Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#424351 Dec 4, 2012
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
Imagine if you were a minority demographic, let's say the demographic of bald men, and the majority demographic, men with hair, all held the belief that going bald was a sign of stupidity. Now imagine you are a teenager that goes bald prematurely, maybe the only bald teen in your school. You're stupid because you're bald. You can try to fake it, put on a wig of luscious hair, but everyone already knows you're bald. You can't choose to have hair. You can try to pray the bald away, but it doesn't work. You start to believe you really are stupid because everyone believes that to be the case. I don't think baldness is a sign of stupidity, in fact, I stand out in opposition of this belief. I'm not even bald. For every person that says baldness is a sign of stupidity, I point out that holding that belief is a sign of irony.
I don't know if that was good at all, as I am getting sleepy and my arms are hurting from power typing.
I understand what you are saying. Although I do think this would be the case with or without the church teaching it. School-kids are not exactly the most enlightened groups. You will always have parents that are bigots. In fact, even though I remember feeling the same as you said you were taught in an earlier post, that homosexuality was immoral and abnormal, I was never taught that in the church despite that being its stance and me going to a parochial school. It honestly never came up, nor did sexual education in general. Back then the movies were far less progressive, I can remember rap sons like "no Vaseline" by Ice Cube or "one in a Million" by Guns-n-roses were it is used as an insult, and the playground is where you do most of your learning.

I think the church has contributed to overall societal bias and that is wrong considered they have hypocritically singled out one of 665 sins and conveniently one they know they won't commit. But the unfortunate truth is people learn to become prejudiced normally long before that. Most people don't even get serious about their religion until adulthood. It is then that it is used as an excuse to hate. It is why the younger generations being more progressive is going to finally start turning the tide where society will simply be looked at like people are people. You gotta give the younger generation one thing, the ability to care about nothing one way or the other sometimes works despite itself.

But the days of the bigot are ending. Another 100 years as the races are more mixed and homosexuality means nothing then people will look back and shake their heads at their unenlightened ancestors. I am not a republican, never been a republican. I actually feel bad for some of the moderate ones who have been overrun by the tea-party.He said people have all these excuses why they lost the election. Some being that they weren't aggressive enough! He said B.S. He said what some of his party can't understand is people are sick of government figures judging their private lives and being in their bedroom. He was 100% right. If people want to survive they will change or get left behind because the rest of society is putting bigotry slowly in the past, and that even includes newer people int he faith. JMO

(T) People

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#424352 Dec 4, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
What's a "survival instinct"?
We can call adaptation (the product of natural selection) an improvement if and only if the environment has not changed.
Admittedly, that happens. It happens very quickly. It goes like this: environment changes, most individuals in the population cannot survive and reproduce and die out. Of those who survive, those with mutations that are beneficial in this new environment come to dominate in the population. Very quickly, in terms of the fossil record, a new adaptive peak is reached.
Evolution cannot produce perfection - it's a series of compromises. Individual bodies develop with limited resources and each part of the body uses them. In humans, the central nervous system, immune system and stature (muscles and skeleton) are all drawing from a limited energy supply (available food and nutrition and the speed of digestion minus parasites and pathogens in the environment). This is why people in poorer nations are shorter - their central nervous system and immune system take the energy first, the body compromises.
So the adaptive peak for a species is "the best, most efficient adaptations, given physical and environmental constraints."
Your last question - can species evolve to be more likely to go extinct - is a good one. It's basically true of any specialist species. Humans and most primates are all generalists - and rats - so they do very well in a variety of environments. But evolution tends to select for the best solution to a given problem and that tends to produce specialists.
For example, cheetahs are great at running fast. But they can't compete against any other large predator on the plains. Their specialized method of hunting interferes with their ability to survive and reproduce where other large predators steal prey from them.
Perhaps a better example are parasites like the guinea worm. It only infects humans - but we're smarter and we've learned how to break the cycle. Since the guinea worm is a specialist, since we've broken its reproductive cycle, it will go extinct. If it were not a specialist and could infect, say, cows, it would survive.
Most species are specialists (the vast majority of beetle species, for example, live on one or two trees; so they go extinct when we clear forests). 98.9% of all species have gone extinct because they were unable to cope with changing environments. So you're right - evolution is blind, it produces specialists b/c specialists are great in the short term (they outcompete non-specialists under most conditions) but when the environment changes, they die out for lack of flexibility.
It means that most speciation comes from generalist species that are radiating into specialist niches.
Interesting. So it would seem not every evolution is necessarily an advantage. I know we discussed what it meant by smaller brains and you while the article thought it meant a more efficient brain you felt there may be signs that show we are actually getting less intelligent.

Let me ask a somewhat related question because i am always told abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution and to me that seems not to be the case. Yes i can understand someone being able to study evolution without knowing every change or from start to present but at the same time it seems irrevocably linked because if whatever life started as couldn't have evolved into what it is now or without knowing what it was, that leaves all sorts of questions as to our origins.

So I guess ihave two questions

1) What is the furthest back we can trace man's evolution?

2) What do you personally think man evolved from, if you could go from the beginning without evidence? Do you feel it has been one single species evolving or perhaps was an off-shoot of another species?

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#424353 Dec 4, 2012
A Former Liberal wrote:
<quoted text>
Judging by the content of your posts, you don't even bother to try. I guess that 'divine forgiveness' routine really works for you.
<quoted text>
Atheists don't answer to your 'laws.' Haven't you figured that out by now?
"you don't even bother to try"

"Atheists don't answer to 'laws'"

it's really fun & easy to allow hypocrites to expose their own hypocricy;)

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

#424354 Dec 4, 2012
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
wow, what an obsessed lunatic. 7 responses to posts not to you? Why is is I seem to bring out the lunatics of all ages? Karl now I told you before i have nothing to say to you until you come clean on your lies. You that Christians kept "getting in your face" and telling you to go to hell and you not only want that to be considered assault but that it should require automatic incarceration. I couldn't imagine how one could keep finding themself in such a combative situation in real life unless they sought it out and if you wanted someone to go to jail over posting to you on Topix than you are just insane. So did you make up these stories Karl? I say you are a liar? What say you? Why won't you answer?
Let's see if I have this straight.

Karl is an obsessed lunatic.

And you have nothing to say to him.

But you proceed to say stuff to him.

What's up with that?

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#424355 Dec 4, 2012
A Former Liberal wrote:
<quoted text>
Too bad it's a false promise, isn't it?
No one in their right mind would ever believe such utter crap.
no one who isn't saved has a "right mind":)

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#424356 Dec 4, 2012
Grace Walker wrote:
<quoted text>
According to the New Testament,they were Different because Paul was sent to the Gentiles and Peter, James and John was sent to teach the Jews..
That is a very good explanations as I am sure their teachings were tailored to their audience a bit. Although one still might question why Paul decided to take so much focus off of faith being shown through works and focusing almost solely on grace just because he was teaching the gospel to those who had not heard it before? An easier sell that way? There is evidence in Paul's own writings that sometimes he took the path of least resistance when witnessing.

I am not saying it isn't smart to try to reach people in a way in which they will relate to you best but it makes me wonder. Just seems like some people love the idea they were predestined to be saved and nothing they can do can ever prevent that from happening and that for some people removes all responsibility. I have seen it in effect. Whereas those that understand about finishing the race, and staying in Christ's love and faith without works is dead know faith is more than just being someone that feels they have been picked by God. It is answering a call sent out to all men and living in a way that is obedient to Christ's teachings

Of course people of all beliefs stumble. But I see I a lot more justification where there should be done IMHO on those who focus more on Paul. It would be interesting to know why his message to the Gentiles was slightly different when it is the same gospel?

Any thoughts you has would be much appreciated

(T) Peace

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#424357 Dec 4, 2012
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's see if I have this straight.
Karl is an obsessed lunatic.
And you have nothing to say to him.
But you proceed to say stuff to him.
What's up with that?
Wow, it is Cathcer, coming in to defend a poster ina conversation he wasn't part of...who could have predicted that??

And I actually missed a post of his. So yes EIGHT posts to someone when none of the posts they made are to you makes someone an obsessed lunatic. Especially when they have a pattern of doing it. ONE post back which is a REPLY to part of the gaggle of posts to me does not make someone obsessed

This has been today's lesson in numbers for Cather

8 is much more than 1

I will let you figure out the difference between a reply to a post made to someone when making that many posts. You need to have everything spelled out for you but quite frankly I don't have the interest.

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#424358 Dec 4, 2012
DearthOfCouth wrote:
<quoted text>
Convicted? I was never even charged!
OK, OK. Dumb joke. Sorry.
I did as you suggest, dozens of times between the ages of 12 and 24 or so. I never felt the presence of anyone or anything whatsoever. There was nothing there but me.
Either the lord speaks to you and ignores me or -- as I suspect -- it's all in your head. There is nothing there but you.
I can always be wrong, though.
Thanks for dropping by.
you are wrong, dearth, because though God is profound He most often deals with us in very natural ways & speaks in the first person singular. i.e., we say to 'ourselves' "i wonder....this must mean...etc" and all the while God's Spirit is attempting to bond with ours.

"those who are joined to the Lord become one spirit" 1 cor 6:10(?)

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#424359 Dec 4, 2012
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>

And you have nothing to say to him.
And btw, I am reminding him why I won't proceed further. I think the man is a liar. I have said flat out I think he lied. Someone with integrity would be offended by that I would presume while a liar would simply ignore it.

Karl made a bold claim that all these Christians that "get in his face" should be arrested and put in jail and would be if it were up to him. I think it is important to flush out the insane bigots on your side as well. If you didn't agree why you would just be a hypocrite..again.

I think KArl either made that story up and is a liar or here is a guy so insane that despite posting to Christians as anyone can see, 5-6-7-8 times ina row even though they have not written to him, he would have them arrested and jailed for their response OVER THE INTERNET

So that is what's up with that. I will keep bringing it up every time he posts to me until we get to the bottom of it. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to explain this. Sometimes your ass-kissing others actually helps me clarify my positions:)

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#424360 Dec 4, 2012
DearthOfCouth wrote:
<quoted text>
Convicted? I was never even charged!
OK, OK. Dumb joke. Sorry.
I did as you suggest, dozens of times between the ages of 12 and 24 or so. I never felt the presence of anyone or anything whatsoever. There was nothing there but me.
Either the lord speaks to you and ignores me or -- as I suspect -- it's all in your head. There is nothing there but you.
I can always be wrong, though.
Thanks for dropping by.
Hey Dearth

Looks like you are around somewhat regular again?

Good to see ya

Lemme just say this. I don't hear voices or claim to have engaged in some type of exchange with God. Some actually do make that claim and I couldn't speak to it as I have no way of knowing.But for me my relationship with God is probably easiest explained through my own conscience and karma. People take it for granted that most have a conscience, some type of inner-voice that balances morality with personal desire. The truth is that some don't have it at all. And some just ignore it. To me, my relationship with God has helped me stay attuned to it. I do things I don't want to personally do because I know it is what God wants me to do. And I don't do things I want to to do for the same reasons.

People also seem to accept the idea of karma without much resistance. That there is some sort of cosmic justice in how things work. You go around screwing people over and eventually that stuff comes home to roost. Basically what people believe it means to reap what you sow. Yes that is more about faith than justice but you get the idea. The point is most people believe life has a way of catching up to you. So why is that idea so easily accepted yet doesn't it make more sense someone would be behind that if it were true?

Sure I could die and find out, dang guess I was wrong about all of it. But there is just too much tied into each other the way this world works and how things in general work for me to believe it is the result of coincidence or chance. Something is behind it. My connection to it is my connection to God. I personally don't think ti is about hearing God's voice IMHO

(T) Peace

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#424361 Dec 4, 2012
Edit:

In the interest of full disclosure Karl's claim were that the Christians that "get in his face" and tell him he is going to hell should be arrested for assault and put in jail and would be if it were up to him. Presumably it is the hell part he considered assault?

Hopefully he will take the opportunity to explain if he was verbally accosted in real life and how many times and under what circumstances or if he is talking about the Internet. I think it will be fascinating to find out under what circumstances Karl thinks others should be jailed for free speech, especially if he means online after repeatedly badgering someone.

Karl, do you have the integrity to finally answer? After all, you would take a man's freedom from him yet you can't even be bothered to explain why?

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

#424362 Dec 4, 2012
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, it is Cathcer, coming in to defend a poster ina conversation he wasn't part of...who could have predicted that??
And I actually missed a post of his. So yes EIGHT posts to someone when none of the posts they made are to you makes someone an obsessed lunatic. Especially when they have a pattern of doing it. ONE post back which is a REPLY to part of the gaggle of posts to me does not make someone obsessed
This has been today's lesson in numbers for Cather
8 is much more than 1
I will let you figure out the difference between a reply to a post made to someone when making that many posts. You need to have everything spelled out for you but quite frankly I don't have the interest.
Since you bring up spelling, it's Catcher--not Cathcer or Cather.

And thanks for your interest.

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

#424363 Dec 4, 2012
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
And btw, I am reminding him why I won't proceed further. I think the man is a liar. I have said flat out I think he lied. Someone with integrity would be offended by that I would presume while a liar would simply ignore it.
Karl made a bold claim that all these Christians that "get in his face" should be arrested and put in jail and would be if it were up to him. I think it is important to flush out the insane bigots on your side as well. If you didn't agree why you would just be a hypocrite..again.
I think KArl either made that story up and is a liar or here is a guy so insane that despite posting to Christians as anyone can see, 5-6-7-8 times ina row even though they have not written to him, he would have them arrested and jailed for their response OVER THE INTERNET
So that is what's up with that. I will keep bringing it up every time he posts to me until we get to the bottom of it. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to explain this. Sometimes your ass-kissing others actually helps me clarify my positions:)
My pleasure.

As you know, my purpose here is to help.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#424364 Dec 4, 2012
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no strong objections to any of that.
So I'll just ask, was killing people as witches ever not unethical?
My point is, if I may make one, and get a concession on record if there is one to be had, that killing people as witches, under any religious law, new or old, is and was completely unjustifiable and unethical. Whether you agree with me, or disagree with me, I would like you to do so emphatically and explicitly, and celebrate if we are on the same page.
No it was never ethical IMO to kill a witch

Listen, this is a complicated issue. I am not going to simply blame it on man's understanding as some things seem pretty clear. At the same time we had things terribly wrong as the blood of bulls and goats never forgave sins and we needed the New testament because basically everything we were doing in the first one was wrong.

As a man I would never presume to judge God. Some may think this is a cop-out but it really isn't. If God knew a soul would live for eternity, would he have much hesitation snuffing out one that would live for 70 years if it endangered another soul's immortality? Would you if out in the same situation knowing it also had to do with right or wrong? Maybe a similar situation might be would you kill a 100 year old pedophile if it meant saving the life of a child?

The OT is rough, no doubt. If that was the only part of the Bible it is quite possible I never would have been a Christian. Some Christians don't like me saying that but its the truth. But I also know man's morality and God's morality aren't and don't have to be the same thing because God sees things we can not.

But for me, as a man, was it always wrong to kill witches? Yes

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#424365 Dec 4, 2012
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Since you bring up spelling, it's Catcher--not Cathcer or Cather.
And thanks for your interest.
I didn't bring up spelling, I brought up numbers

And I see in spell check when I spell your name incorrectly as I type fast and sometimes it leads to errors, I simply don't care enough to correct it:)

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#424366 Dec 4, 2012
DearthOfCouth wrote:
<quoted text>
Now that I think of it, they did.
That explains it....
Just clean it up if they crap in Cassini's Divide. It confuses astronomers.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#424367 Dec 4, 2012
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
My pleasure.
As you know, my purpose here is to help.
And sometimes, by complete accident, you actually do:)

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#424368 Dec 4, 2012
AnnieJ wrote:
<quoted text>
I see that WN moved back in with you so I will back off!
You can come to visit anytime you want though...and bring the dogs...I have one of my own.
What Nymph said.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#424369 Dec 4, 2012
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's see if I have this straight.
Karl is an obsessed lunatic.
And you have nothing to say to him.
But you proceed to say stuff to him.
What's up with that?
Dissociative Personality Disorder.

Not a bad diagnosis for any fundie - on some level, they have to know that they're dealing in fantasy.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#424370 Dec 4, 2012
G_O_D wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution doesn't produce "better" offspring, only more likely to have survivung offspring. In a sense, crocodiles are "better" than humans as they have lasted millions of years longer than humans without changing much.
Evolution does not produce human intelligence. Pur intelligence is simply the result that in the given situations of our ancestors it helped them keep from becoming extinct.
Rule ONE of evolution:
If your parents didn't have children, you won't either.
<smile> Peace, Skom!
Thanks G

Will try to catch up with you somewhere. Think I am done for now until I go in.

(T) Peace

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 4 min Hukt on Fonix 825,742
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 5 min June VanDerMark 582,821
Homosexuality is FILTHY.....and an INSULT to God! 7 min Doctor REALITY 12
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 9 min 15th Dalai Lama 3,004
--EVANGELICALS Deceived by ANTICHRIST-- 11 min NewsYTube 1
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 11 min Clearwater 176,372
Should Black People in the USA Leave America an... (May '13) 16 min Doctor REALITY 691
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 38 min Jac 98,830
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 1 hr Ugly Truth from d... 611,782
More from around the web