"StarDragonNight" ] wrote in message
news:f61e0e1e0512290611s18eee8buf1d8d6a4cf228984@m ail.gmail.com...
R. Pierce Butler wrote:
StarDragonNight ] wrote in
news:f61e0e1e0512290541k45ac68b1ueb5697fa0baa663c@ mail.gmail.com:

Scientists' theories often seem to rely on premises that require their
own kind of faith. For example, when it comes to the origin of life,
most evolutionists adhere to ideas that require faith in certain
"doctrines." Facts are mixed with theories. And when scientists use
the weight of their authority to impose blind belief in evolution,
they are in reality implying: 'You are not responsible for your
morality because you are merely the product of biology, chemistry, and
physics.' Biologist Richard Dawkins says that in the universe 'there
is no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pointless
indifference.'


And your point is what?

A good Attorney can Justify rape and other crimes indicating it is a
biological necessity.


A scientific theory is an explanation of the known facts.
When a new fact is discovered it either fits the theory and therefore boosts
it's credibility or it doesn't fit the theory, so that the original theory has
to be amended or a new theory that fits all the (now) know facts is proposed.

Yes, facts are mixed with theories because theories are intimately linked to
facts.

Yes, I am the product of biology, physics and chemistry (and also my upbringing)
but that doesn't mean that I'm not responsible for my morality. I could equally
say that 'You believers are not responsible for your own morality' because you
believe that your diety is ultimately responsible.

If you are suggesting that it is a biological necessity for a man to *have sex*,
then there are many alternative, legitimate ways of achieving this (a
prostitute, a willing partner or wife, masturbation, etc.). If you're saying
that it is a biological necessity for a man to *procreate* there are, again,
other legitimate ways of acheiving this (a willing partner or wife, a sperm
bank, etc.). Procreation through rape is probably the least efficient method of
achieving this, especially here in the UK, where a rape victim will
automatically be offered a termination if she is made pregnant by the rapist.

So no, even the best lawyer in the land cannot justify rape as a legitimate
method of procreation.

Just as a starving man cannot claim that it's a biological necessity for him to
eat to get off a charge of stealing a loaf of bread. There's always the
alternative of State benefits or charitable hand-outs. If he could claim that,
we would be heading towards anarchy.


Smiler