Bollocks. You made a claim on this site if you cannot sufuckingport it, then that claim is gone. End of story.
How do you know what is evil when evil is none existent?
- Thread starter Mind Over Matter
- Start date
U see the many links below my post, the kind of links u dont have? They are sources and they are external links to support my claim. If u cannot produce similiar links that dispute my claims, your very right to reject my claim is gone.
Produce ur sources that dispute my sources, realise the stupidity of ur statement that a statement on this site must be substainted on this very site only and tell me what u want to discuss.
And start making some points of ur own rather than just disputing mine.
Hilarious.
What is that supposed to mean? Atleast explain.
Thats it. Against my dozen or so sources, u have non and u continue to argue off topic. U are a troll.
Why do you want to have a word called "evil" and utilize it?
Big Chiller
Registered Senior Member
I think evil can be defined as engaging in immoral acts for pleasure and ego.
Big Chiller
Registered Senior Member
Morality is subjective but when push comes to shove I think morality can be defined then.
Ughaibu, you're trolling here, he's supported his statement quite well.
I've reported it; I suggest you go get some external links to support your de-facto counterclaim that there are no genetic influences on behavior.
Last edited:
I didn't make that claim. So, as you've misrepresented me, I will report your post in return.
You disregarded (much) presented evidence, therefore you must have a corresponding counterclaim of your own that shows behavior isn't genetically influenced.
It's a logical deduction, sir.
So I note you've made a de-facto counterclaim by your continued (and obnoxious) refusal to account for aaqucnaona's linked evidence. Or to post any countering evidence of your own refuting his evidence.
So, the de-facto counterclaim you are, in essence, making, is that there isn't genetic influence on behavior...particularly in this case, altruism. The evidence that altruism is genetically based is fairly robust.
If you can't come up with evidence to counter aaqucnaona's evidence...then I would suppose you are simply refusing to accept his argument out of personal reasons...or inability to comprehend the linked material.
Last edited:
Thank u. When someone refuses to accept 13 sources from wikipedia, nature and other websites; I couldnt help wonder if that person was a troll or had the Iq of a cucumber. Occam told me it was likely to be the former.
Rubbish. I have asked what "altruistic genes" are. If you think that such things exist, then tell me directly what they're called. Dont link to hundreds of pages of waffle. Further, if you think that altruism is "determined" by genes, link to a study which establishes this as a fact, and quote the relevant section from your link.
What, too lazy to follow links?
Yeesh, I suppose someone must spoonfeed you then...
http://www.israel21c.org/people/israeli-researchers-discover-gene-for-altruism
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101108072309.htm
So, apparently for those carrying the COMT-Val mutation, altruism is enhanced:
Further supporting evidence from 2002 regarding brain imaging in real time:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-07/euhs-ebi071602.php
Last edited:
Thank you.
So genetic determinism of behaviour works by controlling enzymes and hormones?
Ps. how did you find those links. I search for altruism and a second time for genetic determinism of behaviours [google]. How did u find those awesome links?
And how did u quote them?
Last edited:
Congrats. I retract my statement for u being a troll. U were just being stubborn and lazy; and that fine with me. Peace.
One problem that occurs in discussions of evolution/creation is most people don't take into consideration differences in historical time and the difference of perception based on that time. Sometimes both are saying the same thing, but in a way that is more appropriate to the time. The words get in the way leading to misunderstanding.
Let me give an example. In the Christmas song "deck the halls", there is a line "dorn we now our gay apparrel.... The word gay meant something different when the song was written compare to now. It meant festive or party clothes. I did not mean dressing in drag or was not connected to the gay sense of desginer fashion and style. If you never knew the orginal meaning in the song, but only the modern definition, you would see history out of the contest of the original meaning.
Modern science has its own version of cataloging life. This system did not exist since the beginning of civilization. To assume this catalog was the old cataliog will always lead to misunderstanding. This misunderstanding of historical context leads to the athesit conclusion the ancients had to be wrong since they didn't follow the modern rules that would not exist for another 5000 years. That shows a lack fo historical perspective.
In ancient times, they would catalog animals more like the modern layman. I am not expert with deer, and I am sure there are hundreds of variations all over the world based on modern cataloging. I would call them all deer. This would bother the experts who prefer a different filing system.
Humans are tall and short, fat and skinny, black, brown, yellow, red, white. These are not separate species of humans. We cal them all humans. Why don't we lump the subtle difference in human races, as separate species which each evolved? The ancients would see these human difference and lump then all as human. They would be consistent with theanimals, with all deer in catalog, lumped as deer. Noah only needed two deer by the old catalog and not thousands based on modern cataloging.
Once you lump modern species in the ancient way, the number of separate species is far ess. The more you shrink down the cataloging, the less obvious evolution will become. Going from red deer to white tail would still be deer to the ancients, like having a blond or red head son.
Let me give an example. In the Christmas song "deck the halls", there is a line "dorn we now our gay apparrel.... The word gay meant something different when the song was written compare to now. It meant festive or party clothes. I did not mean dressing in drag or was not connected to the gay sense of desginer fashion and style. If you never knew the orginal meaning in the song, but only the modern definition, you would see history out of the contest of the original meaning.
Modern science has its own version of cataloging life. This system did not exist since the beginning of civilization. To assume this catalog was the old cataliog will always lead to misunderstanding. This misunderstanding of historical context leads to the athesit conclusion the ancients had to be wrong since they didn't follow the modern rules that would not exist for another 5000 years. That shows a lack fo historical perspective.
In ancient times, they would catalog animals more like the modern layman. I am not expert with deer, and I am sure there are hundreds of variations all over the world based on modern cataloging. I would call them all deer. This would bother the experts who prefer a different filing system.
Humans are tall and short, fat and skinny, black, brown, yellow, red, white. These are not separate species of humans. We cal them all humans. Why don't we lump the subtle difference in human races, as separate species which each evolved? The ancients would see these human difference and lump then all as human. They would be consistent with theanimals, with all deer in catalog, lumped as deer. Noah only needed two deer by the old catalog and not thousands based on modern cataloging.
Once you lump modern species in the ancient way, the number of separate species is far ess. The more you shrink down the cataloging, the less obvious evolution will become. Going from red deer to white tail would still be deer to the ancients, like having a blond or red head son.
Bells
Staff member
And it is up to you as the reader to click on the link and read what has been provided. I am sure you are at least capable of that instead of trolling for a few pages and accusing others of not supporting their side when they in fact have but you are either too lazy to click on the link.
Continue to troll and post in this manner and you will face moderation. Do you need me to spell that out more for you?