Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Miles]

.

Came across this little gem a bit ago and thought I'd share.




Thoughts?

.

[Difflugia]

Is it slanted as I believe it is? If so, then that's bad evidence and a bit of a red herring, no?

It seems to me a form of cherry-picking.

You also still haven't justified these comments, Cosmic Trickster or no.

[Dimmesdale]

You are claiming that your position is exactly what the image is mocking, that divine revelation trumps all of the evidence.

The evidence used to establish the theory of evolution is also part of nature. And nature derives itself from God's being. So it is not entirely false. It has something to tell us about reality, if we read the book of nature properly, or, contextually.

For instance, in my view, it is true that all life is indeed related. Humans and apes, for instance.... Man is made in the image of God, as they say. And also, some say, as do I, the devil is the "ape of God." Man, having both good and bad qualities in him, is bestially related to all lesser creatures. He partakes of their attributes. In one way or another. In that way, evolution is not wholly false.

The only thing that rescues you is a bit of a disclaimer:

That's why there are so few loose threads in the fabric holding up the ToE. Except (in my opinion) things like common sense, say.

I take that to mean that you think there's another alibi somewhere. Unless your "common sense" would reject solid evidence, then you must think that there's something, somewhere that renders the evidence less than solid.

I might be mistaken about your position, though.

The "solid evidence" for evolution consists in its facility for being weaved into the grand narrative that it provides. What is the reason for this compelling narrative? I would say it taps into an actual truth, but then distorts or fidgets with it a bit. The reason we find King Arthur so stirring is that it taps into our love for great ideal men, who are sometimes more than ideal, albeit rare. Just so, evolution takes our natural affinity for creatures, and makes it out that we are related by direct ancestral lineage, rather than in a non-linear and non-adulterous way that respects the discrete human essence while also respecting the eagle's eyes, the bull's strength, the tiger's cunning and the lion's boldness -- all of which are attributes that humans analogically share in. But we are also physical, thus very physically related to All of Nature.

How does one detect this? If one reads the data closely enough, did God leave a "wink" in there somewhere for those looking for it? If not, how do you justify that you're on the rational side of the line that you mentioned earlier?

In order to receive the full purport and conclusion, one has to do more than study physical sciences. One needs a narrative that can organize the physical sciences, and, really, all of human knowledge.

I am rational because I have a true and correct narrative that can put all of science into its proper context, without diverging into un-orthodox speculations which contradict revealed truth.

[Purple Knight]

Proponents of evolution simply think it is obvious it is true. It isn't. You can be rational and not believe it.

Too often this is true. I also find myself a little irked at what I call the "assumptive atheist" who simply believes it's obvious that anything written by prehistoric goat herders about the nature of the universe is a bunch of made-up nonsense.

It may be something that they made up, AND it may also be true. People who make things up happen to be right all the time. There also may have been a Creator at one point, and it may have died or gotten bored of us.

You can be rational and believe almost anything you like about how life came to be simply because, although there's very good evidence for the going scientific theories, there's not proof positive, not enough to dismiss anything as something that couldn't possibly have ever happened.

As for myself I'm immersed in the effects of evolution and selective breeding - both natural and artificial selection - so I can't just not believe it. If you're breeding an animal, you can't just pray for a better one; you must take careful note of traits and select for the ones you want. And I find the idea rather farfetched that Nature itself doesn't do this by selecting for gazelles with longer legs or predators with sharper teeth and claws... so I'm not going to be discarding my belief in evolution anytime soon. That doesn't mean I can't be wrong, however.

[Diagoras]

[Replying to Diagoras in post #306]

Firstly, Clownboat was making a point about homosexuality not being a choice. It’s unclear in your example of the husband and wife whether the husband is actually supposed to be gay or not. If not, then the whole example isn’t really addressing the point Clownboat is making, and would be straw manning.

The husband is heterosexual going to a women's strip club. (on in which women are the ones on stage.) So he may be tempted to go but he can choose not to go. The same is true of someone that he gets along with very well, he must choose not to go out with that person.

Thanks for clarifying. The example as explained doesn’t address the point about sexuality not being a choice though.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Diagoras in post #335]

Thanks for clarifying. The example as explained doesn’t address the point about sexuality not being a choice though.

What are you trying to express? That no one can choose not to have not to be intimate with someone. A faithful husband has to choose all the time to be only intimate with his wife and not others that he may be attracted to for the good of his wife and family. And when he makes that decision his love for his wife and his attraction for his wife follows his actions.

The same is true for those that have same-sex attractions. Choosing not to be intimate with the same sex and not to engage in homosexual activities with the same sex for the good of themselves. And then choosing to heterosexually with people of the opposite sex will produce feelings and attractions for the opposite sex. Feelings follow actions. Or to put it another way. Actions produce feelings.

Sexual attraction for anyone is a choice.

[Clownboat]

Ok do you agree with my definition of love?

4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres

I do not. Love is chemical reactions occuring in the brain (dopamine and norepinephrine). Love is not these other things.
These chemical reactions in the brain may cause a person to be patient with someone they love, but love does not become patients. Love is still what is happening in the brain.

Being kind, not envying and not being boastful or proud are not definitions of love that I would accept. If someone is kind, they are kind. Love need not enter the equation.

This is not explaining anything. You are trying to equate groups that are not equitable.

Let's let the readers decide.
You don't deserve to have this thing that I enjoy, because gay, or because Muslim, or because of skin color.
Readers, when I say "because gay" or because of some other reason. Ask yourself if I'm doing what Earthscienceguy claims and that I am actually equating being gay with being Muslim or having a certain skin color.

IMO, the 'or' is all that is needed to show that I am differentiating and not equating said groups.

It is not just evil to restrict love, however one defines it. It is wrong to restrict anything I hold dear for myself from another qualifying human being.

It can be loving if to restrict love if it is better for someone else's health and well-being if love is restricted.

I feel you are just trying to justify something horrible by trying to consider it loving. No suprise when love to you can mean 'not being boastful'.
It is still wrong to retrict something you hold dear from yourself from another human. Love need not enter the equation.

This has nothing to do with sexual orientation. What quantifies a wife to receive more affection from a husband than he shows to anyone else? (or at least that is the way it is supposed to be)

I don't claim to know, nor do I understand what it has to do with restricting things we hold dear from other qualifying humans.
Feel free to explain your take on a wifes affection from her husband, but it seems well off topic.

Not at all. I am simply trying to point out how we have different levels of affection for people in our lives

No matter your level of affection for a person, I claim it is still wrong to restrict something I hold dear for myself, from them. Especially if we are doing so because they are gay, Muslim, blue eyed and just about any other description you can put forth. It is still wrong to restrict in this case.

So you are defining love as a feeling

I defined it as chemical reactions taking place in the brain. I reject that love is kind or not being proud as you put forth.

That is because love is not an activity or a feeling but love is a commitment to another person to always look out for the others' best interest.

Love is simply chemical reactions in the brain. I hold dear being able to act on those reaction and would find it evil to restrict another human from doing the same. Even if they are Catholic! Arguments made about how Catholics divorce at higher rates then another group would fall on deaf ears for me as a reason to try to restrict Catholics from this.

You deserve the same IMO.

IMO?

In my opinion.

You can try to convince me that you don't deserve what I deserve and hold dear, but my compassion and empathy will make it hard for me to accept admittedly.

No idea what you are trying to communicate here.

Let's try this angle.
It would be compassion and empathy that would make me desire for you to be able to practice whatever religion you choose. Something I once held dear.
Arguments like, but green eyed people, or people that are gay don't deserve to be able to practice the religion they choose would not work on me.

[Clownboat]

My argument is not that Gay, Muslim and skin color are equal. It would be wrong to restrict something I hold dear from someone else for such reasons though. That is my argument.

Gay, Muslim, and skin color are not equal.

Holy crap, did this just happen? Please see what I bolded above. Gotta love common ground though.

And yes someone should think twice about choosing to love someone with a different worldview, especially if the worldview you have is important to you.

Is this to claim that the chemical reactions taking place in the brain are a choice? I do not control my dopamine or norepinephrine levels. If you can, how is it that you do so?
No need to answer really, as this has nothing to do with restricting something I hold dear from another human.

(The other two are chosen charateristics.)
One can't choose to be gay from my experience. I do not have the ability to walk in to a male strip club and get aroused. I cannot choose such a thing. Therefore, it cannot be a choice. If it were a choice, why wouldn't you choose to be straight?

This is just entirely false. If a husband is faithful to his wife he will choose not to go into a strip club out of respect for the commitment that he has made to his wife.

Please show your work.
A straight man walks in to a gay bar. Discovers that he cannot choose to be aroused by the male stripper.
This demonstrates that being gay is not something a person can choose.

You obfuscate by bringing in faithfulness to a wife when such a thing is not needed nor noted in the statement.

If he meets someone that he is attracted to and can talk with, he will limit his exposure to that person out of respect for the commitment that he has made to his wife.

And if we find out that Latinos or those with tattoos don't limit their exposure to a person they feel an attraction to, would it be right to restrict them from marriage? I would find that to be an evil.

If homosexuality is a destructive behavior as statistics seem to imply then attraction can be changed by different actions. I have known many men who have changed their attraction by different actions.

I'll take your word for it. If anything, this tells us that sexuality may have some fluidity.
I cannot choose to be gay. For me, there is no choice involved. Did you choose to be gay?

Is it an act done for self-satisfaction or is it done for the benefit of the other person?

Depends. Am I on my way to eat a delicious steak or driving a homeless person to a food shelf?
I like steak and being fed. I would not seek to restrict such things from another human.

You seem to like to try to equate things that are not equitable to make your point. This type of error usually indicates a fallacy in the original premise.

You asked two questions: Is it being done for this or that?
I answered both of your questions. One in regards to self-satisfaction, the other in regards to the benifit of another person as you asked.
At least I am addressing what you have asked.

Restricting a relationship is not like eating.

I never claimed it was, but I enjoy both things and would find it evil to restrict either.

A person can survive without having a relationship with a particular person.

I never claimed that a person cannot survive without having a relationship with a particular person. This is a strawman.

A person cannot survive without eating.

I have never argued that a person can survive without eating.

Please come back to the debate that I'm having about how I feel it is wrong to restrict something we hold dear for ourselves from another human.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #337]

I do not. Love is chemical reactions occurring in the brain (dopamine and norepinephrine). Love is not these other things.
These chemical reactions in the brain may cause a person to be patient with someone they love, but love does not become patient. Love is still what is happening in the brain.

So love is simply the pleasure that someone else can give you?

So according to your definition, the "love" that pedophiles feel towards children is the same love as you feel. If love is nothing more than a chemical reaction.

Being kind, not envying and not being boastful or proud are not definitions of love that I would accept. If someone is kind, they are kind. Love need not enter the equation.

I would not call being intimate with someone simply because they give a person a dopamine hit as "kind". I would call that selfish lust. Once the dopamine hit is no longer there, then the person can be discarded because the dopamine (or love) is no longer there.




This is not explaining anything. You are trying to equate groups that are not equitable.

It is not just evil to restrict love, however, one defines it. It is wrong to restrict anything I hold dear for myself from another qualifying human being.

So you would not restrict the love that a pedophile has for a child.

I feel you are just trying to justify something horrible by trying to consider it loving. No surprise when love to you can mean 'not being boastful'.

Many people have denied themselves love for the betterment of those around them. Many men and women have denied themselves the feeling of love for the betterment of their children.

It is still wrong to retrict something you hold dear from yourself from another human. Love need not enter the equation.

Why? if all you are looking for is a dopamine hit.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 338:

So love is simply the pleasure that someone else can give you?

So according to your definition, the "love" that pedophiles feel towards children is the same love as you feel. If love is nothing more than a chemical reaction.

All thought processes, all actions of human beings are the result of electro-chemical reactions, up to and including the disgusting example of pedophiles, yes.

I love my old lady both chemically, and physically. I know this because when she ain't even near, I'm trying to figure me out ways to get her nekkid, and when she's physically near, I'm achasing her around trying to get it done.

But ultimately, all my thoughts and actions in these endeavors are the result of electro-chemical actions within my body.

This is fact. It's not open to debate by anyone but those who reject this fact.

I would not call being intimate with someone simply because they give a person a dopamine hit as "kind". I would call that selfish lust.

I think it's incredibly kind of the pretty thing to give me that rush. And she'll do it long as I ain't done me something to make her made at me, or her girl thing there flaired it up.

Once the dopamine hit is no longer there, then the person can be discarded because the dopamine (or love) is no longer there.

In some circles, it's called "chasing the dragon". It's why so many crackheads struggle to put down the pipe.

Or why I keep me achasing the pretty thing round the pool table.

I don't discard her after I've caught her. I just rest up til I can catch me a second wind.

...
So you would not restrict the love that a pedophile has for a child.

That'n sets us to informed consent, and how we consider on if a kid truly understands the ramifications of it.

So yeah, let's outlaw the pedophilia.

Many people have denied themselves love for the betterment of those around them. Many men and women have denied themselves the feeling of love for the betterment of their children.

Which is their right.

I don't see any reason to get on em for it.

It is still wrong to restrict something you hold dear from yourself from another human. Love need not enter the equation.

Why? if all you are looking for is a dopamine hit.

Cause empathy is a thing.

I ain't cool with the getting married. It just feels like being anchored down to me. And I reject anyone who tries to get onto me about 'lusting' after the woman I love. But I don't seek to deny marriage to those of the age of legal consent. Man and woman, man and man, woman and woman, and all them other gender words folks are using now.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #340]

All thought processes, all actions of human beings are the result of electro-chemical reactions, up to and including the disgusting example of pedophiles, yes.

I love my old lady both chemically, and physically. I know this because when she ain't even near, I'm trying to figure me out ways to get her nekkid, and when she's physically near, I'm achasing her around trying to get it done.

But ultimately, all my thoughts and actions in these endeavors are the result of electro-chemical actions within my body.

This is fact. It's not open to debate by anyone but those who reject this fact.

Yes, it is a fact that animals act the way they do because of the electrochemical reactions in their bodies. What makes humans different than animals is that FACT that we do not have to act on every electrochemical impulse that our bodies have.

If what you are saying is true that we are simply subject to the electrochemical actions in our bodies then you would not just be chasing around "your old lady" but every other person that triggered the electrochemical reactions. So what makes "your old lady" more special than anyone else.

I think it's incredibly kind of the pretty thing to give me that rush. And she'll do it long as I ain't done me something to make her made at me, or her girl thing there flaired it up.

That may be her being kind to you. But again what makes her more special than any other "pretty thing" out there?

Or why I keep me achasing the pretty thing round the pool table.

I don't discard her after I've caught her. I just rest up til I can catch me a second wind.

Why don't you discard her? Because of the chance for another dopamine hit? So "your pretty" is only around for your pleasure.

So yeah, let's outlaw pedophilia.

On what grounds? If love is a dopamine hit.

Cause empathy is a thing.

Not according to your philosophy. The only thing that is a "thing" in your philosophy of love is the acquisition of pleasure.

I ain't cool with the getting married. It just feels like being anchored down to me. And I reject anyone who tries to get onto me about 'lusting' after the woman I love. But I don't seek to deny marriage to those of the age of legal consent. Man and woman, man and man, woman and woman, and all them other gender words folks are using now.

According to your philosophy on love lusting and loving are the same thing all both have to do with is the acquisition of pleasure. And on what grounds are you limiting the "love" of those that are underage.