Misconceptions of Christian theology

[Esquilax]

You are right on the money with your last statement Laddie!

I, and many others read between lines of the Bible words! Not that we need to....but there is so much more! The Holy Spirit does indeed help us to understand the deeper meaning, and transcend some of the things that don't effect our lives, or situations! Or wake to a new revelation of the words that we didn't understand yesterday!

Here's the thing I've never understood about this position: aren't you concerned that when you're reading between the lines you're at risk of misinterpreting or misreading the intent of the bible?

Or that, say, instead of the holy spirit guiding you to your interpretation, it's actually the devil guiding you to an incorrect one? He's the prince of lies, after all, and if I was trying to corrupt people the best way I could see to do it would be to impersonate a holy source.

What assurances do you have that the interpretations you develop are correct, aside from personal conviction, which can be tricked even within the context of the bible itself?

[ronedee]

Here's the thing I've never understood about this position: aren't you concerned that when you're reading between the lines you're at risk of misinterpreting or misreading the intent of the bible?

Or that, say, instead of the holy spirit guiding you to your interpretation, it's actually the devil guiding you to an incorrect one? He's the prince of lies, after all, and if I was trying to corrupt people the best way I could see to do it would be to impersonate a holy source.

What assurances do you have that the interpretations you develop are correct, aside from personal conviction, which can be tricked even within the context of the bible itself?

That's a great...GREAT question!

The best way for me to answer it is, to use Jesus as discernment.

Would Jesus approve? Does anything I'm feeling go against: Truth, Love and Peace in my: words, thoughts and deeds?

Ego can't be involved. Satan wants us autonomous, self-serving and rebellious against God.

If the message I'm getting passes that test....which it usually does, its GOOD!

[Aractus]

It is as incomplete as any scientific theory is. But its more accurate than any alternatives, by far. You wish perfection, 100% certainty. It doesn't exist.

1. Don't presume to tell me what I wish for and don't lecture me on science, I understand the scientific method and embrace it fully.

You are so fundamentally wrong about what science is, what science seeks that you cannot see several examples of other animals fighting amongst eatch other, in their own kind, to gain supremacy.

No, that's called a fucking assumption, numbnuts. DNA is incredibly versatile and allows creatures to adapt to their environments just fine without the need for changing it. The assumption made by those who pushed the "survival of the fittest" point of view was that DNA was rigid, which it isn't. As we have now learned so much more about DNA since the view was first suggested it seems less and less likely that the "survival of the fittest" is a strong enough mechanism to drive DNA, and some estimates as to its power to contribute to evolution overall at about 2 or 3% of the total effect of Evolution - ie, it works too slow and not efficiently enough to be a primary driving factor in Evolution.

My first though is lions, an example that blows all your argument out of the water.

My argument? What exactly do you believe that my argument is?

---

Since when do individuals in a species as a whole compete against each other rather than against other species?

Are you being serious?! Sorry to interrupt, but some of the questions/statements you theists make give me the chills.

My point is that it's been demonstrated time and time again that it isn't a strong enough driving force to drive evolution. If you believe it is, then you may as well also believe in perpetual motion machines and cold fusion because that's about how much scientific sense it makes.

---

You don't know a fucking THING about Evolution do you Danny boy?

It is you who doesn't know a fucking thing about Evolution, actually, Zen.

Shall I explain it to you?

The main mechanism for successful gene transfer is individuals competing against each other in a given species.

To quote; "A zebra doesn't have to be able to run faster than a lion, it just has to be able to run faster than the other zebras"

That's the "selfish gene" viewpoint 101 completely textbook. And by textbook I mean 1976 Richard Dawkins. Well done on schooling us on something nearly 40 years old and 40 years out of date.

Genes don't have a will, genes don't get to do anything in their own interests, the only thing they're allowed to do is serve the best interests of the host creature.

Let's for a moment consider that your argument, oh sorry, I mean Richard Dawkin's argument, is in fact correct and that genes that provide an advantage in physical agility will indeed beat those that don't. Never mind the other functions that said genes have FYI, dexterity, intelligence, and strength be damned! What about the gene that allows the Zebra to produce offspring 1 year earlier than the other Zebras? Wouldn't that win out over agility - now it doesn't matter if the Zebra is fat and lazy because it only has to survive a shorter length of time to reproduce. But that idea has a problem too. For instance, why the fuck do female turtles get progressively more fertile the older and older they get??? How does that make any selfish-gene "Evolutionary" sense!

Well it doesn't matter anyway because biologists have had 40 years to find evidence that the "selfish gene" provides a strong enough influence upon Evolution to drive it, and they have not found observations that provides this evidence - there may be a small "selfish-gene" effect, but it isn't strong enough in and of itself to drive evolution.

Do try to actually learn about the subject before you spout off or you'll start sounding like Cumfart or the Hamster(with even less credibility)

Oh get fucked Zen. I have a deeper belief in Evolution than you do, because my belief is blinder than yours. You believe in bullshit like the selfish gene - yet I disbelieve the selfish gene and STILL blindly believe evolution! Explain that one to me Zen.

[Zen Badger]

You don't know a fucking THING about Evolution do you Danny boy?

It is you who doesn't know a fucking thing about Evolution, actually, Zen.

Shall I explain it to you?

The main mechanism for successful gene transfer is individuals competing against each other in a given species.

To quote; "A zebra doesn't have to be able to run faster than a lion, it just has to be able to run faster than the other zebras"

That's the "selfish gene" viewpoint 101 completely textbook. And by textbook I mean 1976 Richard Dawkins. Well done on schooling us on something nearly 40 years old and 40 years out of date.

Genes don't have a will, genes don't get to do anything in their own interests, the only thing they're allowed to do is serve the best interests of the host creature.

Let's for a moment consider that your argument, oh sorry, I mean Richard Dawkin's argument, is in fact correct and that genes that provide an advantage in physical agility will indeed beat those that don't. Never mind the other functions that said genes have FYI, dexterity, intelligence, and strength be damned! What about the gene that allows the Zebra to produce offspring 1 year earlier than the other Zebras? Wouldn't that win out over agility - now it doesn't matter if the Zebra is fat and lazy because it only has to survive a shorter length of time to reproduce. But that idea has a problem too. For instance, why the fuck do female turtles get progressively more fertile the older and older they get??? How does that make any selfish-gene "Evolutionary" sense!

Well it doesn't matter anyway because biologists have had 40 years to find evidence that the "selfish gene" provides a strong enough influence upon Evolution to drive it, and they have not found observations that provides this evidence - there may be a small "selfish-gene" effect, but it isn't strong enough in and of itself to drive evolution.

Do try to actually learn about the subject before you spout off or you'll start sounding like Cumfart or the Hamster(with even less credibility)

Oh get fucked Zen. I have a deeper belief in Evolution than you do, because my belief is blinder than yours. You believe in bullshit like the selfish gene - yet I disbelieve the selfish gene and STILL blindly believe evolution! Explain that one to me Zen.

Oh dear, you completely missed the point I was making.(either that or you're deliberately trying to steer the conversation in a different direction).

The ability of a zebra to outrun other zebras merely illustrates my point that the main competition isn't between predator and prey. If it was the race would be over in very short order.

The predator(along with a whole bunch of other factors) gives the prey a context to evolve against. Think about it. A female starling lays 12-14 eggs at a time. If ALL those babies made it to breeding age exponential growth would have the planet covered in a thick layer of starlings in no time. As it is, on average only two of those baby birds will get to breed. The ones best able to survive when all their siblings have died.

So I don't know why you're banging on about the selfish gene. That wasn't the point I was making.

And blindly believing in Evolution? That's even more foolish than blindly believing in god.

I on the hand, accept it because the evidence presented is solid and the theory that accounts for the evidence actually makes logical sense.

[Aractus]

Oh dear, you completely missed the point I was making.(either that or you're deliberately trying to steer the conversation in a different direction).

The ability of a zebra to outrun other zebras merely illustrates my point that the main competition isn't between predator and prey. If it was the race would be over in very short order.

Your so-called observations don't apply in the real world. For instance why does the Queen Bee still function as a bee, how come evolution didn't make it a stationary form unable to fly and less burdensome on the hive? Shouldn't it have stopped evolving and resemble whatever bees evolved from more than its fellow "worker" bees?

BTW what's better for the individual does nothing to help the species as a whole. Why do you think penguins huddle to keep warm? The "selfish gene" would want to be the penguin in the middle that never goes to the outside of the huddle, that would be the best way to survive, that should win out in competing against the rest of the penguins, shouldn't it? Yet what we consistently observe is that every penguin selflessly spends the same amount of time on the outside in the freezing cold as every other one, so much for the selfish gene! There are forces at play that counteract "selfish" behaviour of individuals.

You have the extreme selfish behaviour seen in the Cuckoo bird - as soon as it is born, and while it's still blind, the chick will push all the other eggs out of the nest and then even push any other chicks out of the nest too!

[LastPoet]

1. Don't presume to tell me what I wish for and don't lecture me on science, I understand the scientific method and embrace it fully.

Your entire reasoning demonstrates that you don't understand the scientific method enough.

No, that's called a fucking assumption, numbnuts. DNA is incredibly versatile and allows creatures to adapt to their environments just fine without the need for changing it. The assumption made by those who pushed the "survival of the fittest" point of view was that DNA was rigid, which it isn't. As we have now learned so much more about DNA since the view was first suggested it seems less and less likely that the "survival of the fittest" is a strong enough mechanism to drive DNA, and some estimates as to its power to contribute to evolution overall at about 2 or 3% of the total effect of Evolution - ie, it works too slow and not efficiently enough to be a primary driving factor in Evolution.

You are wrong, not even Darwin at his time and without knowledge of genetics ever said that evolution is the survival of the fittest:

It is not the strongest of the species that survive, but the one most responsive to change.

My argument? What exactly do you believe that my argument is?

Yeah, you have no argument when you spew things like this:

Since when do individuals in a species as a whole compete against each other rather than against other species?

Never saw that? You need to get around more.

[Esquilax]

Your so-called observations don't apply in the real world. For instance why does the Queen Bee still function as a bee, how come evolution didn't make it a stationary form unable to fly and less burdensome on the hive? Shouldn't it have stopped evolving and resemble whatever bees evolved from more than its fellow "worker" bees?

Because evolution isn't a steady selection of upgrades, nor does it tend toward efficiency, and nor does it stop, whatever that means. Evolution encompasses less than advantageous traits too; the upright posture that allows humans the range of motion that we have, for example, leaves us with spinal nerves that are still set up for hunched forward, quadrupedal motion, leading to numerous back problems in our species.

Now, in regards to bees specifically, I don't know, but it sounds interesting. I'll actually take a look when I have the time and report back what I find.

BTW what's better for the individual does nothing to help the species as a whole. Why do you think penguins huddle to keep warm? The "selfish gene" would want to be the penguin in the middle that never goes to the outside of the huddle, that would be the best way to survive, that should win out in competing against the rest of the penguins, shouldn't it? Yet what we consistently observe is that every penguin selflessly spends the same amount of time on the outside in the freezing cold as every other one, so much for the selfish gene! There are forces at play that counteract "selfish" behaviour of individuals.

Can you stop with the selfish gene talk, please? Nobody here is mentioning it but you.

Beyond that, I think you're still missing the point; what's advantageous for the individual, assuming it allows for a greater survivability, sculpts what happens to the species, albeit in miniscule ways. Evolution has no tendency toward helping a species survive, just look at all the extinct animals for proof of that.

Besides, herd behavior has an evolutionary advantage too; it's how the human species rose to become the dominant one on the planet, in a manner of speaking. Groups that help one another survive longer, and specific individuals that go against that and damage the group generally don't get to breed. In this way, the selfless behavior that allows for the group to survive is selected for.

You have the extreme selfish behaviour seen in the Cuckoo bird - as soon as it is born, and while it's still blind, the chick will push all the other eggs out of the nest and then even push any other chicks out of the nest too!

You seem to have forgotten that most species of Cuckoo are brood parasites; the chicks its pushing out of the nest aren't other Cuckoos. This behavior is certainly advantageous to the survival of the Cuckoo, although of course, being a parasite, it's disadvantageous to the other birds. How is this inconsistent with evolutionary theory?

[Aractus]

Beyond that, I think you're still missing the point; what's advantageous for the individual, assuming it allows for a greater survivability, sculpts what happens to the species, albeit in miniscule ways. Evolution has no tendency toward helping a species survive, just look at all the extinct animals for proof of that.

I think you're missing the point. "Miniscule" advantages make no difference. Or to be more specific, as I've consistently said, they do not provide enough of an advantage to drive evolution.

Think about it this way. DNA is already versatile. You only have to look at identical twins in humans - some are very much the same, some are very different to each other, easily as different as two humans with different DNA altogether. DNA doesn't determine a lot of things. Education for instance, that's determined well outside of the control of DNA. Strength is another - while it's true DNA can provide some help, going to the gym and training will win out against the so-called "help" that you get from your genes.

And it's not just humans of course, it's all animals.

The Cuckoo bird flies in the face of evolution. It needs to do way too much work for the benefit of the egg swapping, in fact it does so much work that it'd be much better off just building its own nests and raising its own chics. Yet it is too stupid at this point to realize that this would be an advantage to it, so it continues doing something highly inefficient and disadvantaged evolutionarily.

[Esquilax]

I think you're missing the point. "Miniscule" advantages make no difference. Or to be more specific, as I've consistently said, they do not provide enough of an advantage to drive evolution.

Hence the need for them to build up over time. It's the same thing that we do with dogs; breed for the traits that we find desirable, and watch them slowly entrench in the animal over time. You can see those changes occurring.

Think about it this way. DNA is already versatile. You only have to look at identical twins in humans - some are very much the same, some are very different to each other, easily as different as two humans with different DNA altogether. DNA doesn't determine a lot of things. Education for instance, that's determined well outside of the control of DNA. Strength is another - while it's true DNA can provide some help, going to the gym and training will win out against the so-called "help" that you get from your genes.

Granted. And nobody is saying that genetics are the only things that determine survivability anyway; after all, it took a massive extinction event to displace the dinosaurs from their position as dominant species on the planet in order for mammalian life to get a foothold. But in animals that do not educate or train themselves in the same strict and focused way that humans do, those genetic advantages do make quite the difference.

The Cuckoo bird flies in the face of evolution. It needs to do way too much work for the benefit of the egg swapping, in fact it does so much work that it'd be much better off just building its own nests and raising its own chics. Yet it is too stupid at this point to realize that this would be an advantage to it, so it continues doing something highly inefficient and disadvantaged evolutionarily.

Again, even if you were correct about the Cuckoo- and you're not, by the way. Aside from laying the eggs, all of the work raising the chicks is farmed out to other species- evolution does not select for efficiency. The fact is, the Cuckoo's method works well enough for it to breed a new generation, that is the sole success criteria that evolution has.

In fact, evolution can be startlingly inefficient, by dint of being a slow accumulation of changes (by the way, this inefficient design is yet another argument against creationism.) Look at the human spinal nerves, as I've said. Look at the giraffe, which has a long, winding nerve connection up and down its neck, when there's a much more efficient pathway that could have been taken. Look at the human eye; the image comes into the optic nerve upside down, the light receptive cells are facing the wrong way, and without massive compensatory work from the brain we'd be seeing a nice large blind spot in our vision. But the human race is successful enough to propagate, so all the inefficient design that works against us doesn't matter.

The animal works, even if it could work better.

[John V]

Hence the need for them to build up over time. It's the same thing that we do with dogs; breed for the traits that we find desirable, and watch them slowly entrench in the animal over time. You can see those changes occurring.

You need to read up on this. With dog breeding we're not building up new traits, we're actually breeding out existing variability.