Life

[David F.]

David, let's say that somehow, you know that a person is going to kill ten innocent people tonight. You also know that, unfortunately, the only way to prevent him from doing so is to murder him. Is murder "obviously" in the first category now?

I don't think it is ever right to punish someone before they do evil, only after. I don't think there is anything wrong with self-defense or the defense of others, but that would be during the event, not before. I can't conceive of your situation, and besides, I don't subscribe to the doctrine of situation ethics.

 

[SnakeLord]

oh, oh...HAHAHA I can't help it... you just make me laugh!

Please tell me another whopper

Well go on then, enough with the mouth.. Astound the world, present your findings for the entire planet to see. After all, you have "proven it wrong".

What are you waiting for?

 

[David F.]

I'm waiting for you to read the dozens of posts I have made on this subject and for you to accord me the same curtesy you demand from me - to actually read the references and links I provide. For a start, how about the post this morning concerning Long and Short Jumps.

Never mind, I will not continue to strain your intellect. I can't prove anything to someone who stops their ears and yells lalalalalalalala when I show truth.

 

[SnakeLord]

I'm waiting for you to read the dozens of posts I have made on this subject and for you to accord me the same curtesy you demand from me - to actually read the references and links I provide. For a start, how about the post this morning concerning Long and Short Jumps.

Never mind, I will not continue to strain your intellect. I can't prove anything to someone who stops their ears and yells lalalalalalalala when I show truth.

Well yes, I am a busy man. It is quite a decision for me to make, and in honesty my work must come first. However, if I was in the same position as you, whereby I could disprove an entire section of science to the entire world, work would have to take a back seat.

However, all that aside.. I have read and responded to every post you have made regarding the subject, until such point where I had to let you know of your misunderstandings concerning what 'evolution' actually means. There is no point whatsoever me debating you over a topic that you 'think' is evolution, but actually isn't. Once you learn what it means, we can progress.

Never mind, I will not continue to strain your intellect. I can't prove anything to someone who stops their ears and yells lalalalalalalala when I show truth.

Why so personal? This does not concern me, but every human on the planet. Surely the way you see me would be inconsequential to that?

Here you are shouting 'truth' and making wild and purely fallacious statements that you have disproved something.

A) You don't even understand the meaning of that something, and

B) If you did, and you had honestly disproven it - then talking to me is a waste of time. Try CNN instead.

Let me guess though.. at the end of the day it all comes down to that mouth of yours once more?

Honestly David, what are you waiting for? Astound the world.

 

[David F.]

Well yes, I am a busy man. It is quite a decision for me to make, and in honesty my work must come first. However, if I was in the same position as you, whereby I could disprove an entire section of science to the entire world, work would have to take a back seat.

However, all that aside.. I have read and responded to every post you have made regarding the subject, until such point where I had to let you know of your misunderstandings concerning what 'evolution' actually means. There is no point whatsoever me debating you over a topic that you 'think' is evolution, but actually isn't. Once you learn what it means, we can progress.

Why so personal? This does not concern me, but every human on the planet. Surely the way you see me would be inconsequential to that?

Here you are shouting 'truth' and making wild and purely fallacious statements that you have disproved something.

A) You don't even understand the meaning of that something, and

B) If you did, and you had honestly disproven it - then talking to me is a waste of time. Try CNN instead.

Let me guess though.. at the end of the day it all comes down to that mouth of yours once more?

Honestly David, what are you waiting for? Astound the world.

OK, I will once again try to teach you something. I understand your lack of understanding even the basics of the science - coming as you do from a non-scientific background. First, as you say, we must define the meaning of the word Evolution, so I will copy from a previous post:

Evolution is a flexible word. It can be used by one person to mean the descent of all life forms from a common ancestor, leaving the mechanism of change unspecified. In its full-throated, biological sense, however, evolution means a process whereby life arose from non-living matter and subsequently developed entirely by natural means. That is the sense that Darwin gave to the word, and the meaning that it holds in the scientific community.
-Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biochemistry, Lehigh University, Darwin's Black Box, p.x. ISBN 0-684-83493-6​

or how about this one:

In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions.
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986 ref​

I use the word in its scientific/biological sense. Can we agree that this is the definition of the word, Evolution?

Im trying to go slow here so you can understand... Once we agree we are discussing Biological Evolution, we can next split Evolution into two basic pieces - Microevolution and Macroevolution. For a good definition, please see my previous post on this thread concerning Big Jumps and Little Jumps.

Am I allowed to rant a little? I feel like I am talking to a child here. I know you have great faith in this topic without any true proof (which makes this your religion) but you aren't listening and you never have any logical comments to make. Your only answers are "Why" and "Because" which is what I would expect from a three-year old. OTOH, you could just be trying to heckle, which you often do, and disrupt simply to cause chaos. Ah, I see, you are making a joke. [end of rant]

Anyway, go find a dictionary and an elementary biology book. When you have the faintest idea of the subject, I will be happy to continue this discussion.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

M*W: Again, the gospel of matthew was commissioned or even written by Paul. Paul is historically known to be a liar. Therefore, nothing in the NT can be believed. The Ten Commandments came out of Egyptian, written by Moses the exiled Pharaol, not God! Those were Moses' words and he wrote them as if he were Aten, the Sun God. The sources you've used are incorrect.
*************
David F.: C2o is right. We all break the law and the penalty for sin is death. We are still guilty but we don't have to pay the price since Jesus paid it for us. That doesn't mean we are freed from the necessity of obeying the 10 commandments. It only means breaking God's law is no longer a captial crime.
*************
M*W: Until you can prove to us with clear and compelling evidence that all have sinned and all are expected to die, but Jesus saved them. Where are they now? Has any departed one contacted you that they were alive in heaven? I assure you, dead is dead.
*************
David F.: Nice story but God first spoke the 10 commandments to all the people from the top of the mount and then called Moses to the top of the mount to get the tablets (so Moses couldn't cheat and change the rules). God did not tell Moses how to build the ark (measurements & materials) until after the 10 commandments had already been delivered etched into the stone tablets (God actually did this twice).
*************
M*W: The Ten Commandments were written by Moses and interpreted by Moses to the Habiru. The ark was nothing more than a gold box that contained an ancient battery.
*************
David F.: I kind of think discussing religion is what a Religion Forum is for. It is not for attacking religion - that's what they do on all the other forums.
*************
M*W: This is a religion forum, but it is not a christian forum. The majority of members on this forum are atheists and free-thinkers who don't believe in christianity. There are many christian forums as Gravity has shown, and I believe you, c20, Adstar, Jenyar, and Lori_7, etc., would be better served and happier on a forum that was complementary to your faith. The non-christians on this forum are looking for evidence through biblical research and archeology. Unless you can provide truthful evidence by unbiased resources, you are just spinning your wheels here. Birds of a feather should flock together.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

David F.: MW. I am putting this reply in a separate post since it is kind of a separate topic.

You seem to be saying that the only evil is what the Law dictates as evil. However, you should know that our own law does not see things this way.
*************
M*W: Again, David, you have misconstrued what I have said. As a law-abiding citizen, I respect the laws of my country and my state. Not all laws are fair, but I abide by them. I don't know where you got that I think law is evil. The laws are made to protect us -- not defeat us!
*************
David F.: There are two Latin phrases which are pertinent here:

Malum in se "Wrong in itself" — a crime that is inherently wrong; cf. malum prohibitum.
Malum prohibitum "Prohibited wrong" — something that society decided to forbid, but is not inherently evil... ref​

The word Malum means what you are calling Evil. There are two kinds of laws then - 1) Laws that are Evil in themselves and 2) Laws that are Evil because man decides they are so. You seem to be trying to put all laws into the second category when some, like murder, are obviously in the first category. Where did this category come from? Certainly not from the minds of men. Even if we somehow become so corrupt as a society to believe that murder is not evil, this category will still exist. What else might go in this first category? We Christians take the first category to be the 10 Commandments.
*************
M*W: The Ten Commandments were good guidelines for the people of Moses' day, but I am not saying that it's okay to murder or commit adultery, etc. today. Our laws were taken directly from the Ten Commandments which were basic guidelines to live by. I don't have a problem with today's laws that I believe we all should follow widely. But, the Ten Commandments were Egyptian rules for the Habiru in the desert. Moses was losing control of the Habiru, and they were running amok. The Ten Commandments were written by Moses, not God, because Moses thought the Ark to be God. Why must you try to link me with evil, when I am actually an officer of the court (family law). There are always two sides to every story, and they both need to be heard. Just like there are two sides to christianity. Both sides need to be heard -- the defense of christianity, and the prosecution of christianity. You already know what side I'm on.

 

[David F.]

David F.: MW. I am putting this reply in a separate post since it is kind of a separate topic.

You seem to be saying that the only evil is what the Law dictates as evil. However, you should know that our own law does not see things this way.
*************
M*W: Again, David, you have misconstrued what I have said. As a law-abiding citizen, I respect the laws of my country and my state. Not all laws are fair, but I abide by them. I don't know where you got that I think law is evil. The laws are made to protect us -- not defeat us!
*************
David F.: There are two Latin phrases which are pertinent here:

Malum in se "Wrong in itself" — a crime that is inherently wrong; cf. malum prohibitum.
Malum prohibitum "Prohibited wrong" — something that society decided to forbid, but is not inherently evil... ref​

The word Malum means what you are calling Evil. There are two kinds of laws then - 1) Laws that are Evil in themselves and 2) Laws that are Evil because man decides they are so. You seem to be trying to put all laws into the second category when some, like murder, are obviously in the first category. Where did this category come from? Certainly not from the minds of men. Even if we somehow become so corrupt as a society to believe that murder is not evil, this category will still exist. What else might go in this first category? We Christians take the first category to be the 10 Commandments.
*************
M*W: The Ten Commandments were good guidelines for the people of Moses' day, but I am not saying that it's okay to murder or commit adultery, etc. today. Our laws were taken directly from the Ten Commandments which were basic guidelines to live by. I don't have a problem with today's laws that I believe we all should follow widely. But, the Ten Commandments were Egyptian rules for the Habiru in the desert. Moses was losing control of the Habiru, and they were running amok. The Ten Commandments were written by Moses, not God, because Moses thought the Ark to be God. Why must you try to link me with evil, when I am actually an officer of the court (family law). There are always two sides to every story, and they both need to be heard. Just like there are two sides to christianity. Both sides need to be heard -- the defense of christianity, and the prosecution of christianity. You already know what side I'm on.

I see. While I disagree with the revision of history you present, I now understand your point of view. My apologies for the misunderstanding.

 

[David F.]

M*W: This is a religion forum, but it is not a christian forum. The majority of members on this forum are atheists and free-thinkers who don't believe in christianity. There are many christian forums as Gravity has shown, and I believe you, c20, Adstar, Jenyar, and Lori_7, etc., would be better served and happier on a forum that was complementary to your faith. The non-christians on this forum are looking for evidence through biblical research and archeology. Unless you can provide truthful evidence by unbiased resources, you are just spinning your wheels here. Birds of a feather should flock together.

Do you then consider atheism to be a religion? While you may be looking for evidence of something, I sincerly doubt that most of the others share your desires. Most are here primarily to bash Christianity with no regard to learning or discussing anything. If all the Christians left, I imagine most of them would as well since there would be nothing to discuss.

I have found most of Archeology to be, shall we say, wanting. Today's archeologists are essentially the same as ancient historians, like Herodotus. They uncover a little evidence and invent a fanciful theory to surround it showing what might have been. The difference is that Herodotus admitted that he embellished to entertain his readers while modern archeologists try to mascarade as scientists. I will admit that there are a few good historians/archeologists out there (one of my favorites is David Rohl who has had the guts to stand up to the establishment and try to present a true rendering of the facts as we know them). I don't mean to pick on archeologists in particular, since I have found this kind of revisionism in many fields, especially history and biblical research, but also in things which should be true science, like physics, astronomy and paleontology. Peer review was supposed to protect against wild theories and crackpots but instead it has been used to entrench the establishment position in almost every field of study. Scholarly just doesn't mean what it used to. The further I get into research, the less scholarly I find it to be.

 

[SnakeLord]

OK, I will once again try to teach you something.

And once again for the benefit of those that cannot read too well: This isn't about me. While it's very sweet of you to keep blithering on at me, you said "I have proven evolution is wrong".

As that is the case, why are you so set on trying to 'teach' me when you might aswell just talk to CNN or submit to a scientific journal?

I understand your lack of understanding even the basics of the science - coming as you do from a non-scientific background.

Amusing garbage coming from the mouth of a bible thumper who thinks science comes in the form of a talking cloud.

First, as you say, we must define the meaning of the word Evolution, so I will copy from a previous post

There's no need, save it for CNN, or a scientific journal.

-Michael J. Behe

ehehehe.

- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology

This has nothing to do with how it all began, which is what you spent a couple of weeks debating about and then claiming you had disproven evolution.

Im trying to go slow here so you can understand... Once we agree we are discussing Biological Evolution, we can next split Evolution into two basic pieces - Microevolution and Macroevolution.

Neither of which have anything to do with how it all began.

Am I allowed to rant a little?

Sure, but why waste your time with me? Once again I can only urge you take your proof to a scientific journal. Are you scared?

I feel like I am talking to a child here

Fine. As you feel that way, take your proof to a scientific journal instead.

I know you have great faith in this topic without any true proof (which makes this your religion) but you aren't listening and you never have any logical comments to make.

But then, once your "proof" has been made public for all the world to see, I would have no choice but to listen to it. No? Does that not sound logical?

Anyway, go find a dictionary and an elementary biology book. When you have the faintest idea of the subject, I will be happy to continue this discussion.

You're very amusing, although extremely ignorant. "I have proven evolution is wrong"... ehehe what a twerp. Listen boy, take your findings to a scientific journal, or a news channel. Why waste your time claiming you have "disproven" anything here, when this time tomorrow you could get evolution removed from school lessons, from science books, and from the minds of "non-scientific" people like myself?

 

[§outh§tar]

I personally kind of like the creation story. There is no proof, but it looks as good as anything else, and it fits all the available facts. The problem with creation is - how can science prove that 6000 years ago, something miraculous happened? It can't - so there is no proof.

Can you please list "all the available facts" creation fits?

 

[David F.]

And once again for the benefit of those that cannot read too well: This isn't about me. While it's very sweet of you to keep blithering on at me, you said "I have proven evolution is wrong"...

EVOLUTION IS DEAD!​

There, I have said it and you have provided nothing even remotely like evidence to show I am wrong. Do species change to adapt to their environment, yes, and I have never disputed that. Did life evolve from non-life or do life-forms split into different kinds of animals - definitely not.

You are nothing but a sad, deranged heckler and frankly, you are not worth my time. Enough said.

 

[SnakeLord]

EVOLUTION IS DEAD!

There, I have said it and you have provided nothing even remotely like evidence to show I am wrong. Do species change to adapt to their environment, yes, and I have never disputed that. Did life evolve from non-life or do life-forms split into different kinds of animals - definitely not.

You are nothing but a sad, deranged heckler and frankly, you are not worth my time. Enough said.

Oh. That was what you meant when you said "I have proven evolution wrong"? No offence kiddo, but I don't think CNN or a scientific journal would accept that as being credible enough.

Can't say I've ever heard of someone making a statement in caps, such as "EVOLUTION IS DEAD", as proving anything wrong. Maybe times have changed, but it used to take just a tad bit more than that.

And somehow I'm deranged? Ehehehe.

What's the matter my little friend? Was apologising for your worthless statement too hard for you to manage? Do you somehow feel that attempting personal insult takes away from that comment, takes away from your statement that you had "proven evolution wrong"? Do you, for some reason, think that everyone should just agree with you, and if they don't, you're in a position to call them a "deranged heckler"?

When I tell you you're misunderstanding what 'evolution' is, does that upset you to such a degree whereby you need to attack me on a personal level? I suppose you would now try and blame me for your ignorance concerning what evolution is or is not, even though I was kind enough to provide you with the 'scientific' understanding of evolution? But no, that was not good enough.. Instead the only "opinion" you accepted was that of an 'anti-evolutionist', who is generally laughed at by the scientific community.

But do not fear, all your insults gets pissed out with today's intake of fluid while you're still stuck there looking stupid as ever by saying; "I have disproven evolution".

Clearly, from your astoundingly poor response, you have admitted that you're wrong. Whether you care to take the courage and verbalize that or not is your choice, but all the personal insults aside, it does not detract from the error of your post. You have disproven nothing.

The amusing thing of it is that you dare then say: "you have provided nothing even remotely like evidence..", when not only have I done that which you deny, but it's as if you think one person not responding to you is a show that you have "disproven" something. That is naivety at it's largest.

You are a sad little boy, and I would request you refrain from posting until such time where you have learnt courage, and the ability to apologise for stupid statements like; "I have disproven evolution".

By the by, you look like a fool.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

David F.: Do you then consider atheism to be a religion?
*************
M*W: No, atheism is NOT A RELIGION! Atheists have NO religion!
*************
David F.: While you may be looking for evidence of something, I sincerly doubt that most of the others share your desires.
*************
M*W: I would tend to agree with that. I enjoy researching. I have an inquisitive mind. The other atheists on this forum may have other interests.
*************
David F.: Most are here primarily to bash Christianity with no regard to learning or discussing anything. If all the Christians left, I imagine most of them would as well since there would be nothing to discuss.
*************
M*W: Actually, we have interesting discussions about a lot of things. We don't intentionally bash christianity. It's when people like Jenyar, Adstar, c20, etc., come on board, their only aim is to challenge us -- otherwise they wouldn't be here. We've offered them christian websites where they would be more at home, but they refuse to go to the christian websites, so that tells me they just want to badger us.
*************
David F.: I have found most of Archeology to be, shall we say, wanting. Today's archeologists are essentially the same as ancient historians, like Herodotus. They uncover a little evidence and invent a fanciful theory to surround it showing what might have been.
*************
M*W: I disagree. Degreed professional archeologists take their work very seriously, and they are not running to the media to show off their finds. The media pursues them and creates a fabulous intriguing story to see their media. Just like the ossuary of James, Son of Joseph, Brother of Jesus. That ended up being a hoax, but the media ran away with it! More recently, the cave of John the Baptist. The media ran away with that, too. Just like a while back ABC did an expose on Dan Brown's da Vinci code. Four years ago, for example, CBS announced the presidential winner before all the votes had been counted -- and they got in a lot of trouble about that. The media will do anything to get the public's attention, and their stories are not always researched or accurate. I don't believe anything I read in the newspaper or the TV.
*************
David F.: The difference is that Herodotus admitted that he embellished to entertain his readers while modern archeologists try to mascarade as scientists. I will admit that there are a few good historians/archeologists out there (one of my favorites is David Rohl who has had the guts to stand up to the establishment and try to present a true rendering of the facts as we know them). I don't mean to pick on archeologists in particular, since I have found this kind of revisionism in many fields, especially history and biblical research, but also in things which should be true science, like physics, astronomy and paleontology. Peer review was supposed to protect against wild theories and crackpots but instead it has been used to entrench the establishment position in almost every field of study. Scholarly just doesn't mean what it used to. The further I get into research, the less scholarly I find it to be.
*************
M*W: Scholarly research is still peer-reviewed. If it wasn't, I wouldn't read it or be convinced that it was accurate and true. Archeologists and biblical scholars who are professionals and not just some average Joe who wrote a book can be believed. They have theories at first, then they research their theories and form their own hypothesis. I make it a habit to never read novels like Dan Brown's book. Without an index and bibliography, a book cannot be trusted. That's one reason I'm here on sciforums. There are a lot of people who read peer-reviewed resesearch, and we share what we read. It's the christians on this forum that want to challenge the biblical scholars and archeologists. Sorry, but their testimony just doesn't compare to what the rest of us have learned through science.

 

[Michael]

I have done a lot of reading and what I read is astounding - evolution is more faith than fact.

Done a bit O’ reading aye? Can you tell us just what is this "Evolution"? Scientifically speaking of course.