This is different from “God made it happen this way” in what maner?

Christians constantly say, “God made it that way.”

There is no “proof” either way. I did not claim there is. Dr. Dave pointed out differences in mating behavior between humans and animals to indicate that humans are not animals.

Neither his argument nor my argument is a proof. However, his type of argument is advanced around here all the time as if it is true beyond doubt.

I think it should be challenged from time to time. If your complacency muscles aren’t exercised from time to time, they get flabby.

As I used to say before I got tired of the joke, I am the strength trainer for evangelical Christians.

Report comment to moderator

Evolutionary development = it happened somewhere sometime for some reason. Anything can be atributed to ‘evolutionary development.’ That claim is utterly impossible to prove or falsify.

Report comment to moderator

It is an interesting point that humans copulate face to face and can form bonds that include spiritual bonds. However, I think the development of such traits and abilities is just as compatible with evolutionary development as with claims that it reflects “God’s plan” or some such religious claim.

For example, the Marquis de Sade was a human being rather than a weasel and John Wilmot, Earl of Rochester, was a human being as well rather than a wolverine or a mongoose.

Animals may be rather crude in their sex habits, and the sexual play of praying mantises and black widow spiders is indeed a bit kinky, but for real sicko perversion you can’t beat a human being.

Well, actually you can, but that’s just the foreplay.

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

So don’t hold it against me or take it personally when I go off on conservatives.

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

The Military Honor and Decency Act of 1996 bars stores on military bases from selling “sexually explicit material.” and the middle:
In 2002, the Supreme Court upheld the ban as constitutional.

The discussion is whether more titles should be added, not whether Wildmon is ignoring the Constitution. The supreme Court has already supported this act, whose title implies it came from Congress or the upper echelons of the military.

Report comment to moderator

I really don’t see a big difference between a Rev. Wildmon and the Taliban. Both seek to impose their idea of morality on the greater public. Whether one does it through arm twisting and threats or through violence, the end result is still the same.

One usually finds that people who make a name for themselves as a “moral crusader” invariably turn out to have a few skeletons in their own closet.

Report comment to moderator

By culture, I am talking about thousands of years, not a few decades. For one fairly recent and fairly well documented period of time, however, compare the pretenses and the realities of Victorian England.

I have no solution to this problem. At least I don’t pretend I do.

Report comment to moderator