for these specific uses...right Christians?

Silly Christians, always trying to preach their nonsensical doctrines to the masses. I definitely got them with this argument..me so clever..

Originally posted by whobdamandog
The statement is redundant, and you know it. It isn't necessary to state that one is "presuming" something when they make an assumption. It is already understood that they are presuming something when making an assumption. Seeing as how an assumption is generally defined as: "The act of presuming."

I guess I'll have to go back to my original opinion of you using such tricky terminology to deceive people, seeing as how the statement above predefines my argument as false, without using any substantive evidence to prove it as being false.

This is a classic example of how you debate, never really presenting any real arguments. You just use excessively complicated terminology that one has to research before they find out there is no true meaning to the argument being presented.

Or "gibberish." As our dear friend Ush would put it. Anyway, moving on my argument of..

Let us presume that the term assumption and the term presumption have the same meaning. This does not change the fact that the presumption (or if you prefer, assumption), "a female who produces more children is operating from an evolutionary perspective, i.e. she recognizes that producing more children gives her lineage an evolutionary advantage," is false, so why are you arguing an irrelevant point?



Originally posted by whobdamandog
...simply asserts the obvious, that from a "Darwinian and Modern Evolutionary Perspective" those who procreate the most, are the most likely to have their lineage survive. If one recognized this "common sense" argument as being true, I would think that would make them a bit more intelligent than one who didn't, despite how high the latter individual scored on an SAT test.

As we often see in life..book smarts do not = common sense smarts, and there are many examples of individuals on the forum who support this argument.

No, those who procreate the most are more likely to have more of their lineage survive.



Originally posted by whobdamandog
Yeah, we can clearly see from above that Futuyma obviously agrees with your assumption of "change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations", has nothing to do with the "evolution" of a society. I can also tell from above that he agrees with you about one intelligent sterile organism, would make more of an "evolutionary" change to a society, than one unintelligent fertile organism.

It is not my argument that "the population of a society does not need to 'change in genetic composition during successive generations' to biologically evolve or 'change in genetic composition during successive generations.'"

My argument is that "the population of a society does not need to 'change in genetic composition during successive generations' to advance or 'develop or progress.'"

You are using the term "evolution" to mean "change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations," and interchangeably with "advancement" to mean "development or progress."

Stop switching the meaning of terms in the middle of an argument (the logic fallacy of Equivocation) in an attempt misrepresent my argument (the logic fallacy of Straw Man).



Originally posted by whobdamandog
And the people produce the weapons of mass destruction, and people can't be produced without an organism's ability to procreate.

Am I missing something here? Why is this so hard to understand?

One cannot draw a particular conclusion from universal premises because:

Some universal premises need not be instantiated.

No direct relationship exists between the truth of the conclusion and the truth of the premises.

Why is this so hard to understand?



Originally posted by whobdamandog
Universal premises? That's a pretty weak argument even for you my friend. You must be watching too much He-man. He is one of the Master's of the Universe you know.

Simply calling my argument weak does not identify how it is weak, nor does it invalidate it.



Originally posted by whobdamandog
Whatever the case, we both know that you would be wrong on both counts anyway. If people in a society can't f*ck and produce babies, it doesn't matter how intelligent the members of that society are, they will not advance over a group full of one armed, two toothed, big nosed, retards who can f*ck and produce babies. Simple as that.

Certainly, the intelligence of the members of a society matters. The intelligent members of society who "can't **** and produce babies," will learn to reproduce artificially, while producing advancements in medicine, science, technology, etc. Meanwhile, the "group full of one armed, two toothed, big nosed, retards" will be producing large numbers of children with high infant mortality rates, and genetic defects that will shorten their life expectancies or render them sterile. Simple as that.



Originally posted by whobdamandog
Probably the same amount of times it must be explained to you that both theories recognize "procreation" as being the driving force behind a species advancement.

No, both theories recognize procreation as the driving force behind "change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations."



Originally posted by whobdamandog
And for believing that homosexual behavior can offer any true advancements to a society, and for believing that intellect is the "driving" force behind the evolution of a society.

Regardless of how intelligent the homosexual's are in this little scenario I've created, or any scenario for that matter, their sexual behavior has no ability to "advance" a culture, and they would inevitably die out, if they did not choose to engage in heterosexual intercourse. Heterosexuality is essential to evolving a culture. Homosexual behavior from a biological or developmental perspective offers no true "advancements" to a society, unless of course, one considers the advanced abilities that many homosexuals possess when it comes to inserting large objects into their rectums.

Homosexuals do not engage in any sexual behaviors that heterosexuals do not also engage in, so how do the sexual behaviors of one group produce advancements for society while the same behaviors performed by another group do not?

Simple. The sexual behaviors of neither group produces advancements for society. Only the intellectual contributions of the members of a society produce advancements for society.



Moreover, I am still waiting for you to answer my questions:

In Genesis 1:1-31, the creation takes six days, but in Genesis 2:4, the creation takes one day.

Which is correct?


In Genesis 1:11-27, God creates the plants before He creates man and woman, but in Genesis 2:5-25, God creates man first, the plants next, and then woman.

Which is correct?


In Genesis 1:14-19, God creates the stars before He creates the earth, but in Job 38:4-7, God creates the stars after He creates the earth.

Which is correct?


In Genesis 1:20-22, God creates birds from the water, but in Genesis 2:19, God creates birds from the ground.

Which is correct?


In Genesis 1:25-27, God creates the animals before He creates man and woman, but in Genesis 2:7-25, God creates man first, the animals next, and then woman.

Which is correct?


In Genesis 1:27, God creates man and woman at the same time, but in Genesis 2:7-25, God creates man first, then woman.

Which is correct?

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Hey guess what everybody since the rectum is a "storage facility" that means a person can store food in it. What's the purpose of having a lunch bag, if you have the good ol rectum to keep your food in?

And guess what, since the muscles in one's buns will allow them to tighten like a vice, that means that the crack of the ass can be used as a napkin holder. Since people can use these body parts to do these things..then that means that God "designed" these body parts for these specific uses...right Christians?

Silly Christians, always trying to preach their nonsensical doctrines to the masses. I definitely got them with this argument..me so clever..

You seem to be confusing words here... PROSTATE is not RECTUM... I'm not debating what the primary role of the rectum is, I'm questioning you about the secondary function of the prostate...

The primary role of my mouth isn't spiting, but thats an ability of it... The primary role of my skin isn't being able to but coloured but I can if I want to attract a mate...
BUT the prostates secondary role is the ability to be stimulated to orgasm, apparently better then from stimulating the penis... Now this clearly shows that the prostate was meant to be stimulated... Now please explain why the prostate would want to be stimulated??? After all God clearly Designed this function....

P.S. I am christian... But I was taught about God and the bible slightly different... I was told that the time and the place effected alot of the scriptures... So much so that they contradict themselves in places... Now I understand that the bible is but an Idea of how to live your life, Not the be all and end all.. After all... I don't see any witches... (it would be my moral obligation to burn them...)

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
BUT the prostates secondary role is the ability to be stimulated to orgasm, apparently better then from stimulating the penis...

Now this clearly shows that the prostate was meant to be stimulated... Now please explain why the prostate would want to be stimulated???


Yes the prostate's secondary role is to be stimulated to orgasm by inserting large objects into the rectum. You go me there hit, I never saw this definition of the prostate's "secondary role" in any of my Biology books.

Many people use the rectum to "store" drugs and illegal paraphernalia from other countries to the US, so I guess that this means that God did indeed design the rectum for the purpose of storing things like food, drugs, jewelry, etc.

Man..all of these new biological functions of various body parts that I'm learning, I can't believe they didn't mention these functions during any of my Anatomy and Human Physiology lectures. I must have fallen asleep during class or something.

There is a difference between a storage room and a thing thats stimulated. If something is indeed stimulated it means it has a purpose in a sexual relationship, simple as that. Otherwise it wouldn't be stimulated. Unless of course you want to claim God made a mistake, and created an organ thats stimulated when something enters the ass even though nothing should be allowed to enter it. Does god create useless organs?

If you store something in their, it furfills no natural things it doesn't do natural things with the body and it isn't meant as a storage space... It could be an effective storage space, but that doesn't make a real difference.

Originally posted by Fishy
There is a difference between a storage room and a thing thats stimulated. If something is indeed stimulated it means it has a purpose in a sexual relationship, simple as that. Otherwise it wouldn't be stimulated.

If you store something in their, it furfills no natural things it doesn't do natural things with the body and it isn't meant as a storage space... It could be an effective storage space, but that doesn't make a real difference.

Exactly... I wonder Why whob find this soo hard to understand... Perhaps cause it destroys his entire argument???

Originally posted by Fishy
If you store something in their, it furfills no natural things it doesn't do natural things with the body and it isn't meant as a storage space...


The rectum is indeed meant as storage space my friend. As stated in the definition given on the prior page, the natural function of the rectum is that which involves "storing things." So it's logical and natural to stick something up your ass to store it for later use.

Or perhaps I'm wrong, and you're correct with your insinuation, the rectum probably isn't meant to have things inserted into it for storage, come to think of it, I don't believe the rectum was "designed" to have things inserted into it at all. Doh! I guess I accidentally contradicted myself with my initial argument which stated otherwise.

So I guess this all kind of means that the prostate gland, doesn't truly have a "secondary role" which entails being "sexually" stimulated from cylindrical objects inserted through the rectum.

Good thing you told me the rectum wasn't truly "designed" to have things placed into it. This whole "design" argument that Hit started was beginning to test my faith for a minute there, but you definitely set me straight. (no pun intended)

Originally posted by whobdamandog
rebuttal.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
sexual intercourse,

Originally posted by whobdamandog
a salami sandwich in my ass.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
the natural function of the ass

Originally posted by whobdamandog
the function of the rectum

Originally posted by whobdamandog
check the rectum

Originally posted by whobdamandog
large cylindrical objects can be inserted into it

Originally posted by whobdamandog
can't f*ck

Originally posted by whobdamandog
can f*ck

Originally posted by whobdamandog
inserting large objects into their rectums

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/75/Anorectum.gif


Originally posted by whobdamandog
The rectum

Originally posted by whobdamandog
since the rectum

Originally posted by whobdamandog
the good ol rectum

Originally posted by whobdamandog
crack of the ass

Originally posted by whobdamandog
the prostate's

Originally posted by whobdamandog
into the rectum.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
use the rectum

Originally posted by whobdamandog
design the rectum

Originally posted by whobdamandog
The rectum is indeed

Originally posted by whobdamandog
of the rectum

Originally posted by whobdamandog
up your ass .

Originally posted by whobdamandog
the rectum probably

Originally posted by whobdamandog
believe the rectum

Originally posted by whobdamandog
cylindrical objects inserted through the rectum.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
the rectum wasn't

Hahahaha.

Capt may have the funniest post of the year so far.

Aww, shucks you guys... I think my favorite one is "believe the rectum"

You are so inspired.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Aww, shucks you guys... I think my favorite one is "believe the rectum"

I dunno "Salami sandwich in my ass" is pretty awesome.

So, Capt....how bored were you to decide to compile all those quotes?

That was pretty damn funny though.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Let us presume that the term assumption and the term presumption have the same meaning. This does not change the fact that the presumption (or if you prefer, assumption), "a female who produces more children is operating from an evolutionary perspective, i.e. she recognizes that producing more children gives her lineage an evolutionary advantage," is false, so why are you arguing an irrelevant point?


Drivel. Attempting to over-complicate the matter with redundancies and excessive verbiage, that has nothing to do with the argument. You haven't even presented any real evidence proving my assumption to be false, why I on the other hand have given much testimony supporting it to be true. Examples such as the following..



Which prove my initial point of more offspring = greater chances of advancement of a species. You've lost this one my friend, however, I'll assume your presumption of my being correct was already known quite a few posts ago.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
No, those who procreate the most are more likely to have more of their lineage survive.


I'll repost this one more time for good measure, and presumably assume that you've assumed that you've made a false assumption.




Originally posted by Adam_PoE
It is not my argument that "the population of a society does not need to 'change in genetic composition during successive generations' to biologically evolve or 'change in genetic composition during successive generations.'"

My argument is that "the population of a society does not need to 'change in genetic composition during successive generations' to advance or 'develop or progress.'"

You are using the term "evolution" to mean "change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations," and interchangeably with "advancement" to mean "development or progress."

Stop switching the meaning of terms in the middle of an argument (the logic fallacy of Equivocation) in an attempt misrepresent my argument (the logic fallacy of Straw Man).


You have no argument Adam. As all can see you have done little else in this debate but keep on stating what your argument is, rather than provide any evidence supporting it. But we both know the reason as to why this is, that being you really have no valid argument, and there is no evidence to support it.


Originally posted by Adam_PoE
One cannot draw a particular conclusion from universal premises because:

Some universal premises need not be instantiated.

No direct relationship exists between the truth of the conclusion and the truth of the premises.

Why is this so hard to understand?


"Universal premises"...lol..I have to admit, I've never heard of that one before. The only thing that I do know is that He-man possesses the power of the Universe bud, at least according to your signature. Pardon me for the blatant ridicule, it's just that at this point your arguments are clearly delving into the realm of being absurd. But again, thanks for the laugh.


Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Certainly, the intelligence of the members of a society matters. The intelligent members of society who "can't **** and produce babies," will learn to reproduce artificially


Yes but sadly, even if this particular fictional scenario allowed for the process of artificial insemination, sadly..it would still bring about the same conclusion, that conclusion being that "heterosexuality" is still the driving force behind the advancement of a society. Unless of course you can tell me how sperm fertilizing an ovum, represents a "homosexual" process.


Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Meanwhile, the "group full of one armed, two toothed, big nosed, retards" will be producing large numbers of children with high infant mortality rates, and genetic defects that will shorten their life expectancies or render them sterile. Simple as that.


Yes but once again, they will ultimately advance over any group of individuals that are not able to produce offspring. And let's not forget, the possibility for them to producing offspring that don't possess all of their physical and mental ailments exists. Quite simple indeed.


Originally posted by Adam_PoE
No, both theories recognize procreation as the driving force behind "change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations."


So you mean, both theories recognize procreation as the driving force behind a species "evolution"(syn advancement)

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Homosexuals do not engage in any sexual behaviors that heterosexuals do not also engage in, so how do the sexual behaviors of one group produce advancements for society while the same behaviors performed by another group do not?


Easy response: Homosexual's can't f*ck each other and produce smart babies, or can they..you tell me bud?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Simple. The sexual behaviors of neither group produces advancements for society. Only the intellectual contributions of the members of a society produce advancements for society.


Easy response: Homosexual's can't f*ck each other and produce smart babies, or can they..you tell me bud?

*note: I felt it necessary to repeat this line to you again, since you are having much difficulty understanding the differences between homosexual and heterosexual behavior.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE

Moreover, I am still waiting for you to answer my questions:



I believe we have another forum for those questions. I believe it's entitled the "Religion" Forum.

Okay Adam it's been fun. But you're arguments have clearly been defeated in yet another one of our debates. I feel no further need to debate with you regarding this topic, seeing as how at this point, your intention in arguing is to drag the debate on, in hopes of confusing people into thinking that you actually have a legitimate argument.

We both know however, that my initial assumption presumes what I assume to be true, and is actually true, and not just a presumptuous assumption.

Or in other words, I'm right and you're wrong...ohh and let us not forget that..


Procreation is the driving force behind the advancement(syn evolution) of a society.


Fin

Originally posted by whobdamandog
So I guess this all kind of means that the prostate gland, doesn't truly have a "secondary role" which entails being "sexually" stimulated from cylindrical objects inserted through the rectum.

Good thing you told me the rectum wasn't truly "designed" to have things placed into it. This whole "design" argument that Hit started was beginning to test my faith for a minute there, but you definitely set me straight. (no pun intended)

No one is saying to store stuff in the rectum.... I'm asking why the prostate can be stimulated to orgasm.. Truth is, You don't have an answer, Now Stop trying to twist your way around by making up nonsensical uses for body parts...

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss

Now Stop trying to twist your way around by making up nonsensical uses for body parts...



Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
BUT the prostates secondary role is the ability to be stimulated to orgasm.





Note: No irony is demonstrated by the above referenced quotes..


Alright boys and girls. It is now time to announce the winner of the Great Evolutionary Race..duh..duh..duh..and the winner is..

The heterosexuals!!! (Big surprise right?)

Why..well because..

The driving force behind the advancement of a society is..



and because...



If you can't understand why these simple concepts ring true, go to your local community college, and enroll in BIO 101.


Have a good night everybody.

Fin

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Drivel. Attempting to over-complicate the matter with redundancies and excessive verbiage, that has nothing to do with the argument. You haven't even presented any real evidence proving my assumption to be false, why I on the other hand have given much testimony supporting it to be true. Examples such as the following..

I do not have to present any evidence to prove your assumption false. You are the one making a positive claim, therefore you have the burden of proof to substantiate it.

"A male who lives a short time, but produces many offspring is much more successful than a long lived one that produces few," does not prove that "a female who produces more children is operating from an evolutionary perspective, i.e. she recognizes that producing more children gives her lineage an evolutionary advantage."



Originally posted by whobdamandog
Which prove my initial point of more offspring = greater chances of advancement of a species. You've lost this one my friend, however, I'll assume your presumption of my being correct was already known quite a few posts ago.

No, producing more children creates more opportunities for the continuation of a species.



Originally posted by whobdamandog
I'll repost this one more time for good measure, and presumably assume that you've assumed that you've made a false assumption.

How does "a male who lives a short time, but produces many offspring is much more successful than a long lived one that produces few," contradict "those who procreate the most are more likely to have more of their lineage survive?"



Originally posted by whobdamandog
You have no argument Adam. As all can see you have done little else in this debate but keep on stating what your argument is, rather than provide any evidence supporting it. But we both know the reason as to why this is, that being you really have no valid argument, and there is no evidence to support it.

If my argument is invalid, then why have you been unable to refute it without resorting to switching the meaning of terms in the middle of an argument (the logic fallacy of Equivocation) in an attempt misrepresent my argument (the logic fallacy of Straw Man)?



Originally posted by whobdamandog
"Universal premises"...lol..I have to admit, I've never heard of that one before. The only thing that I do know is that He-man possesses the power of the Universe bud, at least according to your signature. Pardon me for the blatant ridicule, it's just that at this point your arguments are clearly delving into the realm of being absurd. But again, thanks for the laugh.

Perhaps you would know what a universal premise is if you had an education in philosophy and logic. Similarly, if you had an education in philosophy and logic, you would know how to recognize and cite a logic fallacy correctly. I am not surprised by your ignorance, only your willingness to admit it. Thank you for the laugh.



Originally posted by whobdamandog
Yes but sadly, even if this particular fictional scenario allowed for the process of artificial insemination, sadly..it would still bring about the same conclusion, that conclusion being that "heterosexuality" is still the driving force behind the advancement of a society. Unless of course you can tell me how sperm fertilizing an ovum, represents a "homosexual" process.

No, it would prove that procreation is necessary for the continuation of a species, and nothing else.



Originally posted by whobdamandog
Yes but once again, they will ultimately advance over any group of individuals that are not able to produce offspring. And let's not forget, the possibility for them to producing offspring that don't possess all of their physical and mental ailments exists. Quite simple indeed.

First, the intelligent members of society who "can't **** and produce babies" are not a group that is unable to produce offspring so you are arguing an irrelevant point.

Second, a child receives half of his DNA from his father, and half of his DNA from his mother. Even if we presume that the traits for being one armed, two toothed, big nosed, and retarded are recessive, if both parents are "one armed, two toothed, big nosed, retards" the child will be a "one armed, two toothed, big nosed, retard."



Originally posted by whobdamandog
So you mean, both theories recognize procreation as the driving force behind a species "evolution"(syn advancement)

No, I mean exactly what I said, "...both theories recognize procreation as the driving force behind 'change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations.'"



Originally posted by whobdamandog
Easy response: Homosexual's can't f*ck each other and produce smart babies, or can they..you tell me bud?

It is your argument that sexual behaviors produce advancements for society. If this is the case, then producing advancements for society by engaging in sexual behaviors is not limited to one group, but anyone who engages in these sexual behaviors.

Moreover, it is your argument that procreation, not intellect is responsible for the advancement of society, so why are you now acknowledging that intellect is responsible for the advancement of society by referencing "smart babies?" If procreation alone is responsible for the advancement of society, the intelligence of the offspring should not matter.



Originally posted by whobdamandog
Easy response: Homosexual's can't f*ck each other and produce smart babies, or can they..you tell me bud?

*note: I felt it necessary to repeat this line to you again, since you are having much difficulty understanding the differences between homosexual and heterosexual behavior.

You cannot have it both ways. Sexual orientation is defined by behavior, remember? This means that there is no such thing as "heterosexual sexual behavior" or "homosexual sexual behavior" as all acts of vaginal intercourse define one as heterosexual and all acts of anal intercourse define one as homosexual.



Originally posted by whobdamandog
I believe we have another forum for those questions. I believe it's entitled the "Religion" Forum.

I posed those questions to you in the Religion forum, and you refused to respond, just as you are doing now.



Originally posted by whobdamandog
Okay Adam it's been fun. But you're arguments have clearly been defeated in yet another one of our debates. I feel no further need to debate with you regarding this topic, seeing as how at this point, your intention in arguing is to drag the debate on, in hopes of confusing people into thinking that you actually have a legitimate argument.

We both know however, that my initial assumption presumes what I assume to be true, and is actually true, and not just a presumptuous assumption.

Or in other words, I'm right and you're wrong...ohh and let us not forget that..


Procreation is the driving force behind the advancement(syn evolution) of a society.

If my arguments have been "clearly defeated," then why are you the one who is retreating from the argument?

"No one runs from an argument he is winning."

Originally posted by whobdamandog
You are hearing me troll.
Decent troll. This should get interesting. Not the most intriguing thread, though, as it is decidedly one-sided. Homosexuals do have the option of opposite-sex intercourse in order to produce offspring, so the point you are trying to make is a tad pointless.

If, however, you were to mix the homosexuals into groups of 100 gay men and 100 gay women, and give them, say, about a thousand years to go on...

Well, that'd be harder to predict. However, one could draw assumptions.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Alright boys and girls. It is now time to announce the winner of the Great Evolutionary Race..duh..duh..duh..and the winner is..

The heterosexuals!!! (Big surprise right?)

You mean because no one took your experiment seriously and almost no one addressed it in the context of your rules, that it's over and a conclusion has been reached?

You'll forgive everyone if none of us takes this "descision" seriously as well.


What I'd really like to see is what happens when the homosexual offspring of the heterosexuals find out about these two islands where only gay people live. They'll be floating off that island on the back of a bathroom door like a refugee running from Cuba.

Guys and Gals, After the success of the first race I'm thinking we should post the next race... For along time I've fought a certain minority to be unmoral, And thanks to natural biology I plan to prove it...

Following the same rules as Whobs race, I plan to put 200 Healthy Straights on an island, And on the other... 200 Disabled people... Any and all disabilities...

Now which will be the longest to survive??? To the winner all the spoils... To the loser, The rank of "Looossseaior..."

Unfortunately I seem to have misplaced my bible.. So I can't quote it...

I'll Post as soon as I get attacked for my obvious attempt to flame people...

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
What I'd really like to see is what happens when the homosexual offspring of the heterosexuals find out about these two islands where only gay people live. They'll be floating off that island on the back of a bathroom door like a refugee running from Cuba.
LOL.

DAMN YOU FOR YOUR FUNNY.

This is assuming that the heterosexual society is oppressive to homosexuals. Simply because the heterosexuals and homosexuals separated does not mean that they are disdainful or against one another. Though I suppose that the homosexuals would have more luck finding a partner with more choices...but this doesn't mean that the ties to their families and friends wouldn't be stronger than this. Or maybe they'd float there and back.

I'm reading too much into this, aren't I?

poor little whob

Originally posted by FeceMan
LOL.

DAMN YOU FOR YOUR FUNNY.

This is assuming that the heterosexual society is oppressive to homosexuals. Simply because the heterosexuals and homosexuals separated does not mean that they are disdainful or against one another. Though I suppose that the homosexuals would have more luck finding a partner with more choices...but this doesn't mean that the ties to their families and friends wouldn't be stronger than this. Or maybe they'd float there and back.

I'm reading too much into this, aren't I?

No, I don't think you're reading too much into it. Especially if Whob picks the heterosexuals that go on the island.

Since there seems to be so much interest interest in evolution and homosexuality lately, I was thinking why not bump an older thread that seems to cover both topics quite well, for all of the new posters who recently joined the forum. Enjoy.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Since there seems to be so much interest interest in evolution and homosexuality lately, I was thinking why not bump an older thread that seems to cover both topics quite well, for all of the new posters who recently joined the forum. Enjoy.

Your opening pandora's box, everyone gets so hostile when we debate evolution.

cool, now we can see you argue with yourself in another thread. we may as well enjoy this moment since at this rate soon, you'll most likely be found naked and curled in a fetal position, covered in your own vomit, feces, and urine, and crying your eyes out. i'll come visit you when the doctors say you're ready for visitors, i promise.

Originally posted by PVS
we may as well enjoy this moment since at this rate soon, you'll most likely be found naked and curled in a fetal position, covered in your own vomit, feces, and urine, and crying your eyes out.


Whatever turns you on...


Fin

Socking, trolling, whob, you're a sad man in desperate need of attention. Seek therapy.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
This brilliant quote helped me come up with a brilliant idea.

What if we took 200 homosexual males, 200 homosexual females, and 200 heterosexuals(100 males, 100 females) and put each group on seperate bodies of land throughout the world.

Each group must build a society, which will bring "mankind" into the next great stage of evolution. However in order for them to do this, each group is forced to adhere to the following guidelines:



*Exclusion from using modern technology of any kind to build the civilization. Only primitive tools and materials can be used. This includes primitive hammers, pulleys, wood, rocks, etc,etc, etc. For those who are a bit slow on the uptake, this excludes cars, airplanes, modern medicine, etc, etc, etc.

*The groups are not able to leave the continent in which they reside nor are they able to have any form of contact with the other groups.


The groups consist of healthy individuals who are 21 years of age, and are of average height/build/intelligence.

Over a 50 year period, which group would have the greater chance of bringing mankind into the next stage of evolution?

Seeing as how there's an overabundance of Modern Evolutionary Theory supporters within this forum, I'll be expecting a lot of responses on this topic.

The race has begun!!!

The floor is now yours. I'll respond once this thread gets to 100 posts. And please let's try to make sure that our opinions are presented in a civil manner.

Doesn't matter anyway. It's quite possible that after a 50 year period teh anus could evolve into a reproductive organ. Same thing happens with some types of animals..if they don't have any women, men's penis's start to evolve into vaginas.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Socking, trolling, whob, you're a sad man in desperate need of attention. Seek therapy.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Socking, trolling, whob, you're a sad man in desperate need of attention. Seek therapy.

I agree.

It's not true!!!

So all of a sudden whob brings up an old thread and tehsmartguy instantly knows what to debate against whob.

Originally posted by debbiejo
It's not true!!!

What is not true? Do you even know what I agreed to?

No............I'm talking about socks...........How could this be...............too polarized.........

paranoia

Originally posted by debbiejo
No............I'm talking about socks...........How could this be...............too polarized.........

bipolar?

Originally posted by debbiejo
No............I'm talking about socks...........How could this be...............too polarized.........

paranoia

What are you talking about?

she's just babbling again

Originally posted by PVS
she's just babbling again

Originally posted by PVS
she's just babbling again
Yeah, what I thought, I'd jsut like her to admit it at some point.

You too..........

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, what I thought, I'd jsut like her to admit it at some point.

Ya, like that is going to happen.

In my last life I was male................You can't hurt me.......

Originally posted by PVS
anyway, its always been a suspicion of mine that perhaps homosexuality is a product of human adaption to overpopulation. of coarse this is based on nothing, but neither is any of the excrement whob spews.


The homosexual's would die out, obviously, if they exclusively stayed homosexual.

Originally posted by NineCoronas



The homosexual's would die out, obviously, if they exclusively stayed homosexual.

nature? nature dont care. god? well this isnt iran (yet) so religion does not define all morals. it parallels many human virtues and thus contains many truths imho, but using it as a direct and literal interpretation to judge others is blasphemy, at least for christianity.

so thats why i threw that out. homosexuality at least trims a small percentage off of our exploding population, so whats the ****ing prolem?

oh forgot the rebuttal. you are wrong. here's why:

by your theory, homosexuals would be a much sharper minority to nonexistant. so its unsound since they generally dont have kids anyway.

Homosexuality is NOT genetic you stupid ****ing moron Whob.
Homosexuality is dependant on one's environment. If you live away from the opposite sex, or your afraid of the opposiite sex, or you like homos, there's a lot of reasons why people TURN homo. God Whob's so dumb.