Chiki

Aren't Adam and Eve supposed to be humans just like us? So according to the Bible, Neanderthals wouldn't be considered human. If you think Neanderthals are human, and religion says that Adam and Eve were the first humans, this undermines your attempts to reconcile the two. It's unlikely but not impossible that Neanderthals even had the ability to converse with one another (due to the skeletal structure of their neck bones, it's more likely that they were capable of sign language if they had linguistic capabilities like us). So if Adam and Eve were Neanderthals, they probably communicated with each other using sign language. Doesn't this undermine the entire story in the Bible?

You can keep trying, but it honestly won't work. According to the theory of evolution, there are no "newly formed humans." This evolution is very very gradual. There was a point at which humans were like chimpanzees, and a point at which humans are as we know it today, and several million years of a middle ground where there are chimpanzee-like creatures evolving into people. There were creatures which had very very very slight differences from Adam and Eve, so why weren't they considered human too? It makes no sense in evolutionary terms to say that there is a first human, or a first cat, or whatever.

Fionorde: Evolution is a fact. Why can't God give us free will despite the fact that we were created instantly?

Use Jill instead of Marcia for the FE9 strategies. It costs a few turns for FE9, but I'm not sure if a HM LTC of Radiant Dawn would be bearable if Jill didn't get transfers.

Why take 4 billion years rather than do it instantly? God is omnipotent. If you're not saying that science and religion are compatible overall, then you're rejecting your entire argument (since the title of this thread is "is science incompatible with religion?". Now that I think about it, it doesn't matter how many keys there are. But suppose there was even the slightest atom misplaced in the key that prevented the lock from unlocking. Then perfect compatibility would be needed. Bolded part: this involves definitions rather than logic. You have to use your brain to see what the right definition is. It's something that is very easy for me to do since I've had a lot of training, but it's not easy for people without training.

Religion says that God instantly created us by snapping his fingers. Science says that we were created in a period of around 4 billion years in a very gradual process of natural selection. An instance vs 4 billion years. There is no way to reconcile these two statements.

Bolded part is false. If there's at least one occurrence where two things are compatible and there is no other occurrence in which they are compatible, it does not follow that they are compatible overall. Absolutely not. Compatibility is not as strict in certain cases, but it is stricter in others, and in some cases it has to be a perfect fit. For example, a man may not be completely compatible with his girlfriend, because the girl might have a temper problem while the man is very calm. But you can still call them "compatible" if they work out in other ways. One way to show that compatibility is necessary is certain cases is this: just imagine a key and a lock, and there's only one key for the lock in the world which is a perfect fit. No other key fits. Then we can say that a perfect fit is necessary for compatibility, with no middle ground. Science vs. religion is one of the necessary cases. If you want to talk about theories about the nature of reality (religion vs. science), in order to be compatible, they must not make any conflicting claims. If the nature of humans is such that God made us according to religion, and God did not according to science, even if they make the same exact claims about everything else (which they do not), then intuitively, they are not compatible.

If they conflict in some cases, it follows by basic logic that they're incompatible. So yes.

I've changed the title of this thread since I think the argument for the legalization of prostitution is very similar to that if legalizing incestuous marriages, etc. So what do you guys think?

Wtf at the bolded part. Yes it is... if someone makes a universal statement and you come up with a counterexample to it, it means they're wrong. Basic reasoning. Making children illegal doesn't mean abort them. It's just something to discourage couples from making children at all. If they have a child, then the parents should be punished for doing something so irresponsible. We punish people for drunk driving (big risk), so we'd do the same here.

1. Make incestuous children illegal. 2. There are incestuous relationships in which there are no power dynamics, obviously. 3. Again, there are incestuous relationships in which there is no sexual assault.

Just make it illegal to have children. If the woman in the incestuous couple gets pregnant, they need to go a hospital anyway, so the doctors can tell the police if this happens. Someone will almost certainly find out eventually. Simple solution.

Omfg =_= http://www.salon.com/2010/12/10/incest/

And what are the practical consequences of legalizing them? I care because I'm in search for the truth. What is right and what is not? I'm an only child, so I could never want to engage in sibling incest, and I personally find polygamy gross. But that doesn't mean polygamy and incest are unethical. I'm just being logical, unlike you right now.

Since this thread is all about "should," this is actually not relevant. I don't really care if the majority is against changing the law, because it's still true that the law should be changed. What will you do when polygamous marriages get legalized in Western countries?

Your argument is this: a law should only be put in place if it is supported by a majority, therefore incestuous marriages and such shouldn't be allowed. Is that right? Can you really think of no counterexamples to this?

Making this thread here upon eclipse's advice. Interesting example that people in the Western world do want to marry multiple people: http://edition.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/07/02/polygamist-applies-for-marriage-license-pkg.ktvq?iid=ob_article_organicsidebar_expansion&iref=obnetwork

I'm 100% sure a law on polygamy and incest is far more needed than a fucking law about gorillas sitting in backseats. This philosopher, who is also imo a slut, is in an open marriage and I'm sure she would marry the other person she's fucking if she could. There's a lot more people like this. I don't have any siblings so I don't know what incest is like. But I do know people elsewhere who want to have sex with their little sisters, and they have no qualms about marrying them.

Yes, I'm sure a law is needed to prohibit gorillas from sitting in the back seat of a car. LOL

And what would be the growths and the skill set of this kid?

Bolded part: rofl, do some research before posting stuff like this. There are mountains and mountains and mountains of counterexamples to this, with a website dedicated to it: http://www.dumblaws.com. It's patently false: http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/massachusetts Yes, I'm sure this law was needed... And now your entire argument falls down since a crucial premise was false.

This argument is a joke. First, you have been arguing about what should be the case, assuming we were trying to make the law as perfect as possible. I'm not arguing about whether or not incest and polygamy will be legalized. Second, it's silly to say that a law doesn't matter if an insignificant number of people have a need for polygamy and/or incest. We should always try our best to serve the needs of every citizen in a country, even if it's just one, or a hundred, or a thousand, or a million, or a billion.

It is the point. The point is that they're not the same person. If they're not the same person, the reasoning applies here. They can't adopt their own biological children because they're not the same person anymore: they'd merely be adopting a lookalike of their child, nothing more.

Actually, depending on your definition of magic, there's literally no such thing as magic. By definition, magic means something like making the impossible possible. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/magic If you take this definition, suppose someone does magic. They made the impossible possible. That makes no sense whatsoever though, since to have done something impossible, means that it was possible in the first place. So the definition of magic is flat out contradictory. By magic in Fire Emblem, that by definition probably means something like "the ability to shoot fire and thunder and whatever by chanting the texts in the books." And that's not logically contradictory at all. There could be a world such that the laws of nature allows one to shoot fire and thunder out of books. That makes much more sense than allowing gays to adopt their biological children.

The same reasoning which validates gay marriage can be used to validate incest and polygamy. So what? There's nothing unethical about incest or polygamy as long as there's consent. Good luck making a rational argument against those two.