Evolutionism vs creationism

[Soirana]

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)

> And not by "effort to fight it" but with idiotic usage of antibiotics.

so the idiotic usage was in an effort to help it

I see you clearly got LRBA
Logic resistant brain activity

If you want sumarizing on MRSA:
About 15% [number varies on different researches] people have SA as persistent nonpathogen flora in nasopahryngeal cavity.
Wide spread use of antibiotics for stuff like common cold [mostly of viral origin] clearly helped to develop resistance [by the case methicilin isn't used as antibiotic for humans, just got stick in name].

So basically yes, idiotic usage helped SA to develop resistant forms.

[gut]

> So basically yes, idiotic usage helped SA to develop resistant forms.

thank you. it was like pulling teeth, but thank you.

[JellySlayer]

You are saying that jesus prayed to, and worshipped hell.

Sure, you can think of it that way if you want. Not exactly my intended meaning, but if it helps you understand better, that's fine.

MRSA is, in a way, man-made.

So we've made one disease ourselves and wiped out hundreds made by God? I'll take that trade.

> If there is a God, I think he's a pretty terrible designer.

yet more bias. if evolution is responsible for life, it is to be appreciated, if it
was god, then only blame

Evolution doesn't have to be appreciated. It isn't making claims of being all-powerful and perfect.

We'll just have to disagree on that. I think telling people to treat others as they
would be treated rather rules out violence, unless you would prefer for people to be
violent to you.

Jesus did talk about other things besides treating others as you'd like to be treated. Such as, you know, that people who didn't agree with him would be tortured for eternity.

(One does begin to wonder at the effect of such numerous translations).

It's a big problem. There's a great book called "Misquoting Jesus" that deals with this topic in some detail.

Jellyslayer was giving his (quite logical) analysis regarding the design plan of developing
fruits before fruit eaters.

I'm glad that you're satisfied with my explanations now.

[Theym]

What's the name again of this movie where Jim Carrey got to play god for a while?

Bruce Almighty

[fazisi]

> Evolution doesn't have to be appreciated. It isn't making claims of being all-powerful and perfect.

Evolution is just powerful and perfect enough to create the world we know today through chance and coincidence. No appreciation necessary. I think I could guess why atheists love this theory.

[xan]

> Evolution doesn't have to be appreciated. It isn't making claims of being all-powerful and perfect.

Evolution is just powerful and perfect enough to create the world we know today through chance and coincidence. No appreciation necessary. I think I could guess why atheists love this theory.

Chance and coincidence are not the selection criterion for evolution, reproductive success is.

While powerful, evolution is hardly perfect, many species die out because of changes in their environment.

Most atheists don't "love" the theory of evolution, if a better theory for the existence and diversity of life were found, atheists would be the first to accept it. It's just that it's currently the most rational explanation.

[gut]

> Sure, you can think of it that way if you want. Not exactly my intended meaning

I know that wasn't your intended meaning, but that was the way it was written.

> So we've made one disease ourselves and wiped out hundreds made by God? I'll take that trade

We have enhanced (not really made) more than just one disease. It's just that most of our
'work' isn't publicized or by accident. The other aspect is the usefulness of diseases. As
gruesome (ha) as it sounds, the old saying 'whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger'
is true here, at least in a long-term sense. Compare the effects of multiple diseases upon
the peoples of europe compared to america. The populace that suffered fewer diseases
suffered worst (well, I suppose that may be a matter of opinion in ways). My point is,
perhaps there is a vital function to disease we have yet to discover? I honestly wouldn't
rule out 'population control' theory, either from devine or evolutionary perspective.

> Evolution doesn't have to be appreciated

didn't say it had to be, I said it seems as though you do. really meaning that seem to
have taken the time to study it in depth. seems odd that you would have studied something
that much without appreciating it.

> people who didn't agree with him would be tortured for eternity

You prefer the reality of torture (and murder) to the threat of afterlife torture?
Those WERE the prevailing philosophies of the time. Frankly, I'm glad jesus's
teachings won out.

> I'm glad that you're satisfied with my explanations now.

Your deductions were logical from the begining, but only applied to one theory.
The other seemed to be given a pass.

> Chance and coincidence are not the selection criterion for evolution, reproductive success is.

In my opinion, chance and coincidence must be factored in, in order for evolution
to be plausible.

[JellySlayer]

> So we've made one disease ourselves and wiped out hundreds made by God? I'll take that trade

We have enhanced (not really made) more than just one disease. It's just that most of our
'work' isn't publicized or by accident. The other aspect is the usefulness of diseases. As
gruesome (ha) as it sounds, the old saying 'whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger'
is true here, at least in a long-term sense. Compare the effects of multiple diseases upon
the peoples of europe compared to america. The populace that suffered fewer diseases
suffered worst (well, I suppose that may be a matter of opinion in ways). My point is,
perhaps there is a vital function to disease we have yet to discover? I honestly wouldn't
rule out 'population control' theory, either from devine or evolutionary perspective.

I don't know much about the evolutionary origins/functions of diseases. Obviously there are some types of bacteria (not so much viruses, AFAIK) that are essential to our survival. Others, well, at least so far, we seem to be doing just fine without.

> Evolution doesn't have to be appreciated

didn't say it had to be, I said it seems as though you do. really meaning that seem to
have taken the time to study it in depth. seems odd that you would have studied something
that much without appreciating it.

As a scientific theory, yes, I personally consider evolution among the most powerful and elegant theories that we have ever devised. The difference, as I see it, is that creationism in particular suggests that man was literally created in the image of God. So why are there fairly obvious flaws in our "design"? Evolution provides at least a suggestion of a solution--namely that we don't necessarily share a common ancestor and/or that we diverged significantly from species with more functional designs of the same system.

> people who didn't agree with him would be tortured for eternity

You prefer the reality of torture (and murder) to the threat of afterlife torture?
Those WERE the prevailing philosophies of the time. Frankly, I'm glad jesus's
teachings won out.

Well, first off, I wouldn't say that Jesus' teachings won out. Capital punishment and torture remained acceptable means of doling out justice up until quite recent history--even to the present, realistically, although blessedly rare in the developed world--even in regions dominated by people who considered themselves to be Christian (regardless of whether they actually followed the teachings of Jesus or not)--this was in addition to the threats of eternal punishment promised by Jesus.

Here's the thing. If Jesus was right and hell does exist, then yes, I would consider the reality of torture/murder here and now better than the reality offered by Jesus, for the simple reason that life here is finite. You can only be killed once, and you can only be tortured up to the endurance of your body. By comparison, according to Jesus, punishment is extended for an indefinite period of time, simply for thinking the wrong thing in this, the finite world. The choice offered by Jesus is clearly worse. Even if his teachings did bring about an era of peace and kindness (which they didn't), that would only exacerbate the gross injustice of then proceeding to torture the people who didn't believe in him specifically--because the primary requirement of salvation is not good works, but faith in Jesus himself. The idea of heaven, to my mind, is not a sufficient offset for the travesty of hell. As a moral person, I do not believe that I could appreciate or accept any sort of heaven with the knowledge that other people are experiencing an unjust eternal torture. I'd happily give up heaven in order to destroy hell.

Now if Jesus was wrong about hell, then he may well be wrong about everything else--Christianity would be dead. If he's wrong about some things but not others, then we need to find a way to parse the truth from the untruth in his statements--not an easy task in and of itself. From a purely utilitarian point of view, we might try to argue that, even if unjustified, belief in hell is beneficial. And while I might agree that belief in hell is useful for propagating Christian memes (nothing like fear to motivate people), I'm not convinced that it is beneficial for society at large.

> Chance and coincidence are not the selection criterion for evolution, reproductive success is.

In my opinion, chance and coincidence must be factored in, in order for evolution
to be plausible.

To a degree, I agree with you. Chance plays a role in evolution in the sense that mutations, transcription errors, DNA mixing through sexual reproduction, etc. are inherently statistical processes. For lack of better terms, these processes provide the raw materials by which natural selection functions. Given a wide distribution of possible features, traits, and defects within a given species, natural selection will remove the least favourable and enhance the most favourable. If these random factors didn't exist at all, then natural selection wouldn't work. But the number of variations is immense--it's not really a limiting factor to speak of. In any given population, there's always going to be some features among some subset of the population that are incrementally better than the remainder. For simplicity, think of it like a bell curve. Most of the individuals are in the middle region, essentially neutral. The very lowest end of the bell curve are weak, and will die off. The strongest on the curve have a reproductive advantage and will grow at a faster rate than the rest of the population. What happens over time? The average moves towards the more successful group. The width of the bell curve is determined essentially by the chance features you speak of; the movement of the bell curve toward the superior individuals is determined by natural selection.

[gut]

> some types of bacteria (not so much viruses, AFAIK) that
are essential to our survival. Others, well, at least so far, we seem to be
doing just fine witho

Seem to be doing fine, but for how long? For individuals, it is great,
but for species is it great? A few hundred generation of no disease
deaths (kept at bay via medicines, increased levels of sanitation,
new vaccines, etc...) would leave human species more or less able
to survive a pandemic? The more host bodies, the more opportunities
for mutations. Population would double how many times in ~200 years?
Makes for a large breeding ground, eh?


>>>>> If there is a God, I think he's a pretty terrible designer.

>>>> yet more bias. if evolution is responsible for life, it is to be appreciated, if it
was god, then only blame

>>> Evolution doesn't have to be appreciated. It isn't making claims of being all-powerful and perfect.

>> didn't say it had to be, I said it seems as though you do.

> yes, I personally consider evolution among the most powerful and elegant

if the process is natural selection, with only factors you understand, the result
is 'elegant', yet if a guiding inteligence was involved, the same result is 'a
terrible design'. Perhaps physics/evolution are not exclusionary with a guiding
intelligence, but were created by it. Perhaps that intelligence saw the use of and
need for things you don't, such as disease. Perhaps the 'flawed' designs exist
for reasons you don't understand.

> creationism in particular suggests that man was literally created in the image
of God. So why are there fairly obvious flaws in our "design"?

Perhaps being made 'in the image' of something doesn't mean mirror image, but the
more faint kind. You think an omnipotent being would create only perfection? How dull.

>>> people who didn't agree with him would be tortured for eternity

>> You prefer the reality of torture (and murder) to the threat of afterlife torture?

> Well, first off, I wouldn't say that Jesus' teachings won out

So Jupitor and the lot have regular following in your country?

> Capital punishment and torture remained acceptable means of doling out justice up until quite recent history

The only periods that comes to mind where 'christians' murdered non-christians for
being different were spanish inquisition and scattered witch trials. Relatively
uncommon compared to the alternative.

> even to the present, realistically, although blessedly rare in the developed world

You don't like the idea of putting criminals under the jail? How odd.

> If Jesus was right and hell does exist, then yes, I would consider the reality of torture/murder here and now better than

The martyrs of the time agree with you

You are equating belief with reality. You start your sentence with 'if [snip] hell
exists, then...' but that wasn't what I asked you. I asked you if:
'>> You prefer the reality of torture (and murder) to the threat of afterlife torture?'


> the reality offered by Jesus

You are still speaking as though jesus created/worshipped/prayed to hell.

> Even if his teachings did bring about an era of peace and kindness (which they didn't),

So which do I believe, what you tell me, or what I live each day? You tell me that
jesus's teachings aren't responsible for peace, yet I haven't locked my door in years.
The blasted thing isn't even capable of locking, and I don't even bother fixing it.
Many people in christian neighborhoods do the same. Try replace the churches with
liquor stores though (like they do pretty much everywhere else in the world), and see
if you notice a difference.

> I'd happily give up heaven in order to destroy hell

Best line of this whole debate. I'll join you in that

> Now if Jesus was wrong about hell, then he may well be wrong about everything else

Maybe he was right, I know you would prefer he not have told anybody about it, as it
would have been unpleasant

> I might agree that belief in hell is useful for propagating Christian
memes (nothing like fear to motivate people), I'm not convinced that it is
beneficial for society at large.

You lock your doors at night?

> To a degree, I agree with you.

thank you. was like pulling teeth, but thank you.

[JellySlayer]

Seem to be doing fine, but for how long? For individuals, it is great,
but for species is it great? A few hundred generation of no disease
deaths (kept at bay via medicines, increased levels of sanitation,
new vaccines, etc...) would leave human species more or less able
to survive a pandemic? The more host bodies, the more opportunities
for mutations. Population would double how many times in ~200 years?
Makes for a large breeding ground, eh?

...

I feel that I should point out something really, really obvious about this statement. Instead I'll just say that I think we agree on a lot more than I originally thought we did.

> yes, I personally consider evolution among the most powerful and elegant theories that we have ever devised[/COLOR]

Please quote me in context. I am not talking about the results of evolution. I am talking about the theory of evolution itself. I consider the theory of electromagnetism to be one of the most beautiful theories we've ever come up with as well. That doesn't mean that I enjoy sticking my fingers into electrical sockets. Evolution is an excellent theory because of its predictive and explanatory power. That doesn't mean that I still can't say "Gee, it's too bad that our eyes didn't follow the same evolutionary path as birds, because theirs are superior to ours in just about every way".

> creationism in particular suggests that man was literally created in the image
of God. So why are there fairly obvious flaws in our "design"?

Perhaps being made 'in the image' of something doesn't mean mirror image, but the
more faint kind. You think an omnipotent being would create only perfection? How dull.

That's an interesting question, actually. Is it possible for a perfect being to make something imperfect?

> Well, first off, I wouldn't say that Jesus' teachings won out[/COLOR]

So Jupitor and the lot have regular following in your country?

You don't consider most Christians to be followers of Jesus' teachings. Given that they believe all that other stuff in the Bible, you know.

> Capital punishment and torture remained acceptable means of doling out justice up until quite recent history

The only periods that comes to mind where 'christians' murdered non-christians for
being different were spanish inquisition and scattered witch trials. Relatively
uncommon compared to the alternative.

The Crusades? The colonization of the Americas? Just to point out, Christians also murdered/tortured Christians in fairly significant numbers too. See: the history of Europe from AD 100-1945 for some examples. Still not very Christ-like.

You don't like the idea of putting criminals under the jail? How odd.

Torture and capital punishment are not the same as jail.

You are equating belief with reality. You start your sentence with 'if [snip] hell
exists, then...' but that wasn't what I asked you. I asked you if:
'>> You prefer the reality of torture (and murder) to the threat of afterlife torture?'

Well, I consider that a false dichotomy. I believe that we have both the doctrine of hell and murder/torture here and now. I believe that having neither would be the best option. If having the threat of hell eliminated murder and torture now, sure, that'd be a benefit to the doctrine, regardless of whether or not its true. I just don't see any evidence to believe that is the case.

You are still speaking as though jesus created/worshipped/prayed to hell.

God created hell. Jesus is God. Therefore, Jesus created hell.

> Even if his teachings did bring about an era of peace and kindness (which they didn't),

So which do I believe, what you tell me, or what I live each day? You tell me that
jesus's teachings aren't responsible for peace, yet I haven't locked my door in years.
The blasted thing isn't even capable of locking, and I don't even bother fixing it.
Many people in christian neighborhoods do the same. Try replace the churches with
liquor stores though (like they do pretty much everywhere else in the world), and see
if you notice a difference.

Jesus died in AD 33 or thereabouts. From about AD 400 onwards, the majority of Europe was Christian. For much of that period, a significant portion Europe was called "Christendom". Are you intending to argue that this Christian area has been essentially free of strife and conflict since that time? For that matter, the United States, despite being a "Christian" nation, has the world's highest incarceration rate, and has, for all practical purposes, been in a continuous state of war for the last 60 or so years. Hardly a stellar example of Christ-like behaviour.

> Now if Jesus was wrong about hell, then he may well be wrong about everything else

Maybe he was right, I know you would prefer he not have told anybody about it, as it
would have been unpleasant

If he's right, then he and God are evil and immoral. That's doesn't mean that God doesn't exist, but I certainly don't see any reason to cater to the whims of tyrants.