Is it wrong to have sex for fun, knowing it might possibly lead to an abortion?

It's so fucking funny (not really) that yet another guy on this forum...starts a thread about abortion, and ignores women who post in it. Because ya know, we're just women, and only men's opinions matter about what women should do with their bodies.

All hail ye patriarchy!!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

WOW!

That is so sexist for you to say, or even think!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, you're the sexist. And this entire thread is a joke.

I'm not telling you how to live your life. I'm not telling you or any men what to do. YOU ARE TELLING WOMEN WHAT TO DO. YOU ARE CALLING WOMEN MURDERERS. You are sick! Stop using God in this way. I believe in God, by the way.

You are part of the problem of women's civil rights, not the solution.

 

Most of your post is telling me what to do, or not do.

 

No, it's not. You have 56 pages of sexist bs, telling women what to do. Claiming that this all comes from God.

It's coming from you.

 

This is unscientific, unbounded extrapolation, and unbounded speculation. It is unfalsifiable fantasy.

And our race will be extinct long before then.

 

268 generations times 25 years for each generation length = 6700 years from now.

So, at the current rate of genetic corruption, sometime between now and the year 8719 AD the human race will go extinct from genetic entropy.

Just an approximate year based on the conservative computer model. It will be more or less, but it will certainly happen.

 

To the moderators, I'd like to know why this thread is still going. Why is this site allowing a guy to go on and on for 50+ pages, proselytizing and posting sexist/pro-patriarchal speech?

He's witnessing/preaching his faith, which is against forum rules. He's not interested in having a dialogue; he's interested in evangelizing and I'm curious as to why this is being permitted?

 

Mod Hat — Because ....

I'm going to go with Administrative prerogative.

1) Historically speaking, the Administration really doesn't like my outlook on sexism, and I'm supposed to lighten up on misogyny.

2) There is a long-running disagreement about the difference between behavior and political views, and if we defer to Administrative prerogative, acting against the behavior is to risk suppressing a political view.

― I don't necessarily get it, either, but this is a thing, around here.​

3) Meanwhile, it's not like nobody with prerogative is taking part in this thread.​

I have particular opinions about this thread and our neighbor's behavior, and have conveyed them.

I also have particular opinions about why we should endure certain behavior, and the response is, indeed, it is necessary and has been explained many times. If I say that explanation fails any reasonable test, that would be my opinion, but the problem would appear to be invested in point 2 above.

The motto here used to be, "Intelligent Community"; the rules still appeal to rational discourse. We've surrendered both for this point.

 

Then it's not a bad mutation. By definition. In fact, many are arguably good, by increasing genetic diversity. Means healthier kids.

Diabetes - Most diabetes is caused by an immune disorder that hits late in life. Once you are past reproductive age, evolution is done with you, so it's not a barrier to propagation of the species. Diabetes will not make us extinct.

Heart defects - serious heart defects kill you, and then you can't reproduce. Minor ones that don't affect your life are . . . minor, and don't keep you from reproducing. Heart defects that kill you off at age 50 are, again, not a factor in evolution.

And note that we have ALWAYS had that assortment of genetic defects. It's not new. The reason you are suddenly seeing them now is that technology lets you live long enough to let them cause you problems.

But here's another one for you - sickle cell anemia. That's a genetic defect that would probably make you say "see? Mutations are KILLING US!" Turns out, though, that being heterozygous for sickle cell anemia makes you partially immune to malaria. So people with that genetic "defect" survived more often - and thus, in many areas of the world, that beneficial mutation was strongly selected for. Which is why sickle cell anemia is common in some parts of the world.

Again, no. Once any string of mutations becomes bad enough to kill the organism before reproduction, then that genome is terminated. More hardy genomes are then selected for.

Millions of years ago (even hundreds of years ago) we weren't living long enough for it to be a problem. No one got diabetes because the average lifespan was 40, and they were dead before it kicked in.

 

It is fact. Look up Macrotis.

Our race will merely be unrecognizable, because we will have evolved into something new.

Plenty of species with 90-99% of the genome of humans have lasted tens of millions of years, so I'm not worried.

 

I would guess that He can predict the future, and so can we to a lesser degree.

 

So, the forum permits preaching, witnessing and evangelizing? That’s what he has been doing throughout the thread. I thought that was against forum rules?

Magical Realist has been banned in the past, for being persistent about his stance on UFO’s and the paranormal, but this guy can keep a thread going for over 50 pages, promoting sexism, patriarchy and his religion.

Something’s wrong, here.

 

You "guess".

Don't tell me you are doubting your creator?

 

No, I trust Him!

 

I do not support sexism or the old patriarchy.

I am indeed guilty of having faith in God.

If people get banned, for expressing their faith, then Atheists and their preachers should be banned as well.

The traffic would severely drop, and this site would loose advertising dollars.

 

Trust him to be what?

 

GENETIC ENTROPY: DNA Mutation Rate Undermines Darwinian Evolution

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

billnugent
May 15, 2017 · 5 min read

The recent mapping of the human genome (DNA) has been revolutionizing science and has immense practical applications in many fields, including law enforcement. You’ve certainly read that DNA evidence compellingly links perpetrators to crimes and sends them to jail. DNA evidence has, in many cases, set innocent people free. DNA evidence also reveals the fatal flaws of Darwinism.

Did you know that each baby is born with more than one hundred new genetic mutations? These are usually very minor “point” mutations that each involve only one nucleotide base pair in the DNA. These new point mutations are usually neutral or slightly harmful to the child. Nevertheless, it is very significant that mainstream geneticists are writing about the commonplace occurrence of mutations in DNA.

I will show that this generation by generation mutational deterioration of the DNA gives a major blow to the Darwinian evolution hypothesis.

Recently a German scientist attacked one of my articles on my blog over at Wordpress.com. He’s affiliated with the Max Planck Institute of Berlin. He questioned what I wrote in an article about the large number of genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees. In his comments he acknowledged that a conservative estimate of the mutation rate is twenty glitches or copying errors in the DNA every generation. This is extraordinary and is clear evidence of genetic entropy. Scientists now generally agree that the DNA of humans is mutating rapidly.

My critic’s conservative estimate of the mutation rate as being twenty point mutations per generation is very low. Geneticists such as Kondrashov give a low estimate of one hundred. Nachman and Crowell estimate 175 mutations per generation (see Genetic Entropy by Dr. John Sanford, FMS Publ. p. 34). These are astounding numbers of mutations when applied to Darwinist, millions of years at 25 years per generation presuppositions. It is massive damage to the human DNA when extrapolated to the Darwinist time frame. I would say it’s fatal to Darwinism.

All geneticists, whether evolutionary or creationist, agree that the overwhelming majority of mutations are harmful or neutral. I hesitate to use the term “neutral.” Even the neutral mutations have not been proven to be totally harmless. Even neutral mutations constitute a subtle degradation of the genome.

Cornell University geneticist, Dr. John Sanford, in his book Genetic Entropy, discusses, on page 26, the findings of a leading geneticist who sorted through thousands of mutations to find only 186 beneficial mutations versus 453,732 harmful mutations. That’s a ratio of 2,439 harmful mutations to every one beneficial mutation. The upshot is that the human genome is devolving, not evolving.

Evolutionists claim that harmful mutations are being eliminated by natural selection but this is not true. The mildly harmful mutations only tend to be eliminated over generations. The truth is that scientists in the field of population genetics have found that bad mutations are gradually accumulating in human DNA.

Most of these point mutations are claimed to be neutral; they don’t hurt us or help us. A point mutation involving the sequence of one base pair in a gene that codes for a protein would result in a slightly modified protein that is still useful to the body. Yet, as I Mentioned earlier, even “neutral” mutations constitute a subtle degradation of the DNA with unknown overall consequences. However, some point mutations can be horribly crippling or deadly. The mapping of the human genome has shown that cystic fibrosis is caused by a random change of just three base pairs in a gene that codes for a 1,480 base pair long ion transport protein.

There are nearly 4,000 diseases caused by DNA mutations and they are being studied all the time. How many beneficial mutations are being studied? Do a web search and you will find very few and even these beneficial mutations are not unequivocally beneficial. In other words, the “beneficial” mutations also affect some other biological pathways negatively.

Let’s put this in theological perspective. The book of Genesis, in the third chapter, gives the historical narrative of man’s fall into sin against God. This passage continues to describe the consequences of sin which is the curse. The curse manifests itself in many ways including the gradual breakdown and degradation of complex biological systems.

Operational geneticists of all theological persuasions or no theological persuasion observe the compelling evidence that the genome is degrading. The few beneficial mutations are crushed by an avalanche of neutral and harmful mutations. Furthermore, we must remember that mutations are errors that don’t add new information to the DNA. Mutations don’t add new base pairs that would add new organs to a body. Even gene duplication is a mere repeat of pre-existing information in the DNA. One cause of genetic mutations is radiation. Radiation doesn’t carry nucleotide base pairs and add them to the DNA. Radiation damages DNA as it is synthesized and rearranges the sequence of base pairs that already exist in the DNA.

In short, the beneficial mutations are too few in number and their failure to add new information renders the “beneficial mutation followed by natural selection” paradigm insufficient to account for the arrival and uphill change of living organisms.

There is much dissent against Darwinism in the scientific community. Many scientists have embraced Intelligent Design as a new paradigm and affiliate with the Discovery Institute of Seattle Washington.

 

To do what?