Evolution, violence and the existence of God

[Nirvana]

Or, how about

Creationism, fear, and the existence of need?​

I think there's a far closer and more interesting relationship among the three.

.

.

I agree. The purpose of purpose. I`ll make another thread about intelligent design soon.

 

[Nirvana]

I observe that each reproduces according to its own ' kind '. Cats are cats, dogs are dogs, people are people, etc.
I see some people ' de-volving ' Not evolving.
One friend's sister (who got good grades in school) got herself pregnant from a low IQ person, and she gave birth to a low IQ son, No evolving there. Wonder why her higher IQ was Not passed on instead of the other way around.

I find it was Not God who was enjoying the violence in Noah's day according to Genesis 6:11.
I find it was Not God who was enjoying the violence at Sodom and Gomorrah.
I find it ' is ' God who will bring to ruin those ruining the Earth (literally and morally) according to Revelation 11:18 B.
I find it ' is ' God who gave mankind the Golden Rule to live by. The Golden Rule to me shows a lack of violence.
So, by people choosing Not to obey the Golden Rule it is those wayward people who choose and enjoy Violence.
Thankfully the executional words from Jesus' mouth will rid the Earth of such lovers of violence according to Isaiah 11:3-4; Revelation 19:14-16.

i`d rather suggest you to check out some good books about evolutionary biology. I don`t really think that God and evolution are incompatible, they`re ``Non-Overlapping magisteria``. I`d suggest you to read the greatest show on Earth by Richard Dawkins and Finding Darwin`s God by Kenneth Miller. Btw ken Miller is a Roman Catholic and I think he explains the relationship between God and Science perfectly.

 

[Nirvana]

Again,I`d suggest you to check out Prof Dan Dennet`s book freedom evolves and Elbow Room along with Sam Harris`s perspective in his book Free Will

 

[Kemosloby]

Sin, Cain jealous, smash Able on head, God slap Cain on wrist. rinse, repeat until judgement day.

 

[SabahTheLoner]

I actually don't think we are unusually violent. Non-human animals can do incredibly violent things. Gang rape is common, gluttony and greed are too. Animals will take more than they need given the chance. A number of species catch, toy with and kill things just for the pleasure of it, our cute kitties among them.

The catching and killing that cats do when they aren't hungry is usually out of generosity, or if a non-living object is being toyed with, practice. Cats aren't as social as dogs or wolves, but they are pack animals, having ties to other cats when it benefits them. If a pack member can't hunt (like a human), the cat will hunt for them in exchange for acceptance into the territory, or any other award. House pets aren't usually taught that living things are food, so they treat them more like toys because usually they are taught that moving things are toys, and humans have real food.

But you are correct that animals can do violent things. Male otters are some of the most violent mammals, especially when it comes to rape. Outside of examples like that, animals who demonstrate violent acts in most forms are usually competing with other animals or responding to their surroundings. They have a "winner takes all" mentality, which is why in many packs will have two alphas who are the only ones allowed to produce young, since the alphas proved themselves in survival and battle to be strong. Even herd animals are selective when it comes to the "who is strong" game when it comes to leaders. Violence is a way of proving strength. Humans are probably more aware of the damages it causes because we can communicate abstract and far past ideas, which are not universal concepts in the animal kingdom.

What we have evolved to be is a highly intelligent species with social behaviors which, while learned and not innate, are still very strong. It's too bad they aren't innate, or helpful social traits like empathy wouldn't exist in disproportionate amounts.
The same thing which allowed great success, our intelligence to form complex social behaviors and communication, also gave us a profound sensitivity to mistreatment and unfairness. We aren't more violent than the rest of nature, we are just more sensitive to it due to our highly evolved brains.

This is something I do agree with. But I think it's an overestimated claim that humans are entirely social creatures. I tend to enjoy my own company more than that of other people, even the people I don't mind being around. It's not an antisocial thing, because I like being social sometimes, it's just preference. In fact I find that "social" people (probably from upbringing) are the more violent ones than the semi-social or non-social people, especially when it comes to actions. We are taught to be social because we recognize that functioning groups can be strong, especially in a diverse and speciality-oriented society.

 

[SabahTheLoner]

I observe that each reproduces according to its own ' kind '. Cats are cats, dogs are dogs, people are people, etc.

What about the offspring of two related species that cannot reproduce? Mules, ligers, zorses.... And the ones who can like geep, coywolfs and wholphins?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

i`d rather suggest you to check out some good books about evolutionary biology. I don`t really think that God and evolution are incompatible, they`re ``Non-Overlapping magisteria``. I`d suggest you to read the greatest show on Earth by Richard Dawkins and Finding Darwin`s God by Kenneth Miller. Btw ken Miller is a Roman Catholic and I think he explains the relationship between God and Science perfectly.

I am thinking along the lines that Genesis explains the relationship between God and Adam ( man ).
Adam was made from the dust of the ground and returned back to the dust of the ground according to Genesis 3:19.
So, to me, there was No evolution involved in the ' creation ' ( not evolution ) of human kind.
Adam only came to life according to Genesis 2:7 when God breathed the breath of life into life-less Adam.
Adam simply started from No life, then to life, and returned back to No life.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Sin, Cain jealous, smash Able on head, God slap Cain on wrist. rinse, repeat until judgement day.

Jesus' coming millennium-long judgement day is both an adverse judgement and a favorable judgement.
There will be 'No rinse, repeat' for those on Earth at the soon coming ' time of separation ' of Matthew 25:31-33.
As far as Cain is concerned God's judgement was final for Cain at that time frame.
The human foundation of Earth thus starts with Abel (Not Cain) according to Matthew 23:35.
So, Adam, Eve and Cain are out of the picture forever.
Also, any committing the unforgivable sin of Matthew 12:32; Hebrews 6:4-6 are also out of future's picture.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

What about the offspring of two related species that cannot reproduce? Mules, ligers, zorses.... And the ones who can like geep, coywolfs and wholphins?

They have reproduced according to their kinds such as a horse and donkey make a mule who can Not reproduce.

 

[Kemosloby]

Jesus' coming millennium-long judgement day is both an adverse judgement and a favorable judgement.
There will be 'No rinse, repeat' for those on Earth at the soon coming ' time of separation ' of Matthew 25:31-33.
As far as Cain is concerned God's judgement was final for Cain at that time frame.
The human foundation of Earth thus starts with Abel (Not Cain) according to Matthew 23:35.
So, Adam, Eve and Cain are out of the picture forever.
Also, any committing the unforgivable sin of Matthew 12:32; Hebrews 6:4-6 are also out of future's picture.

That's a good one, you learned me something. The righteous blood starts with Abel. But you missed my point, either on purpose in order to inject your point, or by I don't know why...

 

[Kemosloby]

Jesus' coming millennium-long judgement day is both an adverse judgement and a favorable judgement.
There will be 'No rinse, repeat' for those on Earth at the soon coming ' time of separation ' of Matthew 25:31-33.
As far as Cain is concerned God's judgement was final for Cain at that time frame.
The human foundation of Earth thus starts with Abel (Not Cain) according to Matthew 23:35.
So, Adam, Eve and Cain are out of the picture forever.
Also, any committing the unforgivable sin of Matthew 12:32; Hebrews 6:4-6 are also out of future's picture.

You appear wrong about never seeing Cain again, he sinned but did not break any command.

Romans 5:13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone's account where there is no law.

 

[LukeS]

Evolution theory happened, we responded by denying the created "higher self" (spirit, soul) and seeing humanity as animals, but we are evolved to treat dehumanised people badly, thus making violence more likely.... (?)

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

They have reproduced according to their kinds such as a horse and donkey make a mule who can Not reproduce.

Either the word "kinds" is 100% useless as a categorizing item?

Or your comment is wrong on several levels...

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I know this is an usual topic but I`m new over here. So let your ideas flow on this thread

Evolution, violence and the existence of God

false, a matter of free will, and true

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I observe that each reproduces according to its own ' kind '. Cats are cats, dogs are dogs, people are people, etc.
I see some people ' de-volving ' Not evolving.

Animals also; dogs and peppered moths are the two favorite (usually only) observable examples of evolution pointed to-

Almost every breed becomes less fit to survive in the wild, Peppered moths merely reverted to a dominant gene for color...

it is not always clear, in fact it’s rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Dogs USED to be Wolves. That rather ruins your statement, here, doesn't it?

That used to be a popular belief but;

Dogs are not Domesticated Wolves | Accumulating Glitches | Learn Science at Scitable

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

That used to be a popular belief but;

Dogs are not Domesticated Wolves | Accumulating Glitches | Learn Science at Scitable

[my comment was] Hyperbole.

The DNA proves that both dogs and wolves share a common ancestry. Either my mild exaggeration or your article, proves the other poster's comments 100% false.

The non-term "kind" is 100% devoid of any useful meaning-- it's "meaning" seems to slide around all over the place, from "animals versus plants" to "French Poodles versus German Shepherds" and every permutation in-between-- and even very stupid things like "crocoduck" or other silly parodies.

His claim that things "breed in kind" is devoid of any value-- moreover it's demonstratively false.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Animals also; dogs and peppered moths are the two favorite (usually only) observable examples of evolution pointed to-

Almost every breed becomes less fit to survive in the wild, Peppered moths merely reverted to a dominant gene for color...

it is not always clear, in fact it’s rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find

I don't use either one, typically. But I do occasionally refer to Ring Species.

Nice Wiki entry here: Ring species - Wikipedia

And ring species absolutely prove evolution not only happened in the past, but is actively taking place today-- as these species continue to diverge from one generation to the next.

There is zero explanation of Ring Species in either Intelligent Design or it's dumber kissing cousin, Creationism.

The existence of Ring Species absolutely show "kinds" is 100% meaningless.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

[my comment was] Hyperbole.

The DNA proves that both dogs and wolves share a common ancestry. Either my mild exaggeration or your article, proves the other poster's comments 100% false.

It proves that they were somewhat similar animals, which we knew already by the leg at each corner and teeth at one end!, the same reason that direct ancestry was erroneously assumed as proven 150 years ago- just like birds from dinos and men from apes

How far back we have to go to find this new mysterious common ancestor is a complete guess, but one more 'proven transition' and 'undeniable proof' of evolution has retreated back into the shadows- all we can tell empirically, scientifically, is that dogs were dogs and wolves were wolves as far back as the record goes.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I don't use either one, typically. But I do occasionally refer to Ring Species.

Nice Wiki entry here: Ring species - Wikipedia

And ring species absolutely prove evolution not only happened in the past, but is actively taking place today-- as these species continue to diverge from one generation to the next.

There is zero explanation of Ring Species in either Intelligent Design or it's dumber kissing cousin, Creationism.

The existence of Ring Species absolutely show "kinds" is 100% meaningless.

"A small number of forms of life appear to match the definition of a ring species. The classic example is that of the Larus gull, which in 1925 was found to form a chain of varieties around the Arctic Circle by Jonathan Dwight, but lately doubts have arisen as to whether this is an actual ring species.[3] In 1938, Claud Buchanan Ticehurst hypothesized the greenish warbler spread from Nepal around the Tibetan Plateau, while adapting to each new environment, meeting again in Siberia where the ends no longer interbreed.[4] These and other discoveries led Ernst Mayr to first formulate a theory on ring species in his 1942 study Systematics and the Origin of Species. Also in the 1940s, Robert C. Stebbins recognised the Ensatina around the Californian Central Valley as a ring species;[5][6]however, some authors consider this classification as incorrect.[7] Finally in 2012, the first example of a ring species in plants was found in a spurge form around the Caribbean Sea.[8]

The textbook examples of ring species, [], have all been challenged, so ring species are at best rare"

It's an interesting enough theory, but even evolutionists hardly seem 100% convinced, far less confident than they were about Piltdown man apparently!

But either way similar varieties of Gulls and Warblers etc is small pretty scale adaptation wouldn't you say? Not macro evolution