The "unified" theory of evolution

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

From AI Overview:

Some ape species, particularly chimpanzees, are known to engage in lethal aggression and kill each other, especially between groups.

And making that comment ignores the actual true issues that lead to the Columbine shootings. Not a surprise at all really, since I know we've talked about this before and you've still got the gall to pull that card. For shame on you.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I am aware that in using Babylonian stories as source material the post-exhilic scribes were emphasizing that "that's not how our god did it" when they wrote their own versions as a form of counter apologetic.

There's a bit more to this historiographical issue than simply what your citing here, Hans.

It doesn't change that the narratives (with the "controverting" of other culture's, particularly Babylon) were also trying to explain how things they saw got the way they are -- where tribes and nations came from, why there are weeds, etc. This is no different than the stories of my people about how the Great Lakes formed (big blue oxen need place to drink/bathe).

There are similarities, yes, but there are also typological differences in how the motifs are used, ordered and prioritized. A few of these literary differences between Bronze Age Hebraic narratives and older A.N.E. mythology outweigh the similarities they appear to have.

So, yes they are different enough.

If you claim you are "an atheist" because you want to sin, then you aren't really an atheist, because you still believe in the religious notion of sin and it applying to you. However you come to reevaluate your religion and faith, whether it because your church thinks you a disgusting sinner, or realizing they lied to you about science to maintain a literalistic creation narrative, or your realized miraculous things could be explained non-miraculously, if you don't end up not believing, then you aren't an atheist.

You've missed the point, and your argument is weak.

The "atheist" who says they won't rejoin the church because they want to "sin" or disagrees with the church about what is "sin" or not, is not an atheist, but a believer with a conflict.

This is fallacious. An "atheist," as so many ex-Christians can attest today, can simply be a person who has released himself from the domain of a Christian Church because he's come to see that Christianity has no efficacy and thereby he changes his view about the world and its required morality; it can also be that some become atheists because they've come to feel that their personal preferences weren't magically allayed by God so it was easier to let go and enter into unbelief. It happens every day. You may not be one of those particular chaps, but let's not say that no atheists out there are.

Of course, taking on evolutionary 'beliefs' about the nature and purpose of sex then becomes more than instrumental.

 

[AV1611VET]

And making that comment ignores the actual true issues that lead to the Columbine shootings. Not a surprise at all really, since I know we've talked about this before and you've still got the gall to pull that card. For shame on you.

If we did, I don't believe we had AI Overview at the time to support me.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If we did, I don't believe we had AI Overview at the time to support me.

It wouldn't have supported you then, it doesn't support you now.

 

[AV1611VET]

It wouldn't have supported you then, it doesn't support you now.

You're supporting me as well.

As I said, some people scratch their heads, wondering why this happened.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You're supporting me as well.

As I said, some people scratch their heads, wondering why this happened.

I'm not scratching my head as to why it happened, since I know exactly why it happened and it's a lot more complicated than your trite and asinine "Oh, they was taught they was apes!" bull.

I shake my head at your dismal refusal to learn anything.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not scratching my head as to why it happened, since I know exactly why it happened and it's a lot more complicated than your trite and asinine "Oh, they was taught they was apes!" bull.

I shake my head at your dismal refusal to learn anything.

You don't get it, do you?

If they believed they were taught they were glorified apes, they were taught wrong.

If they didn't believe they were apes, they were on the right track.

WHY they did it is simple:

They were sinners, following their father (the Devil), who is a murderer throughout all ages.

HOWEVER, all that aside, I would like to place the emphasis on those who scratch their heads.

Why, if they believe in evolution, would they wonder?

Why wouldn't they "understand" that people who come from apes tend to go feral at times?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You don't get it, do you?

I understand that what you wrote is an absolute load of bull because you refuse to learn and acknowledge that you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not scratching my head as to why it happened, since I know exactly why it happened and it's a lot more complicated than your trite and asinine "Oh, they was taught they was apes!" bull.

I understand that what you wrote is an absolute load of bull because you refuse to learn and acknowledge that you don't know what you're talking about.

You don't either.

You might think you do, but ...

From AI Overview:

The reasons why Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold committed the Columbine High School massacre are complex and debated, with no single, definitive answer.

If you "know exactly why it happened," perhaps you should let all those debaters in on it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You don't either.

You might think you do, but ...

From AI Overview:

The reasons why Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold committed the Columbine High School massacre are complex and debated, with no single, definitive answer.

If you "know exactly why it happened," perhaps you should let all those debaters in on it.

And yet, you're the one who's parsing it down to "Oh, they was taught they was apes!", not me.

And it's obvious that I'm only talking to you on this issue and no-one else.

 

[Hans Blaster]

There's a bit more to this historiographical issue than simply what your citing here, Hans.

Do I look like a historiographer? I don't think we need to get too wound up in this.

There are similarities, yes, but there are also typological differences in how the motifs are used, ordered and prioritized. A few of these literary differences between Bronze Age Hebraic narratives and older A.N.E. mythology outweigh the similarities they appear to have.

The texts in question aren't from the Bronze Age, but are rather Iron Age, and realistically, post-Iron Age.

So, yes they are different enough.

Also, I'm not going to do a lumper-v-splitter debate.

You've missed the point, and your argument is weak.

I'm not the one confused about what an atheist is.

This is fallacious. An "atheist," as so many ex-Christians can attest today, can simply be a person who has released himself from the domain of a Christian Church because he's come to see that Christianity has no efficacy and thereby he changes his view about the world and its required morality; it can also be that some become atheists because they've come to feel that their personal preferences weren't magically allayed by God so it was easier to let go and enter into unbelief. It happens every day. You may not be one of those particular chaps, but let's not say that no atheists out there are.

You have confused "ex-Christian" and "atheist". There is overlap, but they are not the same thing, nor is one a sub-set of the other. For example, I was an ex-Christian of the "lapsed Catholic" variety (or maybe not even an ex-Christian yet in my identity) for 3 years before I resolved the indeterminacy of my belief and realized I no longer believed. When did I stop believing? Was it in that 3 years? Probably? Was it before when I still participated? Possibly.

The ranks of the "nones" are filled with those that would consider themselves Christians no longer, but retain large chunks of Christian theology including some sort of god belief. They are not atheists.

Of course, taking on evolutionary 'beliefs' about the nature and purpose of sex then becomes more than instrumental.

I know the thread is about some confused view of evolution, but this matter wasn't. Nor is it about the purpose of sex.

 

[AV1611VET]

And yet, you're the one who's parsing it down to "Oh, they was taught they was apes!", not me.

Excuse me.

The public was taught they were apes as well.

So why was the public standing around scratching their heads?

If I was an atheist, I wouldn't spend a dime to find out what triggered them.

I would "understand" it was coded into their ancestors' DNA.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Excuse me.

The public was taught they were apes as well.

So why was the public standing around scratching their heads?

If I was an atheist, I wouldn't spend a dime to find out what triggered them.

I would "understand" it was coded into their ancestors' DNA.

Then you'd 'understand' nothing because you don't chose to.

Your own AI search in post #149 shows that what happened was because of multiple reasons. And yet you're the one who's going around saying "Oh, they was taught they was apes, so of course they did what they did!". Not anyone else, just you.

You don't understand squat and it shows.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your own AI search in post #149 shows that what happened was because of multiple reasons.

It also says, "No single definitive answer."

And if I was an evolutionist, I'd be shaking my head.

The fact is, those investigators just came in, studied their past ... (you know ... made it look like they were doing something scientific) ... then concluded "there's no single definitive answer."

Then laughed all the way to the bank.

In essence, they exploited your own science against you, just to make money.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It also says, "No single definitive answer."

And if I was an evolutionist, I'd be shaking my head.

The fact is, those investigators just came in, studied their past ... (you know ... made it look like they were doing something scientific) ... then concluded "there's no single definitive answer."

Then laughed all the way to the bank.

In essence, they exploited your own science against you, just to make money.

Or maybe, and here's a wild thought, "No single definitive answer" means that there were multiple things going on that lead to the Columbine shooting.

But of course, you're the one who's singularly focusing on the thought of "Oh, they was taught they was apes, so of course they did what they did!"

 

[AV1611VET]

Or maybe, and here's a wild thought, "No single definitive answer" means that there were multiple things going on that lead to the Columbine shooting.

Yup ... throw them a bunch of reasons and hope one sticks ... right?

But of course, you're the one who's singularly focusing on the thought of "Oh, they was taught they was apes, so of course they did what they did!"

They were taught that, yes.

But what if they didn't believe it?

Now what?

Back to the drawing board ... right?

Again, let me emphasize:

It's not a matter of what they believed they were.

It's the fact that evolutionists are acting like they have no definitive answer, when the "answer" should be painfully obvious.

Schools work hard to impress evolution on their students.

Then when something like Columbine goes down, these hard-working institutions act ignorant.

Oh, wait ...

They are ignorant.

Of the truth.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yup ... throw them a bunch of reasons and hope one sticks ... right?

Yeah, that's an out and out lie right there and you know it.

hey were taught that, yes.

But what if they didn't believe it?

Now what?

Back to the drawing board ... right?

Again, let me emphasize:

It's not a matter of what they believed they were.

It's the fact that evolutionists are acting like they have no definitive answer, when the "answer" should be painfully obvious.

Schools work hard to impress evolution on their students.

Then when something like Columbine goes down, these hard-working institutions act ignorant.

Oh, wait ...

They are ignorant.

Of the truth.

None of that is true in the slightest and the only one showing their ignorance is you. But then again, only someone such as you would be proud of their ignorance.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yeah, that's an out and out lie right there and you know it.

Oh, really?

Well let's see if I'm lying.

That AI Overview article goes on to offer the following "reasons" thrown out to the public:

Bullying and Revenge: A prominent theory suggests that Harris and Klebold felt alienated and bullied by their peers, leading them to seek revenge against those they perceived as having wronged them.

Psychological Issues: Eric Harris was believed to have psychopathic tendencies, while Dylan Klebold was characterized as depressive and suicidal.

Shared Violent Fantasies: The two individuals seemed to have complemented each other in their violent fantasies, with Harris as the "callously brutal mastermind" and Klebold drawn in by his rage.

Planning and Preparation: Evidence suggests that Harris and Klebold meticulously planned the attack for a year, initially intending to bomb the school.

Immersion in Violent Imagery: It's believed that their anger and depression led them to immerse themselves in violent imagery, potentially influencing their actions.

Which of the above do you adhere to, since you said you know why they did it?

 

[AV1611VET]

None of that is true in the slightest and the only one showing their ignorance is you.

Fair enough.

You said you know exactly why it happened.

So educate us.

Don't keep us in suspense.

 

[AV1611VET]

Looks to me, Warden, like the "unified theory of evolution" isn't so unified, is it?