Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
usafjay1976

Atheists: Is Murder Acceptable With You?

Recommended Posts

 

 

 

Fjuri: I thought you were a high IQ person? You do know the range of IQ scores is not 0-70 right?

 

This seems pretty unprovoked, BK did make a clever delineation and is pretty sharp when it comes to cutting through the flak. IQ only measures academic intelligence doesn't it? 

You've seen his posts right? And I've mentioned his ridiculous claims which even you wouldn't defend (despite being a fellow Creationist).

 

And people that claim they have a high IQ should expect to be mocked when acting stupid. IQ isn't academic intelligence, most tests measure verbal, numeral and graphical intelligence. From what I've gather your IQ is fairly high (not formally tested). And if you're honest about it, you notice a distinct difference between your and his posts (the least is, you've discovered how to use the quote function...).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read all of BK's posts in this thread Fjuri. One thing about many of these topics I notice is that they very quickly become a can of worms to the point I can't even remember what we were arguing about to begin with. ;)

 

We all have some bias I guess, we all know we act in a binary fashion at forums like this because two worldviews are at war, basically. Sometimes we are all guilty of not being strictly fair by applying a standard to the person of the other worldview we might not on our own side.

 

We colour people in our minds, as those two groups sometimes, instead of seeing them as individuals. That's because a forum is conducive to creating contention between two ideologies.

 

I noticed this when I read that link "What If" gave, the evolutionist that went on the grand canyon trip with the creationists, kept mentioning how nice the creationists were as people, because the difference with him is that he had participated in a real-life event where he got to see them as individuals rather than just members of the group, "creationist".

 

I have tried to be objective, sometimes I will disagree with BK. But also, even though debating is my thing, arguing isn't my thing, so I tend not to hang around. You may have noticed I sometimes hand an easy debate-victory to people by simply not returning because I don't wish to carry on the endless cycle of disagreement and frustration.

 

"can't we all just get along".... :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This seems pretty unprovoked, BK did make a clever delineation and is pretty sharp when it comes to cutting through the flak. IQ only measures academic intelligence doesn't it? 

 

 I prefer Goku's signature, there is more to intelligence than IQ, IMHO. It would be limited to say that only a big IQ is all that counts. Sometimes it's about intellectual laziness/ignorance.

 

But if you have a learning difficulty that slows you down, I was told by a fellow that gave me a dyslexia test that it is a mistake to infer that I am less intelligent, because he said that I got the questions correct the same as anyone else. If that had been an IQ test I guess I would get a low IQ because I may not have finished the test in time.

 

I also notice with those tests, sometimes they don't even test a big range of abilities, at least the fake IQ tests online anyway.

 

My understanding is that IQ is largely based on the ability to work with abstraction and the hypothetical. Those things are important, but I'm a firm believer that there are many dimensions to intelligence.

 

As Piasan said it is more about what you do with your intelligence than how high it is. It doesn't matter what it is; I would rather teach someone who has an average potential but works hard to improve, than someone with a really high potential who can't be bothered to try. Eventually the hard worker will be better than the lazy genius, and I don't think it has to take very long for that to happen. And it's not just intelligence, but virtually anything from the arts to sports.

 

That said I think an IQ of 162 is very high, but BK also said Einstein had an IQ of 200 and I have always heard that Einstein's IQ is estimated to be in the 160's, so we may be thinking of different IQ tests. The IQ test I'm familiar with has a standard deviation (or "SD" for short) of 15, but some older IQ tests make the SD 24 which would give you a higher score than the one with 15 (assuming your IQ is above 100). So an IQ of 200 where the SD is 24 would be about the same as an IQ score of 160 when the SD is 15 with each being about 4 SD away from the average. Assuming this is what is going on with BK's IQ, a score of 162 with an SD of 24 is equivalent to a score of 139 when SD is 15. No offense to BK, but 139 makes a lot more sense to me than 162.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Goku, it sounds pretty convoluted. If I'm honest, as a person from the U.K I don't really know much about what I.Q testing really means except as some kind of a colloquialism since there doesn't seem to be an I.Q test in my country.

 

I am not sure there is any one objective IQ test by which people measure it by, which I think is what you're saying - that it seems to depend on which test the person took. But didn't BK also say something about being a chess master? That must take ability with the grey matter I imagine.

 

I did used to take a few IQ tests like most people do on the internet until I found out they're not real, so I took the mensa questionaire a couple of years back which they give you and if you pass they say you can do their IQ test, I think they said to me something like, "don't phone us we'll phone you." ;)

 

Oh well, let's face it, not many are going to be on Einstein's level, like you say the most we can hope for us to fine tune the abilities we do have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Still waiting for a theist to answer:Is it your position that genocide is moral?

Is it your position that genocide was moral in the past, but it isn't now anymore?

 

Of course genocide is STILL moral IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS.....

 

 

"Blitzkings for example (as is demonstrated by his moral declaration for genocide nowadays)"

WHAT NONSENSE..

God CANNOT commit Genocide... But he does have the right to shorten people's lives if he decides to.. Like I said before, people like you are ALREADY DEAD to God... How many breaths do you think you have left before you have to face the music?

 

 

When are you start being consistent? Also, read the context of the quote, if you cut a sentence in half you might miss the meaning...

 

So far this topic we have you claiming:

- Hitler spoke English with his confidants.

- No experts exist with regard to the theory of evolution, but Hitler's and Darwin's quotes show how to interpret it.

- Genocide is moral, but God didn't commit genocide.

 

I thought you were a high IQ person? You do know the range of IQ scores is not 0-70 right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"So far this topic we have you claiming:

- Hitler spoke English with his confidants.

- No experts exist with regard to the theory of evolution, but Hitler's and Darwin's quotes show how to interpret it.

- Genocide is moral, but God didn't commit genocide."

 

You seem to have complex with the IQ thing.. But thats OK ..

 

Go.back and read what I wrote about Hitler's tapes.. You will see that I wrote the word MISTRANSLATION in caps several times.. If I thought Hitler spoke in English, why would I think that his quotes were NOT MISTRANSLATED..?

 

You are being very silly..

 

"No experts exist with regard to the theory of evolution, but Hitler's and Darwin's quotes show how to interpret it."

 

There AREN'T ANY EXPERTS concerning ANY Fairytales or Science Fiction Novels.. (Think about it for awhile..)

 

Hitler's and Darwin's quotes were NOT "How to interpret it" They Merely demonstrate that "Evolutionary thinking" PROVIDES JUSTIFICATION for Racism and Genocide..

 

"Genocide is moral, but God didn't commit genocide."

 

As I explained, God, Who lives OUTSIDE of time, views people who reject his truth and love as ALREADY DEAD... How can it be possible to Kill someone who is ALREADY DEAD?

 

Dont worry.. I dont hold grudges..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes indeed, And if he tried to create a master race of intellectually and physically superior human beings by eliminating all of the "Substandard" races..(Anyone not Germanic) shouldn't mankind be grateful for his endeavors? Think of the superior beings that would eventually predominate the Earth? Who are YOU to say that isn't a good thing?

My point is that the theory of evolution says no such thing. By your own source, there is no such thing as "substandard". You can't claim that evolution says nobody is special and then say Hitler was correctly interpreting evolution when he said Germans were special.

 

The Supreme Court if the USA...

...determines whether things are legal according to the Constitution, not whether things are "perfectly fine".

 

Whomever else may deems it to be so... You keep forgetting that Atheists ABANDON THE AUTHORITY to tell anyone what is "Right" and What is "Wrong" You merely rely on Man made Laws and constructs as deterrents..

It's hard to abandon something that never existed. You never had actual authority to tell someone what's right or wrong. You were always making a subjective appeal that they should listen to what your book says. You are of course free to make that appeal, and they're free to tell you they don't care what your book says.

 

MORE IGNORANCE

 

Throwing things on the floor is a PERFECT EXAMPLE of utilizing the Empirical Scientific Method to determine if a hypothesis conforms to the rigors of Scientific inquiry or not.. You DO rememebr the Scientific Method dont you? The theory of Gravity is Observable, testable, repeatable falisifiable, Etc.. Your MYO Mindless Mud to Man Myth is NONE OF THOSE has ZERO to do with ANYTHING scientific..

The quote you posted wasn't about determining if a hypothesis conforms to reality. Your quote was about human behavior being said to conform to a scientific theory. Which is nonsense. In that example, you're not throwing things to see whether gravity works, you're throwing things because you think the theory of gravity says you should.

 

"I guess it is if you're a sociopath? This is the part of the discussion that makes me very concerned when religious people imply that the only reason they can think of not to go out and do horrible things is that their book tells them not to."

 

NONSENSICAL..and

You said exactly that in the very next post!

We DO say that would no longer have any reason NOT to commit horrible things.. See the difference?

You understand everyone can see what you post, right?

 

"Note the use of the faulty concept of a "higher state of being".

 

LOL...

 

According to WHOM??? .. YOU?? In case you have forgotten, you have ABANDONED the authority to decide what is a "higher state of being" and what isnt...

 

"Note again the incorrect ideas of higher and lower races."

 

AGAIN..

 

"Incorrect according to WHOM exactly"??

According to your source about evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes indeed, And if he tried to create a master race of intellectually and physically superior human beings by eliminating all of the "Substandard" races..(Anyone not Germanic) shouldn't mankind be grateful for his endeavors? Think of the superior beings that would eventually predominate the Earth? Who are YOU to say that isn't a good thing?

My point is that the theory of evolution says no such thing. By your own source, there is no such thing as "substandard". You can't claim that evolution says nobody is special and then say Hitler was correctly interpreting evolution when he said Germans were special. 

The Supreme Court if the USA...

...determines whether things are legal according to the Constitution, not whether things are "perfectly fine". 

Whomever else may deems it to be so... You keep forgetting that Atheists ABANDON THE AUTHORITY to tell anyone what is "Right" and What is "Wrong" You merely rely on Man made Laws and constructs as deterrents..

It's hard to abandon something that never existed. You never had actual authority to tell someone what's right or wrong. You were always making a subjective appeal that they should listen to what your book says. You are of course free to make that appeal, and they're free to tell you they don't care what your book says. 

MORE IGNORANCEThrowing things on the floor is a PERFECT EXAMPLE of utilizing the Empirical Scientific Method to determine if a hypothesis conforms to the rigors of Scientific inquiry or not.. You DO rememebr the Scientific Method dont you? The theory of Gravity is Observable, testable, repeatable falisifiable, Etc.. Your MYO Mindless Mud to Man Myth is NONE OF THOSE has ZERO to do with ANYTHING scientific..

The quote you posted wasn't about determining if a hypothesis conforms to reality. Your quote was about human behavior being said to conform to a scientific theory. Which is nonsense. In that example, you're not throwing things to see whether gravity works, you're throwing things because you think the theory of gravity says you should. 

"I guess it is if you're a sociopath? This is the part of the discussion that makes me very concerned when religious people imply that the only reason they can think of not to go out and do horrible things is that their book tells them not to."NONSENSICAL..and

You said exactly that in the very next post!

We DO say that would no longer have any reason NOT to commit horrible things.. See the difference?

You understand everyone can see what you post, right? 

"Note the use of the faulty concept of a "higher state of being".LOL...According to WHOM??? .. YOU?? In case you have forgotten, you have ABANDONED the authority to decide what is a "higher state of being" and what isnt..."Note again the incorrect ideas of higher and lower races."AGAIN.."Incorrect according to WHOM exactly"??

According to your source about evolution.

 

"My point is that the theory of evolution says no such thing."

 

Maybe you should think about discontinuing with the blatant logical fallacy of reification concerning your Mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth of "Evolution..

 

AGAIN

 

If you would like to demonstrate to us that the "Theory of Evolution" should remain in the realm of Empirical or "Hard" Science instead of being placed under the realm of Philosophy where it belongs, please provide empirical scientific evidence to support it.. I'm assuming that you know what the scientific method is and why it was established don't you?

 

No go get some evidence!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you would like to demonstrate to us that the "Theory of Evolution" should remain in the realm of Empirical or "Hard" Science instead of being placed under the realm of Philosophy where it belongs, please provide empirical scientific evidence to support it.. I'm assuming that you know what the scientific method is and why it was established don't you?

 

No go get some evidence!

That's not what we're discussing. We're discussing your claim that Hitler was acting according to the theory of evolution, specifically its incompatibility with your other claim that according to the theory of evolution all life is morally equal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If you would like to demonstrate to us that the "Theory of Evolution" should remain in the realm of Empirical or "Hard" Science instead of being placed under the realm of Philosophy where it belongs, please provide empirical scientific evidence to support it.. I'm assuming that you know what the scientific method is and why it was established don't you?No go get some evidence!

That's not what we're discussing. We're discussing your claim that Hitler was acting according to the theory of evolution, specifically its incompatibility with your other claim that according to the theory of evolution all life is morally equal.

 

"That's not what we're discussing. We're discussing your claim that Hitler was acting according to the theory of evolution, specifically its incompatibility with your other claim that according to the theory of evolution all life is morally equal."

 

Why do you keep on using "Morally" Equal?

 

I maintain that if the Myth of "Evolution" (I dont consider it a theory but merely a hypothetical hypothesis) were to be true (Which it isn't) then all life is equally EXPENDABLE...

 

THEREFORE

 

And this is where the Morality part comes is..

 

It would be just as morally acceptable to murder another human as it would be to kill weeds, insects, or fish.. I even showed you the Evolution 101 website from Cal State University to prove it.. But it appears that you didnt see it or forgot..

Here it is again in all of its glory..

 

Pretty sick (And Dangerous) thinking isnt it?

 

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/images/evo/laddervstree.gif

 

 

 

"The problem is that we humans are hung up on ourselves. We often define progress in a way that hinges on our view of ourselves, a way that relies on intellect, culture, or emotion. But that definition is anthropocentric.

It is tempting to see evolution as a grand progressive ladder with Homo sapiens emerging at the top. But evolution produces a tree, not a ladder — and we are just one of many leaves on the tree.

 

Evolution is a tree, not a ladder and we are just one of many leaves on the tree"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While evolution doesn't say one organism is more highly evolved or anything, evolution obviously deals with populations and the relative fitness of individuals in that population, and some individuals are going to be more fit or less fit than others.

 

So you could make the case that killing off the inferior parts of the population is beneficial from an evolutionary point of view; since ToE is descriptive rather than prescriptive that seems to be the only rational way to discuss this. While we don't like to think about it, if we seriously entertain the hypothetical that we have to severely reduce the human population due to whatever doomsday scenario you come up with, I certainly would advocate that the 'best' of humanity be spared within certain genetic parameters to avoid incest and have a healthy and diverse gene pool and so on. The problem with Hitler is that he wasn't facing some great crisis that required such killing, and that such killing was done more or less arbitrarily based on ancestry rather than merit. I suppose you could talk about each race as a separate population, but you'd have to ignore genetic facts about human populations to get 'Hitler was doing the human race an evolutionary favor'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I maintain that if the Myth of "Evolution" (I dont consider it a theory but merely a hypothetical hypothesis) were to be true (Which it isn't) then all life is equally EXPENDABLE...

This is yet another thing about evolution that Hitler didn't believe. It's starting to sound like this Hitler fellow didn't understand evolution at all!

 

Also expendable to whom?

 

And this is where the Morality part comes is..

 

It would be just as morally acceptable to murder another human as it would be to kill weeds, insects, or fish.. I even showed you the Evolution 101 website from Cal State University to prove it.. But it appears that you didnt see it or forgot..

Here it is again in all of its glory..

I've been referring to that in every post. I don't understand how "it would be just as morally acceptable to murder another human as [other life]" is significantly different from "all life is morally equal".

 

Pretty sick (And Dangerous) thinking isnt it?

 

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/images/evo/laddervstree.gif

Not really? It seems much more dangerous to believe that you are inherently superior to everything else.

More to the point Hitler and the Nazis were very much on the left (i.e. Wrong) side of the image.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Blitzking: We DONT say that we WOULD commit horrible things if we were to suddenly decide to reject God's Truth of the Bible..

 

BUT

 

We DO say that would no longer have any reason NOT to commit horrible things.. See the difference?

 

This is correct Fjuri, we are saying that horrible things aren't inconsistent with an atheist position. 

I already stated that everything apart from "belief in God" is not inconsistent with an atheist position... That statement is rather empty.

Horrible things aren't inconsistent with people genuinely trying to be a Christian either...

 

So Popoi was just trying to put the, "horrible things" on to us - as though everyone that does horrible things is someone who would have been Christian, a kind of madman that only has a Christian creed holding him back. 

He wasn't. He saying those people exist, madmen who are only having a Christian creed holding them back. And when theists argue they are such a person, its kind of logical to point they are saying such a thing.

 

Please read this post, it answers your concerns:

 

What you have to understand Mike the Wiz how the moral system is experienced by everyone. You cannot deny that each individual has a slightly different moral evaluation system. Yours is different from mine, but also from Blitzkings for example (as is demonstrated by his moral declaration for genocide nowadays).

The foundation of each individuals morality is twofold. A part that is inherited genetically (or "imprinted by God") and a part that is cultural. That's why people of different cultural background have slightly different moral standards.

 

The part that is imprinted by God is fixed for life. That's unchanging.

The part that is cultural is changing depending on life experiences. For example, before you were re-born in Christ, you would experience yourself as a moral being while hinsight reveals some errors you might have made.

 

Another cultural change can be going from theist to atheist. For each individual this is different and some don't actually change a lot with regard to their morals.

 

A common theistic argument is that they would commit horrible things if they should turn away from their Bible. That's more often than not a lie. If it is true, then that means they do have sociopathic tendencies. (And I'd prefer they keep following their book that says to keep away from me.)

Edit: And btw, when we state we are concerned you can't think of any other reason not to do horrible things apart from your book, we're not saying you're not already doing horrible things now. We're saying we're concerned you be doing more of them...

 

 

"Horrible things aren't inconsistent with people genuinely trying to be a Christian either"...

 

NONSENSE..

 

Let me introduce you to the Commandments of Jesus..http://www.trusting-in-jesus.com/Commandments-of-Jesus.html

 

And the Beattitudes as well http://robertwells.tripod.com/Beatitudes.html

 

 I dont think the translation for "genuinely trying" in English to Flemish means the same thing that you apparently think it does.. :kaffeetrinker:

 

"Evolution is the root of atheism, of communism, nazism, behaviorism, racism, economic imperialism,

militarism, libertinism, anarchism, and all manner of anti-Christian systems of belief and practice."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I maintain that if the Myth of "Evolution" (I dont consider it a theory but merely a hypothetical hypothesis) were to be true (Which it isn't) then all life is equally EXPENDABLE...

This is yet another thing about evolution that Hitler didn't believe. It's starting to sound like this Hitler fellow didn't understand evolution at all!

 

Also expendable to whom?

 

And this is where the Morality part comes is..

 

It would be just as morally acceptable to murder another human as it would be to kill weeds, insects, or fish.. I even showed you the Evolution 101 website from Cal State University to prove it.. But it appears that you didnt see it or forgot..

Here it is again in all of its glory..

I've been referring to that in every post. I don't understand how "it would be just as morally acceptable to murder another human as [other life]" is significantly different from "all life is morally equal".

 

Pretty sick (And Dangerous) thinking isnt it?

 

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/images/evo/laddervstree.gif

Not really? It seems much more dangerous to believe that you are inherently superior to everything else.

More to the point Hitler and the Nazis were very much on the left (i.e. Wrong) side of the image.

 

 

laddervstree.gif

"The problem is that we humans are hung up on ourselves. We often define progress in a way that hinges on our view of ourselves, a way that relies on intellect, culture, or emotion. But that definition is anthropocentric.

It is tempting to see evolution as a grand progressive ladder with Homo sapiens emerging at the top. But evolution produces a tree, not a ladder — and we are just one of many leaves on the tree.

 

Evolution is a tree, not a ladder and we are just one of many leaves on the tree"    

 

 

NOTICE THE PART THAT SAYS..

 

""The problem is that we humans are hung up on ourselves."

 

AND THEN.

 

"But that definition is anthropocentric."

 

 

This is pure POISON plain and simple...

You Atheists are great.. Intellectual Fascists that shove the Lie of "Evolution" down each and every school kid's throat BY LAW from the time they are 8

and Lie to them that your myth is a Scientific Fact, by withholding Any and All Evidence that goes against your Mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth therefore convincing them that they are no better than an insect...You sow hopelessness, depression and despair, And then scratch your heads and wonder why so many of our young people have such a massive problem with Alcohol, Drugs, and Suicide these days...  Good Job Satan.. Good Job... 

 

 

"Evolution is the root of atheism, of communism, nazism, behaviorism,

racism, economic imperialism, militarism, libertinism, anarchism, and

all manner of anti-Christian systems of belief and practice."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I maintain that if the Myth of "Evolution" (I dont consider it a theory but merely a hypothetical hypothesis) were to be true (Which it isn't) then all life is equally EXPENDABLE...

This is yet another thing about evolution that Hitler didn't believe. It's starting to sound like this Hitler fellow didn't understand evolution at all!

 

Also expendable to whom?

 

And this is where the Morality part comes is..

 

It would be just as morally acceptable to murder another human as it would be to kill weeds, insects, or fish.. I even showed you the Evolution 101 website from Cal State University to prove it.. But it appears that you didnt see it or forgot..

Here it is again in all of its glory..

I've been referring to that in every post. I don't understand how "it would be just as morally acceptable to murder another human as [other life]" is significantly different from "all life is morally equal".

 

Pretty sick (And Dangerous) thinking isnt it?

 

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/images/evo/laddervstree.gif

Not really? It seems much more dangerous to believe that you are inherently superior to everything else.

More to the point Hitler and the Nazis were very much on the left (i.e. Wrong) side of the image.

 

 

"It's starting to sound like this Hitler fellow didn't understand evolution at all!" :laugh_point:

 

WHO DOES??    LOL   WHAT IS THERE TO "UNDERSTAND?

 

richard+dawkins,+atheist,+atheism,+new+a

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess if Dawkins is a jedi, Blitzking, then it's a case of the "The Empirical strikes back", when we show up with our clear-cut evidence of creation.

 

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Goku: Posted 12 May 2017 - 01:10 PM

While evolution doesn't say one organism is more highly evolved or anything, evolution obviously deals with populations and the relative fitness of individuals in that population, and some individuals are going to be more fit or less fit than others."

What a bunc h of doublle talk--a tribute to our uncanny ability to deceive oursellves. The above statement is a manifestation of the persons religion that authored it. It is an example of self deception at its best. "I am not saying I what I am saying!"

 

Before Hitler et al physically started eliminating people from the the gene pool (or murderied them) he no doubt thought thoughts similarly to the above.

 

We can't usually look at a Human being and determin they are not fit (whatever fit means). Hitler's remarks to himself were no doubt similar to those above. He made a philosophical (religious) decision accompanied with all the dogma that those that "worship"their religion (a form of worshiping your own thinking) often do. Make no mistake about it, the alleged atheist thinks it's their job (a philosophical concept held their religious belief) to determine who should and should't exist. Quite naturally it only follows that they would have no qualms at determining some human beings are unfit. Notice how glibly the writer speaks of anothers life as expendable.

 

I am unfit, so why don't I just kill myself? I have no legs. Funny thing that people seem to work very hard at keeping me above ground. We have hospitals dotted throughout the land whose sole purpose is to help the "unfit" stay alive. And then there is Steve Hawkings. He looks unfit to me. Should he be offed too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess if Dawkins is a jedi, Blitzking, then it's a case of the "The Empirical strikes back", when we show up with our clear-cut evidence of creation.

 

:D

Mikey is sharp as a tack! Good one!

 

The Empirical strikes back...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a bunc h of doublle talk--a tribute to our uncanny ability to deceive oursellves. The above statement is a manifestation of the persons religion that authored it. It is an example of self deception at its best. "I am not saying I what I am saying!"

Before Hitler et al physically started eliminating people from the the gene pool (or murderied them) he no doubt thought thoughts similarly to the above.

 

We can't usually look at a Human being and determin they are not fit (whatever fit means). Hitler's remarks to himself were no doubt similar to those above. He made a philosophical (religious) decision accompanied with all the dogma that those that "worship"their religion (a form of worshiping your own thinking) often do. Make no mistake about it, the alleged atheist thinks it's their job (a philosophical concept held their religious belief) to determine who should and should't exist. Quite naturally it only follows that they would have no qualms at determining some human beings are unfit. Notice how glibly the writer speaks of anothers life as expendable.

 

I am unfit, so why don't I just kill myself? I have no legs. Funny thing that people seem to work very hard at keeping me above ground. We have hospitals dotted throughout the land whose sole purpose is to help the "unfit" stay alive. And then there is Steve Hawkings. He looks unfit to me. Should he be offed too?

 

 

 

A misconception many people have about evolution is what it means to be fit. Humans tend to think about what they personally see as more fit or less fit, and then impose their view of fitness onto evolution, and that is not how it works.

 

You don't have legs, and yes that would mean you are less fit, especially if we lived several generations ago when almost everyone survived by doing some sort of physical labor. However, while evolutionary pressures haven't gone away, they have changed. At this point in time you can find a niche in society doing desk work, which you can obviously still do and have apparently done for years and perhaps decades. Remember evolution is about populations; so if you can improve the population through teaching (I think that is what you do) then you are beneficial to the species. The same is true with Stephen Hawking (not "Hawkings"; there is another astronomer with the last name Hawkings, but it is a different person lol).

 

Stop trying to impose your own view of what is and isn't fit into the evolutionary paradigm; saying you don't have legs and therefore according to evolution you should die is a gross misunderstanding and misapplication of what evolution is. No wonder you don't like evolution; you are so (willfully) ignorant about it you have less than zero knowledge about it. Wake up! You're delusional! The loss of your legs in no way means you should die! You are beneficial to the species. Your life has positive value whether you choose to recognize it or not.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course a lot of the time these discussions are actually about natural selection, which we would all accept as factual, rather than macro evolution. It's important to note that difference because otherwise we may end up rejecting proven scientific facts out of a fear that they support macro.

 

It is a fact that certain advantages and disadvantages affect the gene pool frequency causing differential reproduction.

 

Really in that scenario the disadvantage has to lead to not reproducing to pass on genes. A missing limb in this context is an acquired characteristic, even if it isn't an advantageous one, so this doesn't affect the frequency of alleles unless it prevents the person with the missing limb from passing on their genes. In that instance the child would not be born with a missing limb, so genetically speaking a missing limb wouldn't affect allele frequencies in the gene pool. 

 

If we imagine a dog that passed on genes then lost a limb so was eaten by a lion, that wouldn't affect the gene pool, but if it happened and then the dog couldn't pass on genes, it would. 

 

Of course as Christians we believe there is much more teleology in the existence of mankind, than these factors of NS. Obviously our belief is that the individual has eternal importance which NS cannot affect, and that if God wants a person to exist, He can bring them into existence.

 

It often amazes me how many Christians, famous ones, echo the saying, "I wasn't an intended child". And also how God in the scripture, chooses people that would usually be considered weak or unimportant to men. "best example is David, they prepared Jesse's sons (was the name Jesse) and David wasn't even in the line up, he was so unimportant to men, they expected a strapping, muscular, older brother to be chosen, but God says "I have rejected them" (God rejects the fit ones) and then God gives that famous line...."men look on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart". This agrees with Christ's later statement in the NT; "for the things of value to men, are an abomination with God." (paraphrase)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Dr Sarfati: Natural selection is one of the mechanisms of the biblical Creation/Fall/Flood/Dispersion model too, as we have long taught (e.g. Variation and natural selection versus evolution up to this article). In fact, Stephen Jay Gould pointed out, “Natural selection ranked as a standard item in biological discourse†among the pre-Darwinian creationists [The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, pp. 137–141, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2002.] Reproduction is an important part of evolutionary theory too—indeed, natural selection is often defined as ‘differential reproduction’, but it’s also clearly a part of the biblical creationist model too, right from Genesis 1. Simple logic would dictate that if something that is a part of both rival models, then it can’t be used as evidence in favour of one and against the other.

Actually, this is one of the problems I have with a small minority of creationists (not in CMI) that object to natural selection. They inadvertently send the message that this real process of differential reproduction is something owned and explainable exclusively by evolutionists, and this is just not so!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Goku,

Well, well, well! I have to admit I found your post very interesting and altruistic. The humanistic heartbeat trudges on. You are human after all. LOL

Yes, I am a teacher. Actually, I have worn several hats. Probably the most interesting one was as a cognitive therapist.

What human beings do as a function of their software is create ideas (beliefs), sell them to themselves and then try to sell them to others. Yep, that's what I'm doing. And. yep, that's what I think you're doing. But sometimes I think we create "nutty" beliefs
I have decided Evo is a nutty belief.

Our ability to reason allows us to simulate (make predictions) about outcomes of any belief we create. Psychotherapists call the area of our software that does this, "logical operations." Logical operation is a very important aspect of our software. It allows us to simulate crossing the street or pulling into a street in our automobile. We see an approaching car and determine through simulation whether we can walk across the street fast enough not to get hit by it. When I put evolution into my logical operations schemata there are no conditions set. I come up with no prediction of what will happen.

I am glad you think that my mental state as well as Stephen Hawking's mental state contributes predominantly to our fitness (the belief that we are fit and should continue to exist. But here is my argument; What's wrong with thinking everybody that is alive being thought of being fit? Assuming you and I are equals, I don't know why we couldn't bothj be fit. That seems logical to me. If I I love you (am glad that you exist because I think you're cool) and functional I don't see any reason to not like you. And since I do like you, not liking you does not make sense to me. Yes, that's the emotion I allow myself to feel because that's the way I think. I would rather feel affection for another person than hate. Since I have a choice as a creator, I choose to create affection for others. I use affection as a power to forgive (accept reality).

My thoughts cause my emotion and not yours or anybody else's. That puts me in control of me. Don't you control you?

PS Evolution is not a conscious entity. It is called a theory that has been developed over the years with Darwin being the star of the show. You put a lot of words in evo's mouth. I don't believe evo can do the things you say it can do. What there is to understand are only the thoughts coming out of your mind. You are evo's puppet master. Evolution does whatever you tell yourself it does.

PS Thanks for the dark type. It saved me from having to cut and paste your post into my word processor so I could read it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What a bunc h of doublle talk--a tribute to our uncanny ability to deceive oursellves. The above statement is a manifestation of the persons religion that authored it. It is an example of self deception at its best. "I am not saying I what I am saying!"

Before Hitler et al physically started eliminating people from the the gene pool (or murderied them) he no doubt thought thoughts similarly to the above.

We can't usually look at a Human being and determin they are not fit (whatever fit means). Hitler's remarks to himself were no doubt similar to those above. He made a philosophical (religious) decision accompanied with all the dogma that those that "worship"their religion (a form of worshiping your own thinking) often do. Make no mistake about it, the alleged atheist thinks it's their job (a philosophical concept held their religious belief) to determine who should and should't exist. Quite naturally it only follows that they would have no qualms at determining some human beings are unfit. Notice how glibly the writer speaks of anothers life as expendable.

I am unfit, so why don't I just kill myself? I have no legs. Funny thing that people seem to work very hard at keeping me above ground. We have hospitals dotted throughout the land whose sole purpose is to help the "unfit" stay alive. And then there is Steve Hawkings. He looks unfit to me. Should he be offed too?

 

 

A misconception many people have about evolution is what it means to be fit. Humans tend to think about what they personally see as more fit or less fit, and then impose their view of fitness onto evolution, and that is not how it works.

 

You don't have legs, and yes that would mean you are less fit, especially if we lived several generations ago when almost everyone survived by doing some sort of physical labor. However, while evolutionary pressures haven't gone away, they have changed. At this point in time you can find a niche in society doing desk work, which you can obviously still do and have apparently done for years and perhaps decades. Remember evolution is about populations; so if you can improve the population through teaching (I think that is what you do) then you are beneficial to the species. The same is true with Stephen Hawking (not "Hawkings"; there is another astronomer with the last name Hawkings, but it is a different person lol).

 

Stop trying to impose your own view of what is and isn't fit into the evolutionary paradigm; saying you don't have legs and therefore according to evolution you should die is a gross misunderstanding and misapplication of what evolution is. No wonder you don't like evolution; you are so (willfully) ignorant about it you have less than zero knowledge about it. Wake up! You're delusional! The loss of your legs in no way means you should die! You are beneficial to the species. Your life has positive value whether you choose to recognize it or not.

"A misconception many people have about evolution is what it means to be fit. Humans tend to think about what they personally see as more fit or less fit, and then impose their view of fitness onto evolution, and that is not how it works."

 

 

HUH??? You must have forgotten the name of the website you are on..

Here is a hint.. It ISNT EvolutionScientificFact.com

 

You just dogmatically spout your assertions as if they have ANY basis in fact because you have been indoctrinated and brainwashed into believing that "Evolution" is real and should be just an accepted fact.

 

ANYWAY..

 

Please tell us how it is possible to have a "Misconception" about a Science Fiction Novel or a FairyTale? Its just like saying that it is a "Misconception" that the planes crashing lit the fuses of the bombs that were smuggled and planted into the WTC towers when it was REALLY a remote detonation device... (911.Truthers)

 

PLEASE ALLOW ME TO REMIND YOU..

 

"The only place that "Evolution" exists is in the imagination of Atheists and Brainwashed and Indoctrinated Oval-Earthers...

 

AGAIN..

 

Variation and Adaptation (Plus lots of imagination and extrapolation)

IS NOT EVOLUTION!!

 

 

"You don't have legs, and yes that would mean you are less fit, especially if we lived several generations ago when almost everyone survived by doing some sort of physical labor.

 

WRONG.. People survive by eating and breathing and drinking, NOT by "Doing physical labor"

 

 

INCIDENTALLY I had an uncle who lost both of his legs in Vietnam, He had such massive upper body strength that to this day I havent seen anyone that strong.. He could kill a man by just squeezing him to death if he wanted to..UNFIT? you are a fool.. What are you BTW a Lamarckian?

 

"However, while evolutionary pressures haven't gone away, they have changed."

 

WHAT ARE "EVOLUTIONARY PRESSURES" LOL....are they kind of like the undersea "Pressures" that the Nautilus was subjected to from Jules Verne 20,000 leagues under the sea? LOL..

 

 

"At this point in time you can find a niche in society doing desk work, which you can obviously still do and have apparently done for years and perhaps decades."

 

Im sure it is very comforting for Mike to hear that from you..

 

 

"Remember evolution is about populations; so if you can improve the population through teaching (I think that is what you do) then you are beneficial to the species."

 

AHA.. So the Teachers among us have been pre approved for Natural Selection? LOL... I am going go reference this when I write my book on effects caused by the Delusion of Darwinism.. Do I have your permission?

 

 

"The same is true with Stephen Hawking"

 

You mean the Idiot that thinks that the universe came from NOTHING?

And you call THAT kind of "Teaching" beneficial? LOL

 

"Stop trying to impose your own view of what is and isn't fit into the evolutionary paradigm;"

 

What is the "Evolutionary Paradigm"? LOL

Did Mike commit heresy to the Church of Darwin? Hmm..

 

"saying you don't have legs and therefore according to evolution you should die is a gross misunderstanding and misapplication of what evolution is."

 

WHY IS THAT?? What is "Evolution"? Did You suddenly stumble across some previously hidden Evidence to support IT that conforms to the Scientific Method? I DIDN'T THINK SO..

 

"No wonder you don't like evolution; you are so (willfully) ignorant about it you have less than zero knowledge about it."

 

How can ANYONE be "Willfully Ignorant"about something that doesn't Exist? That is EXACTLY like claiming that Mike is also "willfully ignorant" as to how the 911 buildings were blown up by bombs that were planted and not the jets.

Or he is Willfully Ignorant as to how the moon landing was a fake because he doesnt believe either one of them either...LOL

 

"Wake up! You're delusional! The loss of your legs in no way means you should die!"

 

Why not? If The Myth of Evolution were to be true, Suicide is a GREAT option for any reason one deems fit..

 

"You are beneficial to the species."

 

Oh how nice of you to let Mike know that..

 

 

"Your life has positive value whether you choose to recognize it or not."

 

Mike was merely mocking you...as a child of God, Mike is fully aware that his life is priceless.. It is Literally worth more than all the Gold and Silver on the Planet.. An he also knows that his future is brighter than any shining star thanks to God's Truth and Love and guarantee of eternal life through his Son..

 

 

YOU HOWEVER... You are ALREADY DEAD as far as God is concerned.. You are literally a walking talking Corpse.. And thanks to your Arrogance, Condescension and rejection of God's truth, Your future is as bleak as can be..

 

And you are a Willfully Ignorant Participant...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Goku,

 

Well, well, well! I have to admit I found your post very interesting and altruistic. The humanistic heartbeat trudges on. You are human after all. LOL

 

Yes, I am a teacher. Actually, I have worn several hats. Probably the most interesting one was as a cognitive therapist.

 

What human beings do as a function of their software is create ideas (beliefs), sell them to themselves and then try to sell them to others. Yep, that's what I'm doing. And. yep, that's what I think you're doing. But sometimes I think we create "nutty" beliefs

I have decided Evo is a nutty belief.

 

When I first heard of evolution I thought it was a nutty belief too - I thought I was being tricked. I still think quantum physics is nutty, but it appears to be true just like evolution. Reality doesn't have to conform to our own sensibilities of how it ought to be.

 

Do you think a belief can be nutty and true at the same time?

 

 

Our ability to reason allows us to simulate (make predictions) about outcomes of any belief we create. Psychotherapists call the area of our software that does this, "logical operations." Logical operation is a very important aspect of our software. It allows us to simulate crossing the street or pulling into a street in our automobile. We see an approaching car and determine through simulation whether we can walk across the street fast enough not to get hit by it. When I put evolution into my logical operations schemata there are no conditions set. I come up with no prediction of what will happen.

 

What do you mean when you put evolution into your logical operations that there are no conditions set?

 

I am glad you think that my mental state as well as Stephen Hawking's mental state contributes predominantly to our fitness (the belief that we are fit and should continue to exist. But here is my argument; What's wrong with thinking everybody that is alive being thought of being fit? Assuming you and I are equals, I don't know why we couldn't bothj be fit. That seems logical to me. If I I love you (am glad that you exist because I think you're cool) and functional I don't see any reason to not like you. And since I do like you, not liking you does not make sense to me. Yes, that's the emotion I allow myself to feel because that's the way I think. I would rather feel affection for another person than hate. Since I have a choice as a creator, I choose to create affection for others. I use affection as a power to forgive (accept reality).

 

I think most people contribute to the fitness of the species; technically individual fitness is determined by how many offspring they leave behind, but I think that is a poor measure to determine someone's contribution to the species. As an analogy most ants don't reproduce; only the queen reproduces with her mate. The standard worker ant is sterile, but without the worker ants the queen will surely die. Any given worker ant has an evolutionary fitness of zero, but they are vital to the fitness of the species.

 

 

My thoughts cause my emotion and not yours or anybody else's. That puts me in control of me. Don't you control you?

 

I have never denied this; what I have contended over the years is your assertion that when person A does something to person B that person A is in no way responsible for how person B feels. If I go up to you and punch you in the face and you get angry or sad or whatever, aren't I partly responsible for how you feel? Or a more dramatic example which I've used before is having your daughter raped and killed, and any normal person would feel awful, and wouldn't the perpetrator of this crime be at least partially responsible for the pain felt by the family at the loss of someone they loved in such a horrific way? Or would you tell the family that the person who raped and killed their family member is in no way responsible for the grief felt?

 

 

PS Evolution is not a conscious entity. It is called a theory that has been developed over the years with Darwin being the star of the show. You put a lot of words in evo's mouth. I don't believe evo can do the things you say it can do. What there is to understand are only the thoughts coming out of your mind. You are evo's puppet master. Evolution does whatever you tell yourself it does.

 

PS Thanks for the dark type. It saved me from having to cut and paste your post into my word processor so I could read it.

 

Evolution is as evolution does. We have models, theories, of how it works, just like any other aspect of science. If we can't talk about natural phenomena because we only have models and theories of how it works, then what you are proposing is the end of science itself.

 

It is probably more efficient for me to make posts this way than for you to cut and paste.   :)  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Goku,

Well, well, well! I have to admit I found your post very interesting and altruistic. The humanistic heartbeat trudges on. You are human after all. LOL

Yes, I am a teacher. Actually, I have worn several hats. Probably the most interesting one was as a cognitive therapist.

What human beings do as a function of their software is create ideas (beliefs), sell them to themselves and then try to sell them to others. Yep, that's what I'm doing. And. yep, that's what I think you're doing. But sometimes I think we create "nutty" beliefs

I have decided Evo is a nutty belief.

 

 

When I first heard of evolution I thought it was a nutty belief too - I thought I was being tricked. I still think quantum physics is nutty, but it appears to be true just like evolution. Reality doesn't have to conform to our own sensibilities of how it ought to be.

 

Do you think a belief can be nutty and true at the same time?

 

 

Our ability to reason allows us to simulate (make predictions) about outcomes of any belief we create. Psychotherapists call the area of our software that does this, "logical operations." Logical operation is a very important aspect of our software. It allows us to simulate crossing the street or pulling into a street in our automobile. We see an approaching car and determine through simulation whether we can walk across the street fast enough not to get hit by it. When I put evolution into my logical operations schemata there are no conditions set. I come up with no prediction of what will happen.

 

 

What do you mean when you put evolution into your logical operations that there are no conditions set?

 

I am glad you think that my mental state as well as Stephen Hawking's mental state contributes predominantly to our fitness (the belief that we are fit and should continue to exist. But here is my argument; What's wrong with thinking everybody that is alive being thought of being fit? Assuming you and I are equals, I don't know why we couldn't bothj be fit. That seems logical to me. If I I love you (am glad that you exist because I think you're cool) and functional I don't see any reason to not like you. And since I do like you, not liking you does not make sense to me. Yes, that's the emotion I allow myself to feel because that's the way I think. I would rather feel affection for another person than hate. Since I have a choice as a creator, I choose to create affection for others. I use affection as a power to forgive (accept reality).

 

 

I think most people contribute to the fitness of the species; technically individual fitness is determined by how many offspring they leave behind, but I think that is a poor measure to determine someone's contribution to the species. As an analogy most ants don't reproduce; only the queen reproduces with her mate. The standard worker ant is sterile, but without the worker ants the queen will surely die. Any given worker ant has an evolutionary fitness of zero, but they are vital to the fitness of the species.

 

 

My thoughts cause my emotion and not yours or anybody else's. That puts me in control of me. Don't you control you?

 

 

I have never denied this; what I have contended over the years is your assertion that when person A does something to person B that person A is in no way responsible for how person B feels. If I go up to you and punch you in the face and you get angry or sad or whatever, aren't I partly responsible for how you feel? Or a more dramatic example which I've used before is having your daughter raped and killed, and any normal person would feel awful, and wouldn't the perpetrator of this crime be at least partially responsible for the pain felt by the family at the loss of someone they loved in such a horrific way? Or would you tell the family that the person who raped and killed their family member is in no way responsible for the grief felt?

 

 

PS Evolution is not a conscious entity. It is called a theory that has been developed over the years with Darwin being the star of the show. You put a lot of words in evo's mouth. I don't believe evo can do the things you say it can do. What there is to understand are only the thoughts coming out of your mind. You are evo's puppet master. Evolution does whatever you tell yourself it does.

PS Thanks for the dark type. It saved me from having to cut and paste your post into my word processor so I could read it.

 

 

Evolution is as evolution does. We have models, theories, of how it works, just like any other aspect of science. If we can't talk about natural phenomena because we only have models and theories of how it works, then what you are proposing is the end of science itself.

 

It is probably more efficient for me to make posts this way than for you to cut and paste.   :)  

"When I first heard of evolution I thought it was a nutty belief too - I thought I was being tricked."

 

 

IT IS A NUTTY BELIEF.... AND YOU WERE BEING TRICKED..

 

You know what they say about first instincts... FOLLOW THEM..

 

 

Man has 10 INTERDEPENDENT VITAL Organs and support systems. FACT

 

Man NEEDS all 10 of his VITAL Organs or he dies. FACT

 

Either those 10 VITAL Organs came together ALL AT ONCE (Creation)

OR they Evolved separately.. FACT

 

If they "Evolved" Separately they must have had an order of Evolution FACT

 

There must be a PLAUSIBLE or FEASABLE Explanation as to the evolutionary order that would be possible...

 

For Example.. What comes First? Man is Irreducibly Complex (BY DEFINITION) Stomach? Skin? Heart? Lungs? Brain? Upper Intestine?

Liver? Lower Intestine? Pancreas? Kidneys?

 

Remove just ONE and Man Dies.. And Bye Bye Evolution..

 

So which one do we start with..? Here, let me help you out..

 

1 Skin?

2 Stomach?

3 Brain?

4 Heart?

 

You see... Whatever way you start you cause more problems for the myth.. Becasue ALL 10 NEED TO BE THERE.. TOGETHER, WORKING IN TANDEM, AT THE SAME TIME

 

Atheists like to point out Lungfish or Nematodes that dont have all ten organs as if that helps their case.. IT DOES NOT. Lungfish and Nematodes are ALSO IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX!!! So unless you can show a FEASABLE OR PLAUSIBKE pathway for them to turn into a Human, they are a NON SEQUITUR...

 

 

Like I said... You should have followed your first instincts.. You've been had...

 

 

"Evolution can be thought of as sort of a magical religion. Magic is simply an effect without a cause, or at least a competent cause. 'Chance,' 'time,' and 'nature,' are the small gods enshrined at evolutionary temples. Yet these gods cannot explain the origin of life. These gods are impotent. Thus, evolution is left without competent cause and is, therefore, only a magical explanation for the existence of life..."

 

(Dr. Randy L. Wysong, instructor of human anatomy and physiology,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms