MY DNA made me do it?

[joshua 1 9]

West Side Story is my all time favorite movie. There is a song in that movie called: "Officer Krupke" where they claim: "it is all our parents fault that we are punks", "deep down inside of us we are good". This has been a standard discussion and debate for the 101 Psychology College students. Is criminal behavior a result of heredity or environment. Now we know that the answer is BOTH. People do have a genetic predisposed propensity for violence, aggression, psychopathy, or psychiatric disorders. Look at the Orlando Shooter. People have been marking him as an aggressive violent person ever sense the third grade. It is amazing that he is not on a list banning him from buying weapons, although I suppose that is a subject for another board.

AS an Evolution - Creation forum then it is fair to ask HOW could natural selection make a selection for a Genetic Predisposition for this sort of violence? When in fact we are told that people like Genghis Khan:

"Khan made himself master of half the known world, and inspired mankind with a fear that lasted for generations. He was a prolific lover, fathering hundreds of children across his territories. Some scientists think he has 16 million male descendants alive today." (wiki)

I talked to a girl from China at a party once. Her husband was a doctor doing research work. She said that she is a descendant of Genghis Khan and a descendant of the Emperor from the forbidden city. So she was pretty well covered on BOTH sides of her family.

"The History of the Forbidden City begins in the 15th century when it was built as the palace of the Ming emperors of China. It is located in the centre of Beijing, China, and was the Chinese imperial palace from the mid-Ming Dynasty to the end of the Qing Dynasty in 1912." wiki

I know that real evolutionists are few and far in-between on this board. Every now and then one will come along so maybe they will take a go at trying to explain this: "Evidence for a genetic basis of antisocial behavior":

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2174903/

 

[bhsmte]

West Side Story is my all time favorite movie. There is a song in that movie called: "Officer Krupke" where they claim: "it is all our parents fault that we are punks", "deep down inside of us we are good". This has been a standard discussion and debate for the 101 Psychology College students. Is criminal behavior a result of heredity or environment. Now we know that the answer is BOTH. People do have a genetic predisposed propensity for violence, aggression, psychopathy, or psychiatric disorders. Look at the Orlando Shooter. People have been marking him as an aggressive violent person ever sense the third grade. It is amazing that he is not on a list banning him from buying weapons, although I suppose that is a subject for another board.

AS an Evolution - Creation forum then it is fair to ask HOW could natural selection make a selection for a Genetic Predisposition for this sort of violence? When in fact we are told that people like Genghis Khan:

"Khan made himself master of half the known world, and inspired mankind with a fear that lasted for generations. He was a prolific lover, fathering hundreds of children across his territories. Some scientists think he has 16 million male descendants alive today." (wiki)

I talked to a girl from China at a party once. Her husband was a doctor doing research work. She said that she is a descendant of Genghis Khan and a descendant of the Emperor from the forbidden city. So she was pretty well covered on BOTH sides of her family.

"The History of the Forbidden City begins in the 15th century when it was built as the palace of the Ming emperors of China. It is located in the centre of Beijing, China, and was the Chinese imperial palace from the mid-Ming Dynasty to the end of the Qing Dynasty in 1912." wiki

I know that real evolutionists are few and far in-between on this board. Every now and then one will come along so maybe they will take a go at trying to explain this: "Evidence for a genetic basis of antisocial behavior":

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2174903/

Genetics plays a role in brain abnormalities, just as it plays a role with other human abnormalities.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Genetics plays a role in brain abnormalities, just as it plays a role with other human abnormalities.

The point is that people may have a genetic predisposition. IF genes are expressed has to do with environmental factors. The director of the cardio program gives a class on the genetic predisposition to disease that can be controlled through diet and exercise so that those genes do not express themselves. They are hindered from expressing themselves. If you were worth your salt then you would be able to do the same but I would rather imagine that you fail to get the job done. Your most likely are more into damage control rather then resolving the issue so that it never becomes a problem. Far to often we treat the symptoms and not the underlying cause of the problem.

 

[bhsmte]

The point is that people may have a genetic predisposition. IF genes are expressed has to do with environmental factors. The director of the cardio program gives a class on the genetic predisposition to disease that can be controlled through diet and exercise so that those genes do not express themselves. They are hindered from expressing themselves. If you were worth your salt then you would be able to do the same but I would rather imagine that you fail to get the job done. Your most likely are more into damage control rather then resolving the issue so that it never becomes a problem. Far to often we treat the symptoms and not the underlying cause of the problem.

If I was worth my salt, I would be able to do what exactly?

Be specific.

 

[SkyWriting]

The point is that people may have a genetic predisposition.

That's correct, "may have". I don't know why evolutionists would
have any additional knowledge on this subject unless your assumption
is that creationists are unschooled. If you want to know if there have
been genetic connections to a disorder, look it up. In most cases, the
answer is yes and no.

The structure of the genetic and environmental risk factors for six major psychiatric disordersin women: Phobia, generalized anxiety disorder, panic disorder, bulimia

Autistic social impairment in the siblings of children with pervasive developmental disorders

Neural mechanisms of social risk for psychiatric disorders

 

[joshua 1 9]

If I was worth my salt, I would be able to do what exactly?

Be specific.

Treat the cause and not the symptoms. The difference between evolution and creationism is Divine cause. The NON Theistic Evolutionists do not accept Divine Cause.

 

[bhsmte]

Treat the cause and not the symptoms. The difference between evolution and creationism is Divine cause. The NON Theistic Evolutionists do not accept Divine Cause.

Demonstrate this divine cause, with objective evidence.

 

[SkyWriting]

Treat the cause and not the symptoms. The difference between evolution and creationism is Divine cause. The NON Theistic Evolutionists do not accept Divine Cause.

Its hard to treat genetic predisposition as well as environmental factors.

 

[Veera Chase]

Demonstrate this divine cause, with objective evidence.

Tut Tut.. Why did you kill the thread before it even got off the ground? you know those kind of questions should not come until at least the 8th or 9th page.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Its hard to treat genetic predisposition as well as environmental factors.

Psychology does not claim to have any treatment that can be proven to be effective. What they claim is their ability to be able to diagnosis people though testing. This does not seem to be working with the FBI though because the NRA questions if the million plus people on the FBI: no fly - no buy list, are really terrorists. Only 25,000 of them are American. Right now the proposed solution is to give people a chance to have a judge review the case to see if the FBI was justified in putting them on the list. The NRA protest seems to be that you can not take due process of law away from people. They politicians want to claim that when ISIS declared war on american that they give up due process of law. The problem with Bush was that he was the first person that did not think the rules of engagement and the Geneva Convention should apply to him. At least when it involved torture. Now you have Trump following Bush in this regard. The NRA wants to ban terrorists from buying weapons but they do not want to deny people the due process of law. So they are going to have to work this out with Mr Lets Make a Deal Trump. Because right now he is on record as saying that he approves of torture. That means he approves of denying people the due process of law. Along with rejecting the laws of engagement and the Geneva Convention.

As a Christian we are not to do anything to others that we would not want them to do to us.

 

[SkyWriting]

Psychology does not claim to have any treatment that can be proven to be effective. What they claim is their ability to be able to diagnosis people though testing. This does not seem to be working with the FBI though because the NRA questions if the million plus people on the FBI: no fly - no buy list, are really terrorists. Only 25,000 of them are American. Right now the proposed solution is to give people a chance to have a judge review the case to see if the FBI was justified in putting them on the list. The NRA protest seems to be that you can not take due process of law away from people. They politicians want to claim that when ISIS declared war on american that they give up due process of law. The problem with Bush was that he was the first person that did not think the rules of engagement and the Geneva Convention should apply to him. At least when it involved torture. Now you have Trump following Bush in this regard. The NRA wants to ban terrorists from buying weapons but they do not want to deny people the due process of law. So they are going to have to work this out with Mr Lets Make a Deal Trump. Because right now he is on record as saying that he approves of torture. That means he approves of denying people the due process of law. Along with rejecting the laws of engagement and the Geneva Convention. As a Christian we are not to do anything to others that we would not want them to do to us.

It takes a while for people to allow the Holy Spirit to affect change.
People fight it most of their lives.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Demonstrate this divine cause, with objective evidence.

The proof is that there is no middle ground. You are for God or you are against God. What then is to demonstrate? The proof is in the pudding. You can see the effect. Even if you deny that God created natural law. You can not argue that natural law and all the Laws of Science are a driving force anywhere you go in the universe. You can try to argue that this is a virtual world and that we are not real. But as soon as you say the world is real then you accept that the Universe is regulated by the laws as they are defined by Science. Even the pixels on the screen that you use to present your agreement are a demonstration of the laws that God created. "He makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust". God allows people to make a choice of their own free will. He allows the mockers and the scoffers to use the same pixels on the screen that the people use that love God and choose to serve Him and follow His ways. That way people are given a clear and a concise choice. As Joshua says: "choose this day whom you will serve".

Joshua 24:16
The people answered and said, "Far be it from us that we should forsake the LORD to serve other gods;

 

[joshua 1 9]

It takes a while for people to allow the Holy Spirit to affect change.
People fight it most of their lives.

Phil 1 6 "For I am confident of this,
that He who began a good work in you will continue to perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus. "

2005 // epitelew // epiteleo // ep-ee-tel-eh'-o //

from 1909 and 5055 ; TDNT - 8:61,1161; v

AV - perform 3, perfect 2, accomplish 2, finish 1, performance 1,
make 1, do 1; 11

1) to bring to an end, accomplish, perfect, execute, complete
1a) to take upon one's self
1b) to make an end for one's self
1b1) to leave off
2) to appoint to, impose upon

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Demonstrate this divine cause, with objective evidence.

The 'creation' is the objective evidence.

 

[bhsmte]

The proof is that there is no middle ground. You are for God or you are against God. What then is to demonstrate? The proof is in the pudding. You can see the effect. Even if you deny that God created natural law. You can not argue that natural law and all the Laws of Science are a driving force anywhere you go in the universe. You can try to argue that this is a virtual world and that we are not real. But as soon as you say the world is real then you accept that the Universe is regulated by the laws as they are defined by Science. Even the pixels on the screen that you use to present your agreement are a demonstration of the laws that God created. "He makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust". God allows people to make a choice of their own free will. He allows the mockers and the scoffers to use the same pixels on the screen that the people use that love God and choose to serve Him and follow His ways. That way people are given a clear and a concise choice. As Joshua says: "choose this day whom you will serve".

Joshua 24:16
The people answered and said, "Far be it from us that we should forsake the LORD to serve other gods;

Ok, you can't demonstrate with objective evidence, only preaching.

I thought so, have a good day.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Ok, you can't demonstrate with objective evidence, only preaching.

Again your missing the point. So in my usual style I am going to open a new thread. We need to look at what a story is. What is YOUR story. Here on this board everyone wants to hide in the shadows of oblivion and not tell their story. The point is the Bible is filled with stories. Evolution is a story, Creationism is a story. Darwin had a nice story to tell only Creationism has the Greatest Story that has ever been told. Darwin can only ride on the shirt tail of the story that Jesus has to tell.

Do we need evidence for that? Not really because a story does not have to be true to be significant. What about the story of Casey at the Bat. Was that a real story, did that day really take place? Does it really matter because here it is 129 years later and we are still talking about the day that Casey went to bat.

What about Noah 4300 years ago? Was Noah a real person, did the flood really take place? I say it does, but it does not matter because it is 4300 years later and we are still telling the story of Noah and all of his animals on the Ark. Because the story rings true in the collective consciousness of every man, women and child that has ever lived from every tongue, nation, tribe and people. This is a story that has mass appeal in the collective consciousness of all people.

So IF the story is true or not does absolutely NOTHING to diminish the power of the story. You simply do not have a better story. Evolution has come up with some good stores and evolution has survived for over 100 years now. But evolution has a long way to go because Moses and the stories he told have lasted for 3500 years now and those stories continue to be told and they go from generation to generation. Nothing is going to stop that. The stories will continue to be told and you can react anyway you want to react. You can receive that story any way you want to receive that story. But in the end nothing is going to stop the Bible and Bible stories from going from generation to generation.

 

[Jimmy D]

West Side Story is my all time favorite movie. There is a song in that movie called: "Officer Krupke" where they claim: "it is all our parents fault that we are punks", "deep down inside of us we are good". This has been a standard discussion and debate for the 101 Psychology College students. Is criminal behavior a result of heredity or environment. Now we know that the answer is BOTH. People do have a genetic predisposed propensity for violence, aggression, psychopathy, or psychiatric disorders. Look at the Orlando Shooter. People have been marking him as an aggressive violent person ever sense the third grade. It is amazing that he is not on a list banning him from buying weapons, although I suppose that is a subject for another board.

AS an Evolution - Creation forum then it is fair to ask HOW could natural selection make a selection for a Genetic Predisposition for this sort of violence? When in fact we are told that people like Genghis Khan:

"Khan made himself master of half the known world, and inspired mankind with a fear that lasted for generations. He was a prolific lover, fathering hundreds of children across his territories. Some scientists think he has 16 million male descendants alive today." (wiki)

I talked to a girl from China at a party once. Her husband was a doctor doing research work. She said that she is a descendant of Genghis Khan and a descendant of the Emperor from the forbidden city. So she was pretty well covered on BOTH sides of her family.

"The History of the Forbidden City begins in the 15th century when it was built as the palace of the Ming emperors of China. It is located in the centre of Beijing, China, and was the Chinese imperial palace from the mid-Ming Dynasty to the end of the Qing Dynasty in 1912." wiki

I know that real evolutionists are few and far in-between on this board. Every now and then one will come along so maybe they will take a go at trying to explain this: "Evidence for a genetic basis of antisocial behavior":

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2174903/

I'm struggling to uncover the point of this thread amongst all the rambling, is it this question:

AS an Evolution - Creation forum then it is fair to ask HOW could natural selection make a selection for a Genetic Predisposition for this sort of violence?

I agree with Skywriting that the case for genetic predisposition is not clear cut, funnily enough I heard an interview on the radio last week about new research that showed that environmental factors were of far greater importance. I'll try and find out more details later.

As for HOW could natural selection make a selection for a Genetic Predisposition for this sort of violence?

I think it should be obvious to anyone who actually thinks about it for a second, we haven't always lived in such a comfortable world have we?

By the way, what's all that about Genghis Kahn the Forbidden City? I'd suggest that writing things like that make you posts seem awfully muddled and difficult to follow.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I'm struggling to uncover the point of this thread amongst all the rambling

This is the nature vs nurture discussion. DNA being nature and the question is what effect does nurture have on the expression or blocking the expression of out DNA.

If you want to talk about natural selection and the Genetic Predisposition for violence that is fine. I have a copy of "The Biology of Violence" Debra Niehoff PhD if you want to get into a discussion on that. Although she does not much get into evoluton. So perhaps you would like to make it more clear where you want to go with the discussion of how evolutionary theory can be a part of the nature vs nurture discussion. Or perhaps you would like to look at the discussion from Dr Gabor Mate's perspective.

 

[Jimmy D]

This is the nature vs nurture discussion. DNA being nature and the question is what effect does nurture have on the expression or blocking the expression of out DNA.

If you want to talk about natural selection and the Genetic Predisposition for violence that is fine. I have a copy of "The Biology of Violence" Debra Niehoff PhD if you want to get into a discussion on that. Although she does not much get into evoluton. So perhaps you would like to make it more clear where you want to go with the discussion of how evolutionary theory can be a part of the nature vs nurture discussion. Or perhaps you would like to look at the discussion from Dr Gabor Mate's perspective.

To be honest I don't really want to talk about it. My understanding of the topic is so shallow my comment above will have to suffice. For what it's worth my opinion is summed up by your Gabor Mate meme.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The proof is that there is no middle ground. You are for God or you are against God. What then is to demonstrate? The proof is in the pudding. You can see the effect. Even if you deny that God created natural law. You can not argue that natural law and all the Laws of Science are a driving force anywhere you go in the universe. You can try to argue that this is a virtual world and that we are not real. But as soon as you say the world is real then you accept that the Universe is regulated by the laws as they are defined by Science. Even the pixels on the screen that you use to present your agreement are a demonstration of the laws that God created. "He makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust". God allows people to make a choice of their own free will. He allows the mockers and the scoffers to use the same pixels on the screen that the people use that love God and choose to serve Him and follow His ways. That way people are given a clear and a concise choice. As Joshua says: "choose this day whom you will serve".

Joshua 24:16
The people answered and said, "Far be it from us that we should forsake the LORD to serve other gods;

He asked you to demonstrate the divine. He didn't ask you to simply repeat your claims.