Annoying Christian sayings

[MisterD]

So was Stalin.

Who also had a moustache. Does that make the millions he killed in the cause of movember?

[Mikkel]

And possibly christians did do just that, but then possibly The one that created us implanted a certain (caution, plagiarized verbosity to follow) Moral Compass within all humanity, and this saying is merely a watered down attempt at proving ones own self worth in the light of eternity.

Or perhaps, just maybe, our evolution as a social species meant that morality had to evolve before a structured society was even possible.

But of course - using god as an argument is like multiplying by zero... It'll solve any troublesome problem - only problem is that it isn't a valid response.

[kickingzebra]

Who also had a moustache. Does that make the millions he killed in the cause of movember?

You know Winston Peters right?

[Bikernereid]

And possibly christians did do just that, but then possibly The one that created us implanted a certain (caution, plagiarized verbosity to follow) Moral Compass within all humanity, and this saying is merely a watered down attempt at proving ones own self worth in the light of eternity.

I would like to think that we are all a product of ourt parents, ancestors, EVOLUTION and nothing to do with a bleedin creator. I have seen my parents, received love, support, nuturing and respect (to name a few) from them and my family and saw where I can from for 4 generations. To date I don't ever remember receibing any such thing from The One!

I have never seen The One (unless you mean my OWNER) and until him/her/it and Jesus both come down and bite me on both arse cheeks I will stick with being a product of proven evlution thanks.

and Blessed Be is also Pagan (and sounds like some other hyjacked from the pagan, Christian saying)

[kickingzebra]

Or perhaps, just maybe, our evolution as a social species meant that morality had to evolve before a structured society was even possible.

But of course - using god as an argument is like multiplying by zero... It'll solve any troublesome problem - only problem is that it isn't a valid response.

Yeah yeah, civilized society is a great idea, why doesn't someone start one?

And majoring on your word choice, rather than your linguistics, If evolution is so bloody good, explain to me PLEASE the death mechanism? Surely constant improvement would erode this?
Explain why Good old Dolly the Sheep (the clone) version had pre aged at maturity, by roughly the same period of time that the clonee had spent on the planet prior conception?

This ticking time bomb of death surely cannot benefit evolutions senseless march toward perfection?

[jrandom]

Perhaps, Oh wise one, your experience is not yet complete and all seeing?

If your particular set of fantasies and imaginary friends work for you, philosophically speaking, then that's cool. So long as you don't try to push it on anyone else, of course.

Just reporting on what I've observed personally.

[Ixion]

I think that you will find that christianity has stolen quite a bit from the Pagans. Obviously too lazy to come up with all their own ideas!!

Indeed so. But perhaps because they were too wise to reinvent the wheel. Or to fix that which was not broken.

[kickingzebra]

If your particular set of fantasies and imaginary friends work for you, philosophically speaking, then that's cool. So long as you don't try to push it on anyone else, of course.

Why Not push it on anyone else?

[Slyer]

Yeah yeah, civilized society is a great idea, why doesn't someone start one?

And majoring on your word choice, rather than your linguistics, If evolution is so bloody good, explain to me PLEASE the death mechanism? Surely constant improvement would erode this?
Explain why Good old Dolly the Sheep (the clone) version had pre aged at maturity, by roughly the same period of time that the clonee had spent on the planet prior conception?

This ticking time bomb of death surely cannot benefit evolutions senseless march toward perfection?

Evolution doesn't aim for anything, it is a completely non-concious process that favours the strongest. Death is actually a very important part, if death was not a threat there would be no advantage to being stronger.
Without death there is no reason to reproduce, therefore no chance for mutation to occur and thus no chance of improvement.

In terms of evolution there is zero reason for animals to live much past the time they can't reproduce any more.
THIS is why the elderly have all the health problems, nothing ever lived as long as they did back then so all the shortcomings of being that old never were evolved out. Old age simply wasn't an issue.

Consider this, a gene that allows people to stay really healthy after 60 wouldn't be an advantage as no one ever lived that long as so it couldn't help the species survive.
Evolution answers why we hiccup (vestige from our amphibian ancestors) and also why the male testes loops in such a fucked up way. (see attached)

*Sigh* why do I bother..

[AllanB]

Nothing wrong with those spunky ones crying out 'oh god oh god oh god'

[kickingzebra]

Evolution doesn't aim for anything, it is a completely non-concious process that favours the strongest. Death is actually a very important part, if death was not a threat there would be no advantage to being stronger.

A process (by definition) that doesn't aim for anything? really?

Without death there is no reason to reproduce, therefore no chance for mutation to occur and thus no chance of improvement.

In terms of evolution there is zero reason for animals to live much past the time they can't reproduce any more.
THIS is why the elderly have all the health problems, nothing ever lived as long as they did back then so all the shortcomings of being that old never were evolved out. Old age simply wasn't an issue.

So the law of thermodynamics has problems with its starter motor?

Consider this, a gene that allows people to stay really healthy after 60 wouldn't be an advantage as no one ever lived that long as so it couldn't help the species survive.
Evolution answers why we hiccup (vestige from our amphibian ancestors) and also why the male testes loops in such a fucked up way. (see attached)

*Sigh* why do I bother..

If the ongoing furtherment of the species is the goal, and evolution did provide longer life, then this would fit perfectly, we now have the perfect circular argument. By definition of evolutionary theory, small (or not so small, depending on who plagiarized your ideas from) changes, which contribute to greater survival rates, or the betterment of a species, death betters the species, but longer life benefits the species, maybe a better but shorter life is acceptable, but seeing as it is all random chance, why indeed do we bother? we should be out there having fun,

Seeing as we are so all knowing but not one of us can change the colour our hair naturally grows, it does all seem rather futile.

[Slyer]

A process (by definition) that doesn't aim for anything? really?

I'll give you this one, you are right. But the aim certainly isn't perfection in the way that any of us would describe it.

If the ongoing furtherment of the species is the goal, and evolution did provide longer life, then this would fit perfectly, we now have the perfect circular argument. By definition of evolutionary theory, small (or not so small, depending on who plagiarized your ideas from) changes, which contribute to greater survival rates, or the betterment of a species, death betters the species, but longer life benefits the species, maybe a better but shorter life is acceptable, but seeing as it is all random chance, why indeed do we bother? we should be out there having fun

Let me break this right down to the very heart of evolution, genes.
Evolution is all about the survival of genes, this is why you are getting confused. Some things that seem like the complete opposite of an improvement to the animal are actually an improvement to their genes.

Consider that all the genes are part of an imaginary contest, the genes that are the most helpful will survive and the ones that are less than helpful will disappear.
Genes that help their host animal to survive will grow in number, the animal survives and reproduces and therefore more of the gene to go around.
The reason you are having problems understanding is because many of the things that are actually harmful to the animal help the GENES to survive.
I hope this makes sense, I'm no science teacher.

Richard Dawkins has an entire book about it and he explains it a million times better than I ever could. Read the wikipedia article at the very least and you might understand.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene

Genes can reproduce at the expense of the organism

There are other times when the implicit interests of the vehicle and replicator are in conflict, such as the genes behind certain male spiders' instinctive mating behaviour, which increase the organism's inclusive fitness by allowing it to reproduce, but shorten its life by exposing it to the risk of being eaten by the cannibalistic female. Another good example is the existence of segregation distortion genes that are detrimental to their host but nonetheless propagate themselves at its expense. Likewise, the existence of junk DNA that provides no benefit to its host, once a puzzle, can be more easily explained. A more controversial example is aging, in which an old organism's death makes room for its offspring, benefiting its genes at the cost of the organism.

[Bikernereid]

I'll give you this one, you are right. But the aim certainly isn't perfection in the way that any of us would describe it.



Let me break this right down to the very heart of evolution, genes.
Evolution is all about the survival of genes, this is why you are getting confused. Some things that seem like the complete opposite of an improvement to the animal are actually an improvement to their genes.

Consider that all the genes are part of an imaginary contest, the genes that are the most helpful will survive and the ones that are less than helpful will disappear.
Genes that help their host animal to survive will grow in number, the animal survives and reproduces and therefore more of the gene to go around.
The reason you are having problems understanding is because many of the things that are actually harmful to the animal help the GENES to survive.
I hope this makes sense, I'm no science teacher.

Richard Dawkins has an entire book about it and he explains it a million times better than I ever could. Read the wikipedia article at the very least and you might understand.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene

don't put yoursef down I have read dawkins book and you provided a very good summary!!

here are some interesting videos to watch- God Delusion, Selfish gene etc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciFe8JmR-nY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yENWf5ThIg4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQIKd-S44Hw

[kickingzebra]

Teleological forces such as rational foresight cannot explain the outcomes of trial-and-error processes, such as evolution, and thus have no place in biological applications.

I love that bit... One ever so slight assumption, carefully glossed to sound factual,

I can understand and appreciate that gene centred view, but surely the carrier of the gene is more than vital to the survival of the gene, so the whole unit should be viewed as a whole, thereby making the gene centered argument an informative logical walkthrough, but arguably not much more.

Again though, surely it benefits the gene (and carrier of said gene) to survive longer, as longer survival rates, higher resistance to death would ensure its survival in a more thorough fashion, higher survivability will outlive all of the weaker strands, and coupled with reproductive ability will result in a population explosion which will eliminate the competitive genes...

[Slyer]

Genes don't live and die in the same sense as animals..
I'm going to have to read your links to figure out what you are going on about...