How do I "stimulate", my Evolution? I can be stimulated to embrace the theory, but what next?

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Crimes need punishment. or there is no such thing as justice, and no discouragement from doing the crimes over and over.
Every time a person lies, and thinks they got away with it and will never be caught? That has to be punished. Because they're thinking they're getting away with it? They just keep on doing it.
So judgement has to be passed and a punishment meted out. If you speed, you get a ticket, and you have to pay it, it would be unjust of the judge to not make the fine be paid.. however.. someone can pay the fine for you.

Just asserting that crimes need punishment is not an explanation, and you haven't explained what you think justice is and why it is necessary, e.g. who benefits?

If the justification of retributive justice is that punishment deters and helps prevents reoffending, why is it still in use when offences and reoffending rates are demonstrably higher in retributive justice systems than in corrective, restorative, or rehabilitative justice systems? IOW, in practice, punishment is a poor deterrent.

Now if someone pays the fine for you, they've done something for you that makes you value them.
It still discourages you from speeding again because... someone else paid on your behalf for it, and promised to do so again... but you don't want to keep abusing that relationship, and you can't afford to pay the fines yourself... so.. you're a lot more likely to stop speeding.

Do you have any evidence to support this? It seems to contradict retributive justice as a deterrent.

But if your offending has no consequence because your fines will be paid, it seems to me that you are likely to continue offending, secure in the knowledge that it will have no consequences for you. This is only likely to change if you are close to the person paying and/or you know that they are suffering as a result. For example, people working for large organisations that pay their parking fines rack up hundreds of fines a year without a thought, but if it was an impoverished pensioner who paid their fines they might think twice.

I notice that, once again, you haven't answered the questions I asked in my last post. Is there some reason for that?

and.. this was only possible, bringing it back around, because God incarnated a human body. Which is possible because man was created in God's image.

What has that to do with the morality & psychology of different forms of justice? It's such a non-sequitur it makes no sense at all to me.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You can directly control evolution.

I can breed rats with certain evolutionary attributes and keep breeding them. To reinforce those attributes.

I think the point is that the rats can't stimulate their evolution.

 

[Freodin]

You have it backwards.
God is the objective source of morals and laws.
not humans
note that when humans reject God they reject objective morality and morality all becomes relative.

I don't want to debate single points. Not that I could not... I don't want to. Other's have pointed out that this isn't the place for it... which wouldn't stop me, but it might (well, certainly will, sooner or later) get this thread closed.
Interestingly - sadly - the General Apologetic forum, with all it's rules and restrictions, has gotten closed AGAIN... which I regret in a case like this one here. Though I think it clearly demonstrates that Christians just cannot defend their claims against serious criticism.

And that brings me back to what I really wanted to address here: this - your - approach to "apologetics".

You keep making claims, and trying to back them up with just a reference to other of your claims. You have no means to make your points from a neutral ground. You can only assert and deflect (like your reference to the "wicked generation asking for signs").

You just don't understand the basic problem: when all you have to offer is the very thing that your opposite rejects... you don't have anything to offer.
You might consider this "standing fast on your faith" or something like that... but you should at least be aware that this is a very bad communication method.

And you should consider what it means for your "truth" when all you have is a very bad communication methods.

 

[Frank Robert]

Only on paper.

Not unless you think those human fossils were manufactured, aged and placed in their proper stratum.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I was quoting Jesus, but it's the same concept.
"prove it"

If you don't have evidence, a reasoned argument is next best. If you have neither, you only have blind faith - which is useless in discussions. These are discussion forums...

Do you have a reasoned argument?

 

[SkyWriting]

I understand that for your purposes it 'works fine'. That doesn't make 'wonky' good design.

I said that you wouldn't understand how the brilliance of how good design is adaptable.
You can't bend a car and have it working just fine, because it's made and driven by idiots.

 

[Frank Robert]

Crimes need punishment.

Not all "sins against a god" are crimes. Consensual sex between adults as well as other nonsensical "sins against a god" are not crimes. Well at least in countries not under sharia law.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I said that you wouldn't understand how the brilliance of how good design is adaptable.
You can't bend a car and have it working just fine, because it's made and driven by idiots.

Lol! If cars ended up looking that wonky just by everyday driving, without being crashed into, I'd call that terrible design

 

[AV1611VET]

Not unless you think those human fossils were manufactured, aged and placed in their proper stratum.

More like I think those fossils that others think are Cro-magnon, Neanderthal, and a host of other bipeds were actually human beings.

You know ... Homo sapiens, as academia labels us?

 

[Subduction Zone]

More like I think those fossils that others think are Cro-magnon, Neanderthal, and a host of other bipeds were actually human beings.

You know ... Homo sapiens, as academia labels us?

You can believe anything that you want. The problem is that the evidence tells us that you appear to be wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

You can believe anything that you want.

I have checks and balances though:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

What do you have? the scientific method?

The problem is that the evidence tells us that you appear to be wrong.

No, it doesn't.

We both see the same thing.

We just label them differently.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You can directly control evolution.

I can breed rats with certain evolutionary attributes and keep breeding them. To reinforce those attributes.

That's animal husbandry, FORCED evolution, not natural evolution.

And also nowhere near what Gottservant even thinks he's asking.

 

[Frank Robert]

More like I think those fossils that others think are Cro-magnon, Neanderthal, and a host of other bipeds were actually human beings.

You know ... Homo sapiens, as academia labels us?

Yes, they were all different species of humans but today we are the sole human species but we still have traces of DNA from some of the extinct human species.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have checks and balances though:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

What do you have? the scientific method?No, it doesn't.

We both see the same thing.

We just label them differently.

Thanks for posting your Flat Earth heuristics once again. And you do not know what is and what is not evidence. You lose the debate because by your poor definition of evidence the Muslims have more than you do.

I know, you cannot afford to learn what is and what is not evidence because then you would have to admit to having none.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, they were all different species of humans ...

No, they weren't.

They were people with plagues.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, they weren't.

They were people with plagues.

There is no evidence for that. In fact there is evidence against it. There are far too many Homo erectus fossils of all ages for them to be changes by "plague". The same applies to Neanderthals.

Why make such obviously false claims? That does not help your case.

 

[AV1611VET]

There are far too many Homo erectus fossils of all ages ...

Just as the Bible says.

Deuteronomy 28:59 Then the LORD will make thy plagues wonderful, and the plagues of thy seed, even great plagues, and of long continuance, and sore sicknesses, and of long continuance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just as the Bible says.

Deuteronomy 28:59 Then the LORD will make thy plagues wonderful, and the plagues of thy seed, even great plagues, and of long continuance, and sore sicknesses, and of long continuance.

Sorry, but until you demonstrate that the Bible is accurate it is not of much use in this sort of debate. Until you do it is merely the claim and not the evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sorry, but until you demonstrate that the Bible is accurate it is not of much use in this sort of debate.

Looks like you're SOL then (short on luck).

Until you do it is merely the claim and not the evidence.

If you're presenting those bones as evidence, then I'm making the claim that science mislabeled them.

And I'm also stating why I think science mislabeled them.

 

[Jamdoc]

Not all "sins against a god" are crimes. Consensual sex between adults as well as other nonsensical "sins against a god" are not crimes. Well at least in countries not under sharia law.

You're letting man determine what's a crime and what is not, not God.
but it's the other way around.
God defines what is wrong and what is not wrong, not man.
So yes, what is sin is a crime, it's against the law of God.