Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

parados wrote:

If you keep cutting and pasting less and less each time real life you can get farther and farther from the original question.


Let me repost it for you so everyone is reminded of what you are avoiding.

Quote:

Supposing we were "intelligently designed" by a being that also tells us to go forth and multiply, and also condemns any sexual activity other than that for reproductions... Why are humans one of the very, very , very few mammals that experience menopause? It seems contradictory that if the entire purpose of our reproductive organs is to produce offspring, that they should be programmed to fail beyond a certain age.

How am I avoiding this?

I think I've made it clear that I consider this strawman to be ludicrous, having more in common with an evolutionary view than a creation/ID view.

Evolution would very clearly suppose that sexual organs evolved ONLY for the purpose of procreation.

You however have not addressed how menopause (being supposedly a function of evolution) presents a 'survival advantage' consistent with evolutionary principle.

real life wrote:

You however have not addressed how menopause (being supposedly a function of evolution) presents a 'survival advantage' consistent with evolutionary principle.

Nobody claimed this or implied this.

I think you must have misread the point of the original post.

If two people are having sex with an intention other than to produce children, that is lust, and therefore wrong.

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:

You however have not addressed how menopause (being supposedly a function of evolution) presents a 'survival advantage' consistent with evolutionary principle.

Nobody claimed this or implied this.

I think you must have misread the point of the original post.

Is menopause the result of evolution?

Does menopause provide a 'survival advantage' ?

So you don't agree that the Bible says to "go forth and multiply"?

Hmmmm.... interesting.

That's the only way I can see for you to claim this is a "strawman."

USAFHokie80 wrote:

If two people are having sex with an intention other than to produce children, that is lust, and therefore wrong.

Nowhere does the Bible define lust this way.

Nowhere does the Bible state or imply that 'the entire purpose of our reproductive organs is to produce offspring'

You are making it up.

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:

You however have not addressed how menopause (being supposedly a function of evolution) presents a 'survival advantage' consistent with evolutionary principle.

Nobody claimed this or implied this.

I think you must have misread the point of the original post.

Is menopause the result of evolution?

Does menopause provide a 'survival advantage' ?

You are so predictable. You always refuse to answer any question that casts obvious doubt on your beliefs. You think we were designed (or created, whatever)... and so I asked first, why we would be designed with faulty reproductive organs which are of so much concern in the bible.

As I said about 2 posts up, I will happily answer your question after you answer mine.

real life wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

If two people are having sex with an intention other than to produce children, that is lust, and therefore wrong.

Nowhere does the Bible define lust this way.

Nowhere does the Bible state or imply that 'the entire purpose of our reproductive organs is to produce offspring'

You are making it up.

lol. the bible doesn't define "man" or "the" or any other of thousands and thousands of words. so how do you know it's not the story of a diesel mechanic living in ohio? if we are to use this line of reasoning, we have no reason to ever take heed in any literature that does not expressly define every word it uses. but then again, it would define a word with more words...and then have to define those!

the bible does imply such, you are just grasping at straws.

USAFHokie80 wrote:

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:

You however have not addressed how menopause (being supposedly a function of evolution) presents a 'survival advantage' consistent with evolutionary principle.

Nobody claimed this or implied this.

I think you must have misread the point of the original post.

Is menopause the result of evolution?

Does menopause provide a 'survival advantage' ?

You are so predictable. You always refuse to answer any question that casts obvious doubt on your beliefs. You think we were designed (or created, whatever)... and so I asked first, why we would be designed with faulty reproductive organs which are of so much concern in the bible.

As I said about 2 posts up, I will happily answer your question after you answer mine.

Why, if something fails, do you assume the design was faulty?

The Bible teaches that sickness and death are in the world due to sin.

Any failure of the body would fall into this category.

Misuse is not the same as use.

If you take you Jaguar convertible out four-wheeling and you mess it up, do you say 'what a crummy design!' ?

RL, last time I checked, menopause was not a result of misuse.

real life wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:

You however have not addressed how menopause (being supposedly a function of evolution) presents a 'survival advantage' consistent with evolutionary principle.

Nobody claimed this or implied this.

I think you must have misread the point of the original post.

Is menopause the result of evolution?

Does menopause provide a 'survival advantage' ?

You are so predictable. You always refuse to answer any question that casts obvious doubt on your beliefs. You think we were designed (or created, whatever)... and so I asked first, why we would be designed with faulty reproductive organs which are of so much concern in the bible.

As I said about 2 posts up, I will happily answer your question after you answer mine.

Why, if something fails, do you assume the design was faulty?

The Bible teaches that sickness and death are in the world due to sin.

Any failure of the body would fall into this category.

Misuse is not the same as use.

If you take you Jaguar convertible out four-wheeling and you mess it up, do you say 'what a crummy design!' ?

Because all failure is due to faulty design. ALL FAILURE. It just comes down to the "fault." Suppose a motor fails because a bearing gets a flat spot, despite having a [near] perfect design. The fault can be said to be in the choice of material. There is always a fault.

4.The tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity.
5. Inevitable and steady deterioration of a system or society

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

RL, last time I checked, menopause was not a result of misuse.

Sin is misuse, resulting in (among other things) sickness, death and a host of other problems for mankind.

USAFHokie80 wrote:

real life wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:

You however have not addressed how menopause (being supposedly a function of evolution) presents a 'survival advantage' consistent with evolutionary principle.

Nobody claimed this or implied this.

I think you must have misread the point of the original post.

Is menopause the result of evolution?

Does menopause provide a 'survival advantage' ?

You are so predictable. You always refuse to answer any question that casts obvious doubt on your beliefs. You think we were designed (or created, whatever)... and so I asked first, why we would be designed with faulty reproductive organs which are of so much concern in the bible.

As I said about 2 posts up, I will happily answer your question after you answer mine.

Why, if something fails, do you assume the design was faulty?

The Bible teaches that sickness and death are in the world due to sin.

Any failure of the body would fall into this category.

Misuse is not the same as use.

If you take you Jaguar convertible out four-wheeling and you mess it up, do you say 'what a crummy design!' ?

Because all failure is due to faulty design. ALL FAILURE. It just comes down to the "fault." Suppose a motor fails because a bearing gets a flat spot, despite having a [near] perfect design. The fault can be said to be in the choice of material. There is always a fault.

Do you know what entropy is?

Quote:

4.The tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity.
5. Inevitable and steady deterioration of a system or society

from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/entropy

The Bible refers to this as the law of sin and death, specifically referring to the physical creation.

You should read it sometime.

A sin is a transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate.
A sin is a deliberate disobedience to the known will of God/gods.
A sin is a condition of estrangement from God/gods resulting from such disobedience.

Menopause is neither a sin nor is it a misuse. No matter who you are or how sinless you've led your life, you will suffer from menopause. If you're a woman, of course.

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

RL, last time I checked, menopause was not a result of misuse.

Sin is misuse, resulting in (among other things) sickness, death and a host of other problems for mankind.

The Bible teaches all have sinned.

If you view menopause as a 'failure' of sexual organs, it can be attributed to the general results of mankind's sin.

But it may not be a failure at all.

It may be a planned event.

Sexual organs are obviously not designed to be used early in life, likely due to a youngster's inability to provide for any children which may result.

Old age brings also a similar lessening of ability to keep up with energetic and time consuming child raising issues.

Menopause could be seen as a planned 'switching off' of the child bearing capacity with the best interests of both children and adults in mind.

So, the 'failure' of sexual organs to fully function at all stages of life need not be seen as a 'failure' at all.