Answering any questions on Evolution

[Trogool]

Wouldn't Christianity contaminate science?

Um no... Why the heck would it? Being christian doesn't effect my scientific work in any way

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

 

[JoeyArnold]

Um no... Why the heck would it?

If Christianity doesn't contaminate science then why aren't we all Christians then?

 

[Trogool]

If Christianity doesn't contaminate science then why aren't we all Christians then?

I like peanut butter. Why don't we all like classical music? You realize you aren't making any sense, right?

 

[SkyWriting]

It essentially is a dog-eat-dog world. Nature is brutal and unforgiving. However we as higher more advanced species with large brains and cognitive thinking have developed a wide range of emotions and a understanding for community. A biological basis for morality one may say. The government should make laws that show to importance of facts, evidence and truth. Religion should be kept in the religious education classes and science in the science classes. The government and religion should be separate.

So civility is an affront to biology then. Are we uncomfortable with using natural selection as a basis for improving the human species for any good reason? Compassion is basically a religious idea that should be kept out of government.

Each of these religious ideas should be banned from government then:

1. Do not kill a fellow human being because of hatred or revenge or with any malice.
2. Do not have sexual relations with anyone other than your spouse or partner.
3. Do not steal or take anything that doesn't belong to you without permission of the owner.
4. Do not tell a lie about someone or perjure ones self before authorities.
5. Do not desire anything or anyone that does not belong to you. Comparing yourself to others and longing to have what they have may lead to jealousy, envy and criminal behavior. Be content by focusing on the blessings given you and not what you don't possess or feel is owed you.

These should be added to

The Constitution:

1. No person should interfere in natural selection of our species.
2. No policies will be instituted by government to negate the natural process of survival of the best fit for our society.
3. Any law in conflict with natural selection will be null and void as decided by local law and ultimately the supreme court.
4. Resources such as money and time will not be redistributed among the population except by individual choice of those who possess these assets.
5. The rights of the most fit for our society and environment will take priority over all else in law.
6. Democracy fails to grant complete privilege and pure freedom to those those who best fit into our society and who have amassed possessions and wealth, so any laws supporting democracy are hereby null and void.
7. All laws in compliance with the natural selection rule shall be written by a congress which shall hold an auction in the supreme court for each seat every 10 years on a rotating basis.
8. All congressional seats will be created on a population basis of 1 seat per 1 million of legal residents no matter the location of these residents.
9. It is assumed that those who are best fit for our society have the highest population so all congressional votes will be granted on the largest percentage of each vote taken.

 

[Trogool]

So civility is an affront to biology then.

No, the opposite actually.

Are we uncomfortable with using natural selection as a basis for improving the human species for any good reason? Compassion is basically a religious idea that should be kept out of government.

Oh, are we employing the silly idea that social darwinism = theory of evolution. How amusing, I thought that fallacy had been stamped out decades ago.

 

[SkyWriting]

Oh, are we employing the silly idea that social darwinism = theory of evolution. How amusing, I thought that fallacy had been stamped out decades ago.

The poster has insisted that we instate it and remove the religious influence from the government.
You can argue with him.

The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription

 

[USincognito]

The poster has insisted that we instate it and remove the religious influence from the government.
You can argue with him.

No. It's your insipid straw man. You defend it.

 

[USincognito]

Depends on who makes the rules.

BG Henry Martyn Robert made the rules.

 

[JanetReed]

So civility is an affront to biology then. Are we uncomfortable with using natural selection as a basis for improving the human species for any good reason?

All we do is manipulate natural selection we don't stop it, also by manipulating natural selection our evolution is adapting to our manipulation.

Compassion is basically a religious idea that should be kept out of government.

Compassion is not a religious idea, are you saying only religious people can be compassionate?

Each of these religious ideas should be banned from government then:

1. Do not kill a fellow human being because of hatred or revenge or with any malice.
2. Do not have sexual relations with anyone other than your spouse or partner.
3. Do not steal or take anything that doesn't belong to you without permission of the owner.
4. Do not tell a lie about someone or perjure ones self before authorities.
5. Do not desire anything or anyone that does not belong to you. Comparing yourself to others and longing to have what they have may lead to jealousy, envy and criminal behavior. Be content by focusing on the blessings given you and not what you don't possess or feel is owed you.

The above are not religious ideas they are common sense ideas used by people who wish to live together in communities, where are you getting all of this BS from?
Isolated people who live in the Amazon rain forest practice all of the above and they worship trees and the sun.

 

[SkyWriting]

No. It's your insipid straw man. You defend it.

You are free to defend your rebut if you wish.

 

[USincognito]

You are free to defend your rebut if you wish.

I'm sorry, I don't speak Performance Art.

You're the one that's asserting that evolution = social darwinism.
You need to defend it.

 

[bjt2024]

First I'd like to point out that I do actually work, and have a social life so I'm not on this website constantly and I'm not here to come running to your beck and call. I do not take lightly to demands, show some respect.

You speak like only evolutionists go along with this, it's all respected members of the scientific community. Even if they are religious they still understand that their god started it all off. I don't understand how that doesn't shout out at you that maybe it's truth, based on evidence of course.

1) No molecular mechanism - I'm presuming you actually know what evolution is? It's about more capable individuals surviving and being able to pass on their genetic information to offspring. All the molecular mechanisms involved in reproduction, mitosis, meiosis etc...

2) Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. And I answered this question earlier to you, it is probable. The amount of time, the number of chances that molecules get to react. Clay catalysts, deep sea vents, thunderstorms, volcanoes.

3) Fossils show whole organisms, 1 species, a stable single species. There aren't half species lying around. There is variation within a species but only to the degree in which they can still interbreed.

4) Not enough mutations to show Homo Pan divergence? That's because there actually isn't that much difference between the Homo and Pan genera. The DNA sequencing is evidence, concrete evidence that we are incredibly similar species. I have no idea how you can refute this.

I shall have to answer some of these other points after, I acutally have to go out at the moment. If any other individuals who respect evidence would like to contribute to what I am saying please do.

 

[bjt2024]

So civility is an affront to biology then. Are we uncomfortable with using natural selection as a basis for improving the human species for any good reason? Compassion is basically a religious idea that should be kept out of government.

Each of these religious ideas should be banned from government then:

1. Do not kill a fellow human being because of hatred or revenge or with any malice.
2. Do not have sexual relations with anyone other than your spouse or partner.
3. Do not steal or take anything that doesn't belong to you without permission of the owner.
4. Do not tell a lie about someone or perjure ones self before authorities.
5. Do not desire anything or anyone that does not belong to you. Comparing yourself to others and longing to have what they have may lead to jealousy, envy and criminal behavior. Be content by focusing on the blessings given you and not what you don't possess or feel is owed you.

These should be added to

The Contitution:

1. No person should interfere in natural selection of our species.
2. No policies will be instituted by government to negate the natural process of survival of the best fit for our society.
3. Any law in conflict with natural selection will be null and void as decided by local law and ultimately the supreme court.
4. Resources such as money and time will not be redistributed among the population except by individual choice of those who possess these assets.
5. The rights of the most fit for our society and environment will take priority over all else in law.
6. Democracy fails to grant complete privilege and pure freedom to those those who best fit into our society and who have amassed possessions and wealth, so any laws supporting democracy are hereby null and void.
7. All laws in compliance with the natural selection rule shall be written by a congress which shall hold an auction in the supreme court for each seat every 10 years on a rotating basis.
8. All congressional seats will be created on a population basis of 1 seat per 1 million of legal residents no matter the location of these residents.
9. It is assumed that those who are best fit for our society have the highest population so all congressional votes will be granted on the largest percentage of each vote taken.

Morality and biology are not opposed to one another, this can be seen within humanity to a certain extent. However for nature to persist it must kill and consume, whether you consider this immoral is your choice. The fact that the world is harsh is unavoidable.

I would think a government based on Darwinian Principles of natural selection would be horrific, as I said about nature, "brutal and unforgiving". This is why I made clear that humans are special in their ability to feel a wide range of emotions, compassion being one. Compassion is not a derivitive of religion, compassion is a result of our species understanding the need to protect community inorder for individual benefit. I help you, you help me.

I think it is ridiculous that you use these "religious ideas" as if to say that they actually hold true for the religious. Religion causes hatred, causes revenge, causes murder, genocide. Serbia, Northern Ireland, the partition of India. The Catholic priests who sexually assaulted children. The lie the Pope told the African congress "Condoms increase the chance of contracting AIDS".

Don't try and tell me that "It's only a few people out of many". It is still religion that has caused these cases, and these cases have caused untold misery to millions if not billions.

Morality is the human condition, I don't need religion to tell me that murder is wrong, or that insulting someone may hurt their feelings. Humans are a community based species. How anyone can derive morality from Yahweh is a puzzle to me.

 

[Naraoia]

So it's a dog-eat-dog world, is it?

Well the government should make laws so that people who think like pure evolutionists are kept in check, shouldn't it?

Um, what?

And Klebold & Harris, did they have small, non-cognitive thinking brains?

They certainly had a wide range of emotions and an understanding for community, didn't they?

Or were they exceptions to evolution?

I. Am. Sure. You. Have. Been. Told. This. Before.

But.

Variation is hardly an "exception to evolution". It is, in fact, the raw material. Unless everyone in a population is a clone, even the most perfectly adapted population won't consist of uniformly perfect individuals. Murdering nutcases are no more an exception to evolution than albino Africans are.

 

[verysincere]

Um, what?



I. Am. Sure. You. Have. Been. Told. This. Before.

But.

Variation is hardly an "exception to evolution". It is, in fact, the raw material. Unless everyone in a population is a clone, even the most perfectly adapted population won't consist of uniformly perfect individuals. Murdering nutcases are no more an exception to evolution than albino Africans are.

Naraoia, you have incredible patience. (Kudos to you.)


.

 

[JoeyArnold]

I like peanut butter.

If Christianity doesn't contaminate science then it blesses science. Neutrality is irrelevant & hypothetical. If Christianity doesn't hurt science then it helps science. That would mean that we should all become Christians before becoming scientists.

 

[bjt2024]

.

 

[bjt2024]

If Christianity doesn't contaminate science then it blesses science. Neutrality is irrelevant & hypothetical. If Christianity doesn't hurt science then it helps science. That would mean that we should all become Christians before becoming scientists.

How about christianity and science are not related. Christianity is faith. Science is not faith. Stop trying to link the two together.

 

[verysincere]

Originally Posted by SkyWriting

You are free to defend your rebut if you wish.
​

I would at least wait until the stitches are removed.

I'm sorry, I don't speak Performance Art.

I've never seen "rebut" used as a noun before. We'll assume that surgeons use the term in reference to some types of reconstructive surgeries.

You're the one that's asserting that evolution = social darwinism.
You need to defend it.

If not for the deliberate confusion of The Theory of Evolution with Social Darwinism, most of my Christian brethren who insist on being anti-evolution would hardly have anything to rant about. After all, it is a strategy theme which includes their attempts to claim Darwin's subtitle "...the Preservation of Favoured Races..." proved him a racist and that Hitler and Stalin were "Darwin worshipers." Ben Stein tried to play the same equivocation games in his movie, EXPELLED: NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED. [That movie's title is probably the most ironic in the history of cinema. I've always wondered if a mischievous publicist suggested that one with a straight face---and it flew right over Ben's head.]

And for that matter, without the Equivocation Fallacy strategy in general, Answers in Genesis, Creation.com, The Discovery Institute, et al would all have to start focusing on actual evidence and scientific arguments when fund-raising---instead of simply playing the victim card---and we all know how well reasoned analysis and evidence scores with the ill-informed general public! (Good luck with that one.)

The Biological Evolution & Social Darwinism equivocation fallacy ranks second only to the Six Kinds of Evolution equivocation fallacy. However, with the latter's original author stuck in federal prison for a few more years, the former has a real shot at becomes the most dishonest of all anti-evolution arguments used by the "creation science" industry.




.

 

[Trogool]

If Christianity doesn't contaminate science then it blesses science. Neutrality is irrelevant & hypothetical. If Christianity doesn't hurt science then it helps science. That would mean that we should all become Christians before becoming scientists.

That's obviously absurd.