Evolution My ToE

[It Aint Necessarily So]

As the Gospel accounts, it appears clear to me they were basically written by those who said they wrote it.

Luke? Mark? How is that different than saying Bill or Bob wrote them? And what difference does it make who wrote them if it wasn't a deity. Why should anyone take advice from some anonymous Matthew? If I wrote you a Gospel according to It Aint Necessarily So, would you base your life on that?

Actually there are many slaves in various parts of the world today.

The I guess Jesus didn't free mankind, did He?

Hitler and others used eugenics and the theory of evolution as if white is better.

Hitler didn't use the theory of evolution at all. Genocide is not natural selection. It's artificial selection.

How about people like you telling people about the evils of choking out financial solvency and situations because of rampant greed among the upper classes of any society? Coal miners, for instance, risk early death because of lack of decent medical treatment in their areas. And many Indians were burned to death in a factory recently.

Can you and-or evolution stop these injustices?

That's the liberal message. In America, the Republicans are staunchly preventing such things as relative income equality and environmental concerns including safe workplaces. So, no we cannot stop them. Are you an American that votes Republican?

And evolution is only relevant to biological evolution, not cultural evolution, which is only relevant to biological evolution when it changes gene pools. Does inhaling coal dust affect differential reproductive rates and thus gene pools over generations? If not, the mechanism of evolution cannot affect it.

do you believe that if you are called to war by your country, you should possibly kill those that are said to be your enemy?

No, not if the country is America and the war is yet another war of aggression. I am unwilling to spill blood or money, nor that of my descendants, to support the agenda behind any American war since World War II.

I no longer have a meaningful concept of country or patriotism. My eyes are on the local only these days - my community and whatever outside influences affect it for the better or worse. I would fight to defend my community, but not any larger entity such as a country.

As far as caring, why do you think God does not care?

Because the Christian god does not exist (I assume that's the one you mean by "God"). It cannot exist as described, because that description is logically impossible. It contains too many pairs of mutually exclusive qualities attributed to the god, such as it being perfect, but still making mistakes, or being omnisicient, but granting free will. You can't have or be both at once just as their can be no married bachelors if bachelor means unmarried man (yeah, somebody actually argued that a married man with a bachelor's degree was a married bachelor).

I'm thinking when I said "mindless evolution," I certainly wasn't saying gorillas are mindless. Did you think I was?

Yes. That's the problem I identified with you associated with using the word mindless rather than blind, undirected, or dysteleological. You chafed at what I thought was a constructive suggestion, and have been dealing with the problem since, continually having to explain to others what you mean.

As far as the seven-day idea of Creation in Genesis, there's a lot to learn there. I realize that each day was not a literal 24-hour day

I realize that the genesis creation stories were meant to be taken literally. The days of creation have mornings and evenings, and the seventh day was as long as the Sabbath man is commanded to observe in imitation of God resting for one day.

Now that science has demonstrated that the story is incorrect, believers are revising their opinions about what the words mean, varying from fundamentalists who say that the words are to be read and understood literally to the more modern thinkers that accept much or all of the science and have adapted accordingly. But no believer will call the story an error - a wrong guess. They use words like metaphor and allegory to describe a story that is neither. Metaphor or allegory for what? That which really happened? How is that different from error?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

He is not like that. He said He sets the captives free.

But He didn't, did he?

Adaptation is a God given ability.

No god is needed in science. No god adds any value to any scientific theory. Biological organisms and populations adapt without gods. All that is needed is evolution.

God said He is moving to earth forever, that makes it not just the center of this universe (6 days work for God) but ALL universes of all time!!!!!!!!! As for germs, get over it, there will be no more death, or pain or sickness soon! All 'germs' will be 'reprogrammed' for benign purposes, and the germ theory if remembered will be a joke.

Sorry, but religions don't determine astronomical truths. The universe has no center. The center (of mass) of the solar system is somewhere in the sun. The earth orbits it.

Science only deals in the physical, and since the spiritual is not physical science is not a player in any discussion

Neither is the spiritual, assuming that by that you are talking about spirits likes gods, angels, ghosts, or demons.

There is nothing known to exist that isn't physical. Supernatural realms are where faith-based thinkers put their imagined gods that can't be found, but how there be anything in existence that isn't natural (in the sense opposite supernatural, not in the sense opposite artificial)?

No analysis of spirits by science is possible.

Nor of leprechauns or vampires, and all for the same reason

what exactly do you base your imagined critical analysis on...dreams? Voices? Hunches? Rumors? ..?

No. The proper application of sound reason to evidence and true premises to arrive at valid conclusions.

To question God and His word is not possible.

That's closed-mindeness.

William admits there is a Spirit, so right away is beyond the realm of science.

No, he has gone off the rails. As soon as he accepts as guess as truth, nothing that follows from that false assumption can be sound.

Disbelief is not open mindedness. Disbelief results in a choice to be closed minded to truth!

You still don't understand what open-mindedness is. It is not the willingness to believe unsupported ideas. It is the willingness and ability to consider evidence and its attendant argument carefully and dispassionately,.and the willlingness to change one's mind given a compelling reason to do so. No theist has ever made such an argument for any god to me, so my open mind rejects claims that a god or gods exist.

I try not to question the creator when He tells man what is best for him, and what is dangerous behavior.

And that is a closed mind.

Reality is not defined by unbelief in God, spirits and Scripture. Also, to those who pretend man needs nothing more, I suggest they get out more!

I've already explained to you that my life is quite complete and satisfying without gods or religions. You may need them, but I don't.

Unbelief is religion.

No. Unbelief isn't even a single belief, much less a world view, much less a religious worldview.

It's interesting to see religious people trying to call the irreligious religious anyway. It's a tacit admission that that would be a step down. You don't see us trying to call you rational, but might if we considered that a lower place to be than irrational.

No one lives without some sort of belief, even if it is unbelief in the One True God.

Once again, unbelief is not only not a belief, it is the polar opposite. Yes, I have beliefs, and collectively they comprise a a rational, empirical, compassionate worldview called secular humanism. We do fine without religion. I've tried both, and have found the rational worldview more satisfying and more useful for navigating reality than Christianity was. Ask the Branch Davidians, who had a religious worldview that cost them their lives - their religion being a pretty poor map for making decisions.

 

[YoursTrue]

Luke? Mark? How is that different than saying Bill or Bob wrote them? And what difference does it make who wrote them if it wasn't a deity. Why should anyone take advice from some anonymous Matthew? If I wrote you a Gospel according to It Aint Necessarily So, would you base your life on that?

The governments generally have laws enacted about stealing and violence, harming one's neighbor. Depending on, of course, who one considers as a neighbor. So, to sum up, following Bible principle can work to one's advantage, or betterment, or happier life than if a person continues doing such things as stealing and hurting one's neighbor, even his enemy.

The I guess Jesus didn't free mankind, did He?

It depends upon how you view freedom.

Hitler didn't use the theory of evolution at all. Genocide is not natural selection. It's artificial selection.

Hitler and many others loved the idea of a master, superior race. Rather than make this post too long, I'll just stop with the following link about eugenics. https://www.history.com/topics/germany/eugenics Speaking about science and god, when science decides to sterilize certain segments of the population by law because it is not considered those people should reproduce, then yes, it becomes like god.

 

[YoursTrue]

...

....I've already explained to you that my life is quite complete and satisfying without gods or religions. You may need them, but I don't.

I am not sure, I didn't speak to Stephen Hawking who believed that mankind should try to settle on another planet before this one gives out (within 100 years or so), but despite his illness I have a feeling he might have wanted to continue living. Stephen Hawking was famous for studying space—but he cared even more about life on Earth

 

[John53]

I am not sure, I didn't speak to Stephen Hawking who believed that mankind should try to settle on another planet before this one gives out (within 100 years or so), but despite his illness I have a feeling he might have wanted to continue living. Stephen Hawking was famous for studying space—but he cared even more about life on Earth

I'm wondering what that has to do with what you quoted?

 

[YoursTrue]

But He didn't, did he?



No god is needed in science. No god adds any value to any scientific theory. Biological organisms and populations adapt without gods. All that is needed is evolution.



Sorry, but religions don't determine astronomical truths. The universe has no center. The center (of mass) of the solar system is somewhere in the sun. The earth orbits it.



Neither is the spiritual, assuming that by that you are talking about spirits likes gods, angels, ghosts, or demons.

There is nothing known to exist that isn't physical. Supernatural realms are where faith-based thinkers put their imagined gods that can't be found, but how there be anything in existence that isn't natural (in the sense opposite supernatural, not in the sense opposite artificial)?



Nor of leprechauns or vampires, and all for the same reason



No. The proper application of sound reason to evidence and true premises to arrive at valid conclusions.



That's closed-mindeness.



No, he has gone off the rails. As soon as he accepts as guess as truth, nothing that follows from that false assumption can be sound.



You still don't understand what open-mindedness is. It is not the willingness to believe unsupported ideas. It is the willingness and ability to consider evidence and its attendant argument carefully and dispassionately,.and the willlingness to change one's mind given a compelling reason to do so. No theist has ever made such an argument for any god to me, so my open mind rejects claims that a god or gods exist.



And that is a closed mind.



I've already explained to you that my life is quite complete and satisfying without gods or religions. You may need them, but I don't.



No. Unbelief isn't even a single belief, much less a world view, much less a religious worldview.

It's interesting to see religious people trying to call the irreligious religious anyway. It's a tacit admission that that would be a step down. You don't see us trying to call you rational, but might if we considered that a lower place to be than irrational.



Once again, unbelief is not only not a belief, it is the polar opposite. Yes, I have beliefs, and collectively they comprise a a rational, empirical, compassionate worldview called secular humanism. We do fine without religion. I've tried both, and have found the rational worldview more satisfying and more useful for navigating reality than Christianity was. Ask the Branch Davidians, who had a religious worldview that cost them their lives - their religion being a pretty poor map for making decisions.

By the way, much of religion has done a great deal of harm to mankind. So it depends what your beliefs are and how they affect other people. And whether a person likes it or not, we are slaves to a large extent to both life around us and society.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm wondering what that has to do with what you quoted?

quoted about what? But I'll help you out if I can -- if I'm wrong about not tying it in as you think I should, please let me know -- with all of Stephen Hawking's intelligence, do you think he would have rather gone on living instead of dying? Do you think he would have wanted to not have the illness he had to endure?

 

[John53]

quoted about what? But I'll help you out if I can -- if I'm wrong about not tying it in as you think I should, please let me know -- with all of Stephen Hawking's intelligence, do you think he would have rather gone on living instead of dying? Do you think he would have wanted to not have the illness he had to endure?

You quoted Ain't Necessarily So.... this is what he said "....I've already explained to you that my life is quite complete and satisfying without gods or religions. You may need them, but I don't."

Then you did the Hawking reply, I'm lost as to what it has to do with what you quoted.

I have no idea what Hawking wanted, I'm assuming he hated his condition. I don't think I'd want to live like that but I might change my mind if in that situation.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Many likely are. In the bible the word is demons. There is only one God and creator and Savior.

So there are all these gods/demons roaming around, yet at no point in all of human history has anybody managed to demonstrate the existence of a single one of them. Not one. Including you.

Like I keep saying, the time to believe a thing is where there is good evidence for it. I haven't seen any yet, and definitely not from you.

God set up the test in Scripture. The litmus test for spirits. He said if any many does what He said and obeys, and asks, then he will KNOW. There is also a litmus test for good or bad spirits. If any spirit confess that Jesus came in the flesh and is God and savior, they are of God. If not, they are of Satan.

That's great. More claims. Are you sure you read what I wrote?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Luke? Mark? How is that different than saying Bill or Bob wrote them? And what difference does it make who wrote them if it wasn't a deity. Why should anyone take advice from some anonymous Matthew? If I wrote you a Gospel according to It Aint Necessarily So, would you base your life on that?

The governments generally have laws enacted about stealing and violence, harming one's neighbor. Depending on, of course, who one considers as a neighbor. So, to sum up, following Bible principle can work to one's advantage, or betterment, or happier life than if a person continues doing such things as stealing and hurting one's neighbor, even his enemy.

As I've already explained to you, when you fail to answer the questions asked of you, you invite the asker to supply his own answers. I thought that you would like to participate and give your own answers

The answer to, "Why should anyone take advice from some anonymous Matthew?" is that there is no reason to do that.

The answer to, "If I wrote you a Gospel according to It Aint Necessarily So, would you base your life on that?" is no, but would if that anonymous author was named just John, although you probably know as little about his character as you do mine.

Why should any of us trust those people, especially in light of the known bad advice they have offered, such as loving enemies or turning the other cheek - two scriptures that believers rewrite to mean something other than what the words say. For example, you'll hear that turn the other cheek doesn't mean turn the other cheek, a spectacularly bad piece of advice for somebody just smitten in one cheek. The other options are to attempt to negotiate a peace, walk away, strike back, put up one's hands to defend his face from a second blow, offer the same cheek to strike again, and offer the other cheek. Turning the other cheek invites further violence, and fails to make the point that offering the bruised and tender cheek would.

Hitler didn't use the theory of evolution at all. Genocide is not natural selection. It's artificial selection.

Hitler and many others loved the idea of a master, superior race. Rather than make this post too long, I'll just stop with the following link about eugenics. https://www.history.com/topics/germany/eugenics

Irrelevant to the point made. Darwin's theory is a description of how populations of organism evolve

Incidentally, why would I or anybody else open that link? If you think it makes your point that Hitler used Darwin's theory, quote that part of it.

I routinely ignore orphan links - links provided without an attending argument. Make your own argument and support it with links if you choose. I can't debate your author because he isn't here to defend his opinions, but you are. If you share his opinions, express them in your own words. What generally happens is that we discover that the person leaving the link didn't understand it himself, or if one addresses a certain point in the article we are told that that is not the part the link leaver was thinking about.

Speaking about science and god, when science decides to sterilize certain segments of the population by law because it is not considered those people should reproduce, then yes, it becomes like god.

Science doesn't decide to sterilize anybody, nor does it enact human laws.

Also, being godlike is a good thing.

When I pull over on a rural road to save a turtle crossing it, I know that nobody will ever know or care except me. There was nobody there in that corner of the universe to take responsibility for that creature's well-being, so I did. That's as close to a godlike experience as you can get.

It's not the same godlike experience if one believes that a cosmic eye in the sky is always watching, judging, tracking who is naughty or nice, and tallying reward and punishment. Can one actually engage in moral behavior if he is doing it to achieve a reward or avoid a punishment? Small children and pets do that. What's moral about that?

Christians routinely depict being godlike in a negative light, but I consider it a goal to aspire to. Do what gods would do if they existed, were good, and had only the power that you and I have. What's more godlike and admirable than that?

I've already explained to you that my life is quite complete and satisfying without gods or religions. You may need them, but I don't.

I am not sure, I didn't speak to Stephen Hawking who believed that mankind should try to settle on another planet before this one gives out (within 100 years or so), but despite his illness I have a feeling he might have wanted to continue living. Stephen Hawking was famous for studying space—but he cared even more about life on Earth

And yet another unresponsive answer.

So Stephen Hawking would rather be alive than dead. How is that relevant to my comment?

I repeat - religion offers nothing to those whose needs are met without it. It's for those that have some unmet need that religion fills - perhaps a need to feel safer, a need to feel superior to the beasts or created in some special image, a fear of extinction, a need for social acceptance within a religious community, etc.. What does religion have to offer somebody who has met those needs without religion? As I explained, its like offering glasses to somebody with 20/20 vision. Glasses are for people that don't see as well without them. It's great that people who need them can have them, but one should not envy such a person or seek to become near- or far-sighted.

 

[dad]

He did not do away with the dietary laws that Moses prescribed.

No? So all things are not clean to Christians who pray and give thanks? God did not show Peter a bunch of unclean animals and said what He cleans is not unclean?

No. However, while on earth you are bound to follow God's laws or be a hypocrite.

His commandment is to believe and to love.

 

[dad]

"In that day"? Was your God so shortsighted and narrow-minded to only think about "In that day"? Did your omniscient God not see what would happen, in His name, if He did not forcefully reject slavery?

You can choose:
There is no God.
Your God is inept (at best).

He is big enough to cover all history and the future and the past actually. We all do not need to go back to the kindergarten stages of His people, and rules they needed. Not when it comes to bylaws, diet choices and etc.

 

[dad]

Your God abided slavery. Read your scriptures.

He abided a lot of wicked things when He came here also. That does not mean He is like that.

 

[dad]

But He didn't, did he?

Yes, He came down and did exactly that.

No god is needed in science.

That just means that they are incapable of seeing what god is behind it!

No god adds any value to any scientific theory. Biological organisms and populations adapt without gods. All that is needed is evolution.

Not in the closed minds of those who have set physical only rules for all they can accept. Being clueless does not mean they are not influenced, it just means that do not know about it.

Sorry, but religions don't determine astronomical truths

The Creator does! And He says it is very different from the fabricated models of phony science.

. The universe has no center.

Like you'd know? How about the future? You know what it will look like!? Ha.

The center (of mass) of the solar system is somewhere in the sun. The earth orbits it.

Now...yes. So? The solar system is not the universe.

Neither is the spiritual, assuming that by that you are talking about spirits likes gods, angels, ghosts, or demons.

There is nothing known to exist that isn't physical.

False. Most men today and in all history know spirits to exist. Science doesn't know.

Supernatural realms are where faith-based thinkers put their imagined gods that can't be found,

ot by science, but they are found...good and bad...by people!

but how there be anything in existence that isn't natural (in the sense opposite supernatural, not in the sense opposite artificial)?

Your physical only temporary reality is not the only thing in creation.

Nor of leprechauns or vampires, and all for the same reason

That reason being you hide under the bed and pretend nothing can exist but the test tube on the night table??

No, he has gone off the rails. As soon as he accepts as guess as truth, nothing that follows from that false assumption can be sound.

Jesus and the prophets told us of spirits. Science has no ability to confirm or deny. Your wish to define soundness as denying spirits is very unsound.

No. Unbelief isn't even a single belief, much less a world view, much less a religious worldview.

Is that what you believe!?

It's interesting to see religious people trying to call the irreligious religious anyway. It's a tacit admission that that would be a step down. You don't see us trying to call you rational, but might if we considered that a lower place to be than irrational.

No. It is being honest and seeing more than you see in your little box.

Once again, unbelief is not only not a belief, it is the polar opposite. Yes, I have beliefs, and collectively they comprise a a rational, empirical, compassionate worldview called secular humanism.

Ah, so now you say you do have beliefs as well as unbelief!

We do fine without religion. I've tried both, and have found the rational worldview more satisfying and more useful for navigating reality than Christianity was.

How much did you pay for the bridge you bought?

 

[ecco]

No? So all things are not clean to Christians who pray and give thanks? God did not show Peter a bunch of unclean animals and said what He cleans is not unclean?

His commandment is to believe and to love.

As I said:
while on earth you are bound to follow God's laws or be a hypocrite.

 

[ecco]

He is big enough to cover all history and the future and the past actually. We all do not need to go back to the kindergarten stages of His people, and rules they needed. Not when it comes to bylaws, diet choices and etc.

The "kindergarten stages"?

1Ye are the children of the LORD your God:

Moses said: "And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh".

Moses didn't say: "Until further notice, the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh"

Moses didn't say: "Until you get to the fifth grade, the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh"



You can choose to ignore what your God has said at your own peril.

 

[John53]

No? So all things are not clean to Christians who pray and give thanks? God did not show Peter a bunch of unclean animals and said what He cleans is not unclean?

So Peter is more important than Jesus in your religion?

 

[ecco]

Your God abided slavery. Read your scriptures.

He abided a lot of wicked things when He came here also. That does not mean He is like that.

OK! He abided more bad things than just slavery. He also abided and partook in rape. He also committed genocide.

But you say: "That does not mean He is like that."
Of course, it means He is like that! Open your eyes.

 

[YoursTrue]

As I said:
while on earth you are bound to follow God's laws or be a hypocrite.

When God gave the commandments to Moses He did not include every national population in that.

 

[YoursTrue]

OK! He abided more bad things than just slavery. He also abided and partook in rape. He also committed genocide.

But you say: "That does not mean He is like that."
Of course, it means He is like that! Open your eyes.

So how do you figure rape and other atrocities? Are they just part of the life evolution brought about? Lions don't have trials for breaking laws, do they? So is rape and crime just part of life evolutionary style? Is rape wrong?