<p>
</p>
<p>I think you two are confusing the argument “I believe choice a is right/wrong/stupid” and “I think everyone else should be forced to make the same choice I do”</p>
<p>To the first argument, I believe premarital sex is wrong, and I believe it is wrong for everyone, not just me.</p>
<p>For the second, I believe people have the RIGHT to make the WRONG choice, if they want to.</p>
<p>I’d rather not have premarital sex. But I don’t really care if other people do. They just don’t need to tell me all about it <em>mentally pointing at certain friends</em>.</p>
<p>I guess I care about promiscuity though.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agreed. It’s ultimately up to others as to what they want to do…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agreed – this is pretty much how I feel.</p>
<p>MosbyMarion, I can’t respond much because I have to go to work, but you could seriously use an introductory biology class. First of all, we DO have fossil evidence. Second of all, a huge portion of your premise is incorrect because you assume that today’s forms are “perfect.” If I have time this weekend, I’ll respond to your original post on natural selection. I think it helps to remember that since you were homeschooled and are apparently very Christian, you have not had a very good natural selection education.</p>
<p>^ You are apparently misunderstanding me. Nowhere have I said that today’s creatures are “perfect”. Nowhere have I denied the existence of Natural Selection. It is central to my theory. You claim we do have fossil evidence. Can you state some examples? I’ve seen a lot of “family trees” and “evolutionary timelines” and it is striking how the actual changes seem so often to happen in the “artist’s rendering” parts, while the actual creatures seem to show fully formed features. Where are the “sceathers”, halfway between feathers and scales?</p>
<p>From my point of view, however, things make a lot more sense: You expect to see sets of similar creatures that originally shared a gene pool, but that over time diverged into different varieties due to natual selection and varied conditions. You do not expect to see new traits arising, only existing traits isolated and recombined. I think if you could compile a genome of the first proto-feline, you would find that it contained all the traits of sabertooths, lions, pumas, ocelots, and siamese cats.</p>
<p>^And why are we discussing evolution?</p>
<p>I still see no problem with an unmarried couple are are basically “married” in every way EXCEPT name having sex as a problem (deep commitment and love, etc). Because it’s not one.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So basically, each type of species has come into existence in one fell swoop?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I do not understand what you mean by that. I believe that all the variety we see today is the result of existing alleles being recombined, and gene pools being broken into different populations. I believe that, unless a species has the alleles for a trait in it’s genome, it can never develop that trait.</p>
<p>If a trait doesn’t come into existence through a random process, then either all traits existed at the foundation of the Universe, or each trait has come into existence at one time due to nonrandom factors.</p>
<p>i really like sex and i was never planning on waiting around for a specific person to have it with. </p>
<p>props if your waiting, but i’m not a patient person hahaha</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yep, that sums up my point of view.</p>
<p>Of course the fossil record would then indicate that not all types of species have existed forever… leaving the question of why there do exist thousands of transitional fossils…</p>
<p>^ I dispute that fact. I belive the system of dating fossils is highly flawed.</p>
<p>And what transitional fossils? Like I said before, the many “transitional fossils” I’ve seen all appear on examination to be strikingly lacking in “half-developed” traits.</p>
<p>Wait, what do fossils have to do with premarital sex again?</p>
<p>Credibility of Paleontology vs. MosbyMarion’s opinion</p>
<p>well dang, that’s a tough one.</p>
<p>^ I don’t expect you do accept my view, but I do expect you to respect it. And you still haven’t answered my objections #1, #2, and #4.</p>
<p>And before you worship the infallibility of science, look up some history.</p>
<p>I don’t claim to be infallible, I’m just going on what I’ve seen and heard, which is not very convincing on the side of evolution.</p>
<p>Seriously, is it impossible to just agree to disagree? Now, I’m a big fan of debate. But when it comes to things that are a core part of someone’s religious beliefs, it’s best to just respect them.</p>
<p>The artsy pictures showing evolution are that way because no one wants to see a ten thousand page book filled with pictures of each generation of a certain species with each minute difference. The textbook artists assume that people will be able to understand that fish didn’t suddenly grow legs, but instead, it was a gradual process. </p>
<p>Science is not infallible. Scientists try to disprove it everyday. However, for this specific theory, there happens to be a whole lot of evidence. Evidence that I’m assuming you haven’t closely looked at or examined. </p>
<p>I understand where you’re coming from though. Evolution isn’t taught very thoroughly in schools, and I would not expect more from homeschools either. So what is your theory then?</p>
<p>Evolution - Premarital sex. What happened to the thread?</p>