What proof do you have of God?

[otokage007]

Ok, stay with me on this evolution has produced a system of morality that results in lions eating their or some other lions young, animals that torture others for fun, mates that kill their partners, perdators that over kill beyond hunger for fun, parasites suck the life out of other creatures and on and on and on....

No I do not agree. If animals used the morality granted by evolution (if evolution did grant morals, which is speculative) they wouldn’t do such a thing. Problem is, they simply don’t use that morality. They prefer (or should I say they are forced?) survival to morality, which is a wise choice for an animal to make.

So why the fury over evolution? There are a number of reasons:
Evolution seems cruel

Well, this world is cruel. Sorry about that :/, when u grow up u will realize that you are just a mote in the bast universe and that nature’s laws and phisics laws do not care about what u consider cruel.

Evolution appears purposeless

Well, if evolution is purposeless... everything is.

Evolution conflicts with religious beliefs

The Pope disagrees.

Evolution has disturbing sexual and social implications

Evolution has no moral implications at all. But I’m curious about those “sexual and social” implications. So tell me, for example?

Cruelty

It's one thing to speak of "Nature red in tooth and claw", or to note that most organisms are fated only to be lunch for somebody else. It's another to assert that nature was intrinsically organized that way. If the world was originally created harmonious but was corrupted somehow, cruelty and predation are explainable. On the other hand, if death, predation and parasitism are built into the biological world, indeed are the main mechanisms by which evolution proceeds, the philosophical and theological implications are troubling.

Evolution is the way life develops. But I think humans aren’t succeptible anymore to natural selection. So yes, evolution is kind of a cruel process, but don’t fear for your life, I don’t think you have any predators.

Those clones are destroyed as fast they can be until a new queen is needed. Have you ever read about what goes on in a hive. It is diabolical.

:biglaugh: Sorry that just made me laugh! Don't call them "DIABOLICAL" hahahaha you are such a character!

Again we have two possible explenations for this. Your system which made all this stuff happened and justifies it. Or mine that explains that it is a result of choose and our rebelious natture. Both are reasonable. I accept everything implied by mine and I bet you will do everything in your power as you have so far to dodge the implications of yours. In mine there is hope and a promise that all will be made right in the end. In yours it just keeps going and once religion is out of the way a true Orwellian evolutionary nightmare will begin an dthere only hope is in eventual heat death. There is no ultimate meaning, no ultimate purpose, no meaningfull destination, no meaningfull origin, and no justification for the most profound and cherished concepts in life. It is a series pointless, mindless, and puposeless anomalies. That does not mean it isn't true but even if it is who needs it and the fact that people PREFER to deny the system that remedies all these issues without any justification is baffleing or would be if once again the bible didn't perfectly explain why this is so.

Evolution just defines a process that occurs in nature, it doesn’t “justify” anything. Of course your theory is much more attractive, I would add that in Heaven there’s chocolate fountains and soft kitties to make it even more attractive. But sir, this doesn’t make your theory true.
And again I tell you. Have no fear, evolution will not take you into its “diabolical” claws (evil laugh), as long as technology and medicine exist, you don’t have to be worried about natural selection.

No matter what you use to dress it up every success comes at the expense of a failure that leaves massive death in it's wake. In fact if we were not so smart insects would eaten and otherwise killed us off a long time ago.

I don’t really know how can an insect “eat” you? Anyway. Yes, we are smart, thanks to evolution btw.

What we term immoral actions are more benificial to individual groups in totality than moral ones.

False.

I am very well aware that benevolent actions take place in nature. They are just as justified by biblical doctrine and maybe far more so than any other theory. I have looked at cats, there is very little besides self centered (evil) in their eyes. A funny study was done recently where the put cameras on many cats and the diabolic nature of what they do is appaling. Many had two homes. They would stay at one house during the day and go live in another at night. That is funny stuff.

Cats are diabolical indeed. I’ll give u that one.

 

[1robin]

No I do not agree. If animals used the morality granted by evolution (if evolution did grant morals, which is speculative) they wouldn’t do such a thing. Problem is, they simply don’t use that morality. They prefer (or should I say they are forced?) survival to morality, which is a wise choice for an animal to make.

What you described is evolution. The governing dynamics of evolution are survival (which is constituted by natural selection). Without God there is no other dynamics which affect what we refer to as morality. Gravity, time dialation (relativity), quantum mechanics, and wave theory have no application on morality. It is all that is left, it would produce the hunger, survival insticts, or any other behavioral habits.

Well, this world is cruel. Sorry about that :/, when u grow up u will realize that you are just a mote in the bast universe and that nature’s laws and phisics laws do not care about what u consider cruel.

I never said the world was perfect. I said evolution makes the evil the norm and the bible makes it the exception. There is a remedy in one system and abject meaningless misery in the other.

Well, if evolution is purposeless... everything is.

What king of statement is this? Religion has a purpose. In fact within religion everything has a purpose.

The Pope disagrees.

Don't care.

Evolution has no moral implications at all. But I’m curious about those “sexual and social” implications. So tell me, for example?

That was not my statement. I gave the link ask them. I will give you one, monogamy is not as conducive to survival as adultry would be and so on. Yet another example of the moral corruption that can be justified by evolution.

Evolution is the way life develops. But I think humans aren’t succeptible anymore to natural selection. So yes, evolution is kind of a cruel process, but don’t fear for your life, I don’t think you have any predators.

There is some truth to this. How refressing. However this is not about what the issues are. I will try one last time to state the obvious. Most of what Hitler did was done for greed, money, and power. However when he needed to justify his actions he said things like:Whatever survives these hardships of existence has been tested and tried a thousandfold, hardened and renders fit to continue the process of procreation; so that the same thorough selection will begin all over again. By thus dealing brutally with the individual and recalling him the very moment he shows that he is not fitted for the trials of life, Nature preserves the strength of the race and the species and raises it to the highest degree of efficiency.[2]”By leaving the process of procreation unchecked and by submitting the individual to the hardest preparatory tests in life, Nature selects the best from an abundance of single elements and stamps them as fit to live and carry on the conservation of the species.[2]
Each animal mates only with one of its own species. The titmouse cohabits only with the titmouse, the finch with the finch, the stork with the stork, the field-mouse with the field-mouse, the house-mouse with the house-mouse, the wolf with the she-wolf, etc.[6]

This urge for the maintenance of the unmixed breed, which is a phenomenon that prevails throughout the whole of the natural world, results not only in the sharply defined outward distinction between one species and another but also in the internal similarity of characteristic qualities which are peculiar to each breed or species. The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger. The only difference that can exist within the species must be in the various degrees of structural strength and active power, in the intelligence, efficiency, endurance, etc., with which the individual specimens are endowed.[6]

If Nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile
the offspring will indeed be superior to the parent which stands in the biologically lower order of being, but not so high as the higher parent. For this reason it must eventually succumb in any struggle against the higher species. Such mating contradicts the will of Nature towards the selective improvements of life in general. The favourable preliminary to this improvement is not to mate individuals of higher and lower orders of being but rather to allow the complete triumph of the
higher order. The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker, which would signify the sacrifice of its own higher nature. . . . [F]or if such a law did not direct the process of evolution then the higher development of organic life would not be conceivable at all.[6]
Hitler and evolution - RationalWiki
Darwin’s impact—the bloodstained legacy of evolution
Charles Darwin’s impact—the bloodstained legacy of evolution

From these statements and others like them that are consistent with evolution, racism, the destruction of any non contributing part of society, no counter reason for the destruction of any competing individuals that do not directly benifit a certain group (resources run out sooner with competition), forced genetic experimentation, the destruction of "less pure" individuals at birth (which has been done), plus a thousand other horrors can be justified. These claims are consistent with what evolution justifies. Every one of these are forbidden in the bible.

Sorry that just made me laugh! Don't call them "DIABOLICAL" hahahaha you are such a character!

That is what happens. The sisters all try to kill each other in order to be the next queen.

Evolution just defines a process that occurs in nature, it doesn’t “justify” anything. Of course your theory is much more attractive, I would add that in Heaven there’s chocolate fountains and soft kitties to make it even more attractive. But sir, this doesn’t make your theory true.

I am not saying whether it is true or not based on it's implications. I am just saying the implications exist. And they do.

And again I tell you. Have no fear, evolution will not take you into its “diabolical” claws (evil laugh), as long as technology and medicine exist, you don’t have to be worried about natural selection.

I do not fear it nor death at least the way I did before I was saved. That was another aspect of the event. That is why the bible says O Death Where Is Your Sting? This process has already put in motion. There have been study's comissioned by people like Ted Turner, and Even Bill Clinton concerning forced population reduction. Abortion stems from a lack in a belief in the sanctity of life which evolution is impotent to justify. Genetic experimentation is following close behind. Hitler's and Stalins actions are enough proof.
Russian dictator and revolutionist, Joseph Stalin (1879-1953), was studying at Tiflis Theological Seminary when he started to read the works of Charles Darwin. One of his friends later said in a book that when Stalin read Darwin he became an atheist.
Evolution and Stalinism by Steven LaTulippe

Evolution does not support the sanctity of life, human rights have no basis, and makes a human no more of value than the insects you killed on the way to work.

I don’t really know how can an insect “eat” you? Anyway. Yes, we are smart, thanks to evolution btw.

Never heard of the undertaker beetle I suppose.

False.

So it is more benificial to leave alive competitor's to resources than to eliminate any of them that do not directly benefit a certain group. Whatever you are referring to isn't evolution. Adultery, abortion, and the destruction of any individual that is a net drain on society are all valid evolutionary principles.

Cats are diabolical indeed. I’ll give u that one.

Cats are the equivalent in the animal world to the demons of the spiritual world. There has never been a more self centered creature ever created to bedevil the days of men.

 

[otokage007]

What you described is evolution. The governing dynamics of evolution are survival (which is constituted by natural selection). Without God there is no other dynamics which affect what we refer to as morality. Gravity, time dialation (relativity), quantum mechanics, and wave theory have no application on morality. It is all that is left, it would produce the hunger, survival insticts, or any other behavioral habits.

As I said before, if you are simply saying that evolution may have granted morality to the animals because it may be advantageous for them to be moral. Then yes, we agree on that.

And without God there’s still a dynamic which affect morality. It is called intelligence, and we should use it more often.

I never said the world was perfect. I said evolution makes the evil the norm and the bible makes it the exception. There is a remedy in one system and abject meaningless misery in the other.

Well, I don’t really know what u mean here. The animal kingdom is “evil”? Well, it may be considered like that. I do not consider evilness the apparently inmoral acts commited by animals in order to survive. It is something they are forced to do, you can not actually blame them for being what they are and for doing what they need to do in order to survive.

What king of statement is this? Religion has a purpose. In fact within religion everything has a purpose.

Isn’t the purpose of evolution to grant creatures the capacity to live in this hostile world?

That was not my statement. I gave the link ask them. I will give you one, monogamy is not as conducive to survival as adultry would be and so on. Yet another example of the moral corruption that can be justified by evolution.

Monogamy can be indeed very advantageous too. It ensures a rise in biological effectiveness for both male and female. Being adulterous can be risky, one example of this is that females could trick males into believing they have passed their genes when they have not. Males too often will have no way to ensure the children are theirs in an adulterous society. Although as a personal opinion, I think monogamy is not as advantageous as social monogamy (being monogamous but having secret lovers ). So your claim that adultry is a better strategy is false. They are different strategies optimized for different type of species.

And btw, Islam justifies polygamy. So “moral corruption” is also in religion as u can see. And btw, if someone is adulterous and you ask him/her “why”, do you really think they will say “well according to evolution being adulterous in some species is quite a rise in my biological effectiveness (gafas)”. Do you really think they will justify adultery with evolution? Have u just hit your head?

There is some truth to this. How refressing. However this is not about what the issues are. I will try one last time to state the obvious. Most of what Hitler did was done for greed, money, and power. However when he needed to justify his actions he said things like:Whatever survives these hardships of existence has been tested and tried a thousandfold, hardened and renders fit to continue the process of procreation; so that the same thorough selection will begin all over again. By thus dealing brutally with the individual and recalling him the very moment he shows that he is not fitted for the trials of life, Nature preserves the strength of the race and the species and raises it to the highest degree of efficiency.[2]”By leaving the process of procreation unchecked and by submitting the individual to the hardest preparatory tests in life, Nature selects the best from an abundance of single elements and stamps them as fit to live and carry on the conservation of the species.[2][...]

Again, that Hitler justifies his acts with evolution is meaningless. He wasn’t even right about creating a superior raze, since killing those u want is not “natural selection”, it’s just madness and a missinterpretation of what actually happens in nature. We live in an artificial environment, natural selection does not apply to us humans who live in cities and societies long ago alienated from nature. And by the way, it is more advantageous to “mix”, that to keep “an unmixed breed”. This is why some populations of cheetas in Africa, for example, that have been relegated to a small area and can mate only among themselves, are dying and becoming increasingly weak. Because they aren’t allowed to mix with other populations.

If Nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile
the offspring will indeed be superior to the parent which stands in the biologically lower order of being, but not so high as the higher parent. For this reason it must eventually succumb in any struggle against the higher species. Such mating contradicts the will of Nature towards the selective improvements of life in general. [...]

Nature does whish nothing, because unlike your God, it is not sentient being. Nature doesn’t care if the weak mate with the strong, etc. Sometimes that happens, sometimes it doesn’t happen. Nature doesn’t seek either a supreme being perfectly addapted, because there can not be such a thing. Each environment has their creatures. We will never adapt to sulfuric acid pools or to volcanos as good as bacteria. Hitler was simply a mad man that took from the theory of evolution what he wanted and twisted it in order to justify his mad logic. The same goes to the inquisiters or to Osama Bin Laden.

From these statements and others like them that are consistent with evolution, racism, the destruction of any non contributing part of society, no counter reason for the destruction of any competing individuals that do not directly benifit a certain group (resources run out sooner with competition), forced genetic experimentation, the destruction of "less pure" individuals at birth (which has been done), plus a thousand other horrors can be justified. These claims are consistent with what evolution justifies. Every one of these are forbidden in the bible.

Racism and everything u have mentioned, only exist on human societies. So as long as it is not seen in nature, you can’t blame evolution.

I am not saying whether it is true or not based on it's implications. I am just saying the implications exist. And they do.

Evolution can be missunderstood in order to inflict harm. The same goes for christianism and Islam. And yes, I could even use gravity to justify harming others: hey you are famous and rich, and according to Newton “everything that goes up, must go down!! SO DIE!!!”. You see? I’m the new Hitler.

I do not fear it nor death at least the way I did before I was saved. That was another aspect of the event. That is why the bible says O Death Where Is Your Sting? This process has already put in motion. There have been study's comissioned by people like Ted Turner, and Even Bill Clinton concerning forced population reduction. Abortion stems from a lack in a belief in the sanctity of life which evolution is impotent to justify. Genetic experimentation is following close behind. Hitler's and Stalins actions are enough proof. [...]

Abortion isn’t immoral to me. Genetic engeneering isn’t inmoral, can save lifes, and may be the only way to cure most cancer disseasses. Hitler and Stalin actions have nothing to do with atheism or evolution.

So it is more benificial to leave alive competitor's to resources than to eliminate any of them that do not directly benefit a certain group. Whatever you are referring to isn't evolution. Adultery, abortion, and the destruction of any individual that is a net drain on society are all valid evolutionary principles.

You could do a little experiment. Buy a terrarium, make there some little ecosystem, and when it has developed, destroy one of the species. Then u can come back and tell me if this was benefical to anyone or if your ecosystem exist no more. To put u a little example:

Predators: Wolfs, Eagles
Mid predator: fox
herbivore/pray: rabbit
productor: carrot

Imagine that all the quantity of each echelon is balanced. By your logic, in order to improve fox survavility, we should kill eagles and wolfs. If you kill eagles, there will be a double amount of rabbits and foxes. If you kill wolfs, there will also be double amount of rabbits and foxes. Rabbits will be 4 times the population they originaly were, and this specie reproduces incredibly fast, much faster than their fox predators. However, the fox population would also increase due to the sudden mass of resources. Rabbits will reach a point where they have no proper population control, and will simple erradicate every carrot they find in the system. Eventually, rabbits will have no carrots to eat, and will start to die because of starving and because of fox population. Eventually, there will be only fox on the system, and eventually, fox will die of starving.

This is just one of the many hypothetical scenarios in which the extinction of a specie would seem advantageous for an echelon, while it would actually mean the end of this echelon.

Cats are the equivalent in the animal world to the demons of the spiritual world. There has never been a more self centered creature ever created to bedevil the days of men.

All praise basement cat

 

[1robin]

As I said before, if you are simply saying that evolution may have granted morality to the animals because it may be advantageous for them to be moral. Then yes, we agree on that.

And without God there’s still a dynamic which affect morality. It is called intelligence, and we should use it more often.

There are only two sources of intelligence. Actually only one. But I will humor you. Without God then evolution produced every single thing that you appeal to as effecting morality including intelligence.

Well, I don’t really know what u mean here. The animal kingdom is “evil”? Well, it may be considered like that. I do not consider evilness the apparently inmoral acts commited by animals in order to survive. It is something they are forced to do, you can not actually blame them for being what they are and for doing what they need to do in order to survive.

Then why when people do immoral acts to survive they go to jail. It seems you have a standard you use for discussing the Bible and another for evaluating everything else.

Isn’t the purpose of evolution to grant creatures the capacity to live in this hostile world?

No, it gives a set of creatures the ability to survive at the expense of other creatures ability to do so.

Monogamy can be indeed very advantageous too. It ensures a rise in biological effectiveness for both male and female. Being adulterous can be risky, one example of this is that females could trick males into believing they have passed their genes when they have not. Males too often will have no way to ensure the children are theirs in an adulterous society. Although as a personal opinion, I think monogamy is not as advantageous as social monogamy (being monogamous but having secret lovers ). So your claim that adultry is a better strategy is false. They are different strategies optimized for different type of species.

If that were so why are the mojority of successful creatures not monogamous? I know it is not a bettr strategy because it destroys families but that only makes sence biblically. The fact is it should be more advantagous that is why it is the overwhelming majority in raw nature.

And btw, Islam justifies polygamy. So “moral corruption” is also in religion as u can see. And btw, if someone is adulterous and you ask him/her “why”, do you really think they will say “well according to evolution being adulterous in some species is quite a rise in my biological effectiveness (gafas)”. Do you really think they will justify adultery with evolution? Have u just hit your head?

I do not defend religion as a whole. I think Islam is satanic. I defend God and the bible. Lumping all religions together is another dishonest tactic.

Again, that Hitler justifies his acts with evolution is meaningless. He wasn’t even right about creating a superior raze, since killing those u want is not “natural selection”, it’s just madness and a missinterpretation of what actually happens in nature. We live in an artificial environment, natural selection does not apply to us humans who live in cities and societies long ago alienated from nature. And by the way, it is more advantageous to “mix”, that to keep “an unmixed breed”. This is why some populations of cheetas in Africa, for example, that have been relegated to a small area and can mate only among themselves, are dying and becoming increasingly weak. Because they aren’t allowed to mix with other populations.

How do you know if he was right. We justly appealed to objective standards that justified our destroying him. That does not mean what he said was not consistent with evolution. That is why he appealed to it so often.

Nature does whish nothing, because unlike your God, it is not sentient being. Nature doesn’t care if the weak mate with the strong, etc.

I di not say it cared. In fact evolution is somewhat disproven by this idea. However evolution demostrates or would if God did not exist that this is the case. It is pretty hard for the weak who have been destroyed by the strong to mate with anything.
Survival of the fittest.

Racism and everything u have mentioned, only exist on human societies. So as long as it is not seen in nature, you can’t blame evolution.

Then what is it that produced it in humans. There is nothing that produced anything apart from evolution in this sence.

Evolution can be missunderstood in order to inflict harm.

Yes but as I demonstrated it has been been rightly understood and used to cause harm many times.

The same goes for christianism and Islam. And yes, I could even use gravity to justify harming others: hey you are famous and rich, and according to Newton “everything that goes up, must go down!! SO DIE!!!”. You see? I’m the new Hitler.

That doesn't even make bad sence.

Abortion isn’t immoral to me. Genetic engeneering isn’t inmoral, can save lifes, and may be the only way to cure most cancer disseasses. Hitler and Stalin actions have nothing to do with atheism or evolution.

The you ought to be plenty happy when forced population control comes to your door or when you are no longer usefull and are a drain on others and if God is finally destroyed and they come to take you out in a future evolutionary, utopian, Orwellian madness. So the murder of unborn children used as contreception is ok with you. No wonder you prefer evolution.

You could do a little experiment. Buy a terrarium, make there some little ecosystem, and when it has developed, destroy one of the species. Then u can come back and tell me if this was benefical to anyone or if your ecosystem exist no more. To put u a little example:

I already have three times. I had a cichlid tank and filled it three times. I did not have to kill anything every single time the more agressive fished killed all the others and the last time after he killed all the others he jumped out and killed himself.

Predators: Wolfs, Eagles
Mid predator: fox
herbivore/pray: rabbit
productor: carrot

THe wolf would eat every other thing in that system in a week.

Imagine that all the quantity of each echelon is balanced

You mean make it unnatural so that it works.

This is just one of the many hypothetical scenarios in which the extinction of a specie would seem advantageous for an echelon, while it would actually mean the end of this echelon.

This has no connection to the advantage of wiping out every non productive citicen in Russia for the English. Or a million other examples.

All praise basement cat

I think they prefer sacrifice and homage.

 

[otokage007]

Then why when people do immoral acts to survive they go to jail. It seems you have a standard you use for discussing the Bible and another for evaluating everything else.

Because in normal circunstances, people don’t need to do immoral acts to survive. There’s almost always a choice. However, we do plenty of immoral acts and we don’t go to jail either. For example, we have wiped out many species, destroyed lots of habitats, and poluted the whole planet. Are we in jail?

No, it gives a set of creatures the ability to survive at the expense of other creatures ability to do so.

Not necesary. But anyway humans live at the expense of much more creatures than any other specie.

If that were so why are the mojority of successful creatures not monogamous? I know it is not a bettr strategy because it destroys families but that only makes sence biblically. The fact is it should be more advantagous that is why it is the overwhelming majority in raw nature.

Well, because this statement “why are the mojority of successful creatures not monogamous?” is false, that’s why. But here u have a list of some monogamous animals:

-Swans often swim so close to each other, that sometimes their necks together adopt the shape of a heart. Lovely )
-Vultures: this case is pretty cool, in their society, vultures could even attack the adulterous individuals!
-French angelfish: they do everything together lol.
-Wolves have a family life that is more loyal and pious than a lot of human relationships. A pack is usually formed by a couple and their offspring, which makes them akin to a human family.
-Albatross: An albatross may fly great distances far from home, but they will always return to their lover when it’s time to breed.
- Termites can form lifelong pair bonds between a female "queen" and a male "king" who literally give birth to their entire kingdom.
-Prairie voles are typically cited as an animal model for monogamy in humans. They huddle and groom each other, share nesting and pup-raising responsibilities, and generally show a high level of supportive behavior.
-Turtle doves: There's a reason that turtle doves come in pairs of two in "The Twelve Days of Christmas."
- Schistosoma mansoni worms: these parasitic worms are usually far more faithful than the humans they inhabit. They cause the disease schistosomiasis. When they reproduce sexually within the human body, they form loyal monogamous pair bonds that typically last the entire life. Disgusting, but lovely
-Bald eagles: They are the national emblem of the United States, and when it comes to maintaining relationships, bald eagles soar much higher than the country they symbolize. Bald eagles typically mate for life, except in the event of their partner's death or impotency — a number far lower than America's divorce rate, which now exceeds 50 percent.

And I could go on, and on, and on.

As u can see, there are better examples of monogamy that we humans, and I don’t think any of these animals have read the Bible.

About the advantages of monogamy, i’ve already mentioned them. Monogamy is actually the only system that grants both male and female the security that the children are really going to be theirs. Which means, it is the only system that guarantees success without risks when passing your genes to the next generation. And that's a BIG evolutionary advantage.

I do not defend religion as a whole. I think Islam is satanic. I defend God and the bible. Lumping all religions together is another dishonest tactic.
How do you know if he was right. We justly appealed to objective standards that justified our destroying him. That does not mean what he said was not consistent with evolution. That is why he appealed to it so often.
I di not say it cared. In fact evolution is somewhat disproven by this idea. However evolution demostrates or would if God did not exist that this is the case. It is pretty hard for the weak who have been destroyed by the strong to mate with anything.
Survival of the fittest.
Then what is it that produced it in humans. There is nothing that produced anything apart from evolution in this sence.

Evolution gave us a brain. The fact that Hitler or any other person doesn’t know how to use a brain, isn’t evolution’s fault.

Yes but as I demonstrated it has been been rightly understood and used to cause harm many times.
That doesn't even make bad sence.
The you ought to be plenty happy when forced population control comes to your door or when you are no longer usefull and are a drain on others and if God is finally destroyed and they come to take you out in a future evolutionary, utopian, Orwellian madness. So the murder of unborn children used as contreception is ok with you. No wonder you prefer evolution.
I already have three times. I had a cichlid tank and filled it three times. I did not have to kill anything every single time the more agressive fished killed all the others and the last time after he killed all the others he jumped out and killed himself.
THe wolf would eat every other thing in that system in a week
You mean make it unnatural so that it works.
This has no connection to the advantage of wiping out every non productive citicen in Russia for the English. Or a million other examples.
I think they prefer sacrifice and homage.

 

[1robin]

Because in normal circunstances, people don’t need to do immoral acts to survive. There’s almost always a choice. However, we do plenty of immoral acts and we don’t go to jail either. For example, we have wiped out many species, destroyed lots of habitats, and poluted the whole planet. Are we in jail?

Many are for those specific acts, and if the environmentalists had their way they would appoint beavers lawyers as our attorney gen tried. Another example.

Not necesary. But anyway humans live at the expense of much more creatures than any other specie.

That is what survival of the fittest, and the struggle between favored races means.

Well, because this statement “why are the mojority of successful creatures not monogamous?” is false, that’s why. But here u have a list of some monogamous animals:

I actually looked this up once. About 80% of species are not strictly monogamous. Unless nature has changed in tha last few years.

-Swans often swim so close to each other, that sometimes their necks together adopt the shape of a heart. Lovely )
-Vultures: this case is pretty cool, in their society, vultures could even attack the adulterous individuals!
-French angelfish: they do everything together lol.
-Wolves have a family life that is more loyal and pious than a lot of human relationships. A pack is usually formed by a couple and their offspring, which makes them akin to a human family.
-Albatross: An albatross may fly great distances far from home, but they will always return to their lover when it’s time to breed.
- Termites can form lifelong pair bonds between a female "queen" and a male "king" who literally give birth to their entire kingdom.
-Prairie voles are typically cited as an animal model for monogamy in humans. They huddle and groom each other, share nesting and pup-raising responsibilities, and generally show a high level of supportive behavior.
-Turtle doves: There's a reason that turtle doves come in pairs of two in "The Twelve Days of Christmas."
- Schistosoma mansoni worms: these parasitic worms are usually far more faithful than the humans they inhabit. They cause the disease schistosomiasis. When they reproduce sexually within the human body, they form loyal monogamous pair bonds that typically last the entire life. Disgusting, but lovely
-Bald eagles: They are the national emblem of the United States, and when it comes to maintaining relationships, bald eagles soar much higher than the country they symbolize. Bald eagles typically mate for life, except in the event of their partner's death or impotency — a number far lower than America's divorce rate, which now exceeds 50 percent.

For every example here I can give 50 of parasite that eat the organs and tissue from the inside of other creatures until they kill them. Good examples though.

And I could go on, and on, and on.

I could go on er and on er and on er than you can.

As u can see, there are better examples of monogamy that we humans, and I don’t think any of these animals have read the Bible.

The bible is not necessary to know right from wrong just to justify it exists as a real category and not preference.

Evolution gave us a brain. The fact that Hitler or any other person doesn’t know how to use a brain, isn’t evolution’s fault.

That does not refute the fact that his statements are indeed consistent with evolution.

 

[otokage007]

Many are for those specific acts, and if the environmentalists had their way they would appoint beavers lawyers as our attorney gen tried. Another example.

I actually looked this up once. About 80% of species are not strictly monogamous. Unless nature has changed in tha last few years.

So?

For every example here I can give 50 of parasite that eat the organs and tissue from the inside of other creatures until they kill them. Good examples though.

And I can give 50 christians much worse than those parasites that can't help but do what its written in their genetic codes.

I could go on er and on er and on er than you can.

Oh I really bet u can.

The bible is not necessary to know right from wrong just to justify it exists as a real category and not preference.

It's a preference since morality existed before the Bible. I hold my position.

That does not refute the fact that his statements are indeed consistent with evolution.

:no:

 

[1robin]

Yes our attorney general tried to give animals the right to sue.

So?

That is what I claimed.

And I can give 50 christians much worse than those parasites that can't help but do what its written in their genetic codes.

That isn't even coherent. Another thing is that that is impossible.

Oh I really bet u can.

Actually I am running out of gas.

It's a preference since morality existed before the Bible. I hold my position.

Then why can't compassion be found in the list of Greek and Roman virtues. Actually our God given consience arrived with the first man so I win.

:no:

Emoticans are useful when a point can't be made.

 

[otokage007]

Then why can't compassion be found in the list of Greek and Roman virtues. Actually our God given consience arrived with the first man so I win.

Well, God doesn't exist. So I think I won anyway.

 

[YeshaYaHu]

I have proof but it's easier for me to show you on Youtube...in a few more posts...

New here, Hello everyone! =)

 

[Thief]

This line of reasoning for the existence of god has always been somewhat humorous to me. Theists want to point at the universe and say "see, isn't it grand? It's so beautiful and wondrous. How could it not have been created?" as if this is some sort of evidence for the existence of god. It's not random chance or complete chaos that brought all of this about, but it's not by design, either. The existence of one thing does not necessarily imply the existence of something else, especially when logic and reason can summarily show that the first thing, the thing that does exist, exists primarily from other reasons, other than the second thing, which may or may not exist.

That line highlighted shows why a discussion with you will fail.

Let's try a basic question....which came first?
Spirit or substance.

 

[jasonwill2]

The bible meets every demand of the historical method. It has 25,000 historical corroberations. There is no historical fact that contradicts the bible. There is no conflict with history, science, or philospohy with the bible.

This is a pretty far fetched-lie. At least if we are talking about a literal interpretation, and even if we are not then there is still a lot of issues and this still remains to be a decietful statement meant to confuse and mislead people.

There are plenty of historical events and evidence that contradicts the Christian Bible, and plenty of instances in Science that contradicts it as well.

 

[otokage007]

There's not any shred of evidence that any kind of supernatural being exists. There's people on the middle-east that believe in Allah, if you were born in the midde-east you would believe on him. Greeks believed on Zeus and Athena, and there's people that believed Earth is flat. Some people believed in Thor, some other people believed in unicorns. Believing one thing or another is just an accident of geography.

So tell me, why are you so arrogant as to think your God is the real one?

 

[jasonwill2]

So tell me, why are you so arrogant as to think your God is the real one?

Are you asking me? Cause', that's kind of hilarious if so. However I can explain how Satan is in all of nature, and you can draw your own conclusions as to how literal to take it. And I'll note, I don't think the following explanation (if you want to hear it) is only half literal at best, depending on how you process it. With "literal" depending on what parts of it are being considered "literal" and in what sense "real". It's more about understanding how to channel forces and energy mentally and physically through the ambient energy around you, as well as understanding the interplay and dances of duality that make up this violent existence we call "life".

 

[MissAlice]

I haven't been following this thread all the way through but I think some people made excellent comments. There is no scientific evidence, just beliefs that're bound to be subjective as no god/s is or has the same definition or characteristics as any of the millions of people out there who were born into, brought up or decided to believe in a certain god/s.

 

[otokage007]

Are you asking me? Cause', that's kind of hilarious if so. However I can explain how Satan is in all of nature, and you can draw your own conclusions as to how literal to take it. And I'll note, I don't think the following explanation (if you want to hear it) is only half literal at best, depending on how you process it. With "literal" depending on what parts of it are being considered "literal" and in what sense "real". It's more about understanding how to channel forces and energy mentally and physically through the ambient energy around you, as well as understanding the interplay and dances of duality that make up this violent existence we call "life".

Of course I was not asking you. When I said "YOU" it was a question to all the people on this forum that believes there's a God out there in the sense Abrahamic religions tell them. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[jasonwill2]

Of course I was not asking you. When I said "YOU" it was a question to all the people on this forum that believes there's a God out there in the sense Abrahamic religions tell them. Sorry for the confusion.

Oh...

Anyway I'm not a writing mood so anything I would of written wouldn't of came out as poetic as it is in my head as an un-articulated thought.

See? Even the syntax of that last sentence was really screwed up. I just can't write this morning!

 

[outhouse]

Let's try a basic question....which came first?
Spirit or substance.

substance is a FACT


spirit is a missperception of a minds conciousness by ancient primitive people that got dragged into this modern time and knew NOTHING of the natural world around them.

 

[YeshaYaHu]

I have scientific evidence using the human body, atomic structure, galactic stucture, and true history.

Origins of DNA, all life, sudden speciation of the fossil record, regular ice ages, and more.....showing you in 7 posts...

 

[Quintessence]

spirit is a missperception of a minds conciousness by ancient primitive people that got dragged into this modern time and knew NOTHING of the natural world around them.

"Spirit" has broader meanings than is being given credit here. It didn't necessarily have anything to do with consciousness as we would define it, but can be a way of describing the animating principle or their essential purpose (think teleology). This animism is not a "misperception" it's just a different way of understanding the world (aka, a different philosophy). Most modern folks either don't understand animistic thinking or simply disagree with it since we've all been taught a hollow, mechanistic view of reality. Further, our post-englightenment culture's love affair with science all but forbids the sort of teleological thinking that spiritedness allows. This status quo is neither good nor bad, but it's neither fair nor accurate to simplify our ancestral (and current) belief in a concept like "spirit" to supposed misperceptions.

As for if spirit or substance came first, I'm not a matter-spirit dualist, so I would say neither.