• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Explain the Mystery Religion

CTD

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2011
1,212
20
✟1,499.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
natural selection can act only through and for the good of each being
How many pages of no explanation shall we see?

Keep in mind, they demand children be indoctrinated with this. It doesn't make sense, so what they're really demanding is what?

If it can't be explained, it surely cannot be taught - just repeated. Over and over and over, they can repeat, but that won't make it actually mean anything. It was never intended to mean anything.

How can the death goddess act for the good of any being, even one?

How can she act through the good of any being?

Why is she restricted to only acting through good, when she's a death goddess?
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,999
52,622
Guam
✟5,143,639.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
If you don't want to converse with me, fair enough, but the OP is telling us that evolution is a religion, when is it clearly not.
By all means, just don't take our word for it:
Quotes
[Evolution]“…a full-fledged alternative to Christianity…Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.” Michael Ruse. Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians. National Post (May 13, 2000). pB-3.
“As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.” Will Provine, No Free Will. Catching Up with the Vision, Ed. By Margaret W. Rossiter (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999) pS123.
“…evolution is the backbone of biology and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on unproven theory. Is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation. Both are concepts which the believers know to be true, but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.” L.H. Matthews, "Introduction to Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin (1971 edition), pp. x, xi.
[The theory of evolution] "forms a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature." Harrison Matthews. Introduction to Origin of Species (1977 edition) p. xxii.
"In fact [subsequent to the publication of Darwin's book, Origin of Species], evolution became, in a sense, a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit with it. . To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all . . If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces, and radiation, how has it come into being? . . I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is Creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it." H.S. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31, p. 138 (1980) [emphasis his].
“The theory of evolution is impossible. At base, in spite of appearances, no one any longer believes in it….Evolution is a kind of dogma which the priests no longer believe, but which they maintain for their people.” Paul Lemoine. Encyclopedie Francaise 1937 edition. (President of the Geological Society of France and director of the Natural History Museum in Paris.)
[The Big Bang] “…represents the instantaneous suspension of physical laws, the sudden, abrupt flash of lawlessness that allowed something to come out of nothing. It represents a true miracle---transcending physical principles….” Paul Davies, The Edge of Infinity (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), p161.
“We have all heard of The Origin of Species, although few of us have had time to read it…A casual perusal of the classic made me understand the rage of Paul Feyerabend…I agree with him that Darwinism contains ‘wicked lies’; it is not a ‘natural law’ formulated on the basis of factual evidence, but a dogma, reflecting the dominating social philosophy of the last century.” Kenneth J. Hsu, "Sedimentary Petrology and Biologic Evolution," Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 56 (September 1986): p730.
“I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science.” Rocket scientist Wernher von Braun as quoted by James Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard (Arlington, Massachusetts: Refuge Books, 1999), p. 253.
[The Big Bang] “…is only a myth that attempts to say how the universe came into being….” Hannes Alfvén “The Big Bang Never Happened,” Discover 9 (June 1988), p. 78.
“This evolutionist doctrine is itself one of the strangest phenomena of humanity…a system destitute of any shadow of proof, and supported merely by vague analogies and figures of speech….Now no one pretends that they rest on facts actually observed, for no one has ever observed the production of even one species….Let the reader take up either of Darwin's great books, or Spencer's ‘Biology,’ and merely ask himself as he reads each paragraph, ‘What is assumed here and what is proved?’ and he will find the whole fabric melt away like a vision….We thus see that evolution as an hypothesis has no basis in experience or in scientific fact, and that its imagined series of transmutations has breaks which cannot be filled.” Sir William Dawson, The Story of Earth and Man. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1887, pp. 317, 322, 330, 339.
[Darwin, speaking about Huxley:] "My good and kind agent for the propagation of the Gospel, the devil's gospel." Robert T. Clark and James D. Bales, "Why Scientists Accept Evolution", 1988, p. 45.
"Darwin wrote in his autobiography: `I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true ..." M. Grano, "The Faith of Darwinism", Encounter, November 1959, p. 48
"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or faith?" L.N. Matthews, "Introduction" to Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, pp. x, xi (1971 edition)
"... post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. Colin Patterson, The Listener (Senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London.)
"[Karl] Popper warns of a danger: 'A theory, even a scientific theory, may become an intellectual fashion, a substitute for religion, an entrenched dogma.' This has certainly been true of evolutionary theory." Colin Patterson, "Evolution", 1977, p. 150.
"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity - omnipotent chance." T. Rosazak, "Unfinished Animal", 1975, p. 101-102.
"Evolution is sometimes the key mythological element in a philosophy that functions as a virtual religion." E. Harrison, "Origin and Evolution of the Universe", Encyclopaedia Britannica Macropaedia (1974) p1007.
A Belief in Evolution is a basal doctrine in the Rationalists Liturgy." Sir Arthur Keith. Darwinism and its Critics. (1935), p53
"It is therefore a matter of faith on the part of the biologist that biogenesis did occur and he can choose whatever method of biogenesis happens to suit him personally; the evidence of what did happen is not available."G.A. Kerkut. Implications of Evolution (1960), p150.
"... evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit with it ... H.S. Lipson. A Physicist Looks at Evolution. Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31, p138 (1980)
"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone ... exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion." Louis Trenchard More, quoted in "Science and the Two-tailed Dinosaur", p33
"The doctrine of evolution is a newly invented system, a newly concerted doctrine, a newly formed dogma, a new rising belief, which places itself over against the Christian faith, and can only found its temple on the ruins of our Christian confession." Dr. Abraham Kuyper, "Evolution" speech delivered in 1899.
"It is a religion of science that Darwinism chiefly held, and holds over men's minds." Encounter, November 1959, p48 .
"Given the facts, our existence seems quite improbable—more miraculous, perhaps, than the seven-day wonder of Genesis." Judith Hooper, "Perfect Timing," New Age Journal, Vol. 11, (1985), p18
"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith." J.W.N. Sullivan, Limitations of Science (1933), p95.
"Today the tables are turned. The modified, but still characteristically Darwinian theory has itself become an orthodoxy, preached by its adherents with religious fervor, and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in scientific faith." M. Grene, Faith of Darwinism," Encounter, November (1959), p49.
"Evolution requires plenty of faith; a faith in L-proteins that defy chance formation; a faith in the formation of DNA codes which, if generated spontaneously, would spell only pandemonium; a faith in a primitive environment that, in reality, would fiendishly devour any chemical precursors to life; a faith in experiments that prove nothing but the need for intelligence in the beginning; a faith in a primitive ocean that would not thicken, but would only haplessly dilute chemicals; a faith in natural laws of thermodynamics and biogenesis that actually deny the possibility for the spontaneous generation of life; a faith in future scientific revelations that, when realized, always seem to present more dilemmas to the evolutionists; faith in improbabilities that treasonously tell two stories—one denying evolution, the other confirming the Creator; faith in transformations that remain fixed; faith in mutations and natural selection that add to a double negative for evolution; faith in fossils that embarrassingly show fixity through time, regular absence of transitional forms and striking testimony to a worldwide water deluge; a faith in time which proves to only promote degradation in the absence of mind; and faith in reductionism that ends up reducing the materialist's arguments to zero and forcing the need to invoke a supernatural Creator." R.L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy (1981), p. 455.
"The facts must mold the theories, not the theories the facts . . I am most critical of my biologist friends in this matter. Try telling a biologist that, impartially judged among other accepted theories of science, such as the theory of relativity, it seems to you that the theory of natural selection has a very uncertain, hypothetical status, and watch his reaction. I'll bet you that he gets red in the face. This is `religion,' not `science,' with him." Burton, "The Human Side of the Physiologist: Prejudice and Poetry," Physiologist 2 (1957).
"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of people who have at best a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors." S. Jaki, Cosmos and Creator (1982).
"By calling evolution fact, the process of evolution is removed from dispute; it is no longer merely a scientific construct, but now stands apart from humankind and its perceptual frailties. Sagan apparently wishes to accomplish what Peter Berger calls `objectification,' the attribution of objective reality to a humanly produced concept . . With evolution no longer regarded as a mere human construct, but now as a part of the natural order of the cosmos, evolution becomes a sacred archetype against which human actions can be weighed. Evolution is a sacred object or process in that it becomes endowed with mysterious and awesome power." T. Lessl, Science and the Sacred Cosmos: The Ideological Rhetoric of Carl Sagan," Quarterly Journal of Speech, 71:178 (1985).​
 
Upvote 0

Mike Elphick

Not so new...
Oct 7, 2009
826
40
Nottingham, England
Visit site
✟23,749.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
How many pages of no explanation shall we see?

Keep in mind, they demand children be indoctrinated with this. It doesn't make sense, so what they're really demanding is what?

If it can't be explained, it surely cannot be taught - just repeated. Over and over and over, they can repeat, but that won't make it actually mean anything. It was never intended to mean anything.

How can the death goddess act for the good of any being, even one?

How can she act through the good of any being?

Why is she restricted to only acting through good, when she's a death goddess?

It's hard to tell what Darwin meant by the expression "each being". It certainly makes no sense for natural selection to act for "the good" of the individuals upon which it operates. Maybe that is why Darwin uses the strange expression "acting through and for the good" since natural selection works "through" individual advantage.
 
Upvote 0

CTD

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2011
1,212
20
✟1,499.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
It's hard to tell what Darwin meant by the expression "each being". It certainly makes no sense for natural selection to act for "the good" of the individuals upon which it operates.
I don't think it's hard. You put "the good" in quotes yourself. You're onto a prime clue.


Maybe that is why Darwin uses the strange expression "acting through and for the good" since natural selection works "through" individual advantage.
Take a break and try again later. You make no more sense than Darwin with this.
 
Upvote 0
C

cupid dave

Guest
Speak for yourself! I don't necessarily believe I am right, nor do I conclude that other people are wrong without first investigating it. I've studied creationism for many years, and have most certainly not restricted this to "science". I am a sceptic — I'm even sceptical about certain aspects of evolution — and that's quite the opposite of being "religiously" convinced and sure of my own ideas!


I am not speqaking about you, in particular, but it is true that you fll into one of the 12 or so ways of perceiving the world, regardless of your self confidence to the contrary.

You probably just mis spoke and forgot that the Myers/Briggs Type Inventory, the one used by eHarmony, separates us all based on the dominance of Freudian archetypial cominations we tend to rely upon.

What I am saying is that AV is dominant in Intuition and he just believes that the Bible, as he misunderstands it, is the best bet against any contrary opinions, as it has so been over the ages.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,999
52,622
Guam
✟5,143,639.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You probably just mis spoke and forgot that the Myers/Briggs Type Inventory, the one used by eHarmony, separates us all based on the dominance of Freudian archetypial cominations we tend to rely upon.
Don't you mean Carl Jung?
What I am saying is that AV is dominant in Intuition and he just believes that the Bible, as he misunderstands it, is the best bet against any contrary opinions, as it has so been over the ages.
ISTJ -- average score: 75.
 
Upvote 0
C

cupid dave

Guest
I thought their consciences were supposed to be seared with an iron?

1 Timothy 4:2b having their conscience seared with a hot iron;


Yes, the Free Will decisions, you mean.

The "iron" of their personal desires does oppose the good shepherd of their Conscience:


Status_Quo_1.jpg



They used to teach about Jimmy Cricket whose low chirping would try to detour Pinnoccio from lying and stuff, but now even the secular community has stopped preaching this advice.
 
Upvote 0

Phred

Junior Mint
Aug 12, 2003
5,373
998
✟22,717.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
I am not speqaking about you, in particular, but it is true that you fll into one of the 12 or so ways of perceiving the world, regardless of your self confidence to the contrary.

You probably just mis spoke and forgot that the Myers/Briggs Type Inventory, the one used by eHarmony, separates us all based on the dominance of Freudian archetypial cominations we tend to rely upon.

What I am saying is that AV is dominant in Intuition and he just believes that the Bible, as he misunderstands it, is the best bet against any contrary opinions, as it has so been over the ages.
And off you go into another pile of irrelevant nonsense.

Your attempt at a point was that evolution was a religion. It is not. You can't bring an evidenced fact down to the level of your belief. And, you're not strong enough to admit that you simply believe what it is you believe without verifiable evidence. For whatever reason. So you take ignorant potshots at evolution, science... whatever... trying to bring it down to your level.

Sad...
 
Upvote 0

Belk

Senior Member
Site Supporter
Dec 21, 2005
30,709
15,174
Seattle
✟1,176,698.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Chapter 4, sacred evotext on the Preservation of Favoured Races

Now surely if I go to comment, which anyone who reads and writes English might fairly do, it will be exclaimed that I "do not understand evolution."

So before I commence, it seems reasonable to allow the blindly faithful to explain their religion for the rest of us.

How does the selection goddess of death work for the good of each being?

How does she work by the good of each being?

How is it that she can do nothing else?

:D Were we dealing with a civilized, humble, or tolerant religion it'd be rude to laugh. That's not the case. ^_^^_^^_^^_^^_^

That's nice. Do let us know when you have convinced the scientific community that we need to replace the past 200 years of research that provides real world results with a theory that was falsified prior to evolution even being introduced. :wave:
 
Upvote 0
C

cupid dave

Guest
The Bible needs to be understood in the light of the beliefs prevalent during the times it was written, not in terms of what you imply is a modern-day version of "God's Word".

It is important for young Earth creationists to be literalists, or what I call biblical revisionists, for two reasons:- First, it is an absolutely essential ingredient for keeping the young Earth creationism industry afloat. Second, it offers many of the explanatory 'facts' that its victims require.

Sinning and curses explain nothing in Biology and only add to the stupidity of creationism. Life makes much more sense from the point of view of evolution and assuming either there is no God, or he's nothing like the God of the Bible.


That is quite a leap from saying creationists mis-read Genesis and invent mythologies to support their poor interpretations,... then add, the rest of the bible about curses an sinning explains nothing in biology.

What I would say on th one hand is that Genesis read as it is written is an uncanny source of correct information we just discovered in the last century,...

... while on the other hand, the biology of the human Racw points to man as a Social Animal, more akin to the ants and the bees who have long ago evolved completely in that direction.

What the bible is telling us is that to survive what is coming, we need each other, and we should be working together instead of wars among us.
 
Upvote 0

Mike Elphick

Not so new...
Oct 7, 2009
826
40
Nottingham, England
Visit site
✟23,749.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
It's hard to tell what Darwin meant by the expression "each being". It certainly makes no sense for natural selection to act for "the good" of the individuals upon which it operates. Maybe that is why Darwin uses the strange expression "acting through and for the good" since natural selection works "through" individual advantage.

I don't think it's hard. You put "the good" in quotes yourself. You're onto a prime clue.

It's in quotes because these are Darwin's words. This expression is not used these days, and neither is it taught, as you mistakenly claim.

Take a break and try again later. You make no more sense than Darwin with this.

If it doesn't make sense to you, I suggest you think about the difference between "natural selection can act only for the good of each being", which Darwin did not write, but which you seem to think he did, and "natural selection can act only through and for the good of each being"
 
Upvote 0

CTD

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2011
1,212
20
✟1,499.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
It's in quotes because these are Darwin's words. This expression is not used these days, and neither is it taught, as you mistakenly claim.
What's that not supposed to mean?


If it doesn't make sense to you, I suggest you think about the difference between "natural selection can act only for the good of each being", which Darwin did not write, but which you seem to think he did, and "natural selection can act only through and for the good of each being"
And that?

Anyone can compose nonsense. I've seen better from drunks, and funnier from people locked up in the nuthouse.

I don't need to think all of a sudden there's a new meaning for the conjunction 'and'. Even if it were as you'd have someone somehow imagine, it would make no difference, for chronology prohibits us from plugging in any new definitions you care to invent.

------------------------------------------------------------
Now, after all these posts, no progress has been made. None of the blindly faithful can explain their own religion.

natural selection can act only through and for the good of each being
Nobody's even offered a bluff at explaining the nonsense. Neither shall they 'fess up and admit it's pure nonsense.

The goddess they call "natural selection" kills. That's what she does. That's the only thing she can do. This is contradictory to acting through and for good.

If she were associated with good, they wouldn't worship :bow: her in the first place.
 
Upvote 0

Mike Elphick

Not so new...
Oct 7, 2009
826
40
Nottingham, England
Visit site
✟23,749.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
The Bible needs to be understood in the light of the beliefs prevalent during the times it was written, not in terms of what you imply is a modern-day version of "God's Word".

It is important for young Earth creationists to be literalists, or what I call biblical revisionists, for two reasons:- First, it is an absolutely essential ingredient for keeping the young Earth creationism industry afloat. Second, it offers many of the explanatory 'facts' that its victims require.

Sinning and curses explain nothing in Biology and only add to the stupidity of creationism. Life makes much more sense from the point of view of evolution and assuming either there is no God, or he's nothing like the God of the Bible.

That is quite a leap from saying creationists mis-read Genesis and invent mythologies to support their poor interpretations,... then add, the rest of the bible about curses an sinning explains nothing in biology.

That's because it's a big subject. Please allow me to offer you an example:-

One thing I find illuminating about young Earth creationism is that it is not limited to strict biblical literalism, as they claim, but involves gross distortion of the Scriptures to the extent that parts become almost unrecognisable compared with what one would understand from a plain literal reading. Take the consequences of the Curse, for example. The Bible tells of painful birthing for women and a hard life for men working in the fields, but for creationists it goes something like this:-

God's Curse brought decay, disaster, pollution, and degeneration. God wants us to fully understand the dreadful consequences of sin — its ramifications are endless. One man's sin polluted the entire Universe and now there is a connection between man's sin and the decay of the Universe — this was the introduction of the Law of Entropy, which states that the order of a system tends to become disorganised and random. There is disintegration everywhere because of the Curse.​

What I would say on th one hand is that Genesis read as it is written is an uncanny source of correct information we just discovered in the last century,...

What sort of information might that be? An expanding universe?

... while on the other hand, the biology of the human Racw points to man as a Social Animal, more akin to the ants and the bees who have long ago evolved completely in that direction.

There's plenty of evidence to show that human beings have evolved to be cooperative animals with a culture, and ethical rules to live by.

What the bible is telling us is that to survive what is coming, we need each other, and we should be working together instead of wars among us.

Taken as a whole, there's plenty of inter-group conflict in the Bible. Christ's message was to love our neighbours — nothing to do with the dinosaurs creationists are fond of depicting.
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,832
7,852
65
Massachusetts
✟392,900.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Chapter 4, sacred evotext on the Preservation of Favoured Races

Now surely if I go to comment, which anyone who reads and writes English might fairly do, it will be exclaimed that I "do not understand evolution."

So before I commence, it seems reasonable to allow the blindly faithful to explain their religion for the rest of us.
My religion is protestant Christianity, of no particular variety. What does that have to do with Darwin or natural selection?

How does the selection goddess of death work for the good of each being?
There is no selection goddess of death. Why do you load your posts with this kind of juvenile crap? Do you really think a perpetual sneer is a positive attitude for a Christian to adopt?

Natural selection is being contrasted with selection by humans here. Whereas humans selectively breed for their own benefit, natural selection never operates to improve the fitness of a different species, only the species it is operating in.

How does she work by the good of each being?
It works by the good of each being because natural selection is nothing but the preferential survival and reproduction of fitter individuals.

How is it that she can do nothing else?
Under the rudimentary understanding of natural selection that Darwin had, natural selection always favors the better adapted organism, simply because it is better adapted, since that's all that natural selection is. (In reality, natural selection is quite capable of favoring variants that are detrimental to the species as a whole.)

:D Were we dealing with a civilized, humble, or tolerant religion it'd be rude to laugh. That's not the case. ^_^^_^^_^^_^^_^
Right. As Jesus famously said, "Hate your enemies, be rude to those who mock you, and curse those that don't like you, for in this way you will really show them."
 
Upvote 0

MoonRah

Newbie
Dec 2, 2011
7
0
✟22,640.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Ok, I will bite and try to explain it to you.

1) As much as you would like to believe, natural selection is not a goddess (or any other type of deity), it is a natural process through which less fit individuals are eliminated from populations after each generation, therefore improving population fitness. It is a testable scientific hypothesis, proven experimentally (think antibiotic resistance).

2) You take the sentence completely out of context. Keep reading that paragraph and you will notice that Darwin gives an example. On the very next sentence he says “When we see leaf-eating insects green, and bark-feeders mottled-grey; the alpine ptarmigan white in winter, the red-grouse the colour of heather, we must believe that these tints are of service to these birds and insects in preserving them from danger”. So what he is saying is that natural selection acted for the good of those beings by making them match their backgrounds (and therefore be less prone to predation) through filtering “bad” individuals out of previous generations.

I hope this clarifies things a bit to you.

And now to my favorite quote of the day:

As Jesus famously said, "Hate your enemies, be rude to those who mock you, and curse those that don't like you, for in this way you will really show them."
 
Upvote 0

Mike Elphick

Not so new...
Oct 7, 2009
826
40
Nottingham, England
Visit site
✟23,749.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
What's that not supposed to mean?

And that?

Anyone can compose nonsense. I've seen better from drunks, and funnier from people locked up in the nuthouse.

I don't need to think all of a sudden there's a new meaning for the conjunction 'and'. Even if it were as you'd have someone somehow imagine, it would make no difference, for chronology prohibits us from plugging in any new definitions you care to invent.

------------------------------------------------------------
Now, after all these posts, no progress has been made. None of the blindly faithful can explain their own religion.

Nobody's even offered a bluff at explaining the nonsense. Neither shall they 'fess up and admit it's pure nonsense.

The goddess they call "natural selection" kills. That's what she does. That's the only thing she can do. This is contradictory to acting through and for good.

If she were associated with good, they wouldn't worship :bow: her in the first place.

I'm sorry you don't seem to be able to offer anything constructive in your posts. I bowed out of your last thread when you wrote this:-

If you felt I was provoking you, then I'm sorry, the question was made in good faith.

The subject is clearly a hobby horse of yours, judging by the number of places on the internet where you've posted the same or similar material. And here you are telling me you're laughing at my posts! Why?

I can explain why young Earth creationism upsets me so I'm simply interested in why you find the need to pour scorn on the peer review process.

Howsoever you may succeed or fail in convincing people A B or C about me, none of the facts shall be altered. You employ ad hom as not merely a tactic, but as an overall grand strategy. Perhaps such is fit for a lost courtroom case which will drag out over several days; I do not find it fit for profitable discussion.

I too do not find any profit in discussing this particular thread any further with you, when all you seem to be able to do is to laugh at other people's posts.

Appeal to ridicule, also called appeal to mockery, the Horse Laugh, or reductio ad ridiculum (Latin: "reduction to the ridiculous"), is a logical fallacy which presents the opponent's argument in a way that appears ridiculous, often to the extent of creating a straw man of the actual argument, rather than addressing the argument itself.
 
Upvote 0

CTD

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2011
1,212
20
✟1,499.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
My religion is protestant Christianity, of no particular variety. What does that have to do with Darwin or natural selection?
You're the one who brought up the claim - you get to justify its place in the discussion.

Some parrots are green and some are white. What does that have to do with Darwin?

See? Doesn't really work so well as you planned.

Neither does this:
How does the selection goddess of death work for the good of each being?
There is no selection goddess of death.
Do tell...

There's some mysterious supernatural thing going about killing off the arbitrarily designated "unfit", through and for the good of each being.

Now we know enough about evolutionism to know the deal. Even if this mystery cryptogoddess were imagined to be male, it would be they type of male which prefers to be called a "goddess" anyhow. Stop complaining, stop denying, and answer the question.

Why do you load your posts with this kind of juvenile crap?
Why don't silly loaded questions fit under the category of "juvenile crap". Shall I guess?

Special pleading!!!

It's an Evoland favourite. Get used to it, people.


Do you really think a perpetual sneer is a positive attitude for a Christian to adopt?
See? There it goes again.

And we have a pretty good idea why we see this "juvenile crap" which magically doesn't get categorized as "juvenile crap", don't we?
Natural selection is being contrasted with selection by humans here. Whereas humans selectively breed for their own benefit, natural selection never operates to improve the fitness of a different species, only the species it is operating in.
Blah blah blah evohype & no substance, no answer.
It works by the good of each being because natural selection is nothing but the preferential survival and reproduction of fitter individuals.
^_^ Did you see that? Read it again if you missed it.

Just put 'because' in a sentence and call it an answer! ^_^

Natural selectionism is a silly religion because...

...Um, lemme think of something good, okay?

Because cows and goats both produce milk which men use to make cheese!

Okay, I didn't top him. Could you? Have another look - it ain't easy.
Under the rudimentary understanding of natural selection that Darwin had,
^_^ This elitist wants us to think he knows the religion better than the false prophet himself!

natural selection always favors the better adapted organism, simply because it is better adapted, since that's all that natural selection is. (In reality, natural selection is quite capable of favoring variants that are detrimental to the species as a whole.)
And still no answer. Nothing.

Have you forgotten the question?

What's this even mean:
natural selection can act only through and for the good of each being
And I specified, did I not?

How does the selection goddess of death work for the good of each being?

How does she work by the good of each being?

How is it that she can do nothing else?

How much mystery has there been on my end? How difficult is it to understand what the issues are?

But how difficult for the arrogant to admit their prophet's just full of nonsense!

Best evopost so far. :D Don't forget "Under the rudimentary understanding of natural selection that Darwin had"
^_^ Oh goodness!
 
Upvote 0

CTD

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2011
1,212
20
✟1,499.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Ok, I will bite and try to explain it to you.
Fat chance

1) As much as you would like to believe, natural selection is not a goddess (or any other type of deity), it is a natural process through which less fit individuals are eliminated from populations after each generation, therefore improving population fitness. It is a testable scientific hypothesis, proven experimentally (think antibiotic resistance).
Should I bite and change the topic?

Nah. I'll pass. I'll take a chance and suppose people have a lick of sense.
2) You take the sentence completely out of context.
Silly scoffer false accusation. Total score: zero

The stockpile of subjuvenile tactics won't help you today. I've seen Evoland from one end to the other.

natural selection can act only through and for the good of each being

There's no man in Evoland who can explain it - not in a way that makes any sense whatsoever. Anyone else can accept that it's nonsense, and easily explain it.
 
Upvote 0