[valis]

Originally Posted by LauraMJ

Obviously none of those scientists ever HAD sex, or they would have KNOWN why it vastly overshadows asexual reproduction............

har de har har......

point still remains, though; that's an issue that's been bandied about as long as, well, you get the idea.

[valis]

Originally Posted by xico

Wait! LOL I'm not saying that because we have genitals that that proves there's a god.
What I'm saying is that the design means there's a designer. I don't, for the life of me, see chance producing male and female.

then answer me this; why is there both asexual AND sexual reproduction going on currently in the world today? For that matter, why do some animals have the ability to change sexes? That's seems to me to be evolution experimenting to see what works best, as evolution tends to.

Originally Posted by xico

The body has a design. Certain musles are designed to do certain things in the body. When we're out of alignment then we call upon muscles that were not designed to do a particular job. For instance, because we sit in chairs so much, unlike primative cultures, and since we've learned to ride where we go, we've lost the use of our gate muscles, (which doesn't mean that we've lost the muscles themselves), so that the feet no longer point straight and we walk with our hips. For in excellant discussion of what's happened see Pete Egoscue's Pain Free: A Revolutionary Method for Stopping Chronic Pain.
Egoscue isn't talking about god. But he is talking about design muscles.

that exact argument could be made that since we became truly bipedal, and then began using tools, our brains literally exploded in size; the pelvic girdle had to change at that point. That's not design, that's evolution. Which, to come full circle, is why we need to care for our offspring much longer than other animals in the wild; take a look at how long a horse takes to stand, or a dog to scamper around; we got to wait a year or so just before the little monkeys can even stand up, much less fend for themselves.

And now that my monkey twit can fend for himself, I'm beginning to think of padlocking the refrigerator. Pastel yogurt + cocker spaniel makes something you generally see only in Dali paintings.

[jaye944]

Maybe because we where set apart from the animals and made in God's image.

Maybe animals will "evolve" as there is no guilt/consequences. Animals will mate with there own immediate familly for example where as man won't. Why do you think that is.

So maybe nature is taking a hand in things, natural selection etc. but in modern times, as man has killed more and more animals, I dont see animals evolvng to evade the man predator?

What has set us apart from animals?

Man has a higher thinking , guilt, morality (will most do) we usually would not think of mating with our sisters or parents !

Originally Posted by valis

then answer me this; why is there both asexual AND sexual reproduction going on currently in the world today? For that matter, why do some animals have the ability to change sexes? That's seems to me to be evolution experimenting to see what works best, as evolution tends to.

[iltos]

Originally Posted by LauraMJ

Obviously none of those scientists ever HAD sex, or they would have KNOWN why it vastly overshadows asexual reproduction............

indeed


but this also raises an interesting consideration, in terms of the question god/no god.....i don't have any documentation handy, but i remember reading that we are the only critters that have sex for its own sake, whether it be just to "get off" or as part of a deeper quest for intimacy.

most religions that have a god, tho, and most philosophical systems that are concerned primarily with our spiritual nature, have in their structure somewhere tenets about celibacy being a means to bring one closer to whatever ideal the belief system proposes. (pretty well known it is often not practiced too well in real life, but that doesn't change the reasoning for the tenet.)

granted, it is only supposed to be practiced by those who are very serious (and disciplined ) about getting closer to god/their spiritual nature in THIS life....but in some religions, it has filtered down to the general practitioner as some form of code of behavior.

so maybe xico's quip about gentalia has merit....whether or not your belief system supports the idea of evolution, we humans undoubtedly have them and we share their attributes with other mammals, generally considered the most advanced life form on the planet.

and yet we ARE separated from those life forms by our desires -in this post, that desire is explicitly sex for its own sake

why would a god have created something so powerful (mammalian sexuality), removed for us the well established biological system that controls it in other mammals (the physiological response to the fertility cycle), and then given us a code of behavior that seeks, in some ways, to replicate that system by confining the use of our sexuality to a single "mate", or forgoing it altogether to seek something "higher"?

at the risk of giving evolution the quality of conciousness (not what i'm intending here), the same question applies.... if the selection process that operates in evolution favors increasing awareness of, independance from, and interaction with, the envirornment, then our cerebral cortex is home for our "advanced" uses of sex.....is it fair to say that our reptilian brain stem is satisfied just "getting off" -some kind of expression of the physiological response to the ferility cycle?....and that our cerebral cortex has given rise to the both the idea of sex as an expression of intimacy and bonding and our "spritual" rules about the uses and abuses of sex?

if so, then it seems that "god" isn't somewhere else....it is in our heads.

[xico]

Originally Posted by iltos

indeed


but this also raises an interesting consideration, in terms of the question god/no god.....i don't have any documentation handy, but i remember reading that we are the only critters that have sex for its own sake, whether it be just to "get off" or as part of a deeper quest for intimacy.

most religions that have a god, tho, and most philosophical systems that are concerned primarily with our spiritual nature, have in their structure somewhere tenets about celibacy being a means to bring one closer to whatever ideal the belief system proposes. (pretty well known it is often not practiced too well in real life, but that doesn't change the reasoning for the tenet.)

granted, it is only supposed to be practiced by those who are very serious (and disciplined ) about getting closer to god/their spiritual nature in THIS life....but in some religions, it has filtered down to the general practitioner as some form of code of behavior.

so maybe xico's quip about gentalia has merit....whether or not your belief system supports the idea of evolution, we humans undoubtedly have them and we share their attributes with other mammals, generally considered the most advanced life form on the planet.

and yet we ARE separated from those life forms by our desires -in this post, that desire is explicitly sex for its own sake

why would a god have created something so powerful (mammalian sexuality), removed for us the well established biological system that controls it in other mammals (the physiological response to the fertility cycle), and then given us a code of behavior that seeks, in some ways, to replicate that system by confining the use of our sexuality to a single "mate", or forgoing it altogether to seek something "higher"?

at the risk of giving evolution the quality of conciousness (not what i'm intending here), the same question applies.... if the selection process that operates in evolution favors increasing awareness of, independance from, and interaction with, the envirornment, then our cerebral cortex is home for our "advanced" uses of sex.....is it fair to say that our reptilian brain stem is satisfied just "getting off" -some kind of expression of the physiological response to the ferility cycle?....and that our cerebral cortex has given rise to the both the idea of sex as an expression of intimacy and bonding and our "spritual" rules about the uses and abuses of sex?

if so, then it seems that "god" isn't somewhere else....it is in our heads.

Good post Iltos!

According to Pierre Chardin evolution is design in action.

St Thomas said, "God is everywhere, as totally present in a grain of sand as in the universe." Milirepa, one of the Buddhas, appeared to 12 different people at the time of his death, and discussed theology with them . . . indicating that he had, not just a double, but 12 selves who could appear in different place at the same time. So, yes, god is in your head, but what we call god, one of my teachers called "the human mold."
Every species he said has its own mold.

Point of info. Fritz, my Dalmatian is into sex for the sake of sex. Masturbation is not something alien to other species. My male goats used to get into, to put it politely, self gratified oral sex. A former friend of mine admitted that he played red rocket with his dog.


I find it impossible to believe that Chance gave birth to male and female, and that Chance gave birth to male and female genitials. Just physically, as a mean of reproduction, as a forced means of reproduction, that a key fits the lock that reproduces one or the other, indicates design. We can have sex for its own sake . . .
but we have to do all sorts of things to prevent reproduction from taking place. Is that not design? It seems to me that we're designed to reproduce, and only with a great deal of ingenuity are we able to thwart the designer. What is that Force?

And then there's the complicated matter of code. Are we not programs? Or let's say do we not have programs that we call character or personality? Code=coder?

[valis]

Originally Posted by iltos

indeed


but this also raises an interesting consideration, in terms of the question god/no god.....i don't have any documentation handy, but i remember reading that we are the only critters that have sex for its own sake, whether it be just to "get off" or as part of a deeper quest for intimacy.

nope. dolphins do as well, as do a certain type of monkey....(bonobo? can't remember).

[valis]

Originally Posted by jaye944

Maybe because we where set apart from the animals and made in God's image.

that's doesn't carry any weight. You are essentially stating that because we practice sexual reproduction, we are set apart from the animals. Well, animals also practice sexual reproduction; the question I asked was why there are both asexual and sexual reproduction going on at the same time on the planet.

Evolution, my friend, in action.

Originally Posted by jaye

Maybe animals will "evolve" as there is no guilt/consequences. Animals will mate with there own immediate familly for example where as man won't. Why do you think that is.

non sequitur, but an interesting point nonetheless. I do know, from raising horses and cattle, you don't want the bloodlines too closely tied together. Take a look at dalmatians; those things are so inbred these days they are beginning to exhibit the IQ one normally reserves for Yugo's. Furthermore, I read an excellent article wrt horse racing (this was when 8 Belles was put down), and it turns out that she, and virtually all of the top notch horses that had been put down recently, all had a blood-tie to a certain sire, who was known to have a deficiency in his skeletal structure; that was why he was forced to quit racing, and was instead put to stud. Unfortunately, that gene has continued on down the line and affected many a horse. I'll have to dig to see if I can find the article; I know it was on espn.com, about a week after 8 Belles death.

Originally Posted by jaye

So maybe nature is taking a hand in things, natural selection etc. but in modern times, as man has killed more and more animals, I dont see animals evolvng to evade the man predator?

Again, non sequitur. Where are you trying to go with this?

Originally Posted by jaye

What has set us apart from animals?

Several things. One, the ability to recognize and use time. Two, self-awareness. Three, imagination. Four, opposable thumbs (direct result from three, as we needed something to better wield the tools we just invented).

Originally Posted by jaye

Man has a higher thinking , guilt, morality (will most do) we usually would not think of mating with our sisters or parents !

not unless you want a toothless albino banjo player.

[iltos]

Originally Posted by valis

nope. dolphins do as well, as do a certain type of monkey....(bonobo? can't remember).

thanks, v.

strenghtens the point, tho, if anything, i'm thinkin

[SlackAli]

Originally Posted by jaye944

Man has a higher thinking , guilt, morality (will most do) we usually would not think of mating with our sisters or parents !

You've obviously led a sheltered life. "Incest is best"/"keep it in the family" is not uncommon in rural areas in even civilised [sic] countries like Britain. I doubt whether it's considered mating though.

I'll be tempted to believe in God should Portugal win Euro 2008

[Nitekry]

The more man thinks, the less he knows, and the more involved his thinking grows.

[LauraMJ]

i don't have any documentation handy, but i remember reading that we are the only critters that have sex for its own sake, whether it be just to "get off" or as part of a deeper quest for intimacy.

dolphins do as well, as do a certain type of monkey....(bonobo? can't remember).

Nearly all chimpanzee species do. So do some gorillas.

Canines use sexual positions and postures as a form of dominancy.

Many, many species and subspecies practice the "one mate for life" way.

[valis]

Originally Posted by Nitekry

The more man thinks, the less he knows, and the more involved his thinking grows.

I think, therfore I am.

I think. May have that wrong.

.....wonders off to look into his navel.....

[valis]

Originally Posted by LauraMJ

Nearly all chimpanzee species do. So do some gorillas.

Canines use sexual positions and postures as a form of dominancy.

Many, many species and subspecies practice the "one mate for life" way.

the kicker here is 'for pleasure'; to date, only 3 have been proven to have sex for fun only; the rest are all being driven by the 'reproduce' gene, as opposed to the, well, you know what I'm talking about, gene.

[iltos]

Originally Posted by valis

the kicker here is 'for pleasure'; to date, only 3 have been proven to have sex for fun only; the rest are all being driven by the 'reproduce' gene, as opposed to the, well, you know what I'm talking about, gene.

tight?
designer?
cut-off?

[xico]

V, Fritz doesn't care a fig about reproducing. He's into for pure pleasure.

When we were at the Audubon Zoo in New Orleans someone gave one of the primate babies a stick of spagetti. The male jumped up and lashed out at the infant, and Moma slapped the male, diverting his attention, ran off into the corner and bent over. The male gratified himself and there was peace. I don't think he was interested in reproducing.

Our tom, Butler, would go into a frenzie when the female would go into heat, and I don't think he was interested in reproducing either. God! He was a gorgeous tom, half persian.


I think it's always for fun, although a female may have ulterior motives. That's how design enforces reproduction, through the desire for pleasure. And that's a program, the proof of which is that we're not interested in other species. Yes, when there aren't any females around, men have been known to find gratification with other species, but I've never heard of anyone being sexually aroused, say, by a naked mare. It seems to me that there's an outside force that determines why we're focused on our own species.