Well, well, interesting topic and right up my alley.
Ryan, you have in your mind refuted what Linda has posted, yet I find several errors.
1.”First, by this logic, a man and woman who are sterile, or simply have no desire to procreate should not be married either, nor people who adopt children? Is the point of marriage to conceive children? In any case, modern technology does not require intercourse between a man and a woman to fertilize an egg and ‘create children’, so it seems modern thought should be applied.”
We are social beings who desire the relationship of another body. Whether or not a man or woman can procreate together does not change the fact that a man’s physiology and a woman’s physiology are such that the two make a whole. A male’s hormones and a female’s hormones are contrasting and therefore need the other to complete a “chemical” constitution that makes a whole. Or take the physical genitalia. A man is perfectly suited to be joined with a woman who is perfectly suited to allow a man to be joined with her. A man creates a seed that is necessary for procreation of human life. Whether or not science can create life without the copulation of two human beings does not change the fact that the seed from a MAN will ALWAYS be required to fertilize the egg from a WOMAN. Just because science can fertilize an egg does not mean that unnatural relations between two of the same sex is right.
2. “Human evolution is, and has been, occurring mentally rather than physically for thousands of years (our physical bodies could not have survived long enough to evolve in light of the things that threatened us: saber-tooth tigers, etc. etc.. So in reference to natural selection, the cave-man that had the abstract reasoning skill to see that the stick that hurt him when he stepped on it would also hurt the tiger survived and passed on that reasoning ability, the one who didn’t, was eaten). Our mental evolution has brought us to a place where male-female intercourse is no longer necessary to produce life. Our environment and situation is much different than it has been in the past, so, once again, it seems one should apply modern thought to modern issues.”
Human evolution has indeed advanced mentally. Evolution can be disproved right from the start in that we have not changed in over 7000 years of human history. The human body as well as all the animals and plants have not changed. If you study evolution, something physical had to change in order to evolve. We have not changed in the slightest bit from a physical standpoint. Animals, such as your saber-tooth tiger example, simply became extinct. NOTHING evolved from them. Evolution of the mind is not the same as evolution of the physical state. But getting back to your statement, survival of the fittest in the light of mental reasoning I find has absolutely nothing to do with scientific discovery of artifical insemination. Sciencetific discovery has allowed humans to live longer and live fuller lives. The need of male and female in artifical insemination is STILL necessary even though it is unnatural. Female egg, male sperm. Does this change the fact that a man CANNOT and will never be able to carry life? Can two men go the their local hospital and be artifically inseminated? Think about is, Ryan, your argument is preposterous. You still require a woman to carry life. Let’s go deeper yet. A child needs the influence of two different sexes to become a well rounded individual. A man DOES NOT have the hormones that make a woman more nuturing than a man. A woman’s brain is far more complex in several different areas than a man’s. And on the other hand, a woman could never give a child the same qualities that a man can and SHOULD. A man thinks differently than a woman and looks at certain situations in an entirely different light than a woman. He is the head of the human race. Therefore, scientific discovery has NOT excluded the male/female “goods” in bringing forth life.
3. “I’ve found talking about God tends to produce more why’s, or other types of questions, than answers; so I have to say your’s are just more good one’s that don’t seem likely to have any good response. Why did God make some animals hermaphroditic? Why did God make some people with multiple sclerosis?”
As far as my intellect can take me here, the only animal I can recall that is hermaphroditic is a species of amphibian that can change sex at will in the ABSENCE of the opposite sex. Research this topic and you may discover there is a reason why this species can change in the absence of a mate. I believe it is a survival traits to prevent extinction. Pretty smart on God’s part, Huh?! And as for M.S. Go to the debates and read what I posted in “Does God bring sickness?” God DOES NOT make people with disease, it is a result of sin and living in an imperfect world. Humans cause their own demise.
Whether or not you agree is your business, but whatever you bring in here, I WILL refute you. God is TRUTH. I am a science junky, and in trying to disprove the existence of God you will find that God is SCIENCE and He is REAL and He is the author and CREATOR of life and science. Try reading something from C.S. Lewis, he set out to refute Christianity and became one of the greatest voices of Christianity. I admit I am an intellectual and philosophical, I LOVE TO DEBATE!!!