-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How did sex start?
- Thread starter questfortruth
- Start date
firedragon
Veteran Member
I think sex started with kissing. Some would argue it started way before.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
We are in Creationism vs. Science forum.
Penetration is not the only way of sex.
It must have been good. That is why all beings still do it, even the trees.
Spiders risk life to do it.
Last edited:
Actually, it's the "Evolution Vs Creationism" forum.
As to the titular question.....
How did sex start?
There are several ways:
- Buying her dinner.
- Barry White playing in the background.
- Some alcohol.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Not porn. Perfect love making in a perfect world and you reduce it to porn?
That tells me something about your misunderstanding about what sex is intended to be.
Evolution: " Two chimps have mindless sex and a human baby pops out." Boring. And kinda gross
Two perfect humans frolicking in Eden? That's beautiful and pure and even Holy.
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
Actually, that was after Adam and Even were kicked out of Eden so they had flawed, sinful love making, which could explain why their kids were so messed up.
If you actually cared, and you're older than teenaged, you'd already know.
We get this kind of thing from the creationists regularly. They ask questions that they don't care about the answers to as gotcha, the implication being that if the question hasn't been fully answered, that somehow that translates to support of creation by their god.
The proper way to learn the science is from books or websites dedicated to teaching science such as Talk Origins. If your interest is sincere (and if it is, congratulations, that makes you the first creationist I've encountered that is), go to this Google search and read the first dozen entries, take notes, and return with any questions you have about that material:
the origin of the sexes in evolution - Google Search
But first, learn what sex means in biological terms. It's not what you seem to think. Then learn about the evolution of genetic transfer between microorganism, learn what a gamete is, what haploid and diploid mean, what meiosis and reduction division mean, and learn the evolution of sexual specialization (gamete anisotropy).
That's not going to happen, is it? And why? For the reasons suggested here. The creationist isn't interested in the science, which is why he almost never knows any. There are many of us here who are interested in science. We have always been. As kids we had chemistry sets and erector sets. We sat glued to the TV for space missions and watched the science for children shows. Later, we subscribed to Scientific American or Sky & Telescope. We ate up the biology, chemistry and physics in high school. Many chose the sciences professionally. Most continued reading after graduation, which is where I learned the science I didn't learn in my formal education (earth science, quantum science, cosmology). That's a typical story for people interested in science, and it's why such people can answer your questions or find the answers.
There's a reason you don't do either of those. You aren't interested. As I said, if you were, you'd already know what there is to learn on the matter, or, if you're still in grade school, you'd be taking up the offer to dig into the literature and bring your insights and questions back here. As I said, that just never happens in these discussions, so I've learned not to take these requests from creationists as inquiries, but as implicit incredulity fallacies - you don't see how sex could have evolved so it didn't, therefore God.
Another thing to notice about creationist apologists is that they don't discuss the merits of creationism, just what they see as flaws in evolutionary theory. Can you provide an argument for biblical creationism that addresses creationism itself rather than trying to disqualify the science with gotcha "questions"? The argument for evolution doesn't address supernatural creation at all. There is no attack of it, rebuttal of it, or even mention of it. Try that with your hypothesis. Tell us an argument for creationism that isn't an argument against science.
That's not going to happen either, is it?
One more thing that no creation apologist will address. I've asked this rhetorical question dozens of times on RF, and not a single creationist has addressed it, which I think speaks volumes:
Why would I or anybody else trade a scientific theory that unifies mountains of data from a multitude of sources, accurately makes predictions about what can and cannot be found in nature, provides a rational mechanism for evolution consistent with the known actions of nature, accounts for both the commonality of all life as well as biodiversity, and has had practical applications that have improved the human condition in areas like medicine and agriculture with one that can do none of that and can be used for nothing even if correct?
Do I need to say it? You can't give a good reason, and if you try, you will be the first.
The only pseudoscience in this thread so far is that comment. Science says no such thing. It doesn't acknowledge that there is anything outside of our universe (it admits to the possibility, but doesn't make the claim), nor does it comment about extraterrestrial life except to speculate that it may be out there and suggest ways to detect it if it is.
This is what I mean about creationism apologists repeatedly bungling the science. Why don't you know how ill-formed that comment is? Another rhetorical question needing no additional answer. It's answered above. You never cared enough about the subject to get the proper foundation necessary to avoid such mistakes.
Of course it can. But I suspect that you have some model of sexuality appearing when some asexual creature somehow produced male and a female offspring, some sort of irreducible complexity idea that there are no intermediate steps available to evolution to make the transition over eons of geological time.
Anyway, here's wishing you great success in your program of independent science study, your argument for creation that isn't a misrepresentation of science or even mentions science, and for explaining why one should replace a successful and useful scientific theory for a religious story that has no predictive value even if true. Make me wrong and do those things if you are sincere about learning the science, in this case, the evolution of sexual reproduction.
GardenLady
Active Member
Are you entirely clueless about the ToE or are you being intentionally dishonest?
RabbiO
הרב יונה בן זכריה
You are confusing the lack of respect that you have worked so diligently to foster with hatred.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
It never says they didn't make love in Eden.Actually, that was after Adam and Even were kicked out of Eden so they had flawed, sinful love making, which could explain why their kids were so messed up.
C'mon, get real! The most perfect woman ever created and Adam a normal human male? You can't tell me they didn't enjoy each other.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
So, are you saying we aren't descended from primates?
Why would you think it had to be all or nothing?
Remember that many species *today* can change from male to female or vice versa. The gender is NOT genetically determined. next, many species are hermaphroditic: they can function as either the donor or recipient of the DNA. Also, many do not need sex to reproduce: they can divide or otherwise produce clones.
Next, look at the species that can have sex (which I define as recombination of the chromosomes and subsequent merger to create a new genetic individual). Almost all multicellular species *can* have sex, even though many do not *require* having sex. This is true for plants as well as animals (note that there does NOT have to be a 'male organ' that penetrates a 'female oran': all that is required is that the DNA gets transfered. So, many plants use *pollen* to spread their DNA. This is still sexual reproduction, but no penetration occurs.
So, the first sex happened when life was single celled. And that only means that the cells divided in a way that halved the number of chromosomes and then merged two cells to produce another cell. Even humans maintain this basic setup: sperm and egg cells merge after they are formed with half the usual number of chromosomes.
Finally, we know of single celled species *today* that do exactly this sort of sexual reproduction. Which makes me wonder if you even did a basic internet search to find your answers.
Sure she was. And so are you, and so am I. And so was my grandmother.
In fact, we are all *vertebrates* and *mammals* as well. We give live birth with the embryos and fetuses nurtured by placentas. We feed our young with milk produced by the female body. That makes us *all* placental mammals.
I can go on, but you should get the point by now.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
I find it fascinating.
A just-so story that sounds like pure fairy tale? Nah.
Doesn't appeal to me at all.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Yeah, that's not what evolution says at all. In fact, what is stated there would falsify evolution.
You should know this given that you've been told about it several times, by several different posters, in several different threads.
But for some reason, you still feel the need to misrepresent what evolution is.
Does your God enjoy it when his followers are dishonest in this fashion?
Just ask a girl out. Don't go straight to the finish line right out of the gate.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
We didn't come from primates then. Because if we did there had to be that first homosapien baby born to a primate.
Secret Chief
Vetted Member
Reading threads like this I can see why some people think drinking bleach is a good idea.