Atheism and homosexuality

Atheism and homosexuality

There are 3861 comments on the Conservapedia story from Dec 5, 2011, titled Atheism and homosexuality. In it, Conservapedia reports that:

Creationist scientists and creationist assert that the theory of evolution cannot account for the origin of gender and sexual reproduction.http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/136http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/0928ep5.asp [[Creation Ministries International]] states: "Homosexual acts go against [[God]]'s original [[Intelligent design ... (more)

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Conservapedia.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#2112 Aug 28, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>Bob let me ask you a question. Now by being born gay would that be considered a negative mutation in evolution being it will likely result in them not having offspring, which likely means their genes will not be passed on?

Not being a butt, just asking a question.
I cant respond for Bob, but as far as I can answer, it would be a neutral effect. Or very close to neutral.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#2113 Aug 28, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>I cant respond for Bob, but as far as I can answer, it would be a neutral effect. Or very close to neutral.
Addendum:

This would of course depend upon the percentage of gay individuals in that population.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Level 2

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2114 Aug 28, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Bob let me ask you a question. Now by being born gay would that be considered a negative mutation in evolution being it will likely result in them not having offspring, which likely means their genes will not be passed on?

Not being a butt, just asking a question.
No. You are operating under the incorrect idea that evolution works on ***individuals** and not on populations.

For example: cycle-cell anemia is a dread disease that strikes approximately 10-20% of the population that has a particular gene sequence.

But. This particular gene sequence gives a significant resistance to the malaria disease.(I do not remember the exact percentage)

So from an **evolutionary** perspective, "sacrificing" 10-20% of the population to make the whole groups much better at resisting a very common disease?

That's useful-- and so it happened.

----------

It could be that having a certain percentage of the population being born gay, is a side-effect of some other beneficiary trait.

But the bottom line? It doesn't really affect the population that much anyway-- many gays **do** reproduce.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#2115 Aug 28, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
No-- the difference?
Religious people **deserve** all the disrespect they get....
.... chiefly because religion and it's accompanying **bigotry** is a **choice***...
... whereas being born gay is **not.**
Nobody is born gay. There is no gay gene.

Delete THAT, you liar.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Level 2

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2116 Aug 28, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Nobody is born gay. There is no gay gene.
Delete THAT, you liar.
Lie.

But then again? Lying is all that you do.

More to the point?**sexual identity** requires more than one gene, you ignorant and 100% uneducated nonentity.

“Robert Stevens”

Level 1

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#2117 Aug 28, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
No. You are operating under the incorrect idea that evolution works on ***individuals** and not on populations.
For example: cycle-cell anemia is a dread disease that strikes approximately 10-20% of the population that has a particular gene sequence.
But. This particular gene sequence gives a significant resistance to the malaria disease.(I do not remember the exact percentage)
So from an **evolutionary** perspective, "sacrificing" 10-20% of the population to make the whole groups much better at resisting a very common disease?
That's useful-- and so it happened.
----------
It could be that having a certain percentage of the population being born gay, is a side-effect of some other beneficiary trait.
But the bottom line? It doesn't really affect the population that much anyway-- many gays **do** reproduce.
What in the world did your post have to do with anything? If I was broke and I just ran up a big restaurant bill I am going to say what you posted here. I am guessing everyone that listened to me would be perplexed and I could walk out unchallenged, and not paying the bill. What in God's name are you talking about. Honestly I can't stop laughing. What is crazier than this post is someone seriously responded to it. And I mean he was serious.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Level 2

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2118 Aug 28, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
Delete THAT, you liar.
LOL!

Did 'err widdle feeweengs get all hurted 'cause 'err widdle HATE SPEECH gots all deeweeted?

Poor baby.

It's only a matter of time before you cross the line and get banned completely.

“Robert Stevens”

Level 1

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#2119 Aug 28, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Nobody is born gay. There is no gay gene.
Delete THAT, you liar.
How in the world do you read a post like that, and respond?

“Robert Stevens”

Level 1

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#2120 Aug 28, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
No. You are operating under the incorrect idea that evolution works on ***individuals** and not on populations.
For example: cycle-cell anemia is a dread disease that strikes approximately 10-20% of the population that has a particular gene sequence.
But. This particular gene sequence gives a significant resistance to the malaria disease.(I do not remember the exact percentage)
So from an **evolutionary** perspective, "sacrificing" 10-20% of the population to make the whole groups much better at resisting a very common disease?
That's useful-- and so it happened.
----------
It could be that having a certain percentage of the population being born gay, is a side-effect of some other beneficiary trait.
But the bottom line? It doesn't really affect the population that much anyway-- many gays **do** reproduce.
OMG someone read this post and found it brilliant. I might die laughing tonight.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Level 2

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2121 Aug 28, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
What in the world did your post have to do with anything? If I was broke and I just ran up a big restaurant bill I am going to say what you posted here. I am guessing everyone that listened to me would be perplexed and I could walk out unchallenged, and not paying the bill. What in God's name are you talking about. Honestly I can't stop laughing. What is crazier than this post is someone seriously responded to it. And I mean he was serious.
I'm so sorry that you are too uneducated to comprehend the basics of evolution.

Seriously. What I posted is basic stuff.

Evolution works on **populations**, not on **individuals**.

It's too bad if your peabrain is too ignorant to comprehend it.

Every thing I said can be found here: http://www.talkorigins.org/

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Level 2

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2122 Aug 28, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
OMG someone read this post and found it brilliant. I might die laughing tonight.
I'm so sorry that you are too uneducated to comprehend the basics of evolution.

Seriously. What I posted is basic stuff.

Evolution works on **populations**, not on **individuals**.

It's too bad if your peabrain is too ignorant to comprehend it.

Every thing I said can be found here: http://www.talkorigins.org/

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Level 2

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2123 Aug 28, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
How in the world do you read a post like that, and respond?
She may be an idiot, but she's clearly not as stupid as you.

And that is saying a **lot**... for she is a low-grade moron...

“What U Don't Know U Fear”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

What U Fear U Will Never Know

#2124 Aug 28, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
No. You are operating under the incorrect idea that evolution works on ***individuals** and not on populations.
For example: cycle-cell anemia is a dread disease that strikes approximately 10-20% of the population that has a particular gene sequence.
But. This particular gene sequence gives a significant resistance to the malaria disease.(I do not remember the exact percentage)
So from an **evolutionary** perspective, "sacrificing" 10-20% of the population to make the whole groups much better at resisting a very common disease?
That's useful-- and so it happened.
----------
It could be that having a certain percentage of the population being born gay, is a side-effect of some other beneficiary trait.
But the bottom line? It doesn't really affect the population that much anyway-- many gays **do** reproduce.
More of the population is gay now than there ever have been (I say that based on the numbers that admit they are). Now one could argue that it is because they are getting more bold to show it or you can argue that there are more, so it is just naturally coming out to be seen.

“What U Don't Know U Fear”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

What U Fear U Will Never Know

#2125 Aug 28, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
No. You are operating under the incorrect idea that evolution works on ***individuals** and not on populations.
For example: cycle-cell anemia is a dread disease that strikes approximately 10-20% of the population that has a particular gene sequence.
But. This particular gene sequence gives a significant resistance to the malaria disease.(I do not remember the exact percentage)
So from an **evolutionary** perspective, "sacrificing" 10-20% of the population to make the whole groups much better at resisting a very common disease?
That's useful-- and so it happened.
----------
It could be that having a certain percentage of the population being born gay, is a side-effect of some other beneficiary trait.
But the bottom line? It doesn't really affect the population that much anyway-- many gays **do** reproduce.
What would be the beneficiary trait of more people being born gay? Now as I told you I have several gay friends, both male and female. I have two female cousins in my family line that are lesbian (not with each other, both like girls). I work with several (even so you called me a bigot when I told you that) point being evolution is all about evolving and passing on the genes to ensure survival. Gay people can not pass on their genes, so over time the will be less and less and become extinct. Survival of the fittest by natural selection is all about passing on the genes to insure survival of the species. As I said what they do is not my business and it does not affect me what they do. But two males or two females cannot pass on their genes. If a male and his sister are the only two children and are both gay and they won't pass on their genes by reproducing and the line stops with them.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#2126 Aug 28, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Bob let me ask you a question. Now by being born gay would that be considered a negative mutation in evolution being it will likely result in them not having offspring, which likely means their genes will not be passed on?
Not being a butt, just asking a question.
Even being born gay might not mean there is a gene for it. Some years back it was suggested that excess stress in an expectant mother could affect brain development. So there is another route.

I guess the issue is not how it comes about but whether those affected chose to be gay or not. And again its not that simple because it seems some are more gay than others so what might be a choice for some is still not a choice for all.

The question is really whether the acceptance of gays is going to tear society apart as many conservatives think or whether they can just get on with it and it makes no difference to straight people anyway.

“What U Don't Know U Fear”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

What U Fear U Will Never Know

#2127 Aug 28, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Even being born gay might not mean there is a gene for it. Some years back it was suggested that excess stress in an expectant mother could affect brain development. So there is another route.
I guess the issue is not how it comes about but whether those affected chose to be gay or not. And again its not that simple because it seems some are more gay than others so what might be a choice for some is still not a choice for all.
The question is really whether the acceptance of gays is going to tear society apart as many conservatives think or whether they can just get on with it and it makes no difference to straight people anyway.
Society. That pretty much covers it. Society is always at war. Over religion or evolution, over democrat or republican, over gay or straight, over wealth and poverty, over the ones that have and the one that don't, over race, over status, over any dang thing they can find to argue or be at war about. Can a person be born a democrat or a republican? Can a person be born to believe in evolution o God? Can a person be born straight or gay? I think the biggest part of it is after they are born, the stress they are put through, the crap they are fed, the ways they seek to relieve said stress and the pressure put on them to be one way or the other, the acceptance of what they believe can either push them closer to it or further away depending on how they take the pressure. So many things can influence anything anyone chooses to do.

If John Doe believes in God and I don't, so what that is his choice.

If John Doe want Joe Doe instead of Jane Doe, so what that is his choice.

If Jane Doe want Judy Doe instead of John or Joe Doe so what that I her choice.

If Joe Doe says there isn't a God, so what that is his choice.

If John does says there is a God, so what that is his choice.

That is why I say "to each his own", "Live and let live". I never interfere with anything unless it has an impact in my life. Now if any of the Doe Family says I need to believe like they do or I am wrong, I will tell them to kiss my @ss for like them I have a choice.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#2128 Aug 29, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't say you have a disease if you believe that God is possible.
I do say that jumping from there to dogmatic insistence that a bunch of scriptures, purporting to be from God but actually written by a bunch of ancients, should determine:
how we should live
how we should accept or reject science
how we should make laws
etc
You can only maintain these things by a dogmatic attachment to convictions YOU personally have that you cannot demonstrate are true or even close to true.
This is the whole rub of the "evolution debate forum". The arguments against evolution are almost always, almost entirely, motivated by people whose sacred texts are contradicted...especially if they interpret those scriptures literally.
Yes, I would call that a disease of severe reality denial. And I wouldn't care except that scriptural dogmatists in their various guises are currently wrecking the world.
I have no problem with evolution or my belief in a spiritual side of life.

I'm not one of those who believe that it must be science or faith, one or the other.

If you notice, most the scriptures I cite discuss how we as individuals should treat others with respect; that religion should be about improving ourselves; not used as a weapon to attack others.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#2129 Aug 29, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
You describe 99.999% of your typical Christian here.
Classic.
Can you spell "hypocrisy?" Good.
Funny but I thought he was talking about Marcus and Michelle as well as most of Congress!

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#2130 Aug 29, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
No-- the difference?
Religious people **deserve** all the disrespect they get....
.... chiefly because religion and it's accompanying **bigotry** is a **choice***...
... whereas being born gay is **not.**
So it's wrong to disrespect me for being gay but OK to disrespect and persecute me because I am a person of faith?

Your math is fuzzy.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#2131 Aug 29, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Bob let me ask you a question. Now by being born gay would that be considered a negative mutation in evolution being it will likely result in them not having offspring, which likely means their genes will not be passed on?
Not being a butt, just asking a question.
It's a ridiculous question. Heterosexuals produce gay and lesbian children. Therefore the genes aren't being eliminated from the human race when two gays marry.

Care to discuss the left handed gene?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 35 min ChristineM 168,604
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr Paul Porter1 141,799
News Aliens and evolution (Jun '12) 1 hr Brian_G 6,173
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Brian_G 19,746
How can we prove God exists, or does not? 4 hr GTID62 192
How would creationists explain... (Nov '14) Mon Chimney1 560
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) Jun 28 Chimney1 178,667
More from around the web