13 Feb 06
Originally posted by twhiteheadI refused to marry and breed with an ugly, dumb woman in part because she would embarrass me at every social function for the rest of my life and in part because I didn't want to have a bunch a ugly, dumb kids.
Human beings are changing (evolving) all the time and always have. This is undisputable fact. Every farmer knows how to breed animals so as to "pre-design" what they want. So could scientists, so long as you and all other humans involved in the experiment are willing to breed or in some cases not breed with the spouse allotted to you. One of the problems ...[text shortened]... using to marry someone a different race than themselves and also with cases of genocide etc.
Are we weeding out the ugly, dumb woman from our society? I'd like to think so, but unfortunately we are just too nice to ugly, dumb people, and so they live long enough to meet up with another ugly, dumb men and for some strange reason (poverty?) breed more than the rest of us.
Hal showed me that my acceptance of evolution demands that I also support eugenics, so what the hell, eh?
New Slogan: You can be dumb. You can be ugly. But you cannot be both dumb and ugly.
14 Feb 06
Originally posted by Chessplaya548That's fabulous! Can they make women who don't fall in love with you after a night of casual sex too?
Soon you may not have have to "breed" anymore. Just look at the progress made in genetic engineering. Soon they will be able to tap into your DNA and make whatever kind of child you want......disease free.
14 Feb 06
Originally posted by telerionYou are correct. Evolution does not imply that species get better or nicer or cleverer, only that the most successfull at breeding and survival tend to succeed. In the world today, the poorer people are having more children on average than the richer people. Although it is not entirely the case, I believe that in most societies the dumber you are the poorer you are and the less likely you are to have less children (due to planning ahead). Therefore we can expect that the human race is slowly evolving into a dumber type of human being. This is surely evidence that inteligent design is not taking place!
Are we weeding out the ugly, dumb woman from our society? I'd like to think so, but unfortunately we are just too nice to ugly, dumb people, and so they live long enough to meet up with another ugly, dumb men and for some strange reason (poverty?) breed more than the rest of us.
14 Feb 06
Originally posted by twhiteheadThis is surely evidence that inteligent[sic] design is not taking place!
You are correct. Evolution does not imply that species get better or nicer or cleverer, only that the most successfull at breeding and survival tend to succeed. In the world today, the poorer people are having more children on average than the richer people. Although it is not entirely the case, I believe that in most societies the dumber you are the poor ...[text shortened]... dumber type of human being. This is surely evidence that inteligent design is not taking place!
Non sequitur
You are also committing the cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy of equating the cause of poverty with the lack of intelligence – the scenario is vastly more complex.
14 Feb 06
Originally posted by HalitoseI did not equate poverty with lack of intelligence. I said that within a given society, it is a general trend. I also know that it is more complicated than that including factors such as: nutrition affects inteligence and therefore the poorer your parents the dumber you are. (again only a trend).
You are also committing the cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy of equating the cause of poverty with the lack of intelligence – the scenario is vastly more complex.
The overall wealth of a given society is totally different and has more to do with economic factors of the region.
However I stand by my statement that in my country the more intelligent people generally do better at school, at work and eventually at accumulating wealth and at having less children.
Sadly I see no such correletion when it comes to contracting and dying of AIDS.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
14 Feb 06
1 edit
Originally posted by StarrmanYou periodically stated that God is not available for understanding. You may think that you have not made up your mind and you may even say so, but the above statement makes it sound like you are not even attempting to understand God.
Dj I truly wonder if you ever listen to anything I say. Even if you do not agree with it, it is worth remembering it so that you don't make ridiculous remarks as the one above. So, for the umpteenth time, I have not made up my mind, I merely await a day where my atheism is altered, if that day does not come, then I shall remain an atheist.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
14 Feb 06
Originally posted by StarrmanRefusing to believe in something you don't even understand yet is idiotic.
Being Christian doesn't preclude an understanding or an acceptance of the process of evolution. Refusing to believe in something you don't even understand yet is idiotic.
Does the fact that you are an atheist not exclude a belief in God?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
14 Feb 06
Originally posted by StarrmanBeing Christian doesn't preclude an understanding or an acceptance of the process of evolution.
Being Christian doesn't preclude an understanding or an acceptance of the process of evolution. Refusing to believe in something you don't even understand yet is idiotic.
Does being Atheist preclude an understanding or an acceptance of God?
14 Feb 06
Originally posted by dj2beckerOh fer chisssakes dj! Once again then, from the top.
You periodically stated that [b]God is not available for understanding. You may think that you have not made up your mind and you may even say so, but the above statement makes it sound like you are not even attempting to understand God.[/b]
1) There is no acceptable proof for god's existence.
2) Until there is I deny the existence of such an enitity.
3) There is no burden of understanding for something which does not exist.
4) The theory of evolution does exist, as does theology, both of which I work to understand.
Does this make sense? I really don't want to go through it again.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
14 Feb 06
Originally posted by StarrmanYour first axiom is a universal negative.
Oh fer chisssakes dj! Once again then, from the top.
1) There is no acceptable proof for god's existence.
2) Until there is I deny the existence of such an enitity.
3) There is no burden of understanding for something which does not exist.
4) The theory of evolution does exist, as does theology, both of which I work to understand.
Does this make sense? I really don't want to go through it again.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
14 Feb 06
1 edit
Originally posted by StarrmanScience is ill-equipped to prove universal negatives by virtue of the fact that you are not omnipresent and have limited resources. As a result, you have no basis beyond faith for the foundation of your first axiom.
Explain.
The burden of proof lies with you to prove that there is no acceptable proof of God's existance. Because you believe only in what you can see, you have to go everywhere in the universe, throughout time and see for yourself that acceptable proof of God's existance doesn't exist. Until you can do this, your assertion that there is no acceptable proof for God's existance is merely an expression based on faith just like a religious belief.
On the otherhand, significant "evidence" exists to the contrary in the person and work of Jesus Christ and the manifestation of a highly complex and ordered creation that reflects that Master's Design.