No Greater Love -

[joshua 1 9]

For evolution, self-preservation is important only insofar as it ensures survival of the species. Consequently, cooperative behavior, nurturing and even altruism are to be expected.

So with evolution you see the individual ready to sacrifice their own life for others? Can you give me an example?

 

[joshua 1 9]

Evolutionary scientists have looked into altruism for quite a while now.

That is why Solomon says: "Look at the ant you sluggard and consider it's ways". In the Bible they call this a proverb, to day it is more popular to use the term: allegory. In "Hinds Feet on High Places" the author discusses how these things came to be as an object lesson for us to learn from.

 

[Speedwell]

So with evolution you see the individual ready to sacrifice their own life for others? Can you give me an example?

LOL! Google matriphagy. Seriously, the scientific literature is full of stuff on altruism in nature--I'm surprised you have to ask.

My personal favorite (unscientific) example comes from the movie King Solomon's Mines, the Stewart Granger/Deborah Kerr version. There is a sequence of scenes at the beginning designed to establish why the Stewart Granger character has become disgusted with being a big game hunting guide. These scenes are cut with real hunting footage taken on a real elephant hunt. They show an elephant being shot and falling to his knees. Two other elephants come up, one on either side and attempt to shoulder him to his feet and away. It's a very affecting sequence.

 

[essentialsaltes]

So with evolution you see the individual ready to sacrifice their own life for others? Can you give me an example?

An example? Easy.

Desmond Doss

"Pfc. Doss refused to seek cover and remained in the fire-swept area with the many stricken, carrying all 75 casualties one-by-one to the edge of the escarpment and there lowering them on a rope-supported litter down the face of a cliff to friendly hands."

 

[joshua 1 9]

I'm surprised you have to ask.

Actually I believe in co-evolution that everything is for the benefit of the bio-diverse ecosystem. So the benefit has to be not only for the species but for all the species in the bio-system. That is why Noah needed to build an ARK to save the whole ecosystem. God could not save Noah without saving the whole support system that Noah was a part of. Noah was the first person to be able to pack the show up and take it on the road. Hunter - gatherer had to hunt and gather his food. Adam the farmer was a food producer. Noah made it possible for farming to spread to the rest of the world. A huge amount of research has been done to try to understand how farming spread from the Middle East (Tigris-Euphrates Valley) to Europe.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/g...deled-as-middle-eastern-farmers/#.VzlAE5ErL-w

 

[pat34lee]

saying things like 'science can take a hike' while typing on a computer puts you firmly in the 'I'm delusional' camp,

This is the type of false comparison that makes
your side look bad. What do computers have to
do with evolution, other than scientists type on
computers too?

Computers are actually a nice example of how
real science is anti-evolution. It takes planning
and design to make computers, or anything else.
That means intelligence and a creator.

 

[Speedwell]

This is the type of false comparison that makes
your side look bad. What do computers have to
do with evolution, other than scientists type on
computers too?

Computers are now designing and manufacturing other computers using processes based on random variation and selection--evolution.

Computers are actually a nice example of how
real science is anti-evolution. It takes planning
and design to make computers, or anything else.
That means intelligence and a creator.

Are you ruling out the possibility that it must have required intelligence and a creator to come up with a process as elegant as evolution?

 

[smaneck]

I was wondering if the Atheistic Evolutionists

You do realize that most people who believe in evolution are not atheists?

For Evolution - Self-preservation is a behavior that ensures the survival of an organism. Would this not create some sort of a conflict that a organism would be willing to sacrifice itself for the preservation of something other then itself.

But reproduction is what preserves the survival of a species. And mothers of many species often sacrifice themselves for their children.

 

[smaneck]

In evolution, there are two subsets of families that live on the earth: the Fights and the Flights.

Evolution says nothing of the sort.

And so scientists scratch their heads, wondering how one subset of the human race can change over to another.

Sorry, but this is your fantasy, not science's.

In their estimation, they are, and will forever be, "desert nomads," undeserving of any real estate to call their own.

Uh, no. By the time evolution came along Jews made up much of Europe's intelligentsia.

Unless, of course, scientists can drum up some excuse for Israel deserving Israel, so as not to incur the charge of antizionism.

LOL. This is a political question, not a a scientific one.

With the Bible out of the way, scientists can claim that Israel stole the land from the Canaanites via genocide.

Uh, no. It's the Bible that says genocide was committed against the Canaanites. Archaeologists find no evidence that such a genocide ever took place and most believe the Hebrew people were originally Canaanites themselves.

But nice try. You might try finding something out about science before you critique it.

 

[smaneck]

A huge amount of research has been done to try to understand how farming spread from the Middle East (Tigris-Euphrates Valley) to Europe.

Yet it developed in at least seven different places independently.

 

[Robert Palase]

Why don't they? It has to do with hormones and the way the primitive brain works. Humans still have a primitive brain or a base nature but they have the advanced brain that is a layered over the primitive brain.

Exactly, we are animals shaped by evolution.

 

[pat34lee]

Computers are now designing and manufacturing other computers using processes based on random variation and selection--evolution.

Even if true in general, any such program would not be totally
random. It would have to weed out negative factors and build
on anything positive. To do so, it would first have to know what
is positive or beneficial and what is not.

What is actually happening is that the computers are faster than
man as far as mapping circuits. Therefore the faster the computer,
the faster it can map the next generations.

Are you ruling out the possibility that it must have required intelligence and a creator to come up with a process as elegant as evolution?

The whole purpose of making a theory of evolution was to design
God out of the picture. The 1800s were to be the era of enlightenment.
They would prove they no longer needed God. They made fools out of
themselves.

 

[Hoghead1]

Even if true in general, any such program would not be totally
random. It would have to weed out negative factors and build
on anything positive. To do so, it would first have to know what
is positive or beneficial and what is not.

What is actually happening is that the computers are faster than
man as far as mapping circuits. Therefore the faster the computer,
the faster it can map the next generations.



The whole purpose of making a theory of evolution was to design
God out of the picture. The 1800s were to be the era of enlightenment.
They would prove they no longer needed God. They made fools out of
themselves.

your above point is way, ay off base, with not an ounce of truth to it. As a matter of fact, Darwin, for example, would have been a country pastor, had he not gone on the Beagle, and he remained a lifelong believer in God. So I don't know where you got the idea that the whole point of evolution was to get God out of the picture. Perhaps some creation-science site?

 

[Robert Palase]

The whole purpose of making a theory of evolution was to design
God out of the picture. The 1800s were to be the era of enlightenment.
They would prove they no longer needed God. They made fools out of
themselves.

You are completely mistaken and have been told lies, why don't you read these things for yourself instead of being a pawn and believing everything they tell you? Darwin was a very religious man as were most of the people of his day, the very last thing he or they would have wanted was to disprove God, apart from that how could they disprove something that cannot be proved in the first place, the only reason Gods exist is because people say they exist, if people stopped telling their children there were Gods every God on the planet would be forgotten until someone in the future decided they needed to create another God.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Even if true in general, any such program would not be totally
random. It would have to weed out negative factors and build on anything positive.

Funny, that's the same reason that evolution isn't random.

To do so, it would first have to know what is positive or beneficial and what is not.

In the case of evolution, creatures with positive mutations pass them on to their children, creatures with negative mutations die and get weeded out. No 'knowing' has to occur. Creatures either pass on their genes to future generations, or they don't.

The whole purpose of making a theory of evolution was to design God out of the picture.

Wrong!

The 1800s were to be the era of enlightenment.

Wrong again. The Enlightenment is associated with the 18th century, i.e. the 1700s.

 

[Robert Palase]

This is the type of false comparison that makes
your side look bad. What do computers have to do with evolution,

Who mentioned evolution?
He says 'science can take a hike' while typing on a computer, that puts him firmly in the 'I'm delusional' camp and you I suspect along with him.

 

[pat34lee]

Wrong again. The Enlightenment is associated with the 18th century, i.e. the 1700s.

They are now. They still believed God was the
cause of everything, including learning and science.

The 1800s thought they would be the pinnacle, because
they would displace God in the minds of men with humanism
and paganism through evolution and corrupt science.
http://americanhumanist.org/paths/paganism
http://www.evolutionary-metaphysics.net/replacing_religion.html
https://humanism.org.uk/campaigns/s...curriculum/science-evolution-and-creationism/

 

[Hoghead1]

They are now. They still believed God was the
cause of everything, including learning and science.

The 1800s thought they would be the pinnacle, because
they would displace God in the minds of men with humanism
and paganism through evolution and corrupt science.
http://americanhumanist.org/paths/paganism
http://www.evolutionary-metaphysics.net/replacing_religion.html
https://humanism.org.uk/campaigns/s...curriculum/science-evolution-and-creationism/

That is a big bunch of baloney. I would suggest you do some serious historical studies.

 

[pat34lee]

your above point is way, ay off base, with not an ounce of truth to it. As a matter of fact, Darwin, for example, would have been a country pastor, had he not gone on the Beagle, and he remained a lifelong believer in God. So I don't know where you got the idea that the whole point of evolution was to get God out of the picture. Perhaps some creation-science site?

Read some of his contemporaries. Darwin was a dim bulb
who was influenced by many, including his grandfather.

 

[pat34lee]

That is a big bunch of baloney. I would suggest you do some serious historical studies.

And in return, I would suggest you learn to think for yourself.