There are no contemporary records of any kind that have been found that record this. You have to wait many decades after supposed events before you even see it in Christian sources such as the gospels, and even the dates on those are arbitrary, with Mark probably being the earliest, but it too was many decades after supposed events. And as scholars have pointed out, they can’t with any degree of certainty know what was in it. It wasn’t till the middle of the second century, that others started calling them by the names that we call them by today.
It’s a scientific theory, and some scientific theories are better than others, with the theory of evolution happening to be one of them. It is testable on many fronts, has predictive power, along with also being potentially falsifiable which are all of the good hallmarks of a good scientific theory. Many millions of potential fossil discoveries could disprove evolution if they were ever unearthed, but this hasn’t happened. Every new find only gives it more credence.
It’s on par with the theory of an atom, which also happens to be a theory, which like the theory of evolution has predictive power, is testable, and is also potentially falsifiable. If you also doubt it and want to say it’s a “theory for good reason” too, place yourself at ground zero if the US ever starts testing any more atomic bombs.
You’ve got it backwards. Circumstances didn’t come together just-so to create life. The life forms that we see, and the world in which they exist, formed because they’re what can form from the raw materials available. Had the solar system formed from a different mix of materials, there might still be living things, but they would almost certainly be very different.
You’re just parading your ignorance when you say that. Actually, you’re parading someone else’s deceit, which is even sadder - You didn’t come up with the ‘just a theory’ thing on your own - it’s a common bit of bullshit put about by popular figures in the creationist circle, but bullshit it most certainly is. They know it’s bullshit, but they also know that they can convince people it’s not.
Assuming that you a a Christian, I don’t believe that your view here is Biblically supported;
[QUOTE=1 Corinthians 7, 1-9] 71 Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.
8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. **9 **But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
[/QUOTE]
Since the Romans were fanatics about keeping records and they have no records of Jesus’ existence, I suppose you’re going to take their word for it that he didn’t exist.
I’m somehow doubting you’ll do so. Which illustrates the general problem I have with religious believers. They want to claim evidence supports their religious beliefs. But when they find out the evidence isn’t there, they maintain their religious beliefs rather than form a new conclusion.
Faith and science are two different things. Science is when you believe something only because you have evidence that it is true. If you find out the evidence is wrong, you stop believing. Faith is when you believe something regardless of whether or not you have evidence.
This seems problematic on many levels, but just a few quick objections here – how do you know there is not a minimum plateau beyond which how much sex a species has does not make a meaningful difference to the survival of the species? Just a thought here, but is how often members of a species have sex directly correlated to how successful that species is in reproducing itself? Humans seem much more successful than some mammal species that have sex far more frequently --bonobos for example.
Or take another tack on the same idea, we see a wide range of how often different species have sex. Yet some that don’t do it as often and some that do it much more are both having a lot of success reproducing their genes.
Finally, how does the enormous amount of reproduction of single cell organisms which have no way of experiencing anything close to what we humans term pleasure fit into this?
The only people who claimed that were certain followers of Jesus. The Roman reaction to them was periodic persecution because the Romans rejected those claims.
I would say The Angry Badger’s description is not “problematic” so much as just (usefully) simplistic.
Yes, there are many factors influencing whether a given species enjoys sex and to what degree. Species that behave in a reflex way would not gain any evolutionary benefit to feeling pleasurable sensations (or negative ones).
And even within species that have the pleasurable sensation, it depends on many factors; as a straight male, I would not enjoy sex with a 90-year old man, for example.
But this is all too detailed in responding to an OP that alludes to many misconceptions about evolution. It’s better to start with “Imagine you have horny critters and non-horny critters…”, and once they understand such a scenario, you can move on from there.
Kirk Cameron got me wondering with that banana thing, and this OP just pushed me over the edge. Canceling all future Sunday morning sleep-ins and pencilling in church attendance instead.
The Romans, not being Christians, did not persecute people for believing in the wrong type of gods. They might persecute people for stirring up trouble, and not worshiping the Emperor - except for Jews who got a pass until we stirred up trouble.
Frequency of sex depends a lot on the reproductive strategies of the species. Some have sex once, but have lots of babies. Some have sex relatively frequently but have small litters. Many are interested (females at least) only at reproductively advantageous times. It is hard to know if a female going into heat gets pleasure from sex - certainly there is a release of tension - but this is clearly linked to the pleasure we get from it.
I don’t think sexual frequency has much to do with anything, since we both have sex far, far more often than is necessary to have children. As for humans having less - speak for yourself, bud.
Your argument is too easily rebutted, my friend; The genes that created sexual pleasure won out because the early organisms that derived the most pleasure from sex were the most sexually active. If sex didn’t feel good, then you’d have something that didn’t make evolutionary sense (ie, possible proof of a creator).
You should try sex while on drugs. Well, certain drugs. I imagine something like heroin would make you nod off or forget why you’re in bed with that attractive person.
