Jump to content


Photo

Intelligence Vs. Evolution


  • Please log in to reply
208 replies to this topic

#121 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,247 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 24 June 2016 - 06:34 PM

Fjuri

I often ask my clients whether they believe in God or not? It is not to determine whether "I" believe in God or whether God actually exists or not. Indeed it is an assesment tool. I do not believe who exists or does not is controlled by us. What their answer lets me know is how open that person is to other beings that actually do exist. I use it to assess their highererchy and how much of a control freak a person might tend to be. Agnostics are but second tier atheists. Terrorists and atheists are level I. If you think about it someone who decides someone external to them can't exist is on the top rung on the level of control freaks. I think terrorists and religious fanatics are slightly higher than atheists.
(edit)

If I know how much of a control freak I am dealing with it helps me plot my therapy course. If I asked someone that is not my client what their view on God is, I may be considering what my chance of bulding a friendhip with them is? Someone open about their belief or the possibility of other beings external in relatinship to themselves will probably have no issues accepting that I exist. Someone who believes that the existence of beings eternal to themselve is iffy will likely have issues with seeing others as equals.

Of course you can do what you want but I do my own thinking and feel I am responsible to God. I am not going to go to your neightbor and ask them what "you" think! If you don't understand what I think ask me!

#122 Tirian

Tirian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 149 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sweden

Posted 24 June 2016 - 07:55 PM

But a higher probability to reproduce doesn't mean that a creature with an hereditary advantage will reproduce. In the book Genetic Entropy by Sanford this is discussed in chapter 6, A Closer Look at Noise. It's not certain that hereditary advantages will raise the probability of reproducing over the noise factors. So it's not certain positive changes will even be "visible" for natural selection due to the noise factors. 
 
And natural selection have to be defined so it does not become a tautology, because a tautology is neither scientific nor usable. 
 
Another thing (which have strong implications on this thread) is that there are actions that is not natural, but affects the ability for creatures to reproduce. One such an example could be Mother Theresa, another could be China's former one-child policy. There could be people with hereditary advantages that can't (China) or don't want to procreate. 
 
What constitute a hereditary advantage? Does it have anything to do with changes in DNA is it that needs to be fixed in the population and that might bring about new functionality in humans? Or is it just more tautology?
 
So is natural selection not just a metaphysical research program rather than anything scientific? And are all selection that happens to today really natural, or are some selection done due to choices by agents with their own free will?
 
I never claimed evolution to be moral. I just pointed out that your line of reasoning is a dangerous idea from a moral perspective. It could be used for example to justify that those with low evolutionary fitness should be terminated, which would be terrible.


#123 driewerf

driewerf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 510 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 25 June 2016 - 01:07 AM

Someone has been neglecting their bible-reading. Time to re-read the passage about veggie-meals for all, in Genesis. Though I wouldn't say it's, "out fault for sinning" because what happened if we read Genesis is that God made it vegetarian in the beginning, for all animals. Then quickly after God cursed the ground for man's sake. Death came in and now the system has to have different properties. (for our own sake).

 God cursed the ground for man"s sake? So god somehow redesigned the world and the animal kingdom and choose -- as a moral agent-- to make lions, foxes and wolves carnivores. He choose to make zebras, rabbits and deers game.  It was his choice.

 

 

Animal killing, etc, was a behaviour that kicked in after the fall.

 

Bare assertion. Where is the evidence for that?

 

It is a complicated subject really but obviously the choice to not believe God and not depend on God's wisdom, has consequences for the world.

 

Consequences your god choose. If you don't like these consequences, blame god.Not evolution, as Mike Summers does.
 
 

If the world was a lovely place with no consequences for disobeying God and heeding the enemy, then what would that say about God?

 

That he relly is a mercifull god? That he designed it well? 

 

Why did your god not choose another option?



#124 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 25 June 2016 - 05:59 AM

 

But a higher probability to ...
 
I never claimed evolution to be moral. I just pointed out that your line of reasoning is a dangerous idea from a moral perspective. It could be used for example to justify that those with low evolutionary fitness should be terminated, which would be terrible.

 

 

A case in point: the way certain evolutionary scientists treated the Aborigines in Australia. They looked upon them as a sort of 'missing link' and treated them badly.

Aborigenes

 

Blacks_slain_racism.jpg

 

 

Tasmanian-aboriginals.jpg

The lowly state in which some Australians viewed the indigenous population was evident before Darwin’s ideas began to take hold.

 

 

Why should this be a surprise?  I mean, after all, the subtitle to Darwin's Origin of the Species...

 

Origins_of_Species2Orig.jpg



#125 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,247 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 25 June 2016 - 06:13 AM

Driewerf said
 

Consequences your god choose. If you don't like these consequences, blame god. Not evolution, as Mike Summers does.


I don't think we can blame the "proces" of evo as it is not a concious entity.

Actually, blame is an emotion I do noot choost to create. I don't do most of the several negative emotionss like anger, shame, guilt, hostiiliy, resentmen etc. I realized that that makes me weird. At the beginnng i thought I might experience flat effect (no emotion). That did not happen. What happend was my mind automatically creates affection for my fellow humans. The down side of that is I like people that often may not like me as much as I lke them. It is still better than the depression and hostility I used to feel.

If I believe in evo as Darwin wrote of it realistically everything that happens happens causes it (evo). So it's not a queston of blaming an effect but realizing that everything that happens supposedly causes the effect of evolution!


 

If the world was a lovely place with no consequences for disobeying God and heeding the enemy, then what would that say about God?


That he relly is a mercifull god? That he designed it well?



Why did your god not choose another option?


I don't think you understand what it is to be an individual. This world is caused by us--not God. I am content thoug]h I wish everyone would stop creattig all the hostility.



#126 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 25 June 2016 - 07:43 AM

Driewerf said
 


I don't think we can blame the "proces" of evo as it is not a concious entity.

Actually, blame is an emotion I do noot choost to create. I don't do most of the several negative emotionss like anger, shame, guilt, hostiiliy, resentmen etc. I realized that that makes me weird. At the beginnng i thought I might experience flat effect (no emotion). That did not happen. What happend was my mind automatically creates affection for my fellow humans. The down side of that is I like people that often may not like me as much as I lke them. It is still better than the depression and hostility I used to feel.

If I believe in evo as Darwin wrote of it realistically everything that happens happens causes it (evo). So it's not a queston of blaming an effect but realizing that everything that happens supposedly causes the effect of evolution!


 


I don't think you understand what it is to be an individual. This world is caused by us--not God. I am content thoug]h I wish everyone would stop creattig all the hostility.

 

His thinking is so terribly twisted. He assumes things about the Lord that he knows nothing about. He makes assumptions based on presuppositions that are entirely wrong. Good grief! The Creator gave man a perfect world to live it; yet we have messed it up royally by choosing wrongly (it's called 'sin') and now he and those like him wish to turn things around and blame God for the messed up world that we made for ourselves. God offers forgiveness and salvation for all who really want it but he (the atheist) doesn't want it! He/they would rather point the finger at his Maker. But his finger pointing will end when He stands before the Lord in the day of judgment to come. 



#127 driewerf

driewerf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 510 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 25 June 2016 - 08:39 AM

Well Calpysis4, do I need to rmind of the words of a fellow christian here:

Then quickly after God cursed the ground for man's sake. Death came in and now the system has to have different properties. (for our own sake).
 ... 
If the world was a lovely place with no consequences for disobeying God and heeding the enemy, then what would that say about God? What would it say about Satan's reasoning? It would say that Satan was correct, and that we can do whatever we want without consequences, and it would send the message that we can ignore God and still live in a paradise.

 
God cursed the ground: that's his choice and his responsability. Since god is inetlligent and moral, he can be responsible. 
 

His thinking is so terribly twisted. He assumes things about the Lord that he knows nothing about. He makes assumptions based on presuppositions that are entirely wrong.

Well, all my thinking is based on what you christians have to tell about god, so blame yourself.
 

Good grief! The Creator gave man a perfect world to live it; yet we have messed it up royally by choosing wrongly (it's called 'sin') and now he and those like him wish to turn things around and blame God for the messed up world that we made for ourselves.

 

The consequences of the Fall are god's choice, just like it is his not choice not to return the world to an unfallen state. It is his choice to let the wolve, the lion and the shark to be predators. He has the either the power and not the will, or he has not the will.

 

God offers forgiveness and salvation for all who really want it but he (the atheist) doesn't want it! He/they would rather point the finger at his Maker. But his finger pointing will end when He stands before the Lord in the day of judgment to come.

 

 yes yes yes Calypsis. After we die. Safely so that no one can come back to confirm or deny your statements.

 



#128 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,321 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 70
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 25 June 2016 - 10:03 AM

A case in point: the way certain evolutionary scientists treated the Aborigines in Australia. They looked upon them as a sort of 'missing link' and treated them badly.

So?

 

Christian missionaries travelled the entire globe and treated indigenous peoples badly everywhere.... the Americas, Australia, Africa, India, China.....  Often the locals were made little more than slaves for the benefit if the white European "Christians."  Was Christianity responsible for it, or were those (so-called) "Christians" who mis-applied Biblical teachings guilty?  Why is evolution more "guilty" than Christianity when these hate mongers switched from Christianity to evolution in order to justify their crimes?

 

 

Tasmanian-aboriginals.jpg

The lowly state in which some Australians viewed the indigenous population was evident before Darwin’s ideas began to take hold.

 

 

Why should this be a surprise?

Did Calypsis bother to read either the image or the caption?   Notice it says "PRE-Darwin."  Maybe that means something else in Calypsisland, but where I come from "Pre" would mean "before."  In other words, the caption says: "BEFORE Darwin" the aborignals were regarded as wild beasts.

 

 

I mean, after all, the subtitle to Darwin's Origin of the Species...

 

Origins_of_Species2Orig.jpg

What does the term "races" mean in the context of the time this was written?  Hint:  It does not mean skin color.  At the time of Darwin, "races" meant "species."

 

 

Good grief! The Creator gave man a perfect world to live it; yet we have messed it up royally by choosing wrongly (it's called 'sin').....

The world clearly was not perfect.  The Bible certainly doesn't say it was.  According to the Bible, God saw His creation was "very good,"  not "perfect."  By way of comparison, if a student scores a 98 on a paper, that is "very good."  In fact, it is still an "A."  But it is NOT perfect.

 

Nothing can be perfect if any part of it is flawed.  Man, even according to creationists, had a "flawed" nature.  Hence, creation was not perfect.... but it was "very good."



#129 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 25 June 2016 - 10:57 AM

Well Calpysis4, do I need to rmind of the words of a fellow christian here:

 
God cursed the ground: that's his choice and his responsability. Since god is inetlligent and moral, he can be responsible. 
 

Well, all my thinking is based on what you christians have to tell about god, so blame yourself.
 

The consequences of the Fall are god's choice, just like it is his not choice not to return the world to an unfallen state. It is his choice to let the wolve, the lion and the shark to be predators. He has the either the power and not the will, or he has not the will.

 

 yes yes yes Calypsis. After we die. Safely so that no one can come back to confirm or deny your statements.

 

I am going to answer you this time, sinner man, and then I am going off the board again for perhaps a long while.

 

YOU, sir, are responsible for YOUR sins according to scripture and not what various Christians have told you. It is SCRIPTURE that determines what God says and does and not human opinion that is sometimes contrary to scripture about what He deems good and evil. 

 

This world is messed up very badly because we made it that way by our choices...choices that the Bible defines as sin. 

 

You need to quit worrying so much about what professing Christians have to say (there you are passing the buck again...because you don't wish to be responsible for your own sins...you wish to blame others, especially Christians), you worry about your own faults. It is God you will answer to and not Christians whom you have communicated with.

 

"God cursed the ground: that's his choice and his responsability. Since god is inetlligent and moral, he can be responsible."

 

 

 

God is not responsible to ANYONE. He is the highest authority of all. He is the Creator and Maker of this world. It belongs to Him. He makes the rules, not you. But for that matter, my unbelieving counterpart, God had only ONE rule to begin with and our forefather Adam couldn't even obey that one simple rule.  So stop passing the buck sinner person, because you will answer to the Lord  for your sin, but He will never answer to you. There is nothing you can do about that ---and---there is only one way you will escape hell: repent of your sins, believe in Christ and confess that  know-it-all attitude that you know better about what is right/wrong/acceptable/unacceptable  than your Maker does, because that will never fly when it comes your turn in line to answer before His court in eternity.

 

But before I sign off again for awhile, please go up to what I said about Darwin and the documented racism that the forefathers of your precious evolution theory practiced openly during the 1800's post 'Origin of the Species'. (post # 124)

 

 

yes yes yes Calypsis. After we die. Safely so that no one can come back to confirm or deny your statements.

 

 

Oh? Perhaps you have forgotten I've well documented several different people who have died and experienced resurrection from the dead in Jesus name (all since the late 1990's) including an atheist professor from New York. Undoubtedly you've seen them but the fact is that like your equally skeptical comrades on EFF,  evidence and/or documentation doesn't matter to you no matter how strong that evidence might be.

 

 

Perhaps someone else viewing this video recording will get something from it but I know you won't . You simply don't care about the truth as it concerns eternity. You only wish to argue and in doing so you only wish to buttress your unbelief. 

 

Don't bother replying. Communicate with others now.



#130 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,247 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 25 June 2016 - 11:41 AM

Piasan said:
 

Christian missionaries travelled the entire globe and treated indigenous peoples badly everywhere.... the Americas, Australia, Africa, India, China..... Often the locals were made little more than slaves for the benefit if the white European "Christians." Was Christianity responsible for it, or were those (so-called) "Christians" who mis-applied Biblical teachings guilty? Why is evolution more "guilty" than Christianity when these hate mongers switched from Christianity to evolution in order to justify their crimes?



This sort of reasoning is what gets me about those that oppose Christianity. There is no place in the gospels where Jesus told His discipls to abuse anyone. He commanded us to love our brother like we love ourselves. The sermon on the mount with the beutiful attitudes says nothing about abusing anyone. And yet, you keep saying Christians did this and Christians did that when Jeus never told them to do what they did! It's lke you are stuck in a loop that repeats the sme mindless phrases over and over--like you can't discern between Christian behavior and evil?

Can't you understand that if you see someone abusing another being it is not Chrstian bhavior? Do you think someone pulllling a gun on you and robbing you is christian behavio? Get real!


#131 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,321 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 70
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 25 June 2016 - 07:14 PM

Christian missionaries travelled the entire globe and treated indigenous peoples badly everywhere.... the Americas, Australia, Africa, India, China.....  Often the locals were made little more than slaves for the benefit if the white European "Christians."  Was Christianity responsible for it, or were those (so-called) "Christians" who mis-applied Biblical teachings guilty?  Why is evolution more "guilty" than Christianity when these hate mongers switched from Christianity to evolution in order to justify their crimes?

 

This sort of reasoning is what gets me about those that oppose Christianity. There is no place in the gospels where Jesus told His discipls to abuse anyone. He commanded us to love our brother like we love ourselves. The sermon on the mount with the beutiful attitudes says nothing about abusing anyone. And yet, you keep saying Christians did this and Christians did that when Jeus never told them to do what they did! It's lke you are stuck in a loop that repeats the sme mindless phrases over and over--like you can't discern between Christian behavior and evil?

Can't you understand that if you see someone abusing another being it is not Chrstian bhavior? Do you think someone pulllling a gun on you and robbing you is christian behavio? Get real!

OK... clearly, we have a failure to communicate....

 

Notice where I said the persons committing those acts were "(so-called) 'Christians' who mis-applied Biblical teachings."  That should have made it clear they were not behaving as true Christians practicing the teachings of Christ.  Also, make note that not all Biblical teachings come from the Gospels.

 

That does not change the fact that these self-described "Christians" claimed to be carrying out the Great Commission while actually plundering the local population and committing genocide on a large scale in a very UNChristian manner.

 

Can't you understand that "survival of the fittest" doesn't mean the one who is most "badass" or lives the longest?  The point is that the survival of a population is best served by genetic diversity, not a monoculture.  This is why genocide is anti-evolutionary.

 

Do you think reducing diversity in a gene pool makes a population more fit?  Get real!



#132 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,247 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 25 June 2016 - 09:12 PM

Piasan, said:


OK... clearly, we have a failure to communicate....

Notice where I said the persons committing those acts were "(so-called) 'Christians' who mis-applied Biblical teachings." That should have made it clear they were not behaving as true Christians practicing the teachings of Christ. Also, make note that not all Biblical teachings come from the Gospels.

That does not change the fact that these self-described "Christians" claimed to be carrying out the Great Commission while actually plundering the local population and committing genocide on a large scale in a very UNChristian manner.

I don't have a desire to misunderstand you. So, I am sorry if I did. But let your yes be yes and your no mean no. Their behavor ahowed they were not following the teachings of Christ. So His name was inappropriately associated to their hateful ways. What was the point of doing that? Have you noticed Driewef has never answered what Hitler created? This is a cas of guilt by association.

Evo's claim what happened is evo.

Driewerf trys to infer that Hitler was a creationiist when he is on a "known" Christian site so that he knows the Christians here are going to assume he means followers of Christ when he says creationists! That's deceitful and destroys his credibility!


Can't you understand that "survival of the fittest" doesn't mean the one who is most "badass" or lives the longest? The point is that the survival of a population is best served by genetic diversity, not a monoculture. This is why genocide is anti-evolutionary.

Yes I unerstand what "YOU" mean but that does not mean that your view is going to change what happens. The argument for evo clams that evo is deaf, dumb and blind and that selection is natural and has nothing to do with rules you and others make for evo. Everything that happens resullts in evo with or without our input. Evo is not an itellgence driven process that follows rules humans write for it! Get it?

Can you tell the difference between what you and others think and what evo doesen't think?

Do you think reducing diversity in a gene pool makes a population more fit? Get real!

Why are you asking me what I think? I have no influeence over what already happened. Evo is a spectator sport. I can only observe what evo did such as with Hitler and the Nazis.

#133 Goku

Goku

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 750 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 25 June 2016 - 09:51 PM

I would like to emphasize that biological evolution deals with populations; i.e. populations evolve, not individuals.

 

In order to determine if an action is good or bad for a species in terms of maximizing evolutionary success, you have to consider what the consequences are to the population.

 

The fundamental problem with eugenics, from an evolutionary standpoint, is that it is incredibly difficult to cull a fixed allele in a population. For example if the allele is recessive you can literally murder/sterilize every single individual that exhibits the undesired phenotype generation after generation, and a thousand years later the allele will still be present in the gene pool all else being equal.

 

I know I've said it before, but I have debated racists in the past, and in my experience racists tend to be creationists not evolutionists. When I went to the white nationalist forum Stormfront, perhaps the most popular racist internet site in the world which includes neo-Nazi and KKK members, I was told evolution was a lie. Those who have lived in the American South might recall the phrase "the mark of Cain" to describe black people as a Biblical justification for their racism. The infamous racist organization the KKK is a self proclaimed "Christian" organization, and while I am not sure if they have an official or unofficial stance on evolution today, I do know in the early 1900's (think Scopes trial) the KKK advocated creationism in public schools.

 

 



#134 driewerf

driewerf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 510 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 25 June 2016 - 11:57 PM

Driewerf trys to infer that Hitler was a creationiist when he is on a "known" Christian site so that he knows the Christians here are going to assume he means followers of Christ when he says creationists! That's deceitful and destroys his credibility!

Now you are opely lying, Mike.
There are at least 5 instances on this board where I clearly state that creationist =/= christian.
 
http://evolutionfair...cy/#entry131946
4) creationist =/= christian. Please meet Harun Yahya, a muslim creationist
 
http://evolutionfair...egacy/?p=132293
Mike the Wiz, you are making the same mistake as Mike Summer: You are associating creationism with christianity (and this error has been pointed out at least two times in this thread).
For clarity: creationist =/= christian.
There are muslim creationists (like Harun Yahyah), jewish creationists, pagan creationists etc.
It doesn't matter how far Hitler diverged from christianity, his vision as expressed in Mein Kampf -- his political statement of faith-- is clearly tainted by (a flavour of) creationism. Pointing this out is not attacking christianity. It is acknowledging a clear truth.
 
http://evolutionfair...egacy/?p=132328
Who has been defending Hitler as a christian here?
Goku? No.
Fjuri? No.
Driewerf? No.
 
http://evolutionfair...egacy/?p=132333

You are wrong on both counts.
1) I have never tried to link Hitler to christianity.

 
http://evolutionfair...egacy/?p=132341
No. Only about god and a creator. The quotes I provided didn't mention christianity. As I have said before --but the two Mikes like to repeat their errors, even after being shown wrong-- there are many types of creationists: christian, muslim, jewish, pagan, etc.
 ...
[I called Hitles a believer] A muslim is a believer too, just as a hindu, a pagan, a sikh etc. Possibly New Age adepts can be called believers too.
To call Hitler a believer is not calling him a christian per se. Otherwise I would have said so.
I have been correcting this error only 4 or 5 times in this thread.
 
Oh, and you know who are creationists too? ISIS:
http://talkingpoints...olution-schools
http://theweek.com/s...ching-evolution

ISIS = christian?

#135 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,247 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 26 June 2016 - 12:29 AM

Goku
 

I would like to emphasize that biological evolution deals with populations; i.e. populations evolve, not individuals.

I would like to bring you back into reality and point out that the word population maens more than one person not some concious multi unit being. Since an individual is a complete unit it follows that the individual has evolved as an individual part of the group. We are individuals first. Group is an organiaational term not an entity!

In order to determine if an action is good or bad for a species in terms of maximizing evolutionary success, you have to consider what the consequences are to the population.

You are once again trying to inflict human, intelligent characteristics on evo when according to Darwin it has none. The term sucess is human not evolutionary. EVO HAS NO EMOTIONS!

The fundamental problem with eugenics, from an evolutionary standpoint,

Evo can not think and so has no point of view. You are speaking for yourself as if you could cause something to evolve. Show us what you have evolved then! Very sloppy cognition for somone who often feighns scietifiic reasoning.

is that it is incredibly difficult to cull a fixed allele in a population. For example if the allele is recessive you can literally murder/sterilize every single individual that exhibits the undesired phenotype generation after generation, and a thousand years later the allele will still be present in the gene pool all else being equal.

Whateve fantasy you wish to create!
Difficult? Sounds human to me. Evo proceeds without judgement as to difficulty!

 

I know I've said it before, but I have debated racists in the past, and in my experience racists tend to be creationists not evolutionists.


So what did they create?
And evo marches on naturally selecting and ignoring your imagnary rules!

When I went to the white nationalist forum Stormfront, perhaps the most popular racist internet site in the world which includes neo-Nazi and KKK members, I was told evolution was a lie. Those who have lived in the American South might recall the phrase "the mark of Cain" to describe black people as a Biblical justification for their racism. The infamous racist organization the KKK is a self proclaimed "Christian" organization, and while I am not sure if they have an official or unofficial stance on evolution today, I do know in the early 1900's (think Scopes trial) the KKK advocated creationism in public schools.

And what part of Love your brother like yourself don't you undersand?

"For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen. 1 John 4:20-21 Message Bible-If anyone boasts, “I love God,” and goes right on hating his brother or sister, thinking nothing of it, he is a liar."

If you don't like what God created that's a crticism of God. God calls KKK and others liars if they hate their brothers!

"And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.

"It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.

"Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
Goku why do you insist on tryng to make anyone that says they are a Christian a Christian a Christian when the bible and Jesus clearly says a perssn's behavior and actions determine wheter an idividual is a disciple of Jeus Chrisst? You "know" better than this. "By their fruit you will know them!" Stop trying to pretend you are so gullible!

I've got ocean front propety in Nevada I wish to sell you! LOL :)


 



#136 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,401 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 26 June 2016 - 02:49 AM

 

 

Driewerf: Well, all my thinking is based on what you christians have to tell about god, so blame yourself.

 

Utter nonsense. You have just said God is responsible because He has intelligence and can make a choice, now you blame us for your own poor MISUNDERSTANDINGS of Christianity and the bible when we are specifically trying to educate you as to a correct understanding that contradicts your conclusions. Haven't you got your own intelligence to make the correct choice to understand the theology we are expounding? Or are you saying we forced you to come up with perverse conclusions that contradict what we are trying to tell you? (my goodness, Sherlock is in no favour of losing his job to you just yet is he? :rolleyes:

 

A child could understand it because a child does not have any twisted anti-Christian agenda. You are deliberately playing dumb when you pretend not to understand that sin has consequences to God. With God, because He is holy without blemish, He cannot just allow sin, no matter how small it seems to a debased and unholy mind.

 

Like Cal said, all you want to do is point the finger at God, and now you say, "Christians make me do it". No, we don't make you do it, because why would we argue that the bible supports moronic, anti-atheist arguments? Anti-theists make themselves misunderstand the bible, and no matter how patiently Christians try to correct them, because the anti-theist has a prejudiced agenda, they will simply carry on committing basic fallacies about Christianity because they WANT TO.


  • Mike Summers likes this

#137 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,401 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 26 June 2016 - 02:54 AM

 

 

Driewerf: Mike the Wiz, you are making the same mistake as Mike Summer: You are associating creationism with christianity (and this error has been pointed out at least two times in this thread).

 

The only reason you are calling Hitler a creationist is to associate him with creationists, whom you know by majority, are YECs that believe the bible.

 

If you are saying that Hitler's quotes about God are somehow an indication that he was a buddhist-creationist? :P

 

Or was Hitler talking about Allah? So then your argument is that Hitler was some type of strange non-Christian "creationist" that did not believe the Lord God of the bible was the creator. Is that what you have been trying to argue? :rolleyes:

 

But of course that is not your motive, your motive is OBVIOUSLY to imply he was a creationist like us, because you are annoyed that we associated him with you, by calling him, "evolutionist" or arguing he employed evolutionary-philosophy.



#138 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,401 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 26 June 2016 - 03:10 AM

 

 

Goku: I know I've said it before, but I have debated racists in the past, and in my experience racists tend to be creationists not evolutionists. When I went to the white nationalist forum Stormfront, perhaps the most popular racist internet site in the world which includes neo-Nazi and KKK members, I was told evolution was a lie. Those who have lived in the American South might recall the phrase "the mark of Cain" to describe black people as a Biblical justification for their racism. The infamous racist organization the KKK is a self proclaimed "Christian" organization, and while I am not sure if they have an official or unofficial stance on evolution today, I do know in the early 1900's (think Scopes trial) the KKK advocated creationism in public schools.

 

Yes, but again you are repeating a P.R.A.T.T yet again. (a point refuted a thousand times). 

 

It is obvious to intelligent people (and so I assume is obvious to you) that if someone argues a position yet that position contradicts what they claim, then they are not really of that position but their motives are obviously to ABUSE the authority of scripture.

 

There is no argument for racism that would work, because the bible has hundreds of pages of scripture and none of them condone or even mention the colour of skin in a derogatory way. We also stem from two people, and all people groups come from them.

 

we don't have to go into why their arguments are wrong, because only unintelligent people can't see why they are wrong. To argue as to why those KKK arguments are wrong would be like arguing as to why Hitler was wrong. It is absurd for you to expect me to be put in that position just because people make the CLAIM they are Christian-creationist.

 

You must surely be able to see the difference between a genuine, bible-believing creationist like us here at EFF, and people who are simply racists, but at heart they don't believe anything, they are just wicked people. 

 

You are basically just arguing a modern form of, "witch burners were Christian".

 

No - they weren't. I know it seems unfair because they went by that name, but what exactly did the peacable actions of Christ show? "if you love me, you will obey me". (everyone in Europe during witch-burning were associated with Christianity in some way, every one of the population in some cases, at some time, were either classed as catholic or protestant, and there was no real atheism in those times, but do you seriously believe that made all people practicing Christians that genuinely believe the gospel message and fearfully obeyed Christ?) MY GOODNESS Goku!!!!

 

You have to show where Jesus said black people are worth less that other people if you want to support the KKK's argument. Jesus who went to the samaritan woman at the well, when it was at that time that Jews and Samaritans would not so much as talk to each other because of prejudice. Jesus did not agree with any of the silly things that come from men's wicked hearts. he also said, "the things which are highly esteemed with men, are an abomination to God".

 

 

 

Goku: the American South might recall the phrase "the mark of Cain" to describe black people as a Biblical justification for their racism. The infamous racist organization the KKK is a self proclaimed "Christian" organization

 

So do you agree with their argument? If you don't agree with their argument and we agree they were wrong, and can show they were wrong provably, then that proves that their actions contradict the Christian bible. I think you would have to have a very intense case of retardation to not realise that they opportunistically USED the "mark of Cain" as a way of trying to FORCE-FIT racism into the bible, but nothing in those passages implies anything about skin colour. This is one of those argues that are so silly that even if the argument was true it still wouldn't justify racism. When Jonah came out of the whale his skin was coloured by the things he was exposed to in the whale, so the people repented. If God uses something out-of-the-ordinary, to scare people, then God is using the fact that people fear that which is out of the ordinary. He gave Cain some kind of scar, like a large birth-mark, and it would make simple people of that time, shun him. Even so, how would that mean that black people are to blame? I mean I almost laugh out loud, because it is so obvious they are force-fitting their racism into the bible here, with a desperate attempt to justify it.

 

You used the correct word, "justification". I think you're smart enough to see that all types of wicked organisations don't really follow Christ's message and seek, "good will to all men". Since black men are "all men" I am sorry Goku, but these arguments do not prove any genuine Christian connection.

 

Your ad-nauseam P.R.A.T.T is basically the argument that, "if someone says they are X they are".

 

If that is a sound argument, then we would have to let all prisoners that plead innocence, go free and would have had to let Ted Bundy go free because he pleaded innocence. (Reductio Ad Absurdum).



#139 Tirian

Tirian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 149 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sweden

Posted 26 June 2016 - 03:52 AM

It's telling that the atheists in this thread never try to address that evolutionary fitness (as described by Fjuri) could be a dangerous idea from a moral perspective. Instead they try to point out that christians how done bad things. But of course they have, there are Christians (and those who call themselves Christians) that do bad things sometimes. 
 
But the big difference is that terminating people with low evolutionary fitness would be done in contrast to the teaching of Jesus Christ. The reason Fjuri's idea is dangerous is because the justifications will be made in accordance to his reasoning. There is a big difference.

  • Mike Summers likes this

#140 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,701 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 26 June 2016 - 04:19 AM

It's telling that the atheists in this thread never try to address that evolutionary fitness (as described by Fjuri) could be a dangerous idea from a moral perspective. Instead they try to point out that Christians how done bad things. But of course they have, there are Christians (and those who call themselves Christians) that do bad things sometimes. 

 
But the big difference is that terminating people with low evolutionary fitness would be done in contrast to the teaching of Jesus Christ. The reason Fjuri's idea is dangerous is because the justifications will be made in accordance to his reasoning. There is a big difference.

Didn't I state that the theory of evolution is amoral?

It makes no judgement with regard to whether actions are moral or not. People have to get their morals from elsewhere. Piasan does it from the pick-n-choose-bible, so does a lot of atheists as they are being raised in a judea-christian society. Of course these morals are the same as good-christians have. The only difference between my morality and yours is that you claim your morality comes from some all-mighty God (exterior) whereas I claim my morality comes from cultural and genetic heritage (both exterior and interior aspects). 

 

The theory of gravity says that if you push someone of a building 100m up, that person is likely to die. Does that create a dangerous idea from a moral perspective? Of course you believe in the bible so that is absurd to you. But imagine yourself a flat-earther that doesn't belief in gravity. Is there suddenly a moral perspective to interpreting that descriptive theory about nature? I think not.

 

"Terminating people with evolutionary fitness" would be done in contrast to our inate cultural and genetic teaching as well. The theory of evolution is the descriptive explanation for the diversity of life. Nothing more.

 

Christians can't do bad things according to Mike the Wiz; Do note that neither he nor Mike Summers are Christians. They claim to be one, just the same as Hitler did in his days. 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users