baddog1 wrote:LOL! Excellent points RL. The twisting & turning by evo's on these thoughts will be fun to watch - if they don't ignore. Wink
Like how you ignored some of the responses to RL's dishonest tactics?
Faced with an impossible position to defend logically, RL has now resorted to attacking Evolution, which does not prove his position right. In fact, let's look at his strawmen, shall we?
RL wrote:Well, that opens an interesting question.
Does helping the weak to survive actually contradict evolution?
It would seem that anything that is a drain on the time, resources etc of the individual and/or the society would be counter to the tendency of evolution to let the strong thrive and the weak die.
So, if one helps the weak, then evolution is being thwarted.
This tendency to help the weak could be seen as a 'bad' or 'negative' trait, which means that it should eventually be 'selected against' and not 'selected for' in the vaunted process of natural selection.
What are these strong and weak you speak of? Evolution doesn't speak in those terms.
This tendency to help the weak you speak of is known as altruism. There is an evolutionary advantage to altruism, in that altruistic groups are more likely to survive and do better than those rife with nothing but selfish individuals.
You yourselves as Christians believe Christianity is essential for maintaining a healthy society, do you not? Why do you think that is? Perhaps, because you believe Christianity is a source of morality and that morality contains altruism that helps the society function?
Altruism can still be done if an organism has empathy, thus bypassing the need for enforced morals such as religion. However, the idea is still the same.
That an organism also helps out an individual that is likely to add a "weak" gene to the gene pool is merely an extension of that altruism. Obviously, the altruism to the group as a whole provides an advantage that outweighs the disadvantages.
Quote:Which could explain why many hardcore evolutionists generally seem to be anti-religion.
Hardcore evolutionists tend to be against religion butting its nose where it doesn't belong. That is not the same as anti-religion. There are plenty of Christians out there who believe in evolution. Anglicans, Catholics, Lutherans and so forth.
Quote:They may see religion's teachings regarding uplifting and protecting the ill, the weak, the elderly etc to be impeding evolution.
Religion is a result of evolution.
What atheists tend to despise about religion is the fact that it breeds people like you, RL. Hypocrites and liars that misrepresent and lie. You may not do so on many subjects, but you do a lot of it on subjects pertaining to Evolution.
Quote:This category of the weak would obviously also include both the unborn and children already born.
The only person who said such a thing is you, RL. No single Evolutionary scientist has ever said such complete and utter rubbish. The Theory of Evolution doesn't mention that complete rubbish. You made it up. It is a strawman observation.
Way to go, real lie.
Quote:There is little doubt that abortion has increased phenomenally in the past few decades, as also child abuse has.
This coincides with the teaching of evolution becoming more entrenced in the government schools.
Correlation does not imply causation, RL. Besides, where's your proof? Where's your data? I see no evidence to prove your point. You must be pulling numbers out of your arse, as you always do when it comes to evolutionary discussion.
I must admit, you may have a point when it comes to abortion being wrong, but when it comes to Evolution, you betray your ignorance and prove yourself to be wrong, time and time again.
