Just when you think America can’t get any crazier…

[stefanovic]

You'll need to explain that better to avoid it simply being categorised as your usual tosh!

I'll take it that you do not understand or can't be bothered to understand evolutionary biology.
Take a break to read Richard Dawkins (Darwin's rottweiler).

Certainly of some. But not incompatible with others!

So let's hear what Darwinism has in common with any theological belief whatsoever.

American evangelists are a great example of why Christianity is total fiction.
Based on their 'Holy Bible' they make things up solely to promote their presumed authority.
They interpret a passage in Genesis (other books available) to mean that abortion is evil in god's eyes when the Bible makes no reference to it.
By contrast, the 'Good Book' never condemns slavery, so Americans took that to mean it was perfectly acceptable to take slaves.

 

[Foxholer]

I'll take it that you do not understand or can't be bothered to understand evolutionary biology.
Take a break to read Richard Dawkins (Darwin's rottweiler).
...

Been there, done some of that - many years ago!
Dawkins and Darwin are not mutually exclusive imo. And there are other 'forces' involved too.
And you still haven explained how 'Abortion happens quite naturally and the mother isn't aware of it...'!

...
American evangelists are a great example of why Christianity is total fiction.
Based on their 'Holy Bible' they make things up solely to promote their presumed authority.
They interpret a passage in Genesis (other books available) to mean that abortion is evil in god's eyes when the Bible makes no reference to it.
By contrast, the 'Good Book' never condemns slavery, so Americans took that to mean it was perfectly acceptable to take slaves.

While happy to use The Old Testament as a source of selected morality, It's only The New Testament that's truly 'Gospel' to most Christians - thus the name! Enslavement of defeated opponents was an acceptable result of conflicts in OT days and even more recently (Vikings for example). Civilisation has evolved since. Slavery in US simply demonstrates that 'folk' will continue to make interpretations to serve their own benefit.
As for evangelists - American or otherwise - their distortion of words/phrases, that have been translated multiple times, rates at the same level as politicians, diplomats, 'used car salesmen' and the like! They are simply aggressive transmitters of 'mind viruses' imo!

 

[Blue in Munich]

Even if it’s incest abortion is not allowed!

It’s the rise of the Christian Fundamentalists, they have taken over the Republican Party. Who knows where it will end?

Well Islamic fundamentalism tends to cause radicalisation and terrorism so I can’t see it ending well

 

[Blue in Munich]

I’ve traveled a reasonable bit in America and I’ve come to the conclusion that what they do well they do better than anywhere else in the world that I’ve seen. Unfortunately I’ve also come to the conclusion that what they do badly they do worse than anywhere else in the world that I’ve seen, and by some distance. It is a land of extremes.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

......and some factions of Western culture are appalled at the actions of the Taliban.

 

[Swinglowandslow]

I'll take it that you do not understand or can't be bothered to understand evolutionary biology.
Take a break to read Richard Dawkins (Darwin's rottweiler).


So let's hear what Darwinism has in common with any theological belief whatsoever.

American evangelists are a great example of why Christianity is total fiction.
Based on their 'Holy Bible' they make things up solely to promote their presumed authority.
They interpret a passage in Genesis (other books available) to mean that abortion is evil in god's eyes when the Bible makes no reference to it.
By contrast, the 'Good Book' never condemns slavery, so Americans took that to mean it was perfectly acceptable to take slaves.

You know darned well that no one here is suddenly going to wade through Dawkins'
books on evolutionary biology in order to understand exactly what you are saying. Stop trying to impress that you are aware, and we are ignorant (of what you are saying, ), and just answer the man. Expand on that sentence and enlighten us (briefly!)?

 

[Foxholer]

You know darned well that no one here is suddenly going to wade through Dawkins'
books on evolutionary biology in order to understand exactly what you are saying. Stop trying to impress that you are aware, and we are ignorant (of what you are saying, ), and just answer the man. Expand on that sentence and enlighten us (briefly!)?

Ah! But I DID have some knowledge of RD! But, typically, it doesn't bear much relationship to my question, so is just another 'Stefanovic tangent'!
FWIW, Dawkins challenges Darwin's Theory of Evolution and is a critic of Creationism.

 

[cliveb]

FWIW, Dawkins challenges Darwin's Theory of Evolution and is a critic of Creationism.

He is certainly a vociferous critic of creationism, but to hear him described as challenging Darwin is news to me. When did he ever do that? He always struck me as what you might call a "Darwinian fundamentalist".

 

[Foxholer]

He is certainly a vociferous critic of creationism, but to hear him described as challenging Darwin is news to me. When did he ever do that? He always struck me as what you might call a "Darwinian fundamentalist".

I simply associate Dawkins's 'genetic' model, compared to Darwin's 'environmental' one, as the cause of the Darwinian differences that produce the different 'candidates for survival'.
But I may be completely wrong as many years ago and I was 'happy' with Darwin's explanation, so possibly looked for confirmation cf a fundamentally different theory.
So 'challenge' was probably the wrong word to use.

 

[cliveb]

I simply associate Dawkins's 'genetic' model, compared to Darwin's 'environmental' one, as the cause of the Darwinian differences that produce the different 'candidates for survival'.
But I may be completely wrong as many years ago and I was 'happy' with Darwin's explanation, so possibly looked for confirmation cf a fundamentally different theory.
So 'challenge' was probably the wrong word to use.

The environment is the actor which decides which mutations are selected, and Darwin recognized this. Dawkins also understands this. The only thing that separates them is that Dawkins also knows about genetics, which was discovered after Darwin's time and is the mechanism which produces the mutations on which the environment acts.

I don't think Darwin ever believed that the environment was the cause of the mutations. That is the Lamarkian model. As far as I'm aware, Darwin accepted that the mechanism which caused the mutations was unknown at the time.

 

[Foxholer]

The environment is the actor which decides which mutations are selected, and Darwin recognized this. Dawkins also understands this. The only thing that separates them is that Dawkins also knows about genetics, which was discovered after Darwin's time and is the mechanism which produces the mutations on which the environment acts.

I don't think Darwin ever believed that the environment was the cause of the mutations. That is the Lamarkian model. As far as I'm aware, Darwin accepted that the mechanism which caused the mutations was unknown at the time.

Didn't Lamark specify that it was the aberrations in reproductive glands that defined the mutations?
They all seem inter-related/similar to me - as opposed to the Creationist/Genesis model, that I don't give credence to.
I also don't have a problem with anti-abortionists - except if they insist that everyone should comply with their view!

 

[Brads]

I’m sure the Americans think we couldn’t be any crazier as well.
Me ? I’d live there if I had the opportunity .

 

[cliveb]

Didn't Lamark specify that it was the aberrations in reproductive glands that defined the mutations?

Lamarkian evolution is the inheritance of acquired characteristics.
For example, if an athlete develops strong muscles and stamina through rigorous training, those strong muscles and stamina are passed on to their children.

Your comments about reproductive glands might be something to do with Darwin's "pangenesis" hypothesis. He was speculating about possible mechanisms for the variations, and wondered if stuff that happened to the organism might somehow get into the germ cells in order to influence the offspring. So in some ways it was a bit like Lamark's theory. But as far as I'm aware, it was just a shot in the dark. Had Darwin known about genetics, there's no doubt in my mind he would have abandoned pangenesis in a heartbeat.

 

[Fade and Die]

Why has this thread become a cerebral Willy waving contest?

 

[IanM]

Why has this thread become a cerebral Willy waving contest?

Sounds like a challenging deformity!

 

[Bunkermagnet]

I have no interest in joining an IQ contest. I'm not surprised by the direction the USA is taking, they voted Trump in says enough to me about their mindset.

 

[stefanovic]

Been there, done some of that - many years ago!
Dawkins and Darwin are not mutually exclusive imo. And there are other 'forces' involved too.

What other forces?

And you still haven explained how 'Abortion happens quite naturally and the mother isn't aware of it...'!

Read Chapter 1 of Unweaving the Rainbow by Dawkins. Theists keep well away from it I feel sure. Mention it to them and they'll soon change the subject.

While happy to use The Old Testament as a source of selected morality, It's only The New Testament that's truly 'Gospel' to most Christians

So the OT is the book of myth and fable, but the NT is where it all comes good!?
Let me tell you this. No man has ever had a ghost (or spirit if you prefer) for a father. No man has ever been virgin born. No man has ever survived death to walk again.
A substantial number of Christians believe in the Biblical creation where everything was assembled (life and the universe) in 6 days.
They believe in Adam and Eve, the Flood and Noah's Ark, the drowning by God of every man, woman and innocent child except for one human family and a breeding pair of every kind of land animal.
Could go on about this book of nonsensical fiction called the Holy Bible which has all been based upon earlier beliefs.

But I'm still asking you to provide a quote (from the OT or NT) which clearly states that removing an unborn from a woman is wrong.

 

[IanM]

But I'm still asking you to provide a quote (from the OT or NT) which clearly states that removing an unborn from a woman is wrong.

I would assume that the bit about murder in the 10 Commandments covers that. I also assume abortion wouldn't be specifically mentioned as it didn't exist ar the time of writing!

Of course that opens discussion about when "life" starts...

I don't have a position on this subject.

It would be better of it didn't happen, but I understand where it might be necessary.

 

[stefanovic]

I would assume that the bit about murder in the 10 Commandments covers that.

The Bible is full of passages which incite murder, and not just homosexuals and witches.

I'll do a bit of cherry-picking from Exodus: “Whoever strikes his father or his mother shall be put to death."

That's not very nice is it, and what happened to forgiveness?

 

[bobmac]

The Bible is full of passages which incite murder, and not just homosexuals and witches.

I'll do a bit of cherry-picking from Exodus: “Whoever strikes his father or his mother shall be put to death."

That's not very nice is it, and what happened to forgiveness?

You don't even have to do that.
I'll raise you

Deuteronomy 21:20-21
“This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” 21 Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death