DC Tom Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 Assuming that you accept it, and it appears that you do, Evolution is no more good or evil than Gravity. Are you shitting me? Gravity is FAR more evil. Do you have any idea how many people are killed by gravity every day??? Far more than die from evolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 Are you shitting me? Gravity is FAR more evil. Do you have any idea how many people are killed by gravity every day??? Far more than die from evolution. What's up dude? Ok, Evolution is no more evil than Gravity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 As you can tell from this board, I am a conservative (no **** Sherlock). I have a molecular bio background and it got me riled up on the conservative board I was on because some posters would always dismiss evolution with Bible quotes and NO scientific data. What got me banned was using scientific facts in an argument. These nuts would also argue that Roman Catholics and the Pope were not Christians. The owner (its a privately owned board) also allows venomous ant-Romney and anti Mormon posts and bans people who don't treat Palin the same way that Obamabots treat the Messiah. They make Connor look like a Nobel Medicine, Physics, or Chemistry Prize winner. A bunch of us conservatives who got kicked off went to a site called Darwin Central. The motto on the top of the page there is : "Corrupting the World's Youth Since 1859." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted April 7, 2010 Author Share Posted April 7, 2010 So you're questioning the tenets of evolution by pinning it against two completely different and unrelated concepts? Social Darwinism = lazy naming. If memory serves me correctly, the idea has absolutely no connection to Darwin himself. And Wacka is completely correct. Darwinism is rooted in biology, not astronomy and physics. Bah...ok dumbed down version: Why is Darwinism not immoral when applied to biology...cows...dinosaurs...Neanderthal Man(who was supposedly around the same time we were)....but suddenly becomes immoral, when applied to economics? The tenets of the theory itself do not define morality in any way, and are amoral. The theory is the the theory, and I am not the one running around using the phrase "Social Darwinism", liberals are: so, they are the ones relating these two concepts, not me. IF you have an issue with them being related, take it up with the people doing the relating and tell them to STFU... Thank you....is there anything else you want to tell me? Just be sure that it's at "the college level". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted April 7, 2010 Author Share Posted April 7, 2010 As to relating that to "liberal" belief in "big government"...I think it's a faintly ludicrous comparison, and I'm not going to discuss it. I agree with what you wrote above...just cutting the length, etc. but......I am not the one who is making the comparison. People who describe the free market as "Social Darwinism" are. So, apparently you think that is a ludicrous comparison...I tend to agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted April 7, 2010 Author Share Posted April 7, 2010 I actually read one of your posts and it didn't immediately make me want to puke. What a day I'm having! Put me back on ignore immediately! I enjoy doing my parodies of your posts, and its no fun if you can see them. Assuming that you accept it, and it appears that you do, Evolution is no more good or evil than Gravity. Something may indeed evolve into something else (or more likely many other things), but Evolution always requires something to evolve from and therefore does not really deal with the origin of the Big Bang. Evolution does strongly conflict with a literal interpretation of Genesis, which is why many fundamentalist Christians have such a problem with it. OK. Free Market != Evolution. They're not really the same thing at all. They only are, if the jackass liberals who keep using the term "Social Darwinism" say they are. I have a simple solution: tell your friends to stop using the term. It is ludicrous. It is retarded....but I am not the one running around saying it on TV and all over the internet. Think this is a stupid idea? Then get on the libtard websites and let them have it. The last part about god, government and global warming is interesting because unfounded faith in anything is a bunch of crap. At least government and global warming can be investigated and evaluated using science logic. Right, and the recent health care bill that no one read, that we had to pass in order to know what's in it....that was NOT the single biggest act of faith and not "science logic" you have ever seen? teehee...too easy My question would be, given that faith in a god REQUIRES a total lack of evidence by definition, why is belief in god acceptable? Faulty logic.... ....given that SOME black culture REQUIRES subscribing to dog fighting, why is ANY black culture acceptable? Get it? Probably not.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 Put me back on ignore immediately! I enjoy doing my parodies of your posts, and its no fun if you can see them. OK. They only are, if the jackass liberals who keep using the term "Social Darwinism" say they are. I have a simple solution: tell your friends to stop using the term. It is ludicrous. It is retarded....but I am not the one running around saying it on TV and all over the internet. Think this is a stupid idea? Then get on the libtard websites and let them have it. Right, and the recent health care bill that no one read, that we had to pass in order to know what's in it....that was NOT the single biggest act of faith and not "science logic" you have ever seen? teehee...too easy Faulty logic.... ....given that SOME black culture REQUIRES subscribing to dog fighting, why is ANY black culture acceptable? Get it? Probably not.... Wow, you've got some fugged up misconceptions and some twisted logic up in there. The point, apparently, is that you don't like lefties, but did we really need to invoke Darwin to illustrate this? You are all over the map and about to fall of the edge of the Earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 You are all over the map and about to fall of the edge of the Earth. Friggin' flat-earth liberals... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 These are some pretty odd claims. Would you please explain how you know these things? Point 2: Genesis 1:27 states - "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." (emphasis mine). I'm at work and don't have my concordance here with me, so I'll give you more examples later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 That doesn't disprove my point. Kind-of makes it, actually. One of the acts of worship includes getting to know the being that you're worshiping, so if that's your point, then OK. But I don't worship the physical book itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 Point 2: Genesis 1:27 states - "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." (emphasis mine). I'm at work and don't have my concordance here with me, so I'll give you more examples later. Which would be fantastic if taking a literal interpretation of the Bible were a rational thing to do... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 These nuts would also argue that Roman Catholics and the Pope were not Christians. I have no doubt there are Christians in the Catholic Church. I also have no doubt that the vast majority of idividuals in the Roman church would NOT be able to identify a biblically-based Christianity because of the teachings of the church. From my vantage point people who believe in things outside of the Bible can not, by definition, be Christians and compromising belief to spare feelings is not an option. IMO, Christians should not: Worship the Virgin Mary. Venerate saints. Pray to the aforementioned. Believe in transmutation. Believe ANY human being is infallible. Believe that works can get one into Heaven. Believe in Purgatory. And these are just a few points. Again, not to offend, just merely pointing out that there are SIGNIFICANT differences between what Catholics and Bible-believing Protestants believe. Also, I believe that any kind of cooperation between Evangelicals, Catholics and Politicians/Businessmen is the height of apostasy and shouldn't happen. I'm NOT a member of the religious right, despite what a few tools around here might think. My citizenship is elsewhere. Solo Scriptura. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 Which would be fantastic if taking a literal interpretation of the Bible were a rational thing to do... It's at least as rational as believing in an uncaused, unprovable, unobservable Big Bang or the random accumulation of inorganic molecules to form bilogical molecules that somehow become RNA and then DNA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 One of the acts of worship includes getting to know the being that you're worshiping, so if that's your point, then OK. But I don't worship the physical book itself. And if you were getting to know the being you're worshipping, that would be okay. You're not, you're getting to know the book. Thus...my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 It's at least as rational as believing in an uncaused, unprovable, unobservable Big Bang or the random accumulation of inorganic molecules to form bilogical molecules that somehow become RNA and then DNA. Actually, not even close. The Big Bang is not uncaused, unprovable or unobservable. You might have been thinking of "god". Whether or not you wish to entertain the notion that selective pressures working on "inorganic molecules" over billions of years can lead to DNA and RNA is really irrelevant. You obviously have an agenda and are hardly objective or educable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 It's at least as rational as believing in an uncaused, unprovable, unobservable Big Bang or the random accumulation of inorganic molecules to form bilogical molecules that somehow become RNA and then DNA. The Big Bang is both provable and observable, as is the capability of random systems to self-organize. What you're really arguing for is not "causation", but rationalization...the idea that because something happens, there must be a rationally deducible reason for it happening. The "why", rather than the "what" or "how". And the fact is, it's a fool's errand: even if you posit that "God did it", and He had a reason for doing it, you can't know what that reason is (or you think you can...and your arrogance in knowing God's will is at odds with your Christian humility.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 It's at least as rational as believing in an uncaused, unprovable, unobservable Big Bang or the random accumulation of inorganic molecules to form bilogical molecules that somehow become RNA and then DNA. Except there is actual scientific theory behind the Big Bang. It may not be absolutely proven, but there is a foundation of rational thought there. Belief in a literal interpretation of the Bible (especially the creation myth of Genesis) is based on nothing but blind faith. But let's just assume that the biblical creation myth and the Big Bang are equally irrational. Why do you choose to believe in one, but not the other? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 What does any of this have to do with the Left's animosity to the principal of natural selection outside of biology? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 Except there is actual scientific theory behind the Big Bang. It may not be absolutely proven, but there is a foundation of rational thought there. Belief in a literal interpretation of the Bible (especially the creation myth of Genesis) is based on nothing but blind faith. Nothing is ever absolutely proven. Scientific theories only describe the observable universe to a certain degree, not an absolute one. But let's just assume that the biblical creation myth and the Big Bang are equally irrational. Why do you choose to believe in one, but not the other? Fallacious question - never mind "rationality", why does anyone choose one belief over another? Personal bias, mostly. I choose to believe in empiricism over faith, simply because I find it difficult to live the other way around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 And if you were getting to know the being you're worshipping, that would be okay. You're not, you're getting to know the book. Thus...my point. The book describes the Being and records His works. I'm trying to understand God by studying a text that describes Him. What you're saying is if I read a book about apples in a search to understand apples better, I'm somehow worshiping the physical book about apples. That simply isn't the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts