[zU8KbeIU]

Wrong answer. If you really believe what you said you wouldn't be shocked if that happened with the next generation, because it WILL happen.

In all seriousness, I would be shocked because it's extremely unlikely. Just as I'd be shocked if I got struck by lightning, and that's a far more likely event.

[Abebpabeniemo]

I don't think they never happen. I just find it very unlikely that everyone in Asia will be born a boy while everyone in North America is born a girl in the future.

[QzVyZbTg]

Then you don't understand the effects of time. Let me ask you, how did life begin?

No, I just think the odds are sufficiently low that it probably won't happen even if humans are around for billions of years.

[pushokalex1]

This has got to be the greatest Kidicious thread in poly history.

[lLianneForbess]

Stop with the strawman. No one says the odds are high. But you would be shocked that it would happen, yet you accept the highly unlikely theory that life "just happened."

The odds that life happened are 1.

[AlabamaBoyz]

The OP is fairly inane, but it got me thinking: in a normally polygynous animal "society," such as lions, would the sex ratio be skewed in favor of females, since a few males tend to hog a relatively large number of females? I haven't found much, except this first page of something from JSTOR: http://www.jstor.org/pss/2461708 . I can't view the rest, since I'm not accessing it via a university, etc.

Anyway, it says that male lions tend to form coalitions to take over a pride, and larger coalitions, unsurprisingly, are more successful at gaining and maintaining control of a pride. And the sex ratio actually skews toward the male "when those males enhance each other's expected chances of reproductive success." What that specifically refers to, I don't know. Anyway, is there a biologist/ecologist in here who can tell me if lions, or other polygynous animals, normally bear more female than male young?

[Teomaderm]

A christian that believes that it's inane to claim that God maintains the balance between boys and girls? What an ass.

No, it's inane to point to a single aspect of nature which can be satisfactorily explained by your opponents--and, in fact, hardly requires explanation in the first place--ignore everyone's arguments to the contrary, and call it "proof" of your own POV. Regardless of what that POV may be. God is ultimately responsible for gravity, inertia, etc., but it would still be silly to claim that our inability to propel ourselves into orbit with a single jump is "proof" of God.

[finasteridonline]

I have not expounded any theory at all. I have only said that you have not poked the slightest little hole in the opposition's arguments, nor raised a valid one yourself. If you believe the moon landing was not faked, you are IMO correct. If you believe the moon landing was not faked because you think only NASA had cameras back then, you may be correct about the moon landing but your argument is still rubbish.

[warrgazur]

Seriously. Why on earth would a christian carry on as you do?

[larentont]

There's some really good **** in the communion wine of that church.

[sportbos]

You're suggesting that it's more reasonable to think that an invisible, intelligent being is controlling the genes of every fertilized human egg on the planet (it must be a really evil invisible intelligent being if it decides to give some of these people serious congenital defects like this) than to simply think that they inherit genes from their parents by chance?

Yes, He also created T Rex etc.. Do you think it's reasonable that there IS NO REASON for things like this? Because that's what you're saying. What I'm saying is that it does in fact happen for a REASON. We don't know what the reason is. But there is a reason. Therefore God exist, and doesn't let things happen by chance.

[gundos]

Not trying to prove it DICK! I'm presenting it as more reasonable. It is not reasonable to assume that God just leaves matters to chance. Good night! The Earth could be hit by an astroid! And you think it's reasonable to expectt such things to happen?!

Whether you are trying to prove it or present it as more reasonable is largely a question of semantics. Either way, you're favoring a bunk argument, challenging biology with something that five minutes' thought reveals is not a problem at all. Asteroid impacts have nothing to do with the argument at hand, but if that's how God wants to end life on earth, that's entirely His prerogative.

Seriously. Why on earth would a christian carry on as you do?

Because another Christian carries on as you do, apparently acting from equal parts fear, anger and pride, and giving Christianity a bad name in the process. You could call people names, jump to invalid conclusions and distort arguments on behalf of communism, vegetarianism, bimetallism or any other belief or opinion you care to name, and it would be none of my concern. I would leave you to be as rude as you liked except when the argument seemed like it could be turned to interesting ends. But the more you act that way in the name of God, the more you increase my responsibility, and that of every other Christian on this site, to work against you and present an example of calm, friendly, rational, patient, loving Christianity for contrast. Whether we actually succeed in the latter is another matter. Often we fail at it, I think. But we're no less bound to try. So please don't give me any of the usual "you are acting for Satan to drag me down to Hell" business.

[7UENf0w7]

Elok, christians make these kinds of arguments all the time. They have throughout history. Your arrogance and *******ness is incredible.

I wasn't talking about God destrying the earth with an asteroid. I was talking about the belief that God would allow this to happen by chance.

Do you think it's reasonable to think there is no God? Evidentally you do. If God exists why would it be reasonable to think he would leave the fate of His creation to chance?

[boxcigsnick]

Yes, I believe there is such a thing as reason:

Reason is a term that refers to the capacity human beings have to make sense of things, to establish and verify facts, and to change or justify practices, institutions, and beliefs.[1] It is closely associated with such characteristically human activities as philosophy, science, language, mathematics, and art, and is normally considered to be a definitive characteristic of human nature.[2] The concept of reason is sometimes referred to as rationality and sometimes as discursive reason, in opposition to "intuitive reason".[3]
Reason or "reasoning" is associated with thinking, cognition, and intellect. Reason, like habit or intuition, is one of the ways by which thinking comes from one idea to a related idea. For example, it is the means by which rational beings understand themselves to think about cause and effect, truth and falsehood, and what is good or bad.
In contrast to reason as an abstract noun, a reason is a consideration which explains or justifies some event, phenomenon or behaviour.[4] The ways in which human beings reason through argument are the subject of inquiries in the field of logic.
Reason is closely identified with the ability to self-consciously change beliefs, attitudes, traditions, and institutions, and therefore with the capacity for freedom and self-determination.[5]
Psychologists and cognitive scientists have attempted to study and explain how people reason, e.g. which cognitive and neural processes are engaged, and how cultural factors affect the inferences that people draw. The field of automated reasoning studies how reasoning may or may not be modeled computationally. Animal psychology considers the controversial question of whether animals can reason. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason

[Eeaquzyh]

Elok you just said nothing happens by chance, yet that's my claim, and you therefore call it inane. You *******. Go **** yourself!

[JeremyBalll]

Elok you just said nothing happens by chance, yet that's my claim, and you thetefore call it inane. You *******. Go **** yourself!

Wow, I'm really feeling the love here. Let's try this again: I do believe in God, and that God is ultimately in control of all things. However, your argument in favor of God in this thread is very poor. Men and women are born in roughly equal numbers for a rather obvious reason, to wit:

A given person will be disposed, by biological factors, to have more male or female offspring (it's not "chance" in any meaningful sense, things like uterine pH are involved). These may vary by a good deal within a population. Suppose that, for some reason, a population is skewed towards one gender heavily, say 65% male to 35% female. Assuming anything even vaguely like monogamy (polygamy would complicate things, but not enough to produce that skewed of a ratio, I don't think, due to things like infidelity and maybe the limited fertility of human females), a very large proportion of those males--a number of whom would have the tons-o'-boys gene--would be unable to pass on their genes for lack of a partner. A few would get through, having mostly male offspring--who would face the same merciless selection process their fathers barely survived. This is all very simplified, but unless having a lot of male children were completely tied to a reproductive advantage like "can shoot lightning from his eyeballs to kill and instantly perfectly cook game animals," it would eventually die out on its own.

Supposing a population, by sheer biological perversity, did produce only males or only females? Then that population would die out unless it got outsiders of the other sex to marry in. Undoubtedly this has happened a certain number of times with smaller groups, but the larger the group, the more unlikely such an event is to happen, not only by sheer numbers but due to genetic diversity and all sorts of other things.

So, if you adopt a nontheistic POV for the sake of argument--it hasn't given me any horrible atheist cooties yet--you can see how your objection is no objection at all. That POV is only nontheistic, not atheistic--it doesn't mention God one way or another. It mentions the way the universe works without mentioning God, Who, after all, is beyond human intellect and thus pointless to try and factor into the equation. Being able to look at the fun universe He gave me doesn't make me an atheist. See: Newton, Isaac.

[wmcelesta]

So if we are just created by chance do we terminate by chance, or is death different? I've got lots of qiestions now.