Evolution: Gender Cannot Be Explained

[Waddlie]

psychodiva wrote

there are Wombles in Milton Keynes? I thought they only lived in Wimbledon?

Milton Keynes has concrete cows, not wombles.

[dogpet]

Waddlie wrote

Milton Keynes has concrete cows, not wombles.

Not a footie fan then Waddlie? ref: MK Dons.

[Waddlie]

Gah, good point...

Riddler wrote

Correction, too late to edit:

Penultimate paragraph should be:

As I was saying, we were talking about humans as the only beings created in God's image. Many animals who reproduce sexually are not monogamous. Some organisms are asexual, some lay eggs, some become larvae, etc.

The entire concept of marriage, sexual fidelity, and procreation among mankind is intended to illustrate God's relational and creative attributes in human relationship as well as God's relationship with mankind.

The animal kingdom illustrates God's power and glory in creation of the diversity of life.

Barney wrote

Perhaps your right. In order to truely comprehand the bible properly and make sense of things like
1"Kill the abomination"
2"Slaughter the firstborn"
3"Leave not a stone upon a stone"
4"Take their women as wives"
5"Made the earth in 6 days"
first I need to smash myself around the head with a large plank, drink 4 liters of Frosty Jack Battery acid cider, inject neat LSD into my arteries and sit in a snoozlum room for 15 weeks listening to Barney and Freinds on a loop.

Then I might understand the Scripture to mean:
1"Those who dont heed gods word are distant from him and he is sad about it"
2"Gods love is equal to his mercy and the firstborn who died are examples of what happens when satan enters the heart"
3"The ones who resisted Gods people had rejected his word and so the gentle dismanteling of their citys stones was a only symbolic of the end of their heresy and their acceptance of Yahwes love"
4"The women of the time had terrible rights until Gods law gave them protection, "Taking a slave as a wife was rescuing her from poverty"
5 "six Days simply means six phases which science has since labled, yet this was written long before science discovered it! Miraculous eh?"

Yeah, the worrying thing is I know enough about your mindset to come out with this shit without drugs.

Yes, you've brilliantly demonstrated what a lack of comprehension looks like in the wild. You've also illustrated the importance to misstate, rewrite, and rip from context while applying a liberal coating of critical sarcastic contempt....it plays well to your peer group.

[psychodiva]

Missionary wrote

As I was saying, we were talking about humans as the only beings created in God's image. Many animals who reproduce sexually are not monogamous. Some organisms are asexual, some lay eggs, some become larvae, etc.

The entire concept of marriage, sexual fidelity, and procreation among mankind is intended to illustrate God's relational and creative attributes in human relationship as well as God's relationship with mankind.

The animal kingdom illustrates God's power and glory in creation of the diversity of life.

I don't think I look like this god? was I really created in its image?

[psychodiva]

Missionary wrote

Yes, you've brilliantly demonstrated what a lack of comprehension looks like in the wild. You've also illustrated the importance to misstate, rewrite, and rip from context while applying a liberal coating of critical sarcastic contempt....it plays well to your peer group.

finest kind

[Barney]

Missionary wrote

Yes, you've brilliantly demonstrated what a lack of comprehension looks like in the wild. You've also illustrated the importance to misstate, rewrite, and rip from context while applying a liberal coating of critical sarcastic contempt....it plays well to your peer group.

Of course. I would need salivation in my <3 to fully open my mind to the true meaning of gods inspired word. And I havnt got that. To recreate it I would need alcohol, drugs and brain damage.

I'm not willing to tamper with the last two, and so I wont be able to read the holy words as they are meant to be read.
They simply read to me,as everyone has read them for millenia,I.E Kill people, slaughter animals , treat women as scum and be the biggest bigot you can be.
You may interprete the bloodspraying and daubing of the sacrifices Jesus demanded as "only written for the jews" and "No gain comes without sacrifice" or whatever impossible hoops you like to leap through to put a gloss on a cankerous rotting corpse, but the true belivers of yesteryear, and indeed those thousands of preists this week who jumped ship in the face of homophillia or the girl who won her court case today allowing her to be a bigot and keep her job because she was a christian? They all know what Gods word is too.
Because they take slightly different spiritual drugs.

[Kate]

Barney wrote

Of course. I would need salivation in my <3 to fully open my mind to the true meaning of gods inspired word. And I havnt got that.

Here ya go!

Missionary wrote

As I was saying, we were talking about humans as the only beings created in God's image. Many animals who reproduce sexually are not monogamous. Some organisms are asexual, some lay eggs, some become larvae, etc.

The entire concept of marriage, sexual fidelity, and procreation among mankind is intended to illustrate God's relational and creative attributes in human relationship as well as God's relationship with mankind.

The animal kingdom illustrates God's power and glory in creation of the diversity of life.

During biblical times the man bought the wife from the woman's family.
Marriage was most likely first performed by the Egyptians. The royalty wanted to keep blue blood blue so fathers married daughters and brothers married sisters.
That is the traditional biblical marriage.
And then the Jesus myth complete with God screwing a married woman. Oh yes, fidelity at its finest.

The reality is that man is not monogamous, though most (including me) choose to be monogamous. Our ancestors used to mate, and then the father would provide for the woman and the baby until the baby could stand, and then the father took a hike looking to spread his seed.
In fact, most of the time, the woman fooled around on the man even during courting, as she went after the fittest looking males, while hooking up with the best providers.

I wonder if Missionary is Sable Chicken:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDeQ6zbjUF4

[psychodiva]

lol- can't see anyone wanting to reproduce with that one

[Single Serving Jack]

Missionary wrote

As I was saying, we were talking about humans as the only beings created in God's image. Many animals who reproduce sexually are not monogamous. Some organisms are asexual, some lay eggs, some become larvae, etc.

The entire concept of marriage, sexual fidelity, and procreation among mankind is intended to illustrate God's relational and creative attributes in human relationship as well as God's relationship with mankind.

The animal kingdom illustrates God's power and glory in creation of the diversity of life.

I'm reading The Ancestor's Tale at the moment, and The Seal's Tale* reminded me of this thread. Specifically it discusses the extreme sexual dimorphism in Elephant Seals and how it relates to the species polygyny. It seems that sexual dimorphism is a good indicator of the breeding system a species uses, for a further example it describes the much greater sexual dimorphism of gorillas (much larger male and polygynous) to gibbons (sexes are approximately equal in size and monogamous).

Human beings are slightly dimorphic, obviously. Not as much as gorillas but more than gibbons. Which suggests that the natural breeding system of early humans (before civilisation and culture became the important factors) was probably a somewhere between the polygyny of gorillas and the monogamy of gibbons.

That doesn't seem to fit with your belief highlighted above. If God wanted us to be monogamous, why are humans sexually dimorphic?

*(p171-177 of The Ancestor's Tale (hardback) by Richard Dawkins if anyone is interested)

baconeatingatheistjew wrote

I wonder if Missionary is Sable Chicken:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDeQ6zbjUF4

grrrr don't you hate timestretching audio ?

[antix]

Single Serving Jack wrote

I'm reading The Ancestor's Tale at the moment, and The Seal's Tale* reminded me of this thread. Specifically it discusses the extreme sexual dimorphism in Elephant Seals and how it relates to the species polygyny. It seems that sexual dimorphism is a good indicator of the breeding system a species uses, for a further example it describes the much greater sexual dimorphism of gorillas (much larger male and polygynous) to gibbons (sexes are approximately equal in size and monogamous).

Human beings are slightly dimorphic, obviously. Not as much as gorillas but more than gibbons. Which suggests that the natural breeding system of early humans (before civilisation and culture became the important factors) was probably a somewhere between the polygyny of gorillas and the monogamy of gibbons.

That doesn't seem to fit with your belief highlighted above. If God wanted us to be monogamous, why are humans sexually dimorphic?

*(p171-177 of The Ancestor's Tale (hardback) by Richard Dawkins if anyone is interested)

Unfortunately, you're bringing up science. And if there is one thing Mish hates, it's actualy science.