Evolution losing popularity?

[shuamort]

I don’t need to provide statistics to back that statement up. Some things are so self evident they require no further analyisis.

The gay community already did it’s best to try and prove heterosexuals were more likely to have sex with under aged children than homosexuals were but they couldn’t get around the facts.

You claimed statistics prove it and now you don't want to prove it showing those statistics? That's lazy.

Do you support a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as being between a man and woman? Why do you think pedophilia is wrong? Why do you think murder is wrong? How can “wrong” really be defined without some sort of a definition of "morality"?

If we are all just a bunch of chemical reactions, the law is whatever those with the most power say it is but that isn’t the same as morality is it?

Because, if a person doesn't consent to an action, that's not moral is it? I don't consent to being murdered. I don't consent to being married to a person of an opposite sex. Children cannot consent to having sex with a person of the majority age.

 

[GPS_Flex]

You claimed statistics prove it and now you don't want to prove it showing those statistics? That's lazy.

I don’t need to provide statistics that show there are fewer pedophile priests than pedophiles in NAMBLA, the gay community or the secular community shuamort. It’s so obvious, only a moron would to try to gather the data required to come up with the actual percentages. Perhaps you think me lazy because I won’t spend nearly endless hours gathering data to prove the obvious but I prefer to consider it sanity and prioritizing my time.

If you think I’m wrong feel free to explain why. If you are simply looking for some studies that have been done on the gay vs. straight issue of pedophilia, you might start here: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS02E3

Because, if a person doesn't consent to an action, that's not moral is it? I don't consent to being murdered. I don't consent to being married to a person of an opposite sex. Children cannot consent to having sex with a person of the majority age.

So you define morality as being contingent upon a person’s consent?

If the murderer doesn’t consent to going to jail or not murdering any more people, those that put him in jail are being immoral? Consent has nothing to do with morals other than the fact that it is a product of said morals.

For example, it is through your reliance upon morals that you conclude “children cannot consent to having sex with a person of the majority age”. This is incorrect. Children consent to such relationships more times than not.

Why can you consider such acts immoral if you think we’re nothing but protons and neutrons creating actions and reactions?

Didn’t Darwin write about the destruction of morals evolution would cause?

 

[shuamort]

I don’t need to provide statistics that show there are fewer pedophile priests than pedophiles in NAMBLA, the gay community or the secular community shuamort. It’s so obvious, only a moron would to try to gather the data required to come up with the actual percentages.

Umm, is that why you said:

when it comes down to statistics and percentages involving pedophilia.

Perhaps you think me lazy because I won’t spend nearly endless hours gathering data to prove the obvious but I prefer to consider it sanity and prioritizing my time.

No, I think you're lazy by saying that there are statistics and percentages and then refusing to produce them. If these are such common truths as you're alluding to, they should be easy to produce. Go ahead. Prove your claim. OR you can withdraw it. Your choice.

If you think I’m wrong feel free to explain why. If you are simply looking for some studies that have been done on the gay vs. straight issue of pedophilia, you might start here: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS02E3

[/QUOTE]
The FRC? LOL Yeah, that's like learning nutrition from McDonald's. Got an independent study? One that doesn't look for results but proves 'em?

So you define morality as being contingent upon a person’s consent?

....................

That's one facet that morality is contingent upon. Morality was always taught to me simply as "As long as it doesn't harm anyone, do what you want". That rule trumps all.

 

[alienken]

The FRC? LOL Yeah, that's like learning nutrition from McDonald's. Got an independent study? One that doesn't look for results but proves 'em?



That's one facet that morality is contingent upon. Morality was always taught to me simply as "As long as it doesn't harm anyone, do what you want". That rule trumps all.

See Gps flex, that's what they will do every time. If you drop everything and do some research, any statistics you quote will be dismissed. They don't get that some of us here have lives outside of this site and can't waste time persuading the unpersuaded.

 

[alienken]

Christ told us stories to have us get a point. Is it really such a stretch to believe that that's what the bible's supposed to be, a bunch of stories to teach us lessons?

Stories yes, fictional stories no. My faith is not based on fictional stories. Jesus actually exist and the things that happened in the Bible actually happened.

 

[shuamort]

See Gps flex, that's what they will do every time. If you drop everything and do some research, any statistics you quote will be dismissed. They don't get that some of us here have lives outside of this site and can't waste time persuading the unpersuaded.

I find cites to back up all of my claims within minutes. So, the time it took to say that there are cites and then the time to complain about looking for cites combined would have found you those cites. This is what we call debate, folks. You make a spurious or dubious claim and then are called on it for proof, well then you either prove or concede your point.

 

[Bigbird]

Stories yes, fictional stories no. My faith is not based on fictional stories. Jesus actually exist and the things that happened in the Bible actually happened.

The problem is the only thing you have to prove anything to that fact is a bible.

And the bible was not soley written to provide us a with What happend. It was translated changed for newer times, and certain points etc... were lost.

 

[shuamort]

The problem is the only thing you have to prove anything to that fact is a bible.

And the bible was not soley written to provide us a with What happend. It was translated changed for newer times, and certain points etc... were lost.

Hey, Noah really did put 2 of each animal on every boat and was able to feed the carniverous animals during those 40 days and 40 nights with.... ummm.... hmm.... well, ya see. Well that doesn't make a lick of sense. :rofl

 

[dark lord of the sith]

This may be off the path that this has been going, but there is one fact about the theory of evolution that always bugged me. If we evolved from apes into the human beings that we are today, then why are there still apes around? How could some of them have evolved and not the rest? Shouldn't they have all evolved due to natural selection? Is there an answer? Is this one of those things that can't be explained? There are many theories, but only one answer. It is out there and all the science in the world cannot explain it and we may never completely understand, for we are very small compared to what make us who we are today.

 

[Pacridge]

Hey, Noah really did put 2 of each animal on every boat and was able to feed the carniverous animals during those 40 days and 40 nights with.... ummm.... hmm.... well, ya see. Well that doesn't make a lick of sense. :rofl

There's a whole clean and unclean animals thing. Unclean animals were loaded in pairs. Clean animals were loaded by 8's. The extra clean animals were used for food.

 

[GPS_Flex]

I find cites to back up all of my claims within minutes.

McDonalds for example?

So, the time it took to say that there are cites and then the time to complain about looking for cites combined would have found you those cites.

Ahhh, a true google freak incapable of forming his own opinions.

This is what we call debate, folks. You make a spurious or dubious claim and then are called on it for proof, well then you either prove or concede your point.

This might be what you call debate but it isn’t what you practice.

Since you made the claim that my opinion is wrong about the percentages and statistics concerning Catholic Priests vs. Nambla and the homosexual sect, the burden is upon you to prove me wrong.

I gave you statistics and you shirked them as unworthy due to the source. If you had refuted them, I might respect you. Talk about lazy. You didn’t address a single statistic, study or issue.

Yet you think you understand debate? I knew alienken was right about how people like you hold a double standard and will twist what others say and demand they do all the thinking so you can sit back and just criticize and pretend to be smart.


I produced statistics and percentages shuamort! If you can’t disprove them, you need to shut the hell up or retract/concede YOUR point now don’t you? Telling me my source is like McDonalds is as weak an argument as I’ve ever seen. You claim there are unbiased studies on the Priest vs Homo Pedophilia issue.

Are you willing to follow your own rules or were you just blowing hot air as usual.

I expect you to produce at least one unbiased source. If you can’t do that, you need to concede.

I could demand you prove you are shuamort and drag the debate over that issue on and on forever. It wouldn’t change the facts tough would it?

 

[shuamort]

McDonalds for example?

That's what we call a comparison, :roll:

Ahhh, a true google freak incapable of forming his own opinions.

Heh. I am incapable of forming my own opininons? LOL. No, I am able to support asinine claims by showing proof.

This might be what you call debate but it isn’t what you practice.

Sure it is. I make a claim, I am able to back it up with facts.

Since you made the claim that my opinion is wrong about the percentages and statistics concerning Catholic Priests vs. Nambla and the homosexual sect, the burden is upon you to prove me wrong.

You've never been to a debate have you? The onus is on the person making the claim to support their facts. You made your claim, you were called on the floor to prove it.

I gave you statistics and you shirked them as unworthy due to the source. If you had refuted them, I might respect you. Talk about lazy. You didn’t address a single statistic, study or issue.

Let's say that there's an article saying Bush committed treason. Would it make a difference if the article came from Foxnews vs. The Democratic Underground?

Yet you think you understand debate? I knew alienken was right about how people like you hold a double standard and will twist what others say and demand they do all the thinking so you can sit back and just criticize and pretend to be smart.

Yeah, I was on the US's number 2 forensics team in college. So yes. I understand debate.

I produced statistics and percentages shuamort! If you can’t disprove them, you need to shut the hell up or retract/concede YOUR point now don’t you? Telling me my source is like McDonalds is as weak an argument as I’ve ever seen. You claim there are unbiased studies on the Priest vs Homo Pedophilia issue.

See argument above.

Are you willing to follow your own rules or were you just blowing hot air as usual.

I expect you to produce at least one unbiased source. If you can’t do that, you need to concede.

Non-biased source: Religioustolerance.org

The Reality of Pedophilia
We get often caught in a semantic conflict when discussing the sexual abuse and molestation of children. Depending upon our exact definitions of terms, it can be shown:
that homosexual abuse of children is widespread, and
that abuse of boys by gays is rare, and
that the abuse of girls by lesbians is rarer still.
If we define the phrase "homosexual abuse of children" in the first statement to mean adults molesting and abusing children of the same sex, then this statement is true: Child sexual abuse is widespread. It is perpetrated by males in the vast majority of cases. And a substantial minority of their victims are boys. Data relating to men abusing boys is hungrily pounced upon by opponents to equal rights for homosexuals, who often use it against both gays and lesbians in civil rights battles. But it is not homosexuals, as the term is generally understood, who are responsible for the abuse. It is rather pedophiles who are attracted to children, and have decided to abuse them.
However, if we define the phrase "abuse of boys by gays", and "abuse of girls by lesbians" to mean adult persons with a homosexual orientation abusing children of the same sex, then these statements 2 and 3 above are also true. Gays and lesbians rarely abuse children.

The fact behind these conflicting statements is that most pedophiles are not homosexuals! Or to put it another way, most homosexual molestation is not done by homosexuals.

I could demand you prove you are shuamort and drag the debate over that issue on and on forever. It wouldn’t change the facts tough would it?

You sure you can handle a Cartesian debate?

 

[shuamort]

There's a whole clean and unclean animals thing. Unclean animals were loaded in pairs. Clean animals were loaded by 8's. The extra clean animals were used for food.

Genesis 6:
19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

21 And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them.

BUT THEN. GOD CHANGED THE RULES:
GENESIS
2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

 

[GPS_Flex]

You've never been to a debate have you?

Sure I have.

The onus is on the person making the claim to support their facts.

Prove it!

You made your claim, you were called on the floor to prove it.

What claim do you think I made? Be specific about what you’re asking me to “prove”.

Let's say that there's an article saying Bush committed treason. Would it make a difference if the article came from Foxnews vs. The Democratic Underground?

No.

Yeah, I was on the US's number 2 forensics team in college. So yes. I understand debate.

Is this why you refuse to refute the facts, findings and studies I presented? If you hadn’t used the McDonalds brush off I might believe you.

You claim the FRC statistics are invalid yet you refuse to prove your claim. Prove it or retract your opposition to my statistics. If those statistics were posted on the DU it wouldn’t make them any more right than if they were broadcast on Fox News.

Attacking the source rather than the content is lazy. Yet you call me lazy?

See argument above.

What argument? You aren’t making an argument; you’re giving excuses for why you aren’t required to prove anything and using that as an explanation for your refusal to debunk the evidence that was given to you.

I hate to burst your “US's number 2 forensics team in college” bubble but you aren’t arguing anything but the concept that you have somehow won an argument by saying “prove it” and you systematically discard the evidence offered as illegitimate without proving anything.

What in the hell have you proved oh self-proclaimed master of debate?

Non-biased source: Religioustolerance.org

Your link fails to answer this challenge:

Homosexual apologists admit that some homosexuals sexually molest children, but they deny that homosexuals are more likely to commit such offenses. After all, they argue, the majority of child molestation cases are heterosexual in nature. While this is correct in terms of absolute numbers, this argument ignores the fact that homosexuals comprise only a very small percentage of the population.
The evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls. To demonstrate this it is necessary to connect several statistics related to the problem of child sex abuse: 1) men are almost always the perpetrator; 2) up to one-third or more of child sex abuse cases are committed against boys; 3) less than three percent of the population are homosexuals. Thus, a tiny percentage of the population (homosexual men), commit one-third or more of the cases of child sexual molestation.

If you can’t get past this part of the argument, you can’t claim catholic priests are more likely to molest children than the secular part of society is. The secular part of society would include everyone who isn’t a catholic priest.

You sure you can handle a Cartesian debate?

Considering you are only on the US's number 2 forensics team in college, I think I can handle whatever you throw at me.

Was I supposed to be impressed or something? I wont bother asking you to prove you are who you say you are because I respect a person’ anonymity in political debate threads like this but you sure haven’t shown the skills you think you have.

You sure as heck managed to change the subject though didn’t you?

Either prove that people of christian faith/catholic priests are more likely to commit acts of pedophilia than the secular sector or take your lazy ass somewhere else and stop trying to impress me with how awesome a debater you think you are.

 

[GPS_Flex]

Shuamort, you look like an idiot.

In Genesis 6:20 God was telling Noah what would come his way.

In Genesis 7:3 God was telling Noah what to do.

I thought you were some sort of master debater or something. If you can’t see that you haven’t proven God changed the rules with this feeble little post, you need to work on your reading comprehension skills.

 

[GPS_Flex]

Shuamort, you should have chosen Genesis 7:4 as your point of contention.

You sure you’re ready to debate me? I only have an 8th grade education but I’m certain that’s enough to handle you.

 

[GPS_Flex]

BUT THEN. GOD CHANGED THE RULES:

I almost forgot to call you on this and put the onus upon you to prove it.

You've never been to a debate have you? The onus is on the person making the claim to support their facts. You made your claim, you were called on the floor to prove it.

Do you believe in the saying “those who live by the sword die by the sword”?

 

[Kelzie]

Since nobody was providing numbers, and I get a strange joy out of finding information, here are some numbers for everyone to digest.

Number of priest in the US accused of molestation: 4,392

Number of priests in the US: 29,000 (the article was written in 1999, when there was roughly 30,000, and predicted that in 2005 there would be 28,000, so I just took the middle number)

Percentage of priests accused of molestation in the US: 15%

Number of US sex offenders in 1994: 234,000

Number of people in the US in 1994: 260,289,237

Percentage of sexual offenders in the US in 1994: .089%

 

[shuamort]

Dammit, I had a nice long post and I'm having issues with cookies and this website apparently. Long post short:

GPS_Flex, the crux of your position from your Focus on the Family "article" comes from this:

While this is correct in terms of absolute numbers, this argument ignores the fact that homosexuals comprise only a very small percentage of the population.

This article, nor any others, have actually proven the following items what percentage of the population is actually homosexual.

Moreover:

Example of Misinformation on Pederasty
A report by Focus on the Family attempts to disseminate a Christian interpretation of homosexuality in a manner that appears to be scientific and objective.
They cite three reports to support their assertions. 3,4,5 They make two very serious errors in this section of their report: they assume that all males who molest boys are homosexuals. This is not true; they are generally pedophiles with no sexual attraction to other adults. And many, if not most, are sexually attracted to both boys and girls.
they assume that all homosexuals are males. They find something negative that they feel they can say about male homosexuals and extend it to all homosexuals; lesbians included. It is also seen very commonly in discussions of AIDS. Such groups will typically condemn gays for levels of HIV infections which are higher than among heterosexuals; they ignore the fact that HIV infections among lesbians are lower than among heterosexuals.

As for the mythology surrounding Noah, I'm not the only one there:

Similar conflicts are found in the story of the animals going onto the ark. In one version we are specifically told that all animals, ‘clean' and ‘unclean' went onto the ark two by two, and in the variant (priestly) version of the story the ‘clean' animals go on seven by seven. The reason for the variant is that Noah must be portrayed as offering up animal sacrifices upon leaving the ark in the priestly version, thus suggesting that priestly sacrificial doctrine had an illustrious history. Similarly in the priestly version the flood is said to last ‘forty days and nights' since it appears that ‘forty' was considered an illustrious number.

Shuamort, you look like an idiot.

This is a debate, not a place for ad hominem attacks which are against this board's policies.

 

[Showtyme]

Because if it is the way christ wants it to be, then wouldn't it all be in a metaphors, just one big book of parables?

How do you know that it's not a book of parables. Really, tell me, how do you know, for a fact, that I am wrong?

Christ told us stories to have us get a point. Is it really such a stretch to believe that that's what the bible's supposed to be, a bunch of stories to teach us lessons?

And how do you know that it is?

Did Jesus hit you up on the celly and tell you that the Bible is supposed to be strictly taken metaphorically? I tried calling Him the other day but He didn’t pick up.

 

[Showtyme]

And the bible was not soley written to provide us a with What happend. It was translated changed for newer times, and certain points etc... were lost.

Points such as.... Please finish what you started.

 

[Showtyme]

Hey, Noah really did put 2 of each animal on every boat and was able to feed the carniverous animals during those 40 days and 40 nights with.... ummm.... hmm.... well, ya see. Well that doesn't make a lick of sense. :rofl

If you don't believe in God then of course it doesn't make sense! Silly Shuey.

 

[Showtyme]

... there is one fact about the theory of evolution that always bugged me. If we evolved from apes into the human beings that we are today, then why are there still apes around? How could some of them have evolved and not the rest? Shouldn't they have all evolved due to natural selection?

That's what I was wondering too. Why aren't monkeys still morphing into homosapiens? Is there an evolutionist out there who can riddle me this? If not, I think you're bananas.

 

[rudy0908]

That's what I was wondering too. Why aren't monkeys still morphing into homosapiens? Is there an evolutionist out there who can riddle me this? If not, I think you're bananas.

Please, please, please consult a biologist with this question. I'm pretty sure I understand evolution, but I don't feel confident that I, or anyone else here who hasn't studied it extensively, can explain it accurately to you. My biggest problem is with your use of the word "morph." This isn't a quick process, as I'm sure you understand, it happens over millions of years. Evolution also doesn't necesarily affect an entire species, but can occur within individual populations through genetic mutations and natural selection. But, again, please ask someone official who knows, and don't just accept some potentially uninformed definition.

 

[Kelzie]

That's what I was wondering too. Why aren't monkeys still morphing into homosapiens? Is there an evolutionist out there who can riddle me this? If not, I think you're bananas.

We're different lines. More like cousins actually. Their line developed into the monkeys we see today, our line developed into humans. That's how I understand it. If there are any "evolutionists" here, feel free to point out any mistakes.