“The Laws”

[Jazer]

So you were trying to make it into an insult. So much for those forum rules again.

You just want to fight, end of conversation.

 

[Delphiki]

So sex and reproduction has nothing to do with evolution? You just said you understand the theory. If a women has a baby with a person she loves, compared to having a baby with a man who raped her. You do not think that is going to have an effect on the evolution of the species?

Actually, natural selection has worked fine to evolve us in to intelligent moral creatures. If you haven't noticed, rapists make up a very very small portion of the human population, so apparently forced copulation didn't work in our ancestors' favor. In fact, it works so much against our favor that we incarcerate rapists, thereby separating them from the rest of the general population.

I think what you might be over looking is the prevalence of mankind's laws over the things that are now considered crimes (like rape).

While I don't think laws and rape are actually genetic (who knows, I could be wrong), these things probably aren't so much physiological or genetic evolution, but rather more of a social evolution.

 

[Jazer]

While I don't think laws and rape are actually genetic

Laws are written. Last I checked we are the only ones that can write. I am not sure if the ninja turtles have evolved to the point where they can write.

You say man evolved to where he is. Yet the Bible talks about the breath or inspiration of God. Perhaps evolution does not know the whole story and they are missing something that we can read about in the Bible.

 

[selfinflikted]

I know more about evolution then the vast majority of the people out there.

I lol'd after reading this.

What is a Toe?

Then, I lol'd even harder.

 

[Delphiki]

Laws are written. Last I checked we are the only ones that can write. I am not sure if the ninja turtles have evolved to the point where they can write.

Law are written to declare the moral code of a culture. The evolutionary origin of morality is pretty simple - if you killed your own species, you hurt the reproduction of said species. So any species predisposed to dispose of itself will be naturally selected... Those that take more communal approach are more likely to be successful. It's no wonder that as we became more intelligent we developed things like laws.

I even have a hypothesis that religion was developed to comfort people during the loss of friends and family (by sharing stories of an afterlife), and to provide moral guidance to those whom a sense of right and wrong didn't come naturally*. There's not a better story to keep a sociopath caveman under control than instilling him with the fear of some almighty, all-knowing, entity, right?

You say man evolved to where he is. Yet the Bible talks about the breath or inspiration of God. Perhaps evolution does not know the whole story and they are missing something that we can read about in the Bible.

Or suppose you're like me, having read the bible a few times, and even understand it than most Christians here and still saw nothing compelling about it.

Man invented religion, and in doing so, invented God. Heck, the one you believe in is even far from the first one we made up.


*One evidence of this is the common theistic argument of "If you don't believe in God, where do you get your morals?" As if should it happen that they lose their faith, they will immediately go about murdering and raping people. As if their faith is the only thread that keeps them from become horrible people.

 

[Belk]

]I know more about evolution then the vast majority of the people out there.[/B] It is not my theory so I am not going to defend it. The theory belongs to evo, so it is up to them to determine how much rape is going to be a part of their theory:

I doubt your claims because of...

With Science they talk about natural laws. I am not quite sure what the connection is between mans law and natural laws or the laws of science. Maybe someone knows.

You know more then the vast majority but have no general knowledge on what a law means in science?

A scientific law or scientific principle is a concise verbal or mathematical statement of a relation that expresses a fundamental principle of science.

Scientific law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It has no relation to law in a government sense.

 

[Non sequitur]

You say man evolved to where he is. Yet the Bible talks about the breath or inspiration of God. Perhaps evolution does not know the whole story and they are missing something that we can read about in the Bible.

Perhaps anything.

 

[Cabal]

If people think rape has nothing to do with science then they need to join the real world and see what is going on out there. Perhaps rape was selected by evolution and that is why there is so much of it.

It might have.

So what?

Does that mean we shouldn't condemn it? No.

Does that mean it somehow reflects on the validity of evolution? No.

What's your point, other than smearing?

 

[hasone]

Point? he has no point he's a creationist, have you EVER known a creationists to have a point?

I have. I haven't known them to have a point that discredits evolution or supports an alternative theory of biological diversity, but I have known them to have quite a few valid points on other topics.


It's probably important to distinguish between valid and invalid points, as I've known creationists to make those too.

In fact, it seems almost everyone I've talked to at length has made valid and invalid points, and I've certainly done both.

 

[Naraoia]

Yep, you got it your the winner. Interestingly it is very much like the Law of Moses that came a little bit later on. So much of the law given to man deals with slavery and rape. Things we would consider to be a part of the fall.

With Science they talk about natural laws. I am not quite sure what the connection is between mans law and natural laws or the laws of science. Maybe someone knows.

It's more of a linguistic connection than anything else. "Laws" are instructions people are supposed to obey, so when you find something that nature seems to obey, it makes sense to call it a "law". Human laws tell people how to behave; the laws of nature describe how nature already behaves.

To what extent far human laws are also descriptions of things people already do is a good question...

If people think rape has nothing to do with science then they need to join the real world and see what is going on out there. Perhaps rape was selected by evolution and that is why there is so much of it.

Uh? If you are implying what I think you are, you are confusing causation with description. The science of evolution no more causes rape than Newton's Principia Mathematica is responsible for road deaths.

Bad things happen. The world isn't a rosy place. Get over it and don't blame it on science.

First of all I am talking about the world not just the usa. But even here in the usa how many people have read even one book on evolution? Anyone that has read at least one book on evolution knows more then the vast majority of people out there.

Provided it was a good book and you actually understood what you read.

In fact I knew a guy with a phd in biology and I was amazed at how little he knew about evolution.

Knowing your knowledge of evolution, I'll just take that with a pinch of salt.

Of course he graduated in Sweden, so I guess it is a different ball game in other countries that do not accept evolution as quick as Americans seem to accept it.

Please come back when you've found Sweden and the US on this chart.

Dare I say you are wrong about Sweden?

Granted, those numbers are for agreement with the rather specific statement that humans evolved from earlier species. Still, I doubt making the survey question more general would suddenly make the two countries switch places...

Law are written to declare the moral code of a culture. The evolutionary origin of morality is pretty simple - if you killed your own species, you hurt the reproduction of said species.

Nitpick: killing your conspecifics hurts your own reproduction, you don't need to invoke species-level selection to explain why it's (often) a stupid idea. Killing people left and right might end up killing your potential mates or friends, alienating potential mates or friends, getting you hurt, unleashing the victim's relatives on you etc. All those are perfectly self-centred reasons against random killing. Some of them apply especially strongly if cooperating with others is an advantage.

I even have a hypothesis that religion was developed to comfort people during the loss of friends and family (by sharing stories of an afterlife), and to provide moral guidance to those whom a sense of right and wrong didn't come naturally*. There's not a better story to keep a sociopath caveman under control than instilling him with the fear of some almighty, all-knowing, entity, right?

You're not the only one who came up with that idea

(Oooh, good thing I went there. From the same site, it turns out much of the first issue of a new journal is devoted to the supernatural punishment hypothesis. And it's all free. This looks interesting!)

Man invented religion, and in doing so, invented God. Heck, the one you believe in is even far from the first one we made up.

What I would give to know what the first religions were like...

 

[Jazer]

Provided it was a good book and you actually understood what you read.
...

Back in 1968 I read a book called "The Double Helix" written by James D Watson. Back then they use to put a little Nobel Prize seal on the cover of the book. That is a good example of the type of books I read. Stuff that is easy to understand and written for most anyone and everyone. A recent book I read was: "The Language of Life: How Cells Communicate" by Debra Neihoff. That one was awesome! Not to be confused with Francis Collins book: "The Language of Life". Another book that I read that is amazing.

"Outspoken evangelical geneticist Francis Collins revealed that combative atheist Richard Dawkins admitted to him during a conversation that the most troubling argument for nonbelievers to counter is the fine-tuning of the universe." Francis Collins: Atheist Richard Dawkins Admits Universe's Fine-Tuning Difficult to Explain, Christian News

 

[Jazer]

Please come back when you've found Sweden and the US on this chart.

That is an interesting chart. There is a lot to argue against or about when it comes to evolution. Anyone that knows enough about it has to accept it to some degree. Even Dr Dino accept some of evolutionary theory. So I think that if people claim not to believe in evolution in general then they just do not know enough about it. Or they are trying to make some sort of a statement in regard to the aspects of the theory that they do not accept. At the moment I was getting Sweden and Switzerland mixed up. He was not real happy with that.

 

[Thobewill]

"Outspoken evangelical geneticist Francis Collins revealed that combative atheist Richard Dawkins admitted to him during a conversation that the most troubling argument for nonbelievers to counter is the fine-tuning of the universe." Francis Collins: Atheist Richard Dawkins Admits Universe's Fine-Tuning Difficult to Explain, Christian News

And yet, if you read Dawkins' book, The God Delusion he talks about this at length and in no way suggests that it implies a god. He discusses several theories, such as the law of large numbers and cosmic evolution.

Also, keep in mind that it is we that are fined tuned to the universe, not the other way around. Another universe with different laws would have different life or no life at all. It is only because we exist in this universe that we see it as fine-tuned.

 

[Thobewill]

That is an interesting chart. There is a lot to argue against or about when it comes to evolution. Anyone that knows enough about it has to accept it to some degree. Even Dr Dino accept some of evolutionary theory. So I think that if people claim not to believe in evolution in general then they just do not know enough about it. Or they are trying to make some sort of a statement in regard to the aspects of the theory that they do not accept. At the moment I was getting Sweden and Switzerland mixed up. He was not real happy with that.

*image snipped*

I would say that sweden has an order of magnitude lower percentage of fundie christians (and by extent creationists) than good 'ol Amurrica

 

[Jazer]

lower percentage of fundie christians

Evolution has been a battle ground between science and religion for a long time now. Long before Darwin came along.

 

[Thobewill]

Evolution has been a battle ground between science and religion for a long time now. Long before Darwin came along.

I fail to see what this sentence means. What we now know as creationism didn't originate until the 30's, and how could evolution have been a battleground before darwin and wallace? Additionally, the quote of mine you posted makes no sense in relation to any of what you said. Care to clarify?

 

[Jazer]

And yet, if you read Dawkins' book, The God Delusion

I read enough of it. Of course that is not the sort of book I usually read, but he keeps the discussion interesting.

There is nothing wrong with having weakness and error pointed out. The problem is when people are blind to the truth.

2 cor 4 4
"The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers,
so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ"

Rev 12 10
And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.

 

[Thobewill]

I read enough of it. Of course that is not the sort of book I usually read, but he keeps the discussion interesting.

There is nothing wrong with having weakness and error pointed out. The problem is when people are blind to the truth.

2 cor 4 4
"The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers,
so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ"

That specific "weakness" or "error" is not either. It is an area warranting further investigation, and which has several well-though-out theories already describing it, awaiting evidence to either verify or falsify them.

Quoting the bible makes your argument no more valid than me quoting Dick and Jane

 

[Jazer]

how could evolution have been a battleground before darwin and wallace?

Because it was around before them. With Darwin's grandfather (Erasmus Darwin) for example.

In general this sort of discussion goes back to the Greeks and it goes back at least 2500 years. There was a place called Mars Hill in Athens that Paul liked to go and preach there when he was in the city. People were open to new ideas and different ways of looking at things.

 

[Jazer]

It is an area warranting further investigation

Some things need further investigation. Some of the interpretations and understanding of the Bible is based on outdated 500 year old science. The Bible is true and each generation needs to learn how the Bible applys to them and their generation.

Quoting the bible makes your argument no more valid than me quoting Dick and Jane

Dick and Jane? I do not use the Bible to validate on this forum. I take advantage of my opportunity to teach people the truth. I use science to show the Bible is true, again and again and again.