Jump to content

The Atheist's Problem With Females


Taphophilia
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://www.pulltheplugonatheism.com/art02.shtml

 

All animals, all fish and reptiles have the ability to reproduce of their own kind because they have females within the species. No male can reproduce and keep its kind alive without a female of the same species. Dogs, cats, horses, cattle, elephants, humans, giraffes, lions, tigers, birds, fish, and reptiles all came into being having both male and female. If any species came into existence without a mature female present (with complimentary female components), that one male would have remained alone and in time died. The species could not have survived without a female. Why did hundreds of thousands of animals, fish, reptiles and birds (over millions of years) evolve a female partner (that coincidentally matured at just the right time) with each species?

 

In contrast, the Bible maintains that God instantaneously created man (in His own image) and woman, giving them the ability to reproduce after their kind. So the Bible and the theory of Darwinian evolution are not only opposed to one another, they are incompatible. The only commonality is that they are both miraculous, and they both require faith to believe them.

 

Those who believe in the theory of evolution are passionate, and for a good reason. If Darwin was right, man is simply an animal with no moral accountability, and his desires therefore to procreate are merely natural survival instincts.

 

However, if the Bible is true, it throws a huge, cold, and heavy wet blanket over man's desire to follow his sexual instincts. It not only says that he is accountable, but that there will be severe retribution for his adultery, fornication, and even for lust (see Matthew 5:27-28).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the Bible and the theory of Darwinian evolution are not only opposed to one another, they are incompatible.

 

I agree with this! I don't understand how people like John Polkinghorne can reconcile evolution with Christian faith.

 

However, if the Bible is true, it throws a huge, cold, and heavy wet blanket over man's desire to follow his sexual instincts. It not only says that he is accountable, but that there will be severe retribution for his adultery, fornication, and even for lust (see Matthew 5:27-28).

 

So much for God's "justice". Why would he create creatures flawed and then condemn them for being flawed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bible says that "god" created them at the same time but then it says that it created everything in pairs except humans. He only made one. Then he created a ribwich gal when he noticed that the man wasn't taking to any of the critters. It's only after she arrives, they gain "evil" knowledge, that they know they're naked and get down business. Seems the "wet blanket" is Eve. Before that "god" wanted party time with the animals.

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um, where to begin?

 

I think our theories of evolution are indeed incompatible with a literal interpretation of the Bible. But if the Bible is viewed metaphorically then I don’t see much conflict.

 

Sex indeed seems to be a mystery. And many biologists are still trying to understand how and why sexual reproduction emerged.

 

I think this guy wants to find some sort of justification for his prudish nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

I think it's notable that the author assumes evolutionists are necessarily atheists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The most common theory is that gene mutation and natural selection is such a slow process, male and female of a species developed to provide a mix of DNA's between the two, and therefore a wider range of variations for natural selection to work with. More "fittest" for the "survival of the fittest." No god involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why did hundreds of thousands of animals, fish, reptiles and birds (over millions of years) evolve a female partner (that coincidentally matured at just the right time) with each species?

 

BWA HA HA HA HA HA

 

Thanks for the laughs, I needed that this morning.

 

Have some caek.

 

3419784060_78e7d53184.jpg?v=0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could point out the obvious of one celled organisms...but I'd love to see what Banana Boy would have to say about Whiptail Lizards. There is no such thing as a MALE Whiptail lizard. There used to be, but there aren't anymore.

 

I also been reading lately about the legend of Lilith, Adam's first wife and wonder if Ray and his pet actor Kirk believe in her.

 

 

<i>Those who believe in the theory of evolution are passionate, and for a good reason. If Darwin was right, man is simply an animal with no moral accountability, and his desires therefore to procreate are merely natural survival instincts.</i>

 

I love how they just can't fathom that morals could not possibly have a practical use in simply being human. The definition of "moral" is "the sense of right and wrong." From an evolutionary perspective given that we are highly social animals with an extremely complex society with complex and rational brains, having a moral sense is an important and useful sense for us to have.

 

<i>However, if the Bible is true, it throws a huge, cold, and heavy wet blanket over man's desire to follow his sexual instincts. It not only says that he is accountable, but that there will be severe retribution for his adultery, fornication, and even for lust (see Matthew 5:27-28).</i>

 

We're STILL accountable for our actions anyway. It's not to a god, but people DO still get into a lot of trouble with adultery, fornication, and lust.

 

I think we should throw a graduation party when Ray and Kirk graduate elementary school. I know they are both around three times the age of most elementary school kids, but they can do it! They just have to work a little more for that gold star!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thestupiditburns.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there are some species of frogs that can change sex.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.pulltheplugonatheism.com/art02.shtml

 

All animals, all fish and reptiles have the ability to reproduce of their own kind because they have females within the species. No male can reproduce and keep its kind alive without a female of the same species. Dogs, cats, horses, cattle, elephants, humans, giraffes, lions, tigers, birds, fish, and reptiles all came into being having both male and female. If any species came into existence without a mature female present (with complimentary female components), that one male would have remained alone and in time died. The species could not have survived without a female. Why did hundreds of thousands of animals, fish, reptiles and birds (over millions of years) evolve a female partner (that coincidentally matured at just the right time) with each species?

 

In contrast, the Bible maintains that God instantaneously created man (in His own image) and woman, giving them the ability to reproduce after their kind. So the Bible and the theory of Darwinian evolution are not only opposed to one another, they are incompatible. The only commonality is that they are both miraculous, and they both require faith to believe them.

 

Those who believe in the theory of evolution are passionate, and for a good reason. If Darwin was right, man is simply an animal with no moral accountability, and his desires therefore to procreate are merely natural survival instincts.

 

However, if the Bible is true, it throws a huge, cold, and heavy wet blanket over man's desire to follow his sexual instincts. It not only says that he is accountable, but that there will be severe retribution for his adultery, fornication, and even for lust (see Matthew 5:27-28).

 

This just demonstrates that the author doesn't understand how evolution works. Evolution occurs within POPULATIONS not individuals. An individual from one species does not spontaniously give birth to an individual of a new species. When POPULATIONS speciate it takes tens or even hundreds of thousands of generations. When you compare any two adjacent generations you see next to no change between the two but the cumulative effect over 100,000 generations results in a different species. As a result, you can't really define were one species ends and another begins because there is a continous spectrum between the two ends. As an example, look at the visible spectrum.

 

visible-a.jpg

 

Where does red change to orange? Orange to yellow? Ask a hundred people and you will get a hundred different answers. You can't define a TRANSITIONAL point because the spectrum is continous. The same is true with species. You can take a specimen from "orange" and compare it to a specimen from "red" and see that they are different but you can't tell where one changes into the other because to change is so gradual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but you can't tell where one changes into the other because to change is so gradual.

Not on my LCD monitor they're not. :grin:

 

Take that evolution!

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there are some species of frogs that can change sex.

 

And African Cichlids (fish). You don't even need a mating pair when starting out. They'll change to whatever sex is needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there are some species of frogs that can change sex.

 

And African Cichlids (fish). You don't even need a mating pair when starting out. They'll change to whatever sex is needed.

 

 

Makes you wonder who sews the clothes for these animals so they can develop abnormal sexual tendancies?

 

Mongo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never considered this before, mwc. This contributes bigtime to the whole idea that Gen 1 has 2 creation myths smacked together into one. Interesting thoughts. Thanks.

As kurari points out this "gap" is where the story of Lilith comes from.

 

They were created at the same time so she wasn't submissive but equal. So she wanted to be on top instead of on the bottom (why not trade off or try doggy? Maybe dogs hadn't sinned and weren't having sex yet to inspire them?). So she says the secret name of "god" and disappears to become an evil demon chick that goes around stealing kids and sitting on men at night to cause them nocturnal emissions. Other than the kids she sounds like fun.

 

So after Lilith blows town, as I said, "god" really did want Adam to have sex with all the animals. But none were a "fit." To top things off Adam was really sore because there must have been like billions of she-critters counting the bugs because this is when he named them too. This must have been a tough time for everyone.

 

"God" then gets a bright idea. He'd make Adam a girlfriend. Only instead of make another dirty girl (get it? Adam and Lilith were made from the ground and she was very sexual...wink wink) he'd make this one from Adam so she'd be submissive because Adam is into that. So he gets going on making this new mate but Adam catches "god" in the act. He see this new woman in the process of being made. Like a Frankenstein's monster. Adam is sickened by this whole thing. All these guts and whatnot being put together. Finally the most beautify woman ever is brought to Adam and he rejects her. All he can think about is her being put together and he can't deal with it. "God" tosses this Eve in the garbage.

 

Never one to give up "god" knocks Adam out and grabs his rib to make another go of this Eve project. This time he builds her while he's asleep so he can't watch the whole disgusting process. When Adam wakes up there's Eve 2.0 and he takes a shine to her. Apparently Adam is a bit dim-witted and can't figure out she's made the same way the ultra-hot Eve 1.0 was.

 

Now with his perfect mate Adam and Eve live happily ever after without a care in the world...

 

(Well, that's the paraphrase entirely from memory so it may or may not be entirely accurate but I imagine it's in the ball park)

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dammit, I got beat to the whip tailed lizard. Goes to show that Comfort knows absolutely nothing about biology or zoology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Ray Comfort has ever read a real biology book, I would be surprised. He is certainly ignorant of factual, modern scientific knowledge. Insects, reptiles, and amphibians all have examples of asexual reproduction.

 

He really needs to seek evidence in some other place besides living things. He is only looking more and more foolish. Except, that is, to others who have no idea of any truth outside the bible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My first problem with that post: There are asexually reproducing animals. For instance, the rotifer Daphnia is consider an "all-female" species, and reproduces by parthenogenesis (making identical copies of itself).Daphnia is a curious but primitive creature; there is little variation over time, and as animals go, Daphnia is not particularly complex. The closest to asexual reproduction that we see in more complex animals is in armadillos, where after genetic recombination through sex occurs, the embryo multiplies itself in the womb. A "litter" of armadillos contains identical copies of a single embryo.

 

Secondly, I think that real "science" is grossly misunderstood by the general public, and this post showcases that problem. If one takes the time to examine the philosophy behind science and the proper scientific mindset, one does not become wed to theories in the way Christians are tied to their doctrine. A good scientist uses the theory that explains the most and is of the most utility. The theory which is best at any given moment should not be taken as a "truth" that cannot be contradicted, but rather a tool for the discovery of other new, utilitarian theories. This is how I view evolution as a biologist. It is not the "gospel," it is the best tool in the box.

 

Under this umbrella of evolution (which, as I said, I adhere to at the moment), however, gender makes fine sense. When I, a human female, select a mate with qualities that enhance mine (intelligence, physical well-being), then our children have the possibility of benefiting from our combined DNA. If I were a Daphnia, it would be certain that my children would not be greater than me. We see from the armadillo that asexual reproduction in complex animals is possible, but still entails genetic recombination at some point. It makes sense that we have more than one source of DNA, and that's really... just how it is. Ever the scientist, I would be happy to find a theory which works better and disproves this evolutionary view on the sexes, but thus far there is none.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am an atheist and I think

females are trouble.

They can say yes or no,

but if “no” it busts my bubble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read some of the "A Series of Unfortunate Events" books a few years back, and there was a quote that has really stuck with me. I can't remember it exactly, but I'll paraphrase it here:

 

If is often easier to correct someone who has made a small mistake than a large one. If a waiter brings me the wrong kind of soup, I can ask him to bring me the kind that I ordered. But if a waiter spits in my soup...

 

Ray Comfort has just spit in my soup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am an atheist and I think

females are trouble.

They can say yes or no,

but if “no” it busts my bubble.

You really should collect these things instead of throwing them away. You have a lot in common with H.L. Menken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if it was true that all species need females to reproduce, then wouldn't that mean God would have had to create Eve first instead of Adam and the creation story is all wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And snails. They're all hermaphrodites.

 

I'm sure there are tons more like that that most people don't know about...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.