• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

“The Laws”

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by Jazer, Jul 21, 2011.

  1. Jazer

    Jazer Guest

    +0
    You just want to fight, end of conversation.
     
  2. Delphiki

    Delphiki Well-Known Member

    +137
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    US-Others
    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.
     
  3. Jazer

    Jazer Guest

    +0
    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.
     
  4. selfinflikted

    selfinflikted Under Deck

    +735
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    US-Democrat
    I lol'd after reading this.

    Then, I lol'd even harder.
     
  5. Delphiki

    Delphiki Well-Known Member

    +137
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    US-Others
    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?


    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.
     
  6. Belk

    Belk Senior Member

    +5,855
    Agnostic
    Married
    I doubt your claims because of...

    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.
     
  7. Non sequitur

    Non sequitur Wokest Bae Of The Forum

    +530
    United States
    Atheist
    Single
    US-Constitution
    Perhaps anything.
     
  8. Cabal

    Cabal Well-Known Member

    +451
    Atheist
    Engaged
    UK-Liberal-Democrats
    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?
     
  9. hasone

    hasone Newbie

    192
    +13
    Agnostic
    Private
    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.
     
  10. Naraoia

    Naraoia Apprentice Biologist

    +293
    Atheist
    Single
    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...

    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.

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

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

    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...

    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.

    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!)

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

    Jazer Guest

    +0
    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
     
  12. Jazer

    Jazer Guest

    +0
    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.

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 22, 2011
  13. Thobewill

    Thobewill Cthulu For President 2012

    344
    +13
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    US-Libertarian
    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.
     
  14. Thobewill

    Thobewill Cthulu For President 2012

    344
    +13
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    US-Libertarian
    I would say that sweden has an order of magnitude lower percentage of fundie christians (and by extent creationists) than good 'ol Amurrica
     
  15. Jazer

    Jazer Guest

    +0
    Evolution has been a battle ground between science and religion for a long time now. Long before Darwin came along.
     
  16. Thobewill

    Thobewill Cthulu For President 2012

    344
    +13
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    US-Libertarian
    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?
     
  17. Jazer

    Jazer Guest

    +0
    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.
     
  18. Thobewill

    Thobewill Cthulu For President 2012

    344
    +13
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    US-Libertarian
    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
     
  19. Jazer

    Jazer Guest

    +0
    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.
     
  20. Jazer

    Jazer Guest

    +0
    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.

    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.
     
Loading...