A stupidity of Darwinism: "There was never a time when there were only two humans!"

[Lon]

I think we're forgetting something important here, and I have yet to confirm this, but as far as I'm aware...

Just because one creature's genetic material of another creature from a different species does not mean that doing so will produce results that benefit said creature in any meaningful way, if at all.

I'd even go so far as to say, and againetic system can read the gen, I'm no expert on this subject, that transplanting DNA from one species to another in a random manner would most likely be harmful, and neutral at best, to the transferee, EXCEPT in circumstances where there is an intelligence involved in the process (in that said intelligence is in control of the process and knows how and where to put the genetic material so as to not damage it or the creature.

In other words, just because the biology of the creature can read genetic code from an entirely different creature doesn't mean it should.

It's this very fact which, at the very least, calls into question the viability of the theory of "common descent from a single creature or species)."

He seemed to confirm the bold above, yet disagrees with your last statement. :think:

 

[7djengo7]

Not even black and white.

That's not even a sentence, what you just wrote. What (if anything) are you trying to mean?

Black or white.

That's not even a sentence, what you just wrote. What (if anything) are you trying to mean?

 

[7djengo7]

Not even black and white.

People who, like me, think logically, and do not war against the law of the excluded middle understand that all things that are black and white, on the one hand, and all things that are not black and white, on the other hand, are together exhaustive of all things. All there is: black and white things / non- black and white things.

Inasmuch as you've persistently demonstrated your commitment to thinking irrationally, and to your war against logic, I'd not be surprised to hear you react to this by saying something like, "No! Some things are neither black and white things nor non- black and white things."

Black or white.

Together, all things that are black, and all things that are not black, are exhaustive of all things.

Together, all things that are white, and all things that are not white, are exhaustive of all things.

Just the same, all humans, together with all non-humans, are exhaustive of all things. Whatever is a human is not a non-human, and whatever is a non-human is not a human.

 

[Stuu]

"Why?" It is the compulsion question, otherwise going through the motions.

Stuu: So ‘why’ isn’t a question, it’s a response.

No, it is the foundation question, no matter when it is asked in a conversation. A rejoinder doesn't make it merely a response, but a return to foundations. It is why kids ask it most.

You really are convinced that ‘Why?’ is a question, never mind the one or more missing clauses that might give it meaning, although little meaning in my opinion. Don’t kids mainly repeat ‘why?’ to be annoying?

Absolutely. Is that you being incredulous? "Why?" It isn't for academic reasons.

I was just observing that in regards to this god, the incomprehensible was the justification for the unmistakable.

Let's ignore that stand of trees and stand back to the forest perspective:

That’s all you ever do. Do warn me if you are likely to be going into any proper detail on anything, as the shock may not be good for me.

It is simply that science is good, but not THAT good. Some of us are more careful about presenting the ideas,thoughts,finding of men, dictate all in life. You'd call that sad perhaps. I call it discernment.

I call it poor grammar.

<Once again I’ve deleted your ignorant homophobic claims in an attempt to discourage you: instead I would hope to encourage you to read and educate yourself>

Such needs substantiation or it is what it claims the other is, just a empty sandwich of sentiment.

Or indeed a disappointing pastry of doubt. I have been unable to find the quote I am thinking of, and so will have to withdraw and apologise for falsely remembering it. Of course if I do find it I will unapologise.

In my brief internet trawl for that imagined quotation I came across commentary I hadn’t seen before on Lewis, and especially on The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. I must have been about 11 years old when I read it, and I thought it was convoluted and unpleasant, and that here was an author who clearly could not write for children. Subsequently I discovered the idea that the one quality a children’s author needs above all is a willingness to be honest with his young readers. Lewis is trying to deceive his readers. That’s unpardonable. Perhaps those who were young fans were primed by their god genes.

So then it was both surprising and unsurprising (there’s one for 7djengo7) for me to discover just now that while Lewis is recognised widely as a skilled literary critic, there are quite a few like me who disliked The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, for similar reasons. My impression in later years of Lewis is of the christian apologist (why do you never hear any of them apologise?!) who has a dismal view of humanity, a superficial cleverness to his writing and gives a lack of reward in its reading. I have The Screwtape Letters too, an optimistic gift from a very optimistic friend. Ironic really given how cleverly unpleasant the portrayal of humanity is between its covers.

Intelligent perhaps, or possibly not much more than any academic. He did a classy line in miserable platitude.

Are all Christians irrational to you?

Yes, or else they are unaware of the obvious cognitive dissonance that should result from their irreconcilable beliefs. I don’t know how they aren’t all exhausted stopping the rational parts of their brains communicating with the god centres of their brains. The whole universe, in all its incomprehensible complexity, is run by an intelligent being that either can or can’t be seen (depending on which scriptures you read), leaves no unambiguous evidence of its existence whatsoever, and that is particularly obsessed with humans of the same sex sleeping together. Does that reflect a rational worldview if you think about it dispassionately?

Yeah, we are rioting, taking over countries, and burning people at the stake.

You don’t burn them at the stake, you fry them in the chair. That’s about the only American modernisation. The rioting and taking over countries continues unabated.

Christians out give their nonChristian counterparts about 80 to one. Over half of our hospitals are started by Christians.

Quite right, there is much poor behaviour to atone for. Do you think christians are yet close to covering the last of the debt owed to the rest of humanity? The problem is, the debt is still being drawn, in the form of opposition to human rights and attempts to lie to children about natural history.

You are going to say the RC put people to death. True enough, but it is an instance GREATLY overshadowed, thus it is the one and only evil you can think of, and worse, didn't, somebody told you and you are following the crowd uncritically. Stop it and think for yourself, either that or continue to make up excuses for your dissonance.

You will find other threads on TOL where I have gone into great detail on the Roman Catholic Church. They are everyone’s favourite evil empire.

Yes, I'm against using babies for this. Better we died than to cannibalize.

You are like the Roman Catholic Church in this regard then. You know all about the quantity of life and nothing about its quality.

Stop kidding yourself. "Ban' is absolutely the tone you used. Not ban as in 'burn' but absolutely ban from any effect on anybody's life. You are playing a LOT of mental gymnastics in this post Stuart. It looks and respresents as all kinds of desperation for anything random as an excuse. When is the last time you saw a Christian do evil, Stuart?

I have recently seen on TV christians jeering and chanting at women outside an abortion clinic. That is evil. I know there are ongoing challenges to science curricula in the United States, all of it an attempt by christians to lie to children about natural history, and to hold up to international ridicule the chance they have at education. That is evil. In my country we recently ratified by referendum legislation allowing euthanasia in cases of terminal illness causing unbearable pain where the prognosis is death within 6 months. Most of the opposition to that proposition was from christians, who would happily allow people to continue in unbearable pain for the sake of their own prejudices. It’s not like it’s compulsory. That is evil too.

You are equating 'wealth' and lack thereof with some kind of superiority.

I just posted a graph. Should I be surprised that an American would boast about it?!

Stuart

 

[Stripe]

We ALL have the SAME evidence.

That doesn't change what I said. :idunno:

 

[Stripe]

It's not OK to be gay.

 

[Clete]

People who, like me, think logically, and do not war against the law of the excluded middle understand that all things that are black and white, on the one hand, and all things that are not black and white, on the other hand, are together exhaustive of all things. All there is: black and white things / non- black and white things.

Inasmuch as you've persistently demonstrated your commitment to thinking irrationally, and to your war against logic, I'd not be surprised to hear you react to this by saying something like, "No! Some things are neither black and white things nor non- black and white things."



Together, all things that are black, and all things that are not black, are exhaustive of all things.

Together, all things that are white, and all things that are not white, are exhaustive of all things.

Just the same, all humans, together with all non-humans, are exhaustive of all things. Whatever is a human is not a non-human, and whatever is a non-human is not a human.

It is astounding that it was necessary for you to write this post!

The idea that he is not able to see this utterly simple truth demonstrates not only the level of his ignorance but his level of depravity. Even with the deplorable state of the public school system, anyone who is older than twelve years of age that is this ignorant is so on purpose. He isn't blind, he has his eyes tightly shut beneath a blind fold that he's tied over his own face.

Clete

 

[Right Divider]

That doesn't change what I said. :idunno:

I was not arguing with you. Someone here seems to think that evidence can only be understood using their paradigm.

 

[Stripe]

I was not arguing with you. Someone here seems to think that evidence can only be understood using their paradigm.

To be fair, I asked him for evidence from within his paradigm.

 

[Lon]

<Once again I’ve deleted your ignorant homophobic claims in an attempt to discourage you: instead I would hope to encourage you to read and educate yourself>

ANYTHING less than favorable, excusing, condoning, and permissive for you then lain: I'll just chalk it up to ignorant and willingly, then.

In my brief internet trawl for that imagined quotation I came across commentary I hadn’t seen before on Lewis, and especially on The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. I must have been about 11 years old when I read it, and I thought it was convoluted and unpleasant, and that here was an author who clearly could not write for children. Subsequently I discovered the idea that the one quality a children’s author needs above all is a willingness to be honest with his young readers. Lewis is trying to deceive his readers. That’s unpardonable. Perhaps those who were young fans were primed by their god genes.

Must be a wheat/tares thing, I enjoyed the story simply because it was sacrificial love over-riding anything else. Perhaps you prefer His Dark Materials conversely.

So then it was both surprising and unsurprising (there’s one for 7djengo7) for me to discover just now that while Lewis is recognised widely as a skilled literary critic, there are quite a few like me who disliked The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, for similar reasons. My impression in later years of Lewis is of the christian apologist (why do you never hear any of them apologise?!) who has a dismal view of humanity, a superficial cleverness to his writing and gives a lack of reward in its reading. I have The Screwtape Letters too, an optimistic gift from a very optimistic friend. Ironic really given how cleverly unpleasant the portrayal of humanity is between its covers.

It is the need, to be less self-indulgent and negligent in self-direction. I know when I've hurt somebody and for me 'forgiveness' is permission to do better and trying to do better as well as being seized by something bigger and more important (why questions) than my shortsightedness. Without God, I'd be in prison or worse. There is a 'reason' (why question) that this is unacceptable to me. I'd have been the product of the 'survival of the fittests without inklings I was created for something incredibly higher and better. It is a wheat/tares story.

Intelligent perhaps, or possibly not much more than any academic. He did a classy line in miserable platitude.

You missed the redemption part where pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps didn't work.

Yes, or else they are unaware of the obvious cognitive dissonance that should result from their irreconcilable beliefs. I don’t know how they aren’t all exhausted stopping the rational parts of their brains communicating with the god centres of their brains. The whole universe, in all its incomprehensible complexity, is run by an intelligent being that either can or can’t be seen (depending on which scriptures you read), leaves no unambiguous evidence of its existence whatsoever, and that is particularly obsessed with humans of the same sex sleeping together. Does that reflect a rational worldview if you think about it dispassionately?

Because it doesn't happen Stuart. You are projecting and thinking YOUR brain is the standard and center of the world. That is YOUR mistake. It is a wheat/tares thing, Stuart. I'm not a tare. That's the clear answer.

You don’t burn them at the stake, you fry them in the chair. That’s about the only American modernisation. The rioting and taking over countries continues unabated.

You think Christians are the ones rioting???? :think:
I'm not for the death penalty, but you think it wrong that Ted Bundy was put to death? Police, judgement are a part of the necessary evil of this world. I'm not sure this is a wheat/tares part of the discussion, just a societal/political address. People are all over the map on this particular so I'm convinced it has nothing to do with Christianity, but countries at large, wheat and tares together.

Quite right, there is much poor behaviour to atone for. Do you think christians are yet close to covering the last of the debt owed to the rest of humanity? The problem is, the debt is still being drawn, in the form of opposition to human rights and attempts to lie to children about natural history.

I've been told that as the child of a recent immigrant, I'm liable to the debt owed to slaves, simply for being American rather than French (among other blood-ties). I'd contest that accusatory and this one as well.

You will find other threads on TOL where I have gone into great detail on the Roman Catholic Church. They are everyone’s favourite evil empire.

I'm not really caught up in that conversation but I notice it is what Brits mean most of the time when they are talking about Christianity.

You are like the Roman Catholic Church in this regard then. You know all about the quantity of life and nothing about its quality.

:doh: Exact opposite, Stuart! Quality is 'how' we live. Quantity is not a 'why' question, but a 'how much longer can I stretch this out, and for how long' without ever addressing what is lost nor 'why' longevity (quantity) is more important than integrity. It doesn't matter whom I'm like, it matters if I'm right, not the comparison. "Eating" a fetus, even if injected, IS cannibalism. Sorry, that is a burden cannibals will have to live with. There are all kind of horror stories/movies that deal with this and the cannibal is always the horror. It is the stuff of nightmares and humanity is doing it. So, Stuart, it isn't evil if you are okay with it, right? I hate situational ethics where we excuse a harm done to others, because it benefits us directly. It is very utilitarian and irresponsible.

I have recently seen on TV christians jeering and chanting at women outside an abortion clinic. That is evil. I know there are ongoing challenges to science curricula in the United States, all of it an attempt by christians to lie to children about natural history, and to hold up to international ridicule the chance they have at education. That is evil. In my country we recently ratified by referendum legislation allowing euthanasia in cases of terminal illness causing unbearable pain where the prognosis is death within 6 months. Most of the opposition to that proposition was from christians, who would happily allow people to continue in unbearable pain for the sake of their own prejudices. It’s not like it’s compulsory. That is evil too.

I'm not sure. There are ways of showing you are against something and you SHOULDN'T single out the ones that aren't as apt in conversation. They are impassioned. The evil isn't a harmful word, we all have to deal with social ills, these aren't the same as 'evil.' I don't believe in 'situational' evil. Evil is a specific harm to another for personal self-centered gain. Your definition of evil is used too broadly for me here.

I just posted a graph. Should I be surprised that an American would boast about it?!

Stuart

No you didn't 'just post a graph.' By the comparison, you think $$$ is a mark of some kind of superiority. Sometimes its about intelligence, rather than money. Something to make us/them some feigned object of preference. This is about wheat/tares issues. Their is a difference in what each desires. Tares take up more wealth and nutrients. I'm trying to say, some of your comparisons I agree with, they are true, but you are thinking it makes yours preferable. Wealth isn't a great source of happiness, it is just a tool, whether someone has that tool or not.

 

[Stuu]

<Have deleted the bit where you suggest that gay people need permission>

I enjoyed the story simply because it was sacrificial love over-riding anything else. Perhaps you prefer His Dark Materials conversely. It is the need, to be less self-indulgent and negligent in self-direction. I know when I've hurt somebody and for me 'forgiveness' is permission to do better and trying to do better as well as being seized by something bigger and more important (why questions) than my shortsightedness. Without God, I'd be in prison or worse. There is a 'reason' (why question) that this is unacceptable to me. I'd have been the product of the 'survival of the fittests without inklings I was created for something incredibly higher and better.

I’m not in prison, and I’m without any gods. You seem to have bought into the mythology and the misery.

You missed the redemption part where pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps didn't work.

Redemption from what? Christianity has it that you are born needing to be pulled up by the bootstraps, and if you don’t make the effort then you will be destroyed and/or punished in burning sulfur. Like any good peddler of snake oil it will convince you are sick in order to sell you the cure, but uniquely it adds the urgency of the threat of severe punishment to the proposed transaction.

And you would call that ethical.

Because it doesn't happen Stuart. You are projecting and thinking YOUR brain is the standard and center of the world. That is YOUR mistake. It is a wheat/tares thing, Stuart. I'm not a tare. That's the clear answer.

It doesn’t even address what I wrote.

Stuu: You don’t burn them at the stake, you fry them in the chair. That’s about the only American modernisation. The rioting and taking over countries continues unabated.

You think Christians are the ones rioting????

But it is the christians doing the frying and the invading? It’s not atheists rioting particularly. Self-declared non-believers in gods make up something like 10% of the US population, but they are only 0.23% of the imprisoned population. That means either that atheists are drastically more law abiding or they are astonishingly more skilled at getting away with crime.

I'm not for the death penalty, but you think it wrong that Ted Bundy was put to death?

Yes obviously it was wrong.

I've been told that as the child of a recent immigrant, I'm liable to the debt owed to slaves, simply for being American rather than French (among other blood-ties). I'd contest that accusatory and this one as well.

You should start wearing a beret and whistling the Marseillaise while you are out carrying your grocery shopping home with a big French stick sticking out of the bag.

Or perhaps we should just agree on a prison term for you that would pay both debts.

Exact opposite, Stuart! Quality is 'how' we live. Quantity is not a 'why' question, but a 'how much longer can I stretch this out, and for how long' without ever addressing what is lost nor 'why' longevity (quantity) is more important than integrity. It doesn't matter whom I'm like, it matters if I'm right, not the comparison. "Eating" a fetus, even if injected, IS cannibalism. Sorry, that is a burden cannibals will have to live with. There are all kind of horror stories/movies that deal with this and the cannibal is always the horror. It is the stuff of nightmares and humanity is doing it. So, Stuart, it isn't evil if you are okay with it, right? I hate situational ethics where we excuse a harm done to others, because it benefits us directly. It is very utilitarian and irresponsible.

You would insist others allow you to live your unhealthy religious fundamentalist lifestyle without interference. You don’t seem to be willing to extend the courtesy to others. Especially you don’t appear willing to respect a woman’s right to autonomy over what happens to her body. If you think it is a principle to oppose a woman’s right to medical consent, then if I ever need a liver transplant I’ll come round to your house and take some of yours.

No you didn't 'just post a graph.' By the comparison, you think $$$ is a mark of some kind of superiority. Sometimes its about intelligence, rather than money. Something to make us/them some feigned object of preference. This is about wheat/tares issues. Their is a difference in what each desires. Tares take up more wealth and nutrients. I'm trying to say, some of your comparisons I agree with, they are true, but you are thinking it makes yours preferable. Wealth isn't a great source of happiness, it is just a tool, whether someone has that tool or not.

I don’t think $$$ is a mark of superiority. The point of the graph is not really about GDP, it’s really a marker of development, of education levels, of living a relatively comfortable life. The trend is, the more developed a country is, the less its population professes religion. The United States is exceptionally religious when controlling for other possible factors. How did it get to be that way? I’ve given you what I think is one of the significant factors.

Stuart

 

[7djengo7]

I’m without any gods.

What is a god?

If you want to speak meaningfully in saying these things that you've said, you're under a burden to mean something by the words, "god" and "gods". Do you mean anything by either? If so, what?

To what (if anything) are you referring by your word, "god"?
To what (if anything) are you referring by your word, "gods"?

How would you respond were someone to say to you, "I don't believe in thrywulks, nor clundelbids. Could you please tell me what is a thrywulk, and what is a clundelbid? Could you please tell me what it is I'm saying I don't believe in? Could you please tell me what I mean by 'thrywulk' and 'clundelbid'?"

I know how much it means to arrogant posers like yourself to go about saying things like, "I'm an atheist, and atheists are people who don't believe in a god or gods." But, so long as you continue to use words like "god" and "gods" meaninglessly, you will necessarily, and derivatively, be using the word "atheist" meaninglessly. So, a fun thing is that, since I do not assume you are using the words "god", "gods", and "atheist", meaningfully, I'm certainly not about to say to you, in return, some nonsensical thing like, "Oh, so you're an atheist. Why are you an atheist? I don't have enough faith to be an atheist."

 

[Stuu]

Why are you an atheist?

Thank you for asking. I don't like the term because it defines me in terms of the delusions of other people.

But, nevertheless, I was born atheist as we all are, and I've never seen a good reason to change that.

Stuart

 

[Right Divider]

Thank you for asking. I don't like the term because it defines me in terms of the delusions of other people.

But, nevertheless, I was born atheist as we all are, and I've never seen a good reason to change that.

Stuart

You just LOVE fallacy.

 

[ok doser]

... I was born atheist as we all are ...

No, you were born knowing God intimately as we all are

At some point you made the conscious decision to reject Him

 

[7djengo7]

since I do not assume you are using the words "god", "gods", and "atheist", meaningfully, I'm certainly not about to say to you, in return, some nonsensical thing like, "Oh, so you're an atheist. Why are you an atheist? I don't have enough faith to be an atheist."

Thank you for asking.

For asking what?

"Why are you an atheist?" is a nonsense phrase, and thus, it is no question. So, in quoting the nonsense phrase, "Why are you an atheist?", I'm certainly not asking you a question.

When you say, "I was born atheist", you are uttering nonsense; you are not affirming truth, and you're not affirming falsehood.

I agree

Thank you for agreeing.

So, then, why do you go about uttering nonsense, as you are doing when you say, "I was born atheist"?

 

[Stuu]

No, you were born knowing God intimately as we all are

At some point you made the conscious decision to reject Him

I think that glosses over obvious problems regarding the nature of child development.

You almost certainly were incapable at the age of two years of forming the concept of a god that you have today, and I would suggest it would be more like 13 years before your brain was able to really do abstract thinking of the kind required for the complexity of the usual god idea. Children are capable of keeping imaginary friends, but if I have it right, they are still a concrete concept. Did you believe in a concrete god?

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

"Why are you an atheist?" is a nonsense phrase

I agree that, as a 'why' question, it's not really worth asking. You should tell Lon.

Stuart

 

[7djengo7]

I agree that, as a 'why' question, it's not really worth asking.

"Why are you an atheist?" is not a question, of any sort. It's a nonsense phrase--just as is the phrase, "I am an atheist!"--since, as you've demonstrated, "atheist" is a nonsense word.

 

[Idolater]

Did you believe in a concrete god?

He wasn't made concrete, but flesh.