I agree. There is also a degree of overlap. Murdering another human being either in a premeditated act or in the heat of passion is breaking a law that has already been established in our legal code. A Christian would refer to murder as a "sin." The word "sin" has no relevance to a person who does not adhere to this particular set of rules or conduct. Both Christians and non-Christians would agree that a law has been broken however.

A Christian would consider that sex outside of the confines of marriage a "sin" also. That is not illegal. It in no way conflicts with the laws that govern society. So in that sense, a non-believer would not view fornication in terms of being "sinful." That designation has no meaning or relevance.

Agreed. I take that aspect of Atheism very seriously and that is a wonderful way to feel about your life in general. However I dont always follow that advise. Look, here I am wasting my time on an internet relay chat interface arguing on behalf of Evolutionary theory. I could be doing something else much more important or beneficial to others. However, I guess as long as you are happy, recreation is recreation. At least Im not smoking or getting into trouble. There is always worse things to be doing, thats for sure.

Remove your sunglasses and take photos that are less blurry and less "amber toned." Take several. Ones with you standing (full length body) and a few clear and crisp head shots. You can leave that one but just add a better assortment.

I dont understand. "nothing serious, not an intimate encounter." Whats the difference?

How do you define "not serious?"

You are not supposed to have sexual desire (or lust) for a person that is directly related to you. This was not always the case. One only need to glance back as far as the bible or ancient Egypt to know that sisters and brothers would very often marry and have children. This had to do with their concept of lineage and that the Pharaoh was indeed a God placed on earth to govern and rule.

However from a physiological/genetic standpoint, we now realize that anything under a 1st cousin is not a good idea. Even second cousin (though most states will allow marriage) is pushing it a bit. If no children are intended from the union I dont see the problem.

It is not unheard of for sisters and brothers to have sexual attraction for one another. After all, you look very similar in many cases and share your genetic foundation with one another.

In that case, the Goddess must really get tired of all of those "Evolution vs. Creationism" threads. Have you noticed they are becoming like Hydras? You cut the head off one and someone starts a new one.

Funches said:



Thats a great idea for a new thread I think. Putting Yahweh on trial for crimes against humanity. The Christians will represent him as his counsel and the "non-believers" the prosecution.

Just because you have an endless supply of cash, does not mean that the technology is available yet. It's a long, drawn out process, from grant writing to funding, all the way to the end results. Scientific research is not even allowed a fraction of what it actually requires to achieve the type of genetic manipulations that you are describing. What would come out of something like that is an ecosystem for scientists to collaborate with each other as well as the public on shaping future research projects.

I think we are close to cloning a human now. We have already successfully done this with animals however they never seem to live very long and there are complications that arise. There are problems such as pathologies that indicate accelerated aging. Whether that is related to the cloning process is debatable however. It could just be that these clones are "weakened" in some respect. So yes, it’s a matter of fine tuning and your endless grant money would probably help out tremendously.

I am a pro choice. Most people that are familiar with my posts are well aware of my stand on abortion. If a woman were to become pregnant and she decides to join the military and put her body in harm's way in the defense of others and her country, that is HER RIGHT. That fetus is attached to her and is entirely dependant upon her for its own survival. If a pregnant woman threw herself in the line of danger in order to save the life of another, that is her choice and that fetus is coming along for the ride.

That woud be a submissive male trait.

Yes we realize that. About 3 people made the same mistake. Not all virgins have hymens by the way.

Yes you!

So was Funches the only one who even had an idea to express? Everyone else seems to feel that "It doesnt matter" or "who cares." That doesn't say a whole lot about the creativity of Christians where their god is concerned now does it?

"Trying to speak logically or rationally with Fundamentalists is like attempting to herd cats."

KerryO

Its very clever and inventive.

Its very clever and inventive.

Its the same process! Just add water and a million years shake well and serve. Evolution does not continue or move forward at a gradual or steady rate. It can slow down or speed up. The punctuated, or rapid change periods, were presumably the result of major environmental changes in such things as predation pressure, food supply and climate. During these times, natural selection can favor varieties that were previously at a comparative disadvantage. That is why some animals evolved very little because they did not require a substantial adaptation beyond what they had already achieved. The shark is an excellent example. Sharks adapted to where they were and the conditions but for no other reason. They swim, they eat, and they make more little sharks. It worked out fine for them in the long run.

Oh she will just say it’s a model. That’s true but it is an artist’s rendition of what they suspect Lucy would have looked like. They use those forensic artists. The same that work for investigative offices when they find the skeletal remains of a body and they have to create an identity. They use those people. Its probably well within an acceptably accurate range. Very often family members are able to recognize those models as their lost loved ones so I would buy that is what australopithecines would have closely resembled about 3 million years back. It’s about halfway in between and clearly becoming more human looking.

Check out this thread.

http://mingle2.com/topic/show/191492

I need to watch that video. Was this on TV or a Youtube thing?