J
Jazer
Guest
You just want to fight, end of conversation.So you were trying to make it into an insult. So much for those forum rules again.
Upvote
0
You just want to fight, end of conversation.So you were trying to make it into an insult. So much for those forum rules again.
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?
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.While I don't think laws and rape are actually genetic
I know more about evolution then the vast majority of the people out there.
What is a Toe?
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.
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.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.
]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:
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 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.
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.
Point? he has no point he's a creationist, have you EVER known a creationists to have a point?
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.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.
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.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.
Provided it was a good book and you actually understood what you read.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.
Knowing your knowledge of evolution, I'll just take that with a pinch of salt.In fact I knew a guy with a phd in biology and I was amazed at how little he knew about evolution.
Please come back when you've found Sweden and the US on this chart.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.
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.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.
You're not the only one who came up with that ideaI 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?
What I would give to know what the first religions were like...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.
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.Provided it was a good book and you actually understood what you read.
...
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.Please come back when you've found Sweden and the US on this chart.
Jazer said:"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
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*
Evolution has been a battle ground between science and religion for a long time now. Long before Darwin came along.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.
I read enough of it. Of course that is not the sort of book I usually read, but he keeps the discussion interesting.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"
Because it was around before them. With Darwin's grandfather (Erasmus Darwin) for example.how could evolution have been a battleground before darwin and wallace?
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.It is an area warranting further investigation
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.Quoting the bible makes your argument no more valid than me quoting Dick and Jane