quote:God is using the human race to justify Himself, in the debate He has with Satan, by making us to be the last, compelling argument that vindicates His honor.
Ron, your version of God makes me feel great sorrow for you. It must be horrible to think that you are honoring God by being irredeemably evil enough to prove His point to the peanut gallery.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
If you're going to get picky, Darwin didn't identify the genetic reasoning behind changes between generations, he only specified that they did occur. Lamarck assumed that changes that occurred during a generation could be passed on to the next generation, which is false because there is no biological mechanism to do so. If you're going to make the point, you can't afford to leave out Mendel, who supplied the inheritance mechanism to complete Darwin's picture.
Memes may be modified by Lamarckian evolution, but they survive by Darwinian evolution.
Cars rarely evolve during a single generation, but selection pressure (market forces) determine whether modifications are propagated through the species.
And your initial statement had nothing to do with Darwin or otherwise, you said that cars are not subject to evolutionary theory, which is flat out wrong.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's no reason for a theist not to read and participate in a thread "aimed" at atheists. And vice versa. I think that questions are always welcomed. Not so sure about the over-quoting of the favourite scriptures, though. (At what point does it turn into prostelysing?)
quote:Originally posted by Shawshank: This thread is really angry. That's why I haven't participated. It's a little too vitriolic for me.
Yes, and that's exactly what I was hoping would not happen, vis-à-vis, my first sentence in my original post, specifically because I didn't want it to degenerate into an argument. I don't own this board, so I'm not going to tell anyone they can and can't post wherever they want to, but I was actually hoping no theists would participate, since my original questions are not applicable to them.
However, for those who did answer my original questions, I am grateful that you did so, truthfully and insightfully, with respect and without reproach.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not going to get involved in the heavier discussions, but something quoted in the thread makes me laugh.
It was the anecdote about the high school chemistry teacher talking about Moses and the Ten Commandments.
Heh, if I understood correctly, she referred to them as, "...stupid common sense rules..."
OK, setting aside things like the idolatry commandment...I marvel at how foolish someone can be, to refer to common sense rules as foolish. If they're common sense rules, by definition they're not stupid. Atomic weights and other scientific knowledge is very important, but as far as humanity is concerned, the 'common sense' rules are much more important.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But doesn't it seem silly to use your divine might to tell everybody "Be good now."
It just seems to me that we'd figure out that killing people and stealing from each other wasn't a way to succeed against rival tribes/groups/civilizations. And somewhat ironic that in place of some useful science that would have improved quality of life and spurred on future advances (antibiotics, for example would have given those who received that tablet a significant leg up over those who did not get the tablet) they received a list of "common sense rules"(not saying you said it, but that it has been said).
"If they're common sense rules, by definition they're not stupid." And if they're common sense rules, you don't need to be commanded to follow them!
"Plenty of atheists feel the need to make lengthy statements in religious threads." I wouldn't butt my head into a discussion between theists in a thread called "a question about soup making for theists" and offer my atheistic methods of soup making. (note: I hate having to make these notes subnote: I am not proposing that an asinine thread such as theistic soup-making would be a thread made by theists or atheists specifically to exclude the other group. I was using it as an off-the-top-of-the-head example for a name, facetiously.)
THAT is where my objection to theistic comments in this thread comes from, busting into a peaceful debate with palm extended, radiant back-lighting and a bible tucked under one arm preaching scripture to us, scripture about a non-atheistic view of the afterlife, which was not allowed for in the original post. (I realize that it's not MANDATORY to respect the thread starter's wishes, but it seems like it would have been nice, but then we would not have gotten megabyte's rant, so maybe it was worth it)
(I have a lot of little asides in my posts...)(I hope I don't offend people too horribly by my caricaturization or irreverent references to things like Ron's ?valiant? posts here. that little attitude just seems to slip through in my sarcastic personality... So, soorry if you hate me sometimes, but realize I do feel sorta bad... sometimes... ? I hope you get what I'm saying, and that this whole post hasn't been a bunch of gobbledygook... which it may have now devolved into.)
Posts: 655 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Starsnuffer: It just seems to me that we'd figure out that killing people and stealing from each other wasn't a way to succeed against rival tribes/groups/civilizations.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
