Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
You dont need to show your symptoms in this thread. We didnt ask for it. All we asked was to tell what evolved, desire for orgasm or orgasm itself.
Look, everyone who has entered this thread has given an answer. So why don't you take the initiative and READ their responses. It's not hard. Take it one word at a time. Is that too much to ask? Is it too much for you to take into account what the other debaters say in a debate forum?
Or are you just gonna sit there and keep saying things "Well, the evolutionists are just banging their heads against their computer monitors right now cuz they can't seem to answer the question." If you were half as witty as you think you are you would realize there's more information regarding the question asked in the OP than you can shake a stick at. All at your fingertips.
Look at this thread. It's 26 pages long. Lots of really smart people have given lots of really informative posts. They've all taken time out of their lives to help answer the question which was originally posted by Colossians. But it's all wasted, apparently. For all the pages, for all the time, for all the responses, you haven't even tried to learn a damn thing. I doubt you've even read a single sincere response.
So either grow up and actually start confronting what other people say instead of ignoring it, or just be on your way, little boy.
***Edited cuz the OP was made by Colossians, not Intrepid.
__________________ “Dangerous? Perhaps. But evil? She acts according to her nature. Is that evil?”
--Dream of the Endless
Last edited by funyun; 6th August 2004 at 12:12 AM.
The following posts seriously answer the question asked in the OP, or at least have provided insightful information pertaining to the topic:
4, 5, 6, 15, 23, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 35, 36, 37.
And those are only from the first 5 pages.
I suggest, Intrepid and Colosians, that before you make yet another post saying something to the effect of “The evolutionists can’t come up with an answer”, you read them, since it's obvious you have yet to do so.
__________________ “Dangerous? Perhaps. But evil? She acts according to her nature. Is that evil?”
--Dream of the Endless
Nice ad hom. Your question has been answered numerous times in this thread, Mr. Studly.
Originally Posted by funyun
Look, everyone who has entered this thread has given an answer. So why don't you take the initiative and READ their responses. It's not hard. Take it one word at a time. Is that too much to ask? Is it too much for you to take into account what the other debaters say in a debate forum?
Or are you just gonna sit there and keep saying things "Well, the evolutionists are just banging their heads against their computer monitors right now cuz they can't seem to answer the question." If you were half as witty as you think you are you would realize there's more information regarding the question asked in the OP than you can shake a stick at. All at your fingertips.
Look at this thread. It's 26 pages long. Lots of really smart people have given lots of really informative posts. They've all taken time out of their lives to help answer the question which was originally posted by Colossians. But it's all wasted, apparently. For all the pages, for all the time, for all the responses, you haven't even tried to learn a damn thing. I doubt you've even read a single sincere response.
So either grow up and actually start confronting what other people say instead of ignoring it, or just be on your way, little boy.
***Edited cuz the OP was made by Colossians, not Intrepid.
Originally Posted by funyun
The following posts seriously answer the question asked in the OP, or at least have provided insightful information pertaining to the topic:
4, 5, 6, 15, 23, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 35, 36, 37.
And those are only from the first 5 pages.
I suggest, Intrepid and Colosians, that before you make yet another post saying something to the effect of “The evolutionists can’t come up with an answer”, you read them, since it's obvious you have yet to do so.
Guess you guys skipped post number 244 and 245. But thats ok. You can read them now.
Guess you guys skipped post number 244 and 245. But thats ok. You can read them now.
I did. Wasn't impressed. Not much feedback of any substance there. Mostly responses of a personal nature, not pertaining to the topic at hand. Most of the responses that do have to do with the topic don't contain any volume of evidence for Colossians case. Lots and lots of strawmen about what desire is, about what evolution is, and even about what orgasm is. I wish Colossians would come back and give a clear and concise answer on exactly what it is he wants to know. Because based on these two posts, I really have no idea what the heck state of mind he is in.
__________________ “Dangerous? Perhaps. But evil? She acts according to her nature. Is that evil?”
--Dream of the Endless
I am now exiting this thread.
It was designed to show forth the circular reasoning of the evolutionist. Such has been achieved, and also again high-lighted in my last 2 lengthy posts (I believe 244, 245).
The evolutionists have not, in over 25 pages, answered the question.
They have only begged it.
Location: Nah nah nah-nah nah! I'm HERE and you're NOT!!!
Posts: 1,246
Blessings: 28,722
Reps: 958 (power: 0)
Originally Posted by Colossians
Let’s try and make it a little more simple for you: what mutated into what became desire?
Desire do not evolve. Desire developed AFTER orgasm evolved. Mutations don't come from anything. Mutations are spontaneous.
[quote=Colossians]
Then they cannot evolve conscience, and you defeat yourself.
[/quoute]
What are you talking about? If conscience means intelligence, then conscience did evolve because it was an evolutionary advantage. The organisms that evolved intelligence has no knowledge that intelligence would be evolutionary advantageous. You are asking a strawman question.
Originally Posted by Colossians
You have to tell us how what was missing was found,
Spontaneous Mutation. It was not found - it came about by accident.
Originally Posted by Colossians
and more importantly, how it was realised that it was found.
It wasn't realised it was found either. It just became. Mutations occur spontaneously.
Understand?
Originally Posted by Colossians
All you have done is reassert your position. This is an old trick (with you it is accidental) that debaters use. You must instead defend you position: do not tell us that desire is beneficial for the preservation of us, we already know that. Tell us instead how desire itself arose as desire.
Already answered that. Orgasm was a beneficial mutation. Mutations occur spontaneously. Desire for orgasm came after orgasm.
Originally Posted by Colossians
The pleasure is based upon the relief provided by the orgasm. Such relief is based upon the desire for orgasm. Such desire is based upon the anticipation of the relief.
You have said nothing. As usual.
And you've just answered your own question. No orgasm = no desire. Orgasm came first. Orgasm developed spontaneously.
Originally Posted by Colossians
You would benefit greatly in studying some logic.
Your logic, you mean? Your logic is flawed.
Originally Posted by Colossians
I am now exiting this thread.
It was designed to show forth the circular reasoning of the evolutionist. Such has been achieved, and also again high-lighted in my last 2 lengthy posts (I believe 244, 245).
This thread has shown nothing but your ignorance.
Originally Posted by Colossians
The evolutionists have not, in over 25 pages, answered the question.
They have only begged it.
We've answered your questions, it's just you failed to understand the answers.
Location: Nah nah nah-nah nah! I'm HERE and you're NOT!!!
Posts: 1,246
Blessings: 28,722
Reps: 958 (power: 0)
Originally Posted by Colossians
As well as logic, you need to study some linguistics.
Natural is a-spiritual, not non-spiritual.
nat·u·ral ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nchr-l, nchrl)
adj.
1. Present in or produced by nature: a natural pearl.
2. Of, relating to, or concerning nature: a natural environment.
3. Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature: a natural death.
4.
1. Not acquired; inherent: Love of power is natural to some people.
2. Having a particular character by nature: a natural leader.
3. Biology. Not produced or changed artificially; not conditioned: natural immunity; a natural reflex.
5. Characterized by spontaneity and freedom from artificiality, affectation, or inhibitions. See Synonyms at naive.
6. Not altered, treated, or disguised: natural coloring; natural produce.
7. Faithfully representing nature or life.
8. Expected and accepted: “In Willie's mind marriage remained the natural and logical sequence to love” (Duff Cooper).
9. Established by moral certainty or conviction: natural rights.
10. Being in a state regarded as primitive, uncivilized, or unregenerate.
11.
1. Related by blood: the natural parents of the child.
2. Born of unwed parents: a natural child.
12. Mathematics. Of or relating to positive integers, sometimes including zero.
13. Music.
1. Not sharped or flatted.
2. Having no sharps or flats.
Says nothing about being "a-spiritual".
Originally Posted by Colossians
Such a high-falutin term. Makes you sound important.
Tell us, if you were God, would you create a primordial soup, or perhaps something a little more to the point?
Or maybe the corollary question is better for you: “why would waiting around for a while to see what popped out, be desireable to a God for whom time does not exist?”
What are you talking about?
Linear Mode
