Tweet
According to germ theory, sexually transmitted diseases are caused by an organism passed from one person to another through sexual contact. Sexually transmitted diseases can cause sores that make intercourse uncomfortable or even painful, can weaken the body, or can even cause one's genitals to become deformed -- all things that will cause the person with the disease to have less sex.
What evolutionary advantage is there for a sexually transmitted organism in making intercourse uncomfortable, making your host weak and sick, or deforming your host's genitals? I see the fact that such organisms thrive as proof that God sends STD's to people who are so depraved that they will continue to fornicate no matter how much it hurts, no matter how sick they feel, and no matter how many puss-oozing lesions cover their partner's lumpy genitals.
If evolution is true, then why aren't there any sexually transmitted organisms that increase libido, make intercourse more pleasurable, or make the host more attractive to the opposite sex? We've supposedly had about 200 million years since mammals first started having sex -- certainly that should be enough time for a beneficial sexually transmitted organism to evolve. It would only have to happen once, because such an organism would spread like wild fire. People would go out of their way to catch it on purpose.
I propose that the non-existence of such an organism is strong evidence against evolution. I further propose that the fact that sexually transmitted organisms make fornication less pleasurable and desirable is strong evidence in favor of the sin theory of disease.
Pastor Billy-Reuben
What evolutionary advantage is there for a sexually transmitted organism in making intercourse uncomfortable, making your host weak and sick, or deforming your host's genitals? I see the fact that such organisms thrive as proof that God sends STD's to people who are so depraved that they will continue to fornicate no matter how much it hurts, no matter how sick they feel, and no matter how many puss-oozing lesions cover their partner's lumpy genitals.
If evolution is true, then why aren't there any sexually transmitted organisms that increase libido, make intercourse more pleasurable, or make the host more attractive to the opposite sex? We've supposedly had about 200 million years since mammals first started having sex -- certainly that should be enough time for a beneficial sexually transmitted organism to evolve. It would only have to happen once, because such an organism would spread like wild fire. People would go out of their way to catch it on purpose.
I propose that the non-existence of such an organism is strong evidence against evolution. I further propose that the fact that sexually transmitted organisms make fornication less pleasurable and desirable is strong evidence in favor of the sin theory of disease.
Pastor Billy-Reuben
Trump / Arpaio 2016 -- The Government We Deserve 
Comment