Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 369

Thread: Rand's position on evolution - split thread

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudeman View Post
    Just curious, to those that have a problem with his position on evolution why does it bother you? What's wrong with someone believing in evolution? Like I get it from the other standpoint because then they label you as anti-science/non-intellectual but why is it a problem with the religious segment for someone to believe in evolution? Not an attack just curious to why it bothered people.

    Personally to me I don't care what a person's evolution position is because it is completely irrelevant to the job they are running for.
    I agree that your view of evolution is not relevant to politics. But as Nikcers showed in this thread there are many people who vote for politicians based on this one issue, so it has relevance electorally.

    As far as why macro evolution is wrong, it is wrong because it contradicts the Bible.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    I agree that your view of evolution is not relevant to politics. But as Nikcers showed in this thread there are many people who vote for politicians based on this one issue, so it has relevance electorally.

    As far as why macro evolution is wrong, it is wrong because it contradicts the Bible.

    Ah I see, that makes sense. Personally I consider myself Christian/Catholic (maybe others wouldn't and I really don't know enough about religion to know the differences between each Christian sect) but I don't believe everything in the Bible and view it as more of a guide than a book of facts, but I respect those that take a stricter view.



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    I agree that your view of evolution is not relevant to politics

  6. #34
    Maybe I'm not the most observant or Scripturally literate Believer, but I've never seen any Bible verse that rules out evolution. Why are evolution and intelligent design always treated as if they are mutually exclusive possibilities? Just because it took millions of years for us to reach this form doesn't mean there wasn't a Creator guiding the process, nor does acknowledging God mean one has to dismiss the last hundred years of science and pretend carbon-dating doesn't exist.
    "When it gets down to having to use violence, then you are playing the system's game. The establishment will irritate you - pull your beard, flick your face - to make you fight, because once they've got you violent then they know how to handle you. The only thing they don't know how to handle is non-violence and humor. "

    ---John Lennon


    "I EAT NEOCONS FOR BREAKFAST!!!"

    ---Me

  7. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    As far as why macro evolution is wrong, it is wrong because it contradicts the Bible.
    My friend, there is much in the bible that should not be taken literally. Ask yourself, do you believe the story of Adam and Eve is a literal interpretation of events? Or is it a beautiful allegory for the dawn of Man? Do you believe the entire world was flooded for 40 days? Or is this a symbolic piece of historical folklore which has been passed down from father to son for nearly 10,000 years? Do you believe that David vanquished Goliath with a single rock to the head? Or is this a chidren's story intended to teach a lesson that the small can overcome the great?

    I'm just saying, that you shouldn't reject the logic and evidence for the Theory of Evolution because of a literal interpretation of the Bible. It makes sense. Besides, how do you know how God intended to reach out to man with the words in the Bible? Perhaps they aren't all meant to be taken literally. If God gave you your logic and reasoning faculties, building you in His image, separating you from the animals. Don't you think He wants you to use this greatest of gifts to it's highest potential? Don't you think He'd want you to apply these gifts and learn as much as you can about the world you've been born into, so that you may fully appreciate God's design?
    Last edited by DevilsAdvocate; 05-30-2015 at 02:51 AM.

  8. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Brett85 View Post
    I'm a fundamentalist Christian, and Rand is certainly going to get my vote. I disagree with him on evolution, but I realize this really isn't a political issue. Rand understands that any political aspect of the issue would be handled locally. Also, Rand's position on this makes him much more electable in a general election. Unfortunately, most Americans care about non issues like this. But I know that someone with my views on these kind of issues could never get elected President in our country today.
    It's a moral issue and as politics are mostly about morals, it actually is political as well. People are more likely to vote for people who they believe are on their team / share their morals.

  9. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudeman View Post
    Just curious, to those that have a problem with his position on evolution why does it bother you? What's wrong with someone believing in evolution? Like I get it from the other standpoint because then they label you as anti-science/non-intellectual but why is it a problem with the religious segment for someone to believe in evolution? Not an attack just curious to why it bothered people.

    Personally to me I don't care what a person's evolution position is because it is completely irrelevant to the job they are running for.
    I think it's a problem to believe in evolution for religious people because it's entirely unbiblical. It completely contradicts the Bible. But I agree that it's irrelevant to the job that Rand is running for, and it doesn't affect my vote. But with some of Rand's other recent statements like seeming to be somewhat nonchalant on the abortion issue, he certainly runs the risk of alienating evangelicals in early states. He at least needs to get some of them to vote for him.

  10. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate View Post
    My friend, there is much in the bible that should not be taken literally. Ask yourself, do you believe the story of Adam and Eve is a literal interpretation of events? Or is it a beautiful allegory for the dawn of Man? Do you believe the entire world was flooded for 40 days? Or is this a symbolic piece of historical folklore which has been passed down from father to son for nearly 10,000 years? Do you believe that David vanquished Goliath with a single rock to the head? Or is this a chidren's story intended to teach a lesson that the small can overcome the great?

    I'm just saying, that you shouldn't reject the logic and evidence for the Theory of Evolution because of a literal interpretation of the Bible. It makes sense. Besides, how do you know how God intended to reach out to man with the words in the Bible? Perhaps they aren't all meant to be taken literally. If God gave you your logic and reasoning faculties, building you in His image, separating you from the animals. Don't you think He wants you to use this greatest of gifts to it's highest potential? Don't you think He'd want you to apply these gifts and learn as much as you can about the world you've been born into, so that you may fully appreciate God's design?
    Two points on this:

    1. The rationale for both Neo-Darwinism and Classical Darwinism positing a ridiculously old earth and, consequently, universe is because of speculative postulation, logic and evidence played an ancillary part in both Linnaeus and Darwin's thoughts on this topic at best.

    2. You are correct that there are parts of the scriptures that are not to be taken literally, and they are the specific parts where scripture states that it is using figurative language or where such an inference can be made based on corresponding points via the patriarchs, prophets, Christ, and the apostles. An example being the analogy of "the hand of God" and Jesus' own words qualifying that a spirit lacks physical/material attributes, thus resulting in said statement being an allusion to God's action and power, not a fleshy member. There are no such passages to be found in scripture stating that this is true of the opening Genesis narrative, nor in any corresponding viewpoint in any Christian prior to Linnaeus, and I don't put much stock in him being orthodox. The closest anyone comes to arguing for an "older earth" is by taking the "hyper-literal" approach that you are criticizing and apply it selectively to Psalms 90:4 and the corresponding citation in the NT in 2 Peter 3:8, which is a metaphorical statement of the distinction between eternity and temporal existence, not a numerology-based code.

    This won't affect my vote for Rand, but theistic evolution is a heterodox understanding of Genesis, and no amount of rationalizations are going to change that.
    Last edited by hells_unicorn; 05-30-2015 at 07:54 AM.

  11. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by BuddyRey View Post
    Maybe I'm not the most observant or Scripturally literate Believer, but I've never seen any Bible verse that rules out evolution. Why are evolution and intelligent design always treated as if they are mutually exclusive possibilities? Just because it took millions of years for us to reach this form doesn't mean there wasn't a Creator guiding the process, nor does acknowledging God mean one has to dismiss the last hundred years of science and pretend carbon-dating doesn't exist.
    Just because a general concept of God can be merged with a generic concept of evolution, doesn't mean the God of the Bible can be honestly reconciled with the modern scientific view of evolution, that rules out any designer being behind the process. Jesus was NOT a thiestic evolutionist, he believed in the historicity of Adam, Noah, the Flood, etc. Evolutionary scientists DO NOT accept teleology (a Designer) as part of any legitimate evolutionary model. You have to deal with reconciling these specific sides, not invent an abstract version of both views that few people actually subscribe to.

    It's like saying "the Ron Paul movement is not mutually exclusive with having a pro-Fed, pro-war mindset, since you can find certain supporters who are pro-Fed and pro-war." Would anybody here accept that as a honest merging of two clearly opposed camps? The issue is not merging generic notions, but with specifically reconciling the historicity of the Bible with naturalistic evolution. That specific merge is impossible, without both rejecting the Bible, and the current non-telological scientific model of evolution.

    To throw the "mutually exclusive" issue back the other way, why is the creation-evolution issue falsely defined as one of religion vs science, when the evidence can be (usually better) interpreted in an intelligent design context, and when evolution has religious aspects that are not subject to verification by the scientific method? Why paint the creation view and science as being mutually exclusive, and just admit there are alternate ways to account for the data? IAW, sauce for the goose, and drop the other shoe.

    Why do the same people who insist that people must be open to the legitimacy of theistic evolution, decline to be open to a scientific defense of creation? Being open in this direction means acknowledging there are physical processes that point to a recent creation, not just the "long ages" ones (like c-14, based on faulty assumptions) the evolutionists want to talk about. Are the advocates of "being open," open to acknowledging there are scientific difficulties with evolution? And so on.
    Last edited by Peace&Freedom; 05-30-2015 at 08:53 AM.
    -----Peace & Freedom, John Clifton-----
    Blog: https://electclifton.wordpress.com/2...back-backlash/

  12. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by Brett85 View Post
    I think it's a problem to believe in evolution for religious people because it's entirely unbiblical. It completely contradicts the Bible. But I agree that it's irrelevant to the job that Rand is running for, and it doesn't affect my vote. But with some of Rand's other recent statements like seeming to be somewhat nonchalant on the abortion issue, he certainly runs the risk of alienating evangelicals in early states. He at least needs to get some of them to vote for him.
    While my Christian and creation science view of the matter is clear (see previous post) as a practical political matter, this is a minor ding to Rand. Since it was on Chris Matthews or MSNBC, a network few people watch, it may not get out to many evangelicals at all to hurt him in the primaries. And as a matter of triangulation, it may be viewed as a Sista Souljah moment showing "Rand can stand up to his party base" and thus not alienate independents.
    -----Peace & Freedom, John Clifton-----
    Blog: https://electclifton.wordpress.com/2...back-backlash/



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #41
    ./
    Last edited by specsaregood; 05-17-2016 at 04:50 PM.

  15. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Peace&Freedom View Post
    And as a matter of triangulation, it may be viewed as a Sista Souljah moment showing "Rand can stand up to his party base" and thus not alienate independents.
    Murdoch's Fox has a very specific m.o. which is obvious to anyone and everyone who actually pays attention and is not in denial. That operative method is simple: Convince Republicans that anyone who is rational enough to win the general election is somehow unworthy of their primary votes.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    You only want the freedoms that will undermine the nation and lead to the destruction of liberty.

  16. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by specsaregood View Post
    In his answer, Randal actually went out of his way to not rule out any designer. Personally, I'm pleased with his answer to that question.
    But as a matter of truth, it still evades the reality that the God of the Bible and modern evolution science are not reconciliable. Not ruling out a designer in a generic way, simply softens Rand's specific rejection of the Bible, which was the actual substance of the exchange.
    -----Peace & Freedom, John Clifton-----
    Blog: https://electclifton.wordpress.com/2...back-backlash/

  17. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by hells_unicorn View Post
    Two points on this:

    1. The rationale for both Neo-Darwinism and Classical Darwinism positing a ridiculously old earth and, consequently, universe is because of speculative postulation, logic and evidence played an ancillary part in both Linnaeus and Darwin's thoughts on this topic at best.

    2. You are correct that there are parts of the scriptures that are not to be taken literally, and they are the specific parts where scripture states that it is using figurative language or where such an inference can be made based on corresponding points via the patriarchs, prophets, Christ, and the apostles. An example being the analogy of "the hand of God" and Jesus' own words qualifying that a spirit lacks physical/material attributes, thus resulting in said statement being an allusion to God's action and power, not a fleshy member. There are no such passages to be found in scripture stating that this is true of the opening Genesis narrative, nor in any corresponding viewpoint in any Christian prior to Linnaeus, and I don't put much stock in him being orthodox. The closest anyone comes to arguing for an "older earth" is by taking the "hyper-literal" approach that you are criticizing and apply it selectively to Psalms 90:4 and the corresponding citation in the NT in 2 Peter 3:8, which is a metaphorical statement of the distinction between eternity and temporal existence, not a numerology-based code.

    This won't affect my vote for Rand, but theistic evolution is a heterodox understanding of Genesis, and no amount of rationalizations are going to change that.
    So I guess Adam and Eve committed incest then? That's really what you're saying.

    I'm sorry if that statement sounds harsh or hateful, but these views you're clinging to are really childish. You are belittling yourself trying to argue such a thing as a rational person. This sort of thing is the reason religion is being rejected altogether by many modern people.

    The entire purpose of the Christian theology is to moderate social interaction between human beings. Anything separate from that is sideshow nonsense. Relgion lives between human beings, in relationships and feelings and emotions. In the personal sentiments that accompany the human condition. Trying to take moral teachings and bundle them with incorrect scientific statements, and then base the validity of your moral code on the validity of those same scientific statements...is just crazy. It's bonkers man! (For example: I am only right if pigs can fly. Pigs can't fly, therefore....)

    People need religious teachings. The role in society is too important to let it go. They are of monumental benefit for all the people of the Earth. From the downtrodden poor person, to the temptations of the rich person. Advancements in science have accompanied advancements in technology, in the same way advancements in religion have accompanied advancements of civilization. And in my view, all of this is being sacrificed because many Christians can't grown up and let go of their childish points of view.
    Last edited by DevilsAdvocate; 05-30-2015 at 09:07 AM.

  18. #45
    Jan2017
    Member

    Back in 2007 in Iowa - the week after the first GOP debate . . .

    DES MOINES, May 11 — Mitt Romney expanded on his belief in evolution in an interview earlier this week,
    staking out a position that could put him at odds with some conservative Christians, a key voting bloc he is courting.
    http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...volution/?_r=0

    Ex-Governor Huckabee is a hand-raiser in that old debate question -
    the first debate at The Reagan Library in Simi Valley back in May 2007.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4Cc8t3Zd5E

    .

  19. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudeman View Post
    Just curious, to those that have a problem with his position on evolution why does it bother you? What's wrong with someone believing in evolution? Like I get it from the other standpoint because then they label you as anti-science/non-intellectual but why is it a problem with the religious segment for someone to believe in evolution? Not an attack just curious to why it bothered people.

    Personally to me I don't care what a person's evolution position is because it is completely irrelevant to the job they are running for.
    I don't have a problem with his position on evolution either.

    Evolution is a scientific argument that he apparently buys. Which I think shows that he is a critical thinker. The problem I have with people who don't accept it, is that I think it shows either an inability to accept a critical argument, or a willingness to ignore certain facts about the universe - neither is a quality I want in a person in charge of anything. And while a view on the subject is irrelevant (in a direct sense) to the job they are running for, holding a position that the world was created a few thousand years ago is similar to holding the view that the Earth is the center of the universe, post Copernicus. Such views, which are contrary to observable reality, raises other important questions about their ability to act rationally.
    Reflect the Light!

  20. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Peace&Freedom View Post
    Just because a general concept of God can be merged with a generic concept of evolution, doesn't mean the God of the Bible can be honestly reconciled with the modern scientific view of evolution, that rules out any designer being behind the process. Jesus was NOT a thiestic evolutionist, he believed in the historicity of Adam, Noah, the Flood, etc. Evolutionary scientists DO NOT accept teleology (a Designer) as part of any legitimate evolutionary model. You have to deal with reconciling these specific sides, not invent an abstract version of both views that few people actually subscribe to.

    It's like saying "the Ron Paul movement is not mutually exclusive with having a pro-Fed, pro-war mindset, since you can find certain supporters who are pro-Fed and pro-war." Would anybody here accept that as a honest merging of two clearly opposed camps? The issue is not merging generic notions, but with specifically reconciling the historicity of the Bible with naturalistic evolution. That specific merge is impossible, without both rejecting the Bible, and the current non-telological scientific model of evolution.
    Excellent distinction...
    Reflect the Light!

  21. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Tansill View Post
    I don't have a problem with his position on evolution either.

    Evolution is a scientific argument that he apparently buys. Which I think shows that he is a critical thinker. The problem I have with people who don't accept it, is that I think it shows either an inability to accept a critical argument, or a willingness to ignore certain facts about the universe - neither is a quality I want in a person in charge of anything. And while a view on the subject is irrelevant (in a direct sense) to the job they are running for, holding a position that the world was created a few thousand years ago is similar to holding the view that the Earth is the center of the universe, post Copernicus. Such views, which are contrary to observable reality, raises other important questions about their ability to act rationally.
    No. Evolution is a non-observational religious viewpoint that is assumed before any evidence is examined. There is no such thing as a "fact" that is just out there and true. What you think the "facts" are and how you interpret the "facts" is governed by your underlying presuppositions.



  22. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  23. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    No. Evolution is a non-observational religious viewpoint that is assumed before any evidence is examined. There is no such thing as a "fact" that is just out there and true. What you think the "facts" are and how you interpret the "facts" is governed by your underlying presuppositions.
    Evolution is a process. To equate evolution with the theory that all life evolved from a single zygote that somehow formed by accident in the primordial soup is to once again try to win an argument not by making sense, but by redefining all the words in your opponent's statements until he either seems to agree with you or seems like a complete fool.

    I realize that a great many fundamentally-minded religious zealots consider this a perfectly logical, valid and reasonable tactic. I just don't agree.

    And these are just a few of the zillions of facts that your underlying suppositions can never change.
    Last edited by acptulsa; 05-30-2015 at 10:53 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    You only want the freedoms that will undermine the nation and lead to the destruction of liberty.

  24. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Peace&Freedom View Post
    But as a matter of truth, it still evades the reality that the God of the Bible and modern evolution science are not reconciliable. Not ruling out a designer in a generic way, simply softens Rand's specific rejection of the Bible, which was the actual substance of the exchange.
    You're absolutely correct. I support Rand for President but certainly wouldn't want him to be the pastor of my church.

  25. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    zillions of facts
    See that's just my problem with any belief system, my lizard brain just goes crazy when i start thinking about infinite, hell even numbers larger then my brain can process break reality to me. Maybe I fell and hit my head when I was a kid or maybe I'm living in a simulation. Chances are I'll never really find out who's right on this argument and I'll die scratching my head trying to wrap my head around infinite. To me trying to argue your belief system over the internet is just a form of mental masturbation.

  26. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    No. Evolution is a non-observational religious viewpoint that is assumed before any evidence is examined. There is no such thing as a "fact" that is just out there and true. What you think the "facts" are and how you interpret the "facts" is governed by your underlying presuppositions.
    Your equating evolution to a religious viewpoint is your own personal narrative used as a strawman to validate your own deeply religious outlook on the world, necessary because you don't see anything outside the goggles of religion; that is fine with me. I explained what is actually out there in order to present a viewpoint that mirrors reality as succinctly as possible, not to convince deeply religious people that science is not religion.

    Evolution is (first) observation, followed by inference.

    Religion is (first) declaration, followed by argument.
    Last edited by Mr Tansill; 05-30-2015 at 10:31 AM.
    Reflect the Light!

  27. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Tansill View Post
    Your equating evolution to a religious viewpoint is your own personal narrative you use as a strawman to validate your own deeply religious outlook on the world.

    Evolution is (first) observation, followed by inference.

    Religion is (first) declaration, followed by argument.

    Evolution is observed? Where has it EVER been observed that one kind of animal becomes another kind of animal?

  28. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    Evolution is a process. To equate evolution with the theory that all live evolved from a single zygote that somehow formed by accident in the primordial soup is to once again try to win an argument not by making sense, but by redefining all the words in your opponent's statements until he either seems to agree with you or seems like a complete fool.

    I realize that a great many fundamentally-minded religious zealots consider this a perfectly logical, valid and reasonable tactic. I just don't agree.
    And neither do supporters of creation accept the dogmatic secular zealots who think there is only one valid way to critically evaluate the available evidence. Macro-evolution is an alleged process that is not being observed or replicated today. To say it is just like the creation view, in that it is thus not subject to the scientific method (which requires current observation and replication), does not twist any words, it's just stating the reality. BOTH sides rely on suppositions applied to interpreting historical data, so attempts to frame one side as "science" and the other "religion" are wrong.
    -----Peace & Freedom, John Clifton-----
    Blog: https://electclifton.wordpress.com/2...back-backlash/

  29. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate View Post
    1. So I guess Adam and Eve committed incest then? That's really what you're saying.

    2. I'm sorry if that statement sounds harsh or hateful, but these views you're clinging to are really childish. You are belittling yourself trying to argue such a thing as a rational person. This sort of thing is the reason religion is being rejected altogether by many modern people.

    3. The entire purpose of the Christian theology is to moderate social interaction between human beings. Anything separate from that is sideshow nonsense.

    4. Relgion lives between human beings, in relationships and feelings and emotions. In the personal sentiments that accompany the human condition.

    5. Trying to take moral teachings and bundle them with incorrect scientific statements, and then base the validity of your moral code on the validity of those same scientific statements...is just crazy. It's bonkers man! (For example: I am only right if pigs can fly. Pigs can't fly, therefore....)

    6. People need religious teachings. The role in society is too important to let it go. They are of monumental benefit for all the people of the Earth. From the downtrodden poor person, to the temptations of the rich person.

    7. Advancements in science have accompanied advancements in technology, in the same way advancements in religion have accompanied advancements of civilization. And in my view, all of this is being sacrificed because many Christians can't grown up and let go of their childish points of view.
    1. Adam and Eve committing incest presupposes that they were brother and sister, that is never stated nor otherwise implied in the Genesis narrative. They are recognized as man and wife, and as far as I know, brothers and sisters don't arise from the ribs of one another. You might have a point if you wish to argue that their children committed incest, but the biblical prohibition on incest does not occur until the giving of the Levitical Law, which occurs after Genesis. Furthermore, one has to question whether incest is possible if there are no existing alternative mates to one's siblings, which is how we qualify the distinction between incest and normal marital relations. The only way you can presume that incest occurs prior to it being enunciated via a prohibition and the alternative being possible is that there is a standard higher than God's Law and, consequently, God himself, which is nonsensical.

    2. What you've said isn't necessarily hateful or harsh, but it is wrong and also fairly stupid.

    3. These are the words of a skeptic rewriting revelation based on his own whims, not of a Christian.

    4. In other words, you are a humanist, hence you are not a Christian. That's fine, just don't lie about it.

    5. Is that you talking or Richard Dawkins? I don't recall stating anything about pigs flying, that's nonsensical hyperbole that border on the spaghetti monster cliche, a non-sequitur and quite boring to be honest.

    6. So in other words, we need to make up a fictitious God in order to control people? That doesn't make any sense.

    7. I'm still waiting for you to actually address my points about the current taxonomy model used for the earth's age is speculative, and I have a feeling that I'll be waiting for a very long time, all the malarkey about what "you think" religion and science happen to be not withstanding.
    Last edited by hells_unicorn; 05-30-2015 at 10:51 AM.

  30. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    Evolution is observed? Where has it EVER been observed that one kind of animal becomes another kind of animal?
    The fossil record:

    When you look at the plethora of fossils we have dug out of the ground, it becomes apparent that there have been species that have shifted from one, to another. It's like looking at a time-lapse series of photographs. The same argument is used to point out that at one time, South America and Africa were once united as part of the same continent - in fact, similar species were found on both continents, which eventually evolved into others once the plates drifted apart, adding credence to the argument that the environment shapes the development of a species.

    DNA:

    Modern technology has been able to provide us with a profound insight into the interrelatedness of different species of animals. These connections and similarities have been able to show us connections between species that we didn't realize were there previously.

    Galapagos islands:

    Different climates on each of the islands lead to different kinds of plants as the majority. These plants (being the dominant food source) in turn, drive certain adaptations among the animal set that live on each of the islands. A notable example are the different tortoises that make the islands their home. On one island, there is a food source that requires the tortoise to be able to reach very high - this has led to the adaptation (speciation) of having a shell which juts upward right at the tortoise's neck - allowing the animal to reach that previously unobtainable food source. This is an easy one, but you can literally look at any animal species as an example, since they are all subject to the same forces.

    Once again, I'm not trying to convince you. I'm attempting to present a few facts and arguments to people who are stuck on a story. Now, it's up to you to turn your question against your belief system: When has it ever been observed that an entire ecosystem sprung into existence spontaneously, and completely - operating in perfect harmony?
    Reflect the Light!



  31. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  32. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by hells_unicorn View Post
    1. Adam and Eve committing incest presupposes that they were brother and sister, that is never stated nor otherwise implied in the Genesis narrative. They are recognized as man and wife, and as far as I know, brothers and sisters don't arise from the ribs of one another. You might have a point if you wish to argue that their children committed incest, but the biblical prohibition on incest does not occur until the giving of the Levitical Law, which occurs after Genesis. Furthermore, one has to question whether incest is possible if there are no existing alternative mates to one's siblings, which is how we qualify the distinction between incest and normal marital relations. The only way you can presume that incest occurs prior to it being enunciated via a prohibition and the alternative being possible is that there is a standard higher than God's Law and, consequently, God himself, which is nonsensical.
    According to the Genesis story, you are correct that Adam and Eve never committed incest themselves, but the remaining question, is where did offspring come from that were not part of that original DNA set? By necessity, either Adam and Eve had to mate with their offspring, or their offspring had to mate with each other - which is the critique actually leveled against that story. I felt it necessary to provide it for you explicitly.

    The tactic you use (which is a standard religious retreat), is to return to scripture and argue that the definition of incest didn't exist yet, so it was all good - which of course ignores everything we know about genetics and science.

    The overall trend in the world is to less religion, which is a godsend. The imposition that the ultra-religious among us make is that we must submit to their view of how the world is - which is based on an old book, and stories passed down over hundreds (if not thousands) of years. This is the ultimate form of power abuse and is the theme of George Orwell's book, 1984: X is true, because I say X is true. I control reality. I control your reality. Don't you dare say you believe in evolution because you will lose my vote.

    IMO, it is long past time that we (rationals) jettison our attachment to gaining the base of the republican party. There is a legitimate, justifiable, and rational base for having a conservative or libertarian outlook on the world, and our association with those people who hold dearly to ridiculous assertions is a liability in the long run. You are right, in the short run, he may lose votes, but the libertarian ideal is more than about just Ron or Rand Paul. In short, what is happening, it the movement is evolving to the changing landscape - which is a good thing because it means it may survive.
    Last edited by Mr Tansill; 05-30-2015 at 11:03 AM.
    Reflect the Light!

  33. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Tansill View Post
    The fossil record:

    1. When you look at the plethora of fossils we have dug out of the ground, it becomes apparent that there have been species that have shifted from one, to another. It's like looking at a time-lapse series of photographs. The same argument is used to point out that at one time, South America and Africa were once united as part of the same continent - in fact, similar species were found on both continents, which eventually evolved into others once the plates drifted apart, adding credence to the argument that the environment shapes the development of a species.

    DNA:

    2. Modern technology has been able to provide us with a profound insight into the interrelatedness of different species of animals. These connections and similarities have been able to show us connections between species that we didn't realize were there previously.

    Galapagos islands:

    3. Different climates on each of the islands lead to different kinds of plants as the majority. These plants (being the dominant food source) in turn, drive certain adaptations among the animal set that live on each of the islands. A notable example are the different tortoises that make the islands their home. On one island, there is a food source that requires the tortoise to be able to reach very high - this has led to the adaptation (speciation) of having a shell which juts upward right at the tortoise's neck - allowing the animal to reach that previously unobtainable food source. This is an easy one, but you can literally look at any animal species as an example, since they are all subject to the same forces.

    Once again, I'm not trying to convince you. I'm attempting to present a few facts and arguments to people who are stuck on a story. Now, it's up to you to turn your question against your belief system: When has it ever been observed that an entire ecosystem sprung into existence spontaneously, and completely - operating in perfect harmony?
    1. Sola_Fide is not talking about shifts in species or speciation, he's talking about shifts in type/genus, which are not observed, and so-called transitional species accounting from these changes in genus in the fossil record are, at best, speculative evidence given the massive gaps between them, ergo no evidence for the so-called gradual transition over time that is being inferred.

    2. The DNA record, like the periodic table, tells us that all organic life is interrelated. This does not itself presuppose a common ancestor for all types/genus groups, that part is wholly speculative.

    3. Again, we are not talking about speciation, whether it be in plants or animals, which could simply be pre-programmed adaptations based on an existing genetic schematic if one takes any type of a "design" position. Show me an oak tree that can be observed morphing into a cactus when it is planted in a desert and you'll be closer to the absurdity being presupposed by what macro-evolution implies.
    Last edited by hells_unicorn; 05-30-2015 at 11:00 AM.

  34. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by hells_unicorn View Post
    Furthermore, one has to question whether incest is possible if there are no existing alternative mates to one's siblings, which is how we qualify the distinction between incest and normal marital relations.
    So remember, children, incest is only incest if there's someone besides an immediate family member to $#@!. If there isn't, then it might be incest, but just because it is incest doesn't mean it's incest.

    Quote Originally Posted by hells_unicorn View Post
    The only way you can presume that incest occurs prior to it being enunciated via a prohibition and the alternative being possible is that there is a standard higher than God's Law and, consequently, God himself, which is nonsensical.
    Remember, children, smoking marijuana was not smoking marijuana prior to 1937, because obviously no one could smoke marijuana before smoking marijuana was prohibited.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    You only want the freedoms that will undermine the nation and lead to the destruction of liberty.

  35. #60

Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Religion discussion split from Rand thread
    By wizardwatson in forum Peace Through Religion
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 04-28-2015, 02:04 PM
  2. Rand moneybomb split thread
    By enhanced_deficit in forum Open Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-27-2014, 01:24 PM
  3. Split from Rand-Tillis thread
    By Carlybee in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-08-2014, 09:32 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •