Author Topic: Creationists: Describe The Theory of Evolution, properly (And Why You Disagree)  (Read 9684 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline MadBunny

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3575
  • Darwins +113/-0
  • Fallen Illuminatus
I won't bother to copy the whole thing, go read the link.  It's short.
Written as a response to Behe's mousetrap analogy.


http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/oldmousetrap.html




Quote
A five-part mousetrap. This is a snap mousetrap, shown ready to catch a mouse. It has five main parts: a hammer, which kills the mouse; a spring, which snaps the hammer down on to the mouse; a hold-down bar, which holds the hammer in the cocked position; a catch, which holds the end of the hold-down bar and releases it when the mouse jiggles the catch; and a platform, to which everything else is attached. (The bait is not one of the "irreducible" parts of the mousetrap, since an unbaited trap will catch the occasional mouse that stumbles into the catch.)









Quote
A one-part mousetrap. I can think of at least a couple ways to make a one-part mousetrap from the two-part mousetrap. One would be to remove the spring and spread glue on the platform; you'd then have one of those barbaric glue traps that holds the mouse in place until it dies of thirst. The other way would be to straighten out a few coils of each end of the spring. One straight piece of the wire would then be bent so the end points up; the other piece of wire would come across and rest delicately on the upraised point. I don't have the wire-bending skills to make one of these, but if I did, I think the unlucky mouse that was standing under the top wire when it jiggled the trap would be just as dead as if it were killed by the much more complex five-part mousetrap.

Is it possible to design a better mousetrap?  A more complex one, with extra parts?  Sure.
The argument behind irreducible complexity however is shown to be a failure.



edit - quote fixed
« Last Edit: November 08, 2013, 11:15:03 AM by screwtape »
Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night.  Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6705
  • Darwins +893/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
And our big brains get us into trouble-- by telling us things that are not true.

Such as molecules to man evolution?
"Billions of years old" theory?

i thought your brain was "you" according to materialism?

How can the "brain" tell "you" something?

You may not want to admit it, but you just admitted we have a soul.
otherwise, why the distinction between the brain and you?

Oh, for pete's sake will you go read some science, please? I am so tired of this "I know nothing about x, therefore I am an expert on x" crap. &)

There is tons of research on the brain and how it functions. Our brains have a mechanism to separate  our consciousness from the brain's functioning so we are not aware of the brain doing its thing.[1] We get sensory input that gets organized and communicated to us as information. No evidence [yet] of any separate immortal or even mortal soul anywhere.

I am currently reading a book on the discovery of some amazing fossils of scary ugly extinct life forms. It is called Wonderful Life by Professor Stephen Jay Gould--one of my nerd heroes. Not an easy read like Sith Lord Dawkins, who breaks things down more for a lay audience, but it is truly mindbogglingly excellent.

Gould shows how evolution could have gone in several different directions, none of which had to end up with mammals, let alone primates. So, "molecules to man" is definitely not the way anything had to go.....but molecules to some kind of life, definitely yes. Please, please, go read something, skeptic!
 1. There is some evidence that suggests that schizophrenia and other mental illness happens when we become too aware of the brain functioning and "hear" it talking to us.  We then start thinking that there is a separate entity in our heads. Could also explain why some people are very aware of "god's presence" and others are not? Typical egocentric humans....
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4936
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Well, nobody said the human body has to be indestructible. That's a strawman.
Except nobody is suggesting that.  In fact, claiming that we're saying you think the human body had to be indestructible is itself a strawman.

Quote from: skeptic54768
Our bodies get worse and worse over generations because of sin corrupting our genes. The first humans God created wouldn't have had these problems that we have today.
So what, you're saying sin is like radiation?  Okay, great.  Now figure out how to show other people that this "sin radiation" actually exists, and you'll be well on your way to showing that your belief has real validity.

It takes more than just saying something to be convincing.  For example, after people started experimenting with uranium and other radioactive elements, many of those people would later on get sick and die.  We had evidence that something was happening to them, and the effects allowed us to figure out what and eventually detect it.

But right now, you don't have any evidence.  Just an unsupported claim about how the first humans were somehow perfect, which is based on bad reasoning about genetics and entropy.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
He won't step outside his assumptions. All he does it post and run.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2650
  • Darwins +52/-435
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Oh, for pete's sake will you go read some science, please? I am so tired of this "I know nothing about x, therefore I am an expert on x" crap. &)

To be fair, this is how a lot of Christians feel about atheists when atheists quote the Bible.

To us, it sounds like they know nothing of Christianity.

That's why I say, "impasse."
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Oh, for pete's sake will you go read some science, please? I am so tired of this "I know nothing about x, therefore I am an expert on x" crap. &)

To be fair, this is how a lot of Christians feel about atheists when atheists quote the Bible.

To us, it sounds like they know nothing of Christianity.

That's why I say, "impasse."

Except your definition of "knowing" anything about Christianity basically means only those who agree with your interpretation of it. The difference is far and wide. I've read the bible many times, studied the bible, taught the bible, and preached the bible for many years. I've taken many seminary and bible courses and as a result your theology very well. Have you done the same with evolutionary biology? Have you taken that many courses and done the research?

You can SAY, all day long, that non-believers "don't know anything" about the bible but that assertion is baseless, since we do!
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2650
  • Darwins +52/-435
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Oh, for pete's sake will you go read some science, please? I am so tired of this "I know nothing about x, therefore I am an expert on x" crap. &)

To be fair, this is how a lot of Christians feel about atheists when atheists quote the Bible.

To us, it sounds like they know nothing of Christianity.

That's why I say, "impasse."

Except your definition of "knowing" anything about Christianity basically means only those who agree with your interpretation of it. The difference is far and wide. I've read the bible many times, studied the bible, taught the bible, and preached the bible for many years. I've taken many seminary and bible courses and as a result your theology very well. Have you done the same with evolutionary biology? Have you taken that many courses and done the research?

You can SAY, all day long, that non-believers "don't know anything" about the bible but that assertion is baseless, since we do!

So you are saying that when YOU read the text, people must agree with YOUR interpretation of it?
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6468
  • Darwins +769/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
So you are saying that when YOU read the text, people must agree with YOUR interpretation of it?

I don't know about nogods, I'll let her answer for herself. But I see you posting here with your interpretation of the bible. Is sounds like you're saying the when YOU read the text, people must agree with YOUR interpretation.

I myself could read the bible all day long and never worry about how to interpret the text. Its fiction.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins

So you are saying that when YOU read the text, people must agree with YOUR interpretation of it?

NOPE. Can you read? I said your accusations are baseless in that many of us DO know your bible quite well (arguably better than you) but you do not know evolutionary biological science as such. You haven't studied it, so you are on unequal ground in your attempts to draw that analogy. The truth is painful isn't it?

Furthermore, if your interpretation of the bible leads to logical absurdity, irrational arguments, and rationalizations or 'spin tactics' then your interpretation is a false one b/c it is based on Confirmation Bias and an unwillingness to amend your view when shown in error. Are you actually trying to compare the scientific method of investigation and testing to your interpretation method of viewing the bible (starting with your conclusion and trying to work backwards) when science does the opposite? The methods are quite reverse. No, I didn't in any way state that everyone must agree with my interpretation of the bible but if yours is irrational, contradictory, or unmovable (which is clearly the case) then your interpretation is untrustworthy b/c it is based upon faulty premises and/or assumptions which make you an unreliable source for interpretation.

-Still waiting for you to actually read the OP in full and meet the challenge.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2013, 12:19:49 PM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4936
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
To be fair, this is how a lot of Christians feel about atheists when atheists quote the Bible.

To us, it sounds like they know nothing of Christianity.
Au contraire.  Formerly-Christian atheists tend to know a lot more about the Bible than you assume.  For example, I regularly read the Bible in church every week when I was growing up, so I have a pretty good understanding of what it says.  And while I'm not an atheist, at least in the strict sense of the term, former Christian describes me quite well.

Quote from: skeptic54768
That's why I say, "impasse."
When you say 'impasse', it sounds an awful lot like 'excuse' for some reason.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12340
  • Darwins +677/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Oh, for pete's sake will you go read some science, please? I am so tired of this "I know nothing about x, therefore I am an expert on x" crap. &)

To be fair, this is how a lot of Christians feel about atheists when atheists quote the Bible.

To us, it sounds like they know nothing of Christianity.

That's why I say, "impasse."

To be fair?  There is nothing fair about your commentary.  It is a dodge from you taking responsibility for your own willful ignorance and continued mischaracterization of ToE.  It is a red herring to distract from the actual topic.

The point is you keep saying things about evolution that are completely untrue.  Address that without resorting to, "oh yeah? well you guys do it too."   Answer the point.



Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1445
  • Darwins +97/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
So you are saying that when YOU read the text, people must agree with YOUR interpretation of it?

No Shep. That is what your demon says. Your demon makes you talk nonsense about scientific subjects which you have never studied, and your demon makes you think that things are in the bible which are not even there. Your demon has led you astray. I have given some examples on your own thread - proof of the demon of Shep666.
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12524
  • Darwins +324/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
If we don't interpret the Bible the way skeptic interprets it, we interpret the Bible incorrectly.
If we don't interpret Evolution the way skeptic interprets it, we interpret Evolution incorrectly.

Until we do we are always wrong in skeptic's mind. If he has a mind.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3014
  • Darwins +265/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
If we don't interpret the Bible the way skeptic interprets it, we interpret the Bible incorrectly.
If we don't interpret Evolution the way skeptic interprets it, we interpret Evolution incorrectly.

Skeptic.incorrectly = -(incorrectly)   ;)
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12524
  • Darwins +324/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
If we don't interpret the Bible the way skeptic interprets it, we interpret the Bible incorrectly.
If we don't interpret Evolution the way skeptic interprets it, we interpret Evolution incorrectly.

Skeptic.incorrectly = -(incorrectly)   ;)

Well I'd call him "idiot demon" like I want to but apparently everyone else is allowed to call him names and I am not. My posts get deleted while everyone else's stay intact.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6705
  • Darwins +893/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Oh, for pete's sake will you go read some science, please? I am so tired of this "I know nothing about x, therefore I am an expert on x" crap. &)

To be fair, this is how a lot of Christians feel about atheists when atheists quote the Bible.

To us, it sounds like they know nothing of Christianity.

That's why I say, "impasse."

Okay, skeptic.

An atheist--say me-- agrees to read a bible passage (chosen by you) and summarize it properly and accurately (again, judged by you). Then I will explain why it is not correct from my point of view. Then you do the same with a passage about evolutionary biology. That is, do what the OP suggested in the first place instead of continually dodging and diverting attention away from the point. 

You seem to be afraid to even consider the possibility that the TOE might be true. Your arguments against it are not based on facts and evidence. You don't even understand what it is you are against-- as evidenced by your inability to accurately summarize in your own words what the TOE says.

I grew up reading the bible and bible-based religious literature for several hours every single day of my life, from age 4 on.[1] Can you say you have given evolutionary theory anywhere near the same level of dedicated attention? I still read religious literature from time to time, from many different religious perspectives. I teach global studies classes where we deal with religion all the time. I probably know more about the different religions of the world than you do, skeptic. I simply don't believe any of them are factually and literally true![2]

Most of us here are willing to consider the possibility of religious ideas or the bible being true, if presented with sufficient supporting facts and evidence. But we don't get any facts or evidence from religious folks. Instead we get people telling us to ignore all contradictions and inaccuracies, only have faith and believe in magic. But that only holds for the magic of their particular religion. The contradictions and inaccuracies of other religions are fair game...[3]

So, it is not a matter of being close-minded to god or religion. It is that, having examined the ideas and arguments--and in some cases, believing them for many years of our lives--we don't think they make any sense. People are not supposed to make important life decisions (like who to marry or what job to take or where to live) based on things that are not true. And religion should be demonstrably true, and at least make logical sense, if it is really the most important life decision ever, as people like you tell us. 
 1. What a waste that was!  &)I now wish I could have spent all that time studying more biological and physical science...
 2. I just finished teaching a unit on Chinese cultural values where we looked at Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism. Before that we looked at the Catholic faith and the Protestant reformation in Europe. In a few weeks we will study Hinduism in India. Next term, we will learn about Islam and the Middle East.
 3. That is where the scientific method is different from religion. In science you present your ideas at conferences and invite people to tear your theory apart and show where it is wrong. The process of correcting mistakes and incorporating critique makes a theory stronger and more likely to be true. Taking apart and critiquing the TOE as proposed by Darwin in the 1800's has led to thousands of different avenues of useful research and entirely new fields of science.

In religion, the truth is handed to you and assumed a priori; evidence is gathered only to support what you have already assumed to be the case. Like "intelligent design" assumes the existence of both intelligence and design, therefore god. Disagreement, alternative explanations and critique are discouraged, punished (by, for example exile or burning at the stake) and can lead to actual warfare.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6468
  • Darwins +769/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
We've been over this in other threads. Demons start the false religions and disguise themselves as gods and plant these thoughts in people's heads. Why do you think people believe in all these different religions? They get their prayers answered by demons and it becomes real to them.

but this is off-topic for this thread.

Yea, this is off topic, but since you aren't one to contribute to topics anyway, I'll respond.

How come demons are so mobile? Your god couldn't even find a way to get Moses and the gang out of the desert and your demons were over in India starting Hinduism, in the Americas starting native religions, there, in Australia and Africa, starting religions there, in SE Asia, starting religions there. I'll admit, that for some reason they weren't as mobile as it seems, because they avoided the Chinese, who didn't bother coming up with any serious gods. But otherwise, you know, its puzzling. (I mean, if there is a god and there are demons, its puzzling. Otherwise, never mind.)

So why is it your god couldn't get out of the Middle East? The whole region, Turkey and Egypt and all,  is only about the size of the United States, and he couldn't find any way to get his religion out of that region until a couple of thousand years ago, long after your demons populated the world with false religions?

And what did he make the demons out of anyway? I don't remember that coming up in the bible. I know satan was an angel (and I assume you don't ever bother wondering why an angel so close to your god would split with the guy. I guess satan realized that your god was a whimp, and didn't see any need to stick with a guy who never went anywhere.) Anyway, were demons made out of dust too? Did they have a tree of life to mess with? How come they're so mean and you're so wonderful?

And can I be an ademonist too, or does that piss them off?
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3014
  • Darwins +265/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Well I'd call him "idiot demon" like I want to but apparently everyone else is allowed to call him names and I am not. My posts get deleted while everyone else's stay intact.

Personally, I think it's more fun to call his arguments names.  Try My method, Nam:  Clench your fists till the knuckles turn white, swear under your breath, and then eviscerate his posts in the most elegant and polite prose you can muster.
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4936
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Agreed, Astreja.  Polite contempt can cut more deeply than the meanest insult.

Online Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1793
  • Darwins +191/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
I don't see that either approach has had much effect.
"It's hard to, but I'm starting to believe some of you actually believe these things.  That is completely beyond my ability to understand if that is really the case, but things never cease to amaze me."

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3014
  • Darwins +265/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
I don't see that either approach has had much effect.

Well, My writing is improving.  Does that count?
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline Angus and Alexis

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1487
  • Darwins +71/-24
  • Gender: Male
  • Residential Tulpamancer.
Parking places makes a good point.

Why does god seem to only get to countries that, gosh, Christians spread to?

Why did Indians believe in Hinduism before colonization?

Why did the Aboriginals of Australia believe in the great Rainbow Serpent before Christians came to plunder?

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12524
  • Darwins +324/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Well I'd call him "idiot demon" like I want to but apparently everyone else is allowed to call him names and I am not. My posts get deleted while everyone else's stay intact.

Personally, I think it's more fun to call his arguments names.  Try My method, Nam:  Clench your fists till the knuckles turn white, swear under your breath, and then eviscerate his posts in the most elegant and polite prose you can muster.

He'd probably put me on ignore like DT did. That's the method I used on him. The more vulgar and asinine things DT said, the more polite I was.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Online Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2727
  • Darwins +222/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
I'll admit, that for some reason they weren't as mobile as it seems, because they avoided the Chinese, who didn't bother coming up with any serious gods. But otherwise, you know, its puzzling. (I mean, if there is a god and there are demons, its puzzling. Otherwise, never mind.)

I think you've hit the nail on the bucket, there.

If there were demons, and they wanted to undermine the true religion, the best way to do it, would be to seed a universal religion in all continents, so the Australian aboriginals would be worshipping the same God. And, we'd all be, like, see, the Australian aboriginals believe the same thing, because God is everywhere, and these silly Christians, who worship a resurrected corn dolly, are just plain deviants.

Problem with demons: either they are stronger or weaker than God.  I could be stronger than God, if you gave me some sophisticated tools, so demons should be easily stronger than God, if they act on this plane. They should be able to convert everyone to a false religion, easily. The bizarre thing is that Christians think that the Catholic church brought them the true religion, when all the protestants are saying that teh Pope is teh antiChrist.

From a protestant perspective, the religion is brought to them by Satan.
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2650
  • Darwins +52/-435
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Parking places makes a good point.

Why does god seem to only get to countries that, gosh, Christians spread to?

Because that is how God wanted his message to be spread: by his followers who believe in Him out of their own free will.

I'm sure God could have done it another way, but He did not. You will have to ask God. This is basically an argument from incredulity. Just because you don't know why God does things in a certain manner doesn't mean that there is no reason why God does things a certain way.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12294
  • Darwins +275/-31
  • Gender: Male
I'm sure God could have done it another way, but He did not.

If a real god picked such a badly sub-par method of doing something, then it must not have been a very important task according to that god.

As for the "believing according to free will" thing - isn't it more important to believe things because they're convincing/true, rather than because one wilfully chooses to?  Because one can willfully choose to believe anything, if no constraints are put upon that freedom.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2650
  • Darwins +52/-435
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
I'm sure God could have done it another way, but He did not.

If a real god picked such a badly sub-par method of doing something, then it must not have been a very important task according to that god.

As for the "believing according to free will" thing - isn't it more important to believe things because they're convincing/true, rather than because one wilfully chooses to?  Because one can willfully choose to believe anything, if no constraints are put upon that freedom.

Actually, a book that is compiled of many books is probably the best way to do it. It keeps every generation reading it and believing.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1445
  • Darwins +97/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Shep, This thread is supposed to be about evolution. Here is a simple question.

Are you here by chance, simply because your parents met also by chance and chose by their free will to have you?

Or were you destined by god to exist and live your life exactly as you live it?
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12294
  • Darwins +275/-31
  • Gender: Male
1. That didn't help people who hadn't gotten the book spread to them yet, such as the American people before Columbus, or the South African and Australian people before the British.
2. And in these cases, the "Word of God" was accompanied by genocide and slavery.  Gods, this is what happens when you let imperialistic humans spread your word for you.
3. According to you, it apparently hasn't stopped the demons from taking over control of most of the preaching of that word in the end anyway.

That's three big flaws, Skep.  Letting everyone know that a god is real so that they are free to make a decision of whether to follow it, instead of hiding behind humans and taking away that freedom, would be a much better method.  That's what YHWH supposedly did back in the Old Testament days, after all.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.