If we are made in the image of God, where does homosexuality fit?

[JustAsIam77]

Why is it that ever time a creationist is asked to show all this scientific support they have, they make excuses for why they shouldn'y have to?

Of course its relevent to this thread, because most of us here are pointing out that homosexuality evolved naturally. So if you posted evidence for creationism, that would prove homosexuality didn't evolve. Of course, no such evidence exists, which is why you aren't posting it. Surely a single link to a genuine peer reviewed article wouldn't waste THAT much of your time... if such an article existed.

Meh, meh, meh... Sorry LH. Been away for a few days.

I disagree.

As I've stated, haven't followed this thread much but would like to know if you believe in creationism vs what secular scientists would have us believe?

 

[LightHorseman]

Meh, meh, meh... Sorry LH. Been away for a few days.

I disagree.

As I've stated, haven't followed this thread much but would like to know if you believe in creationism vs what secular scientists would have us believe?

I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what you're disagreeing with.

But to try to answer your question... no, I don't "believe" in a literal 6 days of Creation. I believe Genesis works wonderfully well as an allegory of the dawn of civilisation, combined with ancient mythology about universal cosmology, but for a realistic, representational explanation of how life came to be, I believe scientific method based research gives a more accurate explanation that the Bible.

 

[JustAsIam77]

I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what you're disagreeing with.

But to try to answer your question... no, I don't "believe" in a literal 6 days of Creation. I believe Genesis works wonderfully well as an allegory of the dawn of civilisation, combined with ancient mythology about universal cosmology, but for a realistic, representational explanation of how life came to be, I believe scientific method based research gives a more accurate explanation that the Bible.

Thank you for clarification of your position. I don't agree.

 

[LightHorseman]

Thank you for clarification of your position. I don't agree.

So, care to explain why ALL the scientific evidence points away from 6 day Creationism?

I'm not dogmatic about it, if anyone could show me evidence that 6 day Creationism was accurate, I'd change my position imediately. It is, however, my understanding that no such evidence exists, despite repeated claims to the contrary. I have literally been asking for someone to show me unambiguosly pro-creation rigorous scientific evidence for YEARS now, and, despite the claims by Creationists that such evidence is legion and ubiquitous, no one has actually shown me any yet. I'm starting to feel like the kid locked out of the secret club.

 

[Rajni]

So, care to explain why ALL the scientific evidence points away from 6 day Creationism?

I'm not dogmatic about it, if anyone could show me evidence that 6 day Creationism was accurate, I'd change my position imediately. It is, however, my understanding that no such evidence exists, despite repeated claims to the contrary. I have literally been asking for someone to show me unambiguosly pro-creation rigorous scientific evidence for YEARS now, and, despite the claims by Creationists that such evidence is legion and ubiquitous, no one has actually shown me any yet. I'm starting to feel like the kid locked out of the secret club.

Here's the only website I can think of that might shed light on creationism. It's called Answers in Genesis. I haven't been over there in ages, though!




.

 

[JustAsIam77]

So, care to explain why ALL the scientific evidence points away from 6 day Creationism?

I'm starting to feel like the kid locked out of the secret club.

You'll figure it out.

 

[Jase]

Oh, do you think God evolved? Do you think He was born from a set of parents who passed on genetic traits? Does God have a navel or genitals? Does He have to get up to use the bathroom frequently?

No I don't think God evolved.

If

evolution is true, it has no bearing on being created in the image of God because God is not physical, the 'image of God' must be something metaphysical like our soul which carries individuality and creativity, and spirit which allows us to commune with God.

Depends on what constitutes the image of God. I believe our exceptional intellect and ability to reason is part of what makes us in the image of God, and I believe God used evolution to achieve those outcomes. Sexuality is also certainly evolutionarily tied, since there has to be an evolutionary advantage to being gay, otherwise gay people would have never survived, since they aren't likely to reproduce. ( I believe this advantage to be partly the increased intelligence of gays and transsexuals - studies indicate that lesbians, bisexuals, and gays are up to 1 standard deviation higher in IQ than heterosexuals, and transsexuals are 2 deviations higher in IQ - most likely due to the increased androgen production in pre-natal development).

 

[Jase]

frankly Jase, I could care less what attack you use, I'm not wasting
my time going off topic for a biased audience to disagree
with anyways.

So instead you're going to waste our time telling us how all gays are going to hell, because they were born?

If you want to claim God didn't create Adam from nothing and instead
borrowed from a baboon, be my guest. I have plenty of solid ground
to stand on in Creation Science. And I stand in good company with
prominant Theologians and apologists who likewise agree.
Go fight them - there's websites galore to go attack.

There is no such thing as Creation Science. Creationism is not a scientific field. Therefore, it can't be a science. And not a single prominant, respected theologian or apologist would dare agree with you. This trend is shown throughout history. Even St. Augustine thought literalists made Christianity look like a joke to those they were trying to witness to who actually understood science.

How about where ANYTHING plays a role when great great
granpappy was a chimp...

I see we have not taken heed to avoid this PRATT. Humans were not born from chimps.

It absolutely includes me - which is why I find it pointless to
debate the topic here. You're set in yours, I'm set in mine due to scripture.

I agree you're set in yours, but I disagree that it is due to scripture.

And frankly, unless one is a scientist, people are only left to pick
a side since they are unqualified to even decide if one side is wrong
or not due to ignorance of the topic.

One doesn't need to be a scientist to understand the basic fundamentals of science. I'm not a scientist, I majored in Political Science with an emphasis on law. I did, however, take an evolution class ( and mind you I was a fundamentalist at the time, and was totally opposed to being forced to take it), and I know the basics of science. I personally am not a fan of evolution studies. My scientific interests and more adequate knowledge lie in Geology/Geophysics and Meteorology as those are my areas of greatest interest. That nonetheless doesn't mean I need to be ignorant about the most important scientific theory in human history.
Your argument is no different than saying, since you are not a scientist, you shouldn't be expected to understand Germ theory, and therefore have no reason to believe that covering your mouth when you cough, or taking antibiotics when you have a bacterial infection are in anyway beneficial.

That would be like a person who doesn't know the Chinese language,
trying to tell the interpretor that they're wrong in their interpretation.
How do you KNOW the interpretor's wrong.

Language fluency is hardly a valid comparison to understanding the basics of science. Learning Chinese is one of the most difficult studies one can possibly undertake, and takes many years to even able to somewhat understand the language. I learned that chimps didn't give birth to humans when I was like 5.

To what I bolded - are you even going to make a claim that
Creationsts HAVE no evidence?
That just becuz I won't waste my time in an evolution debate here
that there IS NO EVIDENCE? oh dear.

They don't have any evidence, and it has absolutely nothing to do with your inability to understand evolution. Let me remind you Nadiine, I spent 3-5 years after converting to a Messianic Jew as a fundamentalist, who believed far far more inaccurate things than you do. I was a Christian apologist on the largest atheist board on the internet, and became arguably the most infamous theist to ever post on that board. I have 5 pages of quotes on Fundies Say the Darndest Things. I know the creationist mindset far far better than you do. I preached it for years, and studied it ad nauseum. It's unfortunate that I felt like I was forced to be a literalist and fundie as a new Christian due to the pressures of conservatives that I dealt with at the time, who made me believe I was going to hell for not accepting their ignorant views. Fortunately, it seems God has shown me the path away from such ignorance, and I now stand on the side of reason and intelligence, in defense of God's creation ( where as creationism is going against it, because it makes God a liar).

 

[Jase]

Why is it that ever time a creationist is asked to show all this scientific support they have, they make excuses for why they shouldn'y have to?

Because there is no such thing as scientific support for creationism, and therefore they have to make excuses?

 

[Jase]

Here's the only website I can think of that might shed light on creationism. It's called Answers in Genesis. I haven't been over there in ages, though!




.

Unfortunately, AIG does a great diservice by actually making people think their arguments have some kind of scientific, valid backing, when they don't. Their audience format isn't very appealing either. Their clamoring to the child-like reader is akin to reading a creationist version of the book Everbody Poops.

 

[JediMobius]

Depends on what constitutes the image of God. I believe our exceptional intellect and ability to reason is part of what makes us in the image of God, and I believe God used evolution to achieve those outcomes. Sexuality is also certainly evolutionarily tied, since there has to be an evolutionary advantage to being gay, otherwise gay people would have never survived, since they aren't likely to reproduce. ( I believe this advantage to be partly the increased intelligence of gays and transsexuals - studies indicate that lesbians, bisexuals, and gays are up to 1 standard deviation higher in IQ than heterosexuals, and transsexuals are 2 deviations higher in IQ - most likely due to the increased androgen production in pre-natal development).

That doesn't follow at all. If there's an evolutionary advantage to being gay, yet gay's are unlikely to reproduce, there can't be any gay gene passed on. Homosexuality is somewhat the opposite of survival of the fittest, because their genes are unlikely to survive.

 

[LightHorseman]

Here's the only website I can think of that might shed light on creationism. It's called Answers in Genesis. I haven't been over there in ages, though!

.

Yes, I've been there. Not a single scientifically rigorous peer reviewed article on the entire site. Weird, huh?

 

[LightHorseman]

You'll figure it out.

Once again, when a Creationist is given a genuine opportunity to share the alleged "scientific evidence for Creationism" with an open minded person who has quite literally begged to be shown such evidence in the past, instead of taking 5 seconds to find a link to such evidence, the Creationist chooses to be evasive.

 

[LightHorseman]

That doesn't follow at all. If there's an evolutionary advantage to being gay, yet gay's are unlikely to reproduce, there can't be any gay gene passed on. Homosexuality is somewhat the opposite of survival of the fittest, because their genes are unlikely to survive.

I'm sorry, but you are wrong.

Straight parent-offspring is not the only way genes are passed on, first you should consider kinship relationships.

You think lion prides, beehives or wolf packs don't pass on their genes? Yet only something like 10% of communal chordates ever actually breed, and only something like 1 in 5000 communal insects will breed. Ensuring that your close genetic relations... siblings or cousins, for example, go on to breed, is as much a form of ensuring the transmission of your own genes as actual parenting is. Remember, you are as genetically close to a sibling as you are to offspring.

Second, you need to research recessive genes, which many researchers believe homosexuality is.

Heress how it works... if you are a carrier of the homosexuality gene, it confers a benefit to you (believed to be increased fertility in women) but does not result in the homosexual trait. However, if you breed with another carrier, your offspring may have a reinforced recessive, which is to say, the recessive gene twice. This then makes the recessive trait activate, and thus, you get a homosexual. Its exactly the same as sickle cell anaemia. If you are a carrier, you get immunity to malaria, but if you reinforce the recessive, so your offspring has the double sickle cell gene, your offspring will die before they every have a chance to breed. And yet the sickle cell gene is out there, well and truly.

Genetics is not as simple as you think.

 

[Nadiine]

Yes, I've been there. Not a single scientifically rigorous peer reviewed article on the entire site. Weird, huh?

So now you decide all that information has to be false
becuz it isn't "peer reviewed"
Information rests on on a review - and by "peer".. I'm assuming that
would have to be an evolutionist that rejects creationism? lol

You can't read the info by yourself to form the conclusion that
it's accurate or not without a 'review'?
The information is what it is.

 

[Nadiine]

Second, you need to research recessive genes, which many researchers believe homosexuality is.

Heress how it works... if you are a carrier of the homosexuality gene, it confers a benefit to you (believed to be increased fertility in women)
Genetics is not as simple as you think.

YOU HAVEN'T PROVEN HOMOSEXUALITY IS GENETIC.

Get to first base first LH, then come talk about this theory.

 

[Nadiine]

Jase:

since there has to be an evolutionary advantage to being gay, otherwise gay people would have never survived, since they aren't likely to reproduce.

oh my goodness........
sin never becomes "extinct". Why don't pedophiles become
extinct? How about incest? how about bestiality?
What about violent rapists & murderers?

I cannot even believe what is being promoted here.

 

[LightHorseman]

So now you decide all that information has to be false
becuz it isn't "peer reviewed"
Information rests on on a review - and by "peer".. I'm assuming that
would have to be an evolutionist that rejects creationism? lol

You can't read the info by yourself to form the conclusion that
it's accurate or not without a 'review'?
The information is what it is.

Peer review is a measure of determining scientific rigour. Nothing more, nothing less.

The fact that you don't know this is telling. Now sure, I have a scientific background, so I know this sort of stuff, and I wouldn't expect every one to know how peer review works. However, you'll forgive me if I don't accept the word of someone who doesn't know what peer review, or scientific methodology, is, telling me what is and is not definitive scientific proof.

Short answer, the way to inform the scientific world of genuine scientific discoveries, is through peer reviewed articles in the relevent scientific journals. It is how EVER SINGLE major discovery in science for the last 150 years has been disseminated. Even controversial, paradigm shifting ones like general relativity, so please don't claim its a "conspiracy of evos" or any such nonsense, because classical evolutionary biologists have no more to loose from the publication of Creationist evidence, than classical physicists had to loose by the publication of Einstein's equations. Yet Einstein got his stuff published without a hitch.

By the way... is this your tacit admission that you havn't been able to find a peer reviewed article supporting Creationism?

 

[LightHorseman]

YOU HAVEN'T PROVEN HOMOSEXUALITY IS GENETIC.

Get to first base first LH, then come talk about this theory.

There is quite a lot of evidence that it is genetic, which, if memory serves, i have posted you before. Rather than acknowledging the existance of this evidence, you chose to go off onto a semantic rant about how evidence is not the same as proof... which again, is telling, since there is no such thing as PROOF in ANY scientific discipline.

Technically speaking, there isn't any PROOF that when I drop a ball it will fall to the ground, only a very great deal of evidence suggesting it.

But hey... is there any point me bothering to post the evidence again? I'm happy to do it if I thought you'd read it, but, since I recall you recently telling me that you don't bother to read anything you think might conflict with your pre-existing POV, I assume I'd be wasting my time. You tell me... if I post evidence showing that homosexuality has a genetic component, will you read it?

 

[LightHorseman]

Jase:
oh my goodness........
sin never becomes "extinct". Why don't pedophiles become
extinct? How about incest? how about bestiality?
What about violent rapists & murderers?

I cannot even believe what is being promoted here.

Why do you invoke beastiality all the time? That is not what is being discussed here. Just hoping that some of the visceral reaction to the term might transfewr to homosexuals or what?

What ...exactly... is being promoted here that you have such difficulty with by Jase and I trying to explain that there are more forms of gene trasnission than parent->child?