You are looking at posts that were written in the month of September in the year 2008.
Posted on September 30th, 2008 by admin.
Categories: Ranting.
On Sep 30, 10:55 pm, Drafterman wrote:
> On Sep 30, 10:52 pm, Smoley wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 30, 7:12 pm, Answer_42 wrote:
>
> > > On 30 sep, 17:35, Smoley wrote:
>
> > > > > > What is the purpose of having both male and female genders in EVERY
> > > > > > species?
>
> > > > > Observer
> > > > > There is no purpose you fucking dimwit.
> > > > > Furthermore there are not separate male and female genders in all
> > > > > species in the natural world.
>
> > >
>
> > > > I thought you weren’t talking to me anymore, Psycho.
>
> > > > I’ve been reading about the evolution of reproduction on the internet,
> > > > which is like a modern library, and I haven’t seen any legitimate
> > > > explanation.
> > > > It’s apparent that you have no explanation either judging by your
> > > > above post.
> > > > Certainly, it’s one of those mysteries that we can only trust will
> > > > come to light one day. In the meanwhile, we can apply the “evolution
> > > > in the gaps” theory. We know evolution did it, but we don’t need to
> > > > know how.
>
> > > Well, you did not look very hard.
>
> > > It took me all but 1 minute to find the following page.
> > > It is just an introuction on the topic, but from there you can access
> > > other sources and use some of the key words in the text to make more
> > > in depth research.
>
> > > There is no gap, no mystery.
> > > We basically know how it evolved.
> > > The only msytery is why bisexual (or even trisexual!) creatures
> > > evolved from asexual creratures. We know how, but the advantage of one
> > > over the other is not all that evident, so there is still, I believe,
> > > some contention regarding that aspect.
>
> > At least you didn’t get your it’ses confused.
>
> > >http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/sex/advantage/index.html
>
> > Thanks for the link, but I have actually been to that page before.
>
> > The article states:
> > “The Red Queen hypothesis for sex is simple: Sex is needed to fight
> > disease.”
> > In favor of sexual reproduction over asexual reproduction.
>
> > This still does not deal with the male/female debate. A single gender
> > could have developed both “male” and “female” reproductive organs.
> > This would give a single gender all the benefits of sexual and asexual
> > reproduction.
>
> You are aware that hermaphrodites exist, right?
>
Yes, but true hermaphrodites are extremely rare.
Intersex creatures can have partial organs of the opposite sex, but
they do not have full function of both sex’s organs.
Other creatures can change from male to female or visa-versa, but do
not have both abilities at the same time.
The fact that these actually exist does not help the argument.
*snip*
Smoley
Posted on September 30th, 2008 by admin.
Categories: Ranting.
On Sep 30, 10:25 pm, Answer_42 wrote:
> On 30 sep, 22:02, “Timothy 1:4a” wrote:
>
> > > > A42. I love reading your posts. You make me laugh ;-)
>
> > > Well, at least, I am not entirely wasting my time!
>
> > > By the way, that “it’s” vs “its” thing is a pet peeve of mine…
>
> > Mi’ne too.
>
> LOL
> I like that!
When someone writes it’s for its, I question hi’s or he’r education.
But when someone gets it right, I literally hang on their lips.
____________________________________
> Camels and Christians receive their burdens kneeling.
> — Ambrose Bierce
Posted on September 30th, 2008 by admin.
Categories: Ranting.
On Sep 30, 8:52 pm, “ranjit_math…@yahoo.com”
wrote:
> On Sep 30, 3:59 pm, Smoley wrote:
>
> > Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God
> > created he him; male and female created he them.
>
> > One way to disprove that God created male and female, would be to
> > offer a more reasonable explanation.
>
> Does God look like a man or like both a man and a woman? If neither,
> what is meant by “image”?
Image = we can reason, we can feel emotions like He does. We are
creatures that are aware of our existence and that awareness will
never cease for an eternity of time.
These things can’t be explained by natural processes. It’s not
conceivable.
1 Corinthians 15:35 ¶But some man will say, How are the dead raised
up? and with what body do they come?
36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:
37 And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall
be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain:
38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed
his own body.
39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of
men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.
40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the
glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is
another.
41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and
another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star
in glory.
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption;
it is raised in incorruption:
43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in
weakness; it is raised in power:
44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is
a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
The spiritual body is the body that is aware of it’s existence. That’s
the body that is made in the image of God.
1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of
the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he
know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
1 Corinthians 3:18 ¶Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you
seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may
be wise.
19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is
written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they
are vain.
21 ¶Therefore let no man glory in men.
Smoley