The second question evolutionists can't answer

[Cassandra]

Now, now, children. Play nicely.

 

[Jet Black]

Let's spell it out for all you bluffers trying to buy time to get a handle on things:
When a man is cohabiting with a woman, if he thinks about what he is doing, he aborts his rise to [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse].

I have never suffered that problem before.

 

[Mistermystery]

Ah, let me have some fun yet.

It's a request, not an order. It pains me to see people like karl get ****ed on by colossian, which prompts him to write nasty things, which I completly understand. It's basically inviting him to write those things, because Colos is just trolling these threads. He doesn't come here to learn he comes here to let himself know that his ego is still going strong.

So I ask you all to just stop replying to him. The "sexual [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]" thread shows that he can't and won't learn anything you say.

 

[Jet Black]

Jet Black,

The selective advantage of higher intellect is such that, for whatever reason, those with greater intelligence bred more
1. As usual, circular reasoning.

wrong. right now you need to engage your brain cells for this bit, it might be rather complicated for you.

there is a man, lets call him jim, who is more intelligent than other men, this makes him better at evading predators and catching food, so he survives longer and gets more food, and hence all the pretty ladies think he is great and breed with him. because of this, he has lots of children, and in the net generation, more of the children are his than poor old joe who frankly is a bit dum, and was eaten by a tiger when he was 17 because he wasn'T smart enough to keep an eye out.

see?

2. Does not address the substance of the thread.

actually it does.

 

[Colossians]

Ampoliros, Tomk80,

Your posts assert similar contentions, focussing on percentages of dysfunctionalism amongst the population.

You have not grasped the issue.
It is not about percentages, but about the evolution of the intellect generically speaking: viz: that which provides no support to, but in fact often militates against, the primary catalyst for evolution (sexual desire), cannot be said to have evolved.

It is the 'stuff' of intellect itself (the essense of it) which is under discussion here - specifically its supposed generation from a-intellectual reproductive mechanisms.

 

[Jet Black]

Ampoliros, Tomk80,

Your posts assert similar contentions, focussing on percentages of dysfunctionalism amongst the population.

You have not grasped the issue.
It is not about percentages, but about the evolution of the intellect generically speaking: viz: that which provides no support to, but in fact often militates against, the primary catalyst for evolution (sexual desire), cannot be said to have evolved.

It is the 'stuff' of intellect itself (the essense of it) which is under discussion here - specifically its supposed generation from a-intellectual reproductive mechanisms.

fundamentally it seems that what you are trying to argue, is that intellect is somehow detrimental to breeding.

 

[h2whoa]

Ignoring the rather trite nature of this thread, I ask this just out of interest.

Why would God make sexual dysnfunction a part of the human psyche? Not forgetting that there are as many married people who will suffer from it as non-married.

I mean the Bible says that husband and wife should not hold back from each other. Married sex is clearly not a sin by this standard. So, in your attempt to refute evolution with what is quite a facetious argument, are you suggesting that God made a bit of a boo boo in this area?

h2

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Rational guy? Yeah, generally, but I don't suffer fools gladly. I'm well aware that man that is born of woman hath but a little time to live, and I resent even picoseconds taken up by responding to idiots like this.

 

[Colossians]

Why would God make sexual dysnfunction a part of the human psyche?
Never mind that: see whether you can answer the question.

 

[Mistermystery]

10 bucks say he will proclaim victory by the end of page 9.

 

[Tomk80]

Ampoliros, Tomk80,

Your posts assert similar contentions, focussing on percentages of dysfunctionalism amongst the population.

You have not grasped the issue.
It is not about percentages, but about the evolution of the intellect generically speaking: viz: that which provides no support to, but in fact often militates against, the primary catalyst for evolution (sexual desire), cannot be said to have evolved.

It is the 'stuff' of intellect itself (the essense of it) which is under discussion here - specifically its supposed generation from a-intellectual reproductive mechanisms.

No, you are misunderstanding. The question is whether a higher intellect automatically creates sexual dysfunctioning or whether it creates dysfunction in only part of the population. As far as I know, a higher intellect does not create a dysfunction per se. Dysfunctionalism amongst the whole population is exactly the issue. Now, if you would give me some percentages I can work with, you'll see. So why don't you?

 

[Tomk80]

10 bucks say he will proclaim victory by the end of page 9.

Your on, but only if you raise the stakes to 40 ironometers

 

[h2whoa]

Why would God make sexual dysnfunction a part of the human psyche?
Never mind that: see whether you can answer the question.

Typical.

 

[Mistermystery]

Never mind that: see whether you can answer the question.

hahah there's a flaw presented and you ignore it. That's just great.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtains!

 

[Colossians]

Tomk80,

The question is whether a higher intellect automatically creates sexual dysfunctioning or whether it creates dysfunction in only part of the population.
I know what the question is: I wrote it.
The question is not about whether intellect automatically invokes sexual dysfunction, but about how intellect can come into being from sexual processes, which are fundamentally and inherently a-intellectual.

Accordingly, the existence of only one instance of unwanted intervention of the intellect into the sexual act, stands as inductive proof for the impossibility of such facet to arise through a mechanism which has sexual desire as its primary propellant.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Sexual desire is not the primary "propellant" of evolution. Natural selection is. It's not just about shaggability. You've got to survive long enough to shag.

 

[Tomk80]

Tomk80,

The question is whether a higher intellect automatically creates sexual dysfunctioning or whether it creates dysfunction in only part of the population.
I know what the question is: I wrote it.
The question is not about whether intellect automatically invokes sexual dysfunction, but about how intellect can come into being from sexual processes, which are fundamentally and inherently a-intellectual.

Accordingly, the existence of only one instance of unwanted intervention of the intellect into the sexual act, stands as inductive proof for the impossibility of such facet to arise through a mechanism which has sexual desire as its primary propellant.

Ok, you've definitely lost me in this one. I think...

Let's try this in another way:
You are saying that the intellect arose out of a sexual process
Since it came into being from a sexual process, it cannot develop a dysfunction on this process

Is this what you are trying to say?

 

[Jet Black]

I know what the question is: I wrote it.
The question is not about whether intellect automatically invokes sexual dysfunction, but about how intellect can come into being from sexual processes, which are fundamentally and inherently a-intellectual.

why should it? Intelligence arises as a result of the differential reproductive success which occurs as a result of selection factors on different levels of intelligence.

Accordingly, the existence of only one instance of unwanted intervention of the intellect into the sexual act, stands as inductive proof for the impossibility of such facet to arise through a mechanism which has sexual desire as its primary propellant.

the basis of your argument is flawed anyway. if this alleged sexual dysfunction (which nobody here seems to experience) occurs, it is indeed one of those sexual pressures, however from this small quasi-random sample of the posters on the internet it doesn't seem to be a particularly large problem. However if it was, then it would in itself act as a selection factor on different levels of intelligence and hence an equilibrium would be reached between the benefits of intelligence (improved survival rate) and the costs (occasional problems in breeding)

 

[Jet Black]

Sexual desire is not the primary "propellant" of evolution. Natural selection is. It's not just about shaggability. You've got to survive long enough to shag.

you require a calming beverage. of course this being a christian forum, I can only condone legal substances, however something stronger might be a good idea

 

[Colossians]

Good night all. As apt as I am at debating 27 evolutionists at once, I have energy levels to consider, and in my country, it is night.