Dishonest Questions About Evolution

Would a successful artificial insemination of a lady who has never had carnal relations with a chap constitute a virgin birth?

One could think of other scenarios but they are probably unsuitable for description on a family forum.

spendi, Artificial insemination 2000 years ago? You are a card.

They could have used a stick or a blowpipe. Either of those could have worked occasionally at least. You couldn't rule it out. Some sperms are notoriously vigourous.

I've heard tales of them pyjama jumping.

spendi, Semen dries up in open air, and survival of the sperm depends on "wetness."

Only if you are a plodding slowcoach with friction being your greatest enemy.

I know what I've learned in school. But I'm just going by what you're saying.

There's no such thing as an 'evolutionist'.

Do you mean in the same way that there's no such thing as an American or a Republican?

No. Creationism is based on belief. Creationists have "created" the word because they see everything as based on belief. Evolution is just science. There is no 'ism' involved. The damaged, delusional minds of creationists just can't see past there own sickness. They're all just a bunch of dangerous, twisted freaks

Oh yeah-

Well every aspect of your life, even your dreams, were delivered up to you by people who believed in a God creating the world.

Without them life would be permanently nasty, brutish and short and an arena of anarchy and nihilism mitigated only by top down terror in the interest of an elite which would soon start fighting amongst itself.

But Wilso's post is instructive of the general attitude of anti-IDers towards their fellow man and it is obvious than given the power Wilso would have Creationists, and by logical extension all believers, exterminated forthwith.

How could a responsible anti-ID government not seek to eliminate sick,damaged, deluded, dangerous twisted freaks. If they copped out in the name of humane behaviour and just sought to recondition them by methods derived from Pavlov they would be admitting a core of Christian values in their make up.

Actually they are just silly because they wallow self-indulgently in the luxuries the Christian world has delivered whilst arguing to put at risk that world and offering no picture of the world they would put in its place.

It is obvious that they are harmless, a fact they rely on, because something would be done about them otherwise. That they are allowed to make statements like the above with impunity is a measure of the confidence the Christian world has in itself.

You were taught to use the word "evolutionist" in school? You were taught in school that it is "awfully coincidental," and "lucky for evolutionists" that no other hominids survived, because then "they don't have to prove their point?" What were you taught in school the "point" was that "evolutionists" were trying to make?

Where did you attend school, a religiously-supported school? I'd frankly be amazed if you were taught any of this in a public school.

seems a bit xenophobic spendi. However, in a more careful analysis, xenophobia is quite consistant with Christianity.

I just call em "racial bigots."

Some people call other people racial bigots in an attempt to pretend, possibly even to themselves, that they are not racial bigots.

Like most statements on here from anti-IDers that one relies on an uneducated audience. It is self-flattering complacency

As Auberon Waugh used to say- the more someone talked about honesty the faster we counted the spoons.

There is nothing "to pretend" when anyone shows contempt for another cultural group by using epithets or tries to deny them equality. Any time any individual or group thinks they are superior to another individual or group of a different culture, it's "racial bigotry." Within the same group, it's just plain "hatred."

Spendius says:

"Well every aspect of your life, even your dreams, were delivered up to you by people who believed in a God creating the world.

Without them life would be permanently nasty, brutish and short and an arena of anarchy and nihilism mitigated only by top down terror in the interest of an elite which would soon start fighting amongst itself"

The state that he maintains Christians have delivered us from sounds exactly like the state of Christendom for its first eighteen hundred years of existence--nasty, brutish and short with top down terror in the interest of an elite--divine right of kings, you know, old boy?

It was only the development of science and medicine and the political theory of the Enlightenment, neither of which were based on Christianity, that delivered us from that awful world, at least to the extent that we've put it behind us today. Those who were Christians helped bring it about only when they embraced those non-Biblical points of view.. Religion had very little to do with the improvement.

It's quite not behind us yet; we have the likes of Bush trying to run our country like a kingdom, and with the support of the supreme court has instituted granting money to religious organizatins from federal funds.

UN wrote-



There have been other cultures without a Biblical point of view. Where is their analytical geometry on which modern science is based? It is hard to credit that they were less intelligent. That really would be racist bigotry.

There is only one culture, the Christian one, even with its schisms, which has produced modern science. There were atheists, sceptics and cynics galore in the ancient world.

Your conclusion seems anti-scientific to me. It's a belief.

username mentions The Enlightenment possibly hoping that by doing so we will all think he is enlightened.

The Enlightenment was a 17th century intellectual movement in Europe associated primarily with Locke, Voltaire, Diderot, Wolff, Lessing, Kant etc.

It was also known as the Age of Reason.

Its main doctrines were-

1-Reason is paramount.

2-Man is,by nature, rational and good.

3-All men are equal including women.

4-Tolerance should be extended to other creeds.

5-Priests, sacred texts and tradition are not a basis for beliefs. Only reason is.

6-The individual and humanity can become perfected.

7-That local prejudices and customs are derived from historical peculiarities and are worthless. One is not American or British. One is a man sharing rationality with other men.

8-Art should be instructive and a product of taste and not genius and education should impart knowledge and not mould feelings or develop character.

If you can stop laughing for a moment here are some of the arguments against it.

1-It erected the straw man that medieval philosophers accepted their beliefs on authority alone and that view does not withstand a reading of the works of those philosophers.

2-It goes against the view of Burke, and others, that the accumulated wisdom of past ages, traditional beliefs and institutions, is more likely to be correct that the view of one individual.

3-It demanded that we should subject all our beliefs to criticism and accept nothing on authority when the gulf between any individual's meagre first-hand experience and the range of knowledge available is vast and increasing exponentially.

4-Its egalitarianism is widely rejected both in theory and practice by every functioning society.

5-It was unaware that the limits of reason can be discerned only by reason itself thus opening the way to the dictatorships imposing their version of reason by terror.

6-It identified a whole people with the nation and thus reinforced nationalism.

7-The very reason which the Enlightenment used as a weapon against myth, religion,tradition, irrationality etc has, in advanced technological societies, become self-destructive and especially when it is allied with those pre-Enlightenment values which the movement is self-evidently unable to eradicate.

As Mr Burns said-

"The best-laid schemes of mice and men gang aft agley"

It was an anti-human, unrealistic and utopian fantasy conjured up by lonely scholars in their chambers and thus unenlightened to a high degree.

It did make the trembling violets feel better about themselves though so that's a plus.

No no, not what I was saying. (I attended a public school, by the way.) I was just saying that I was using the information I learned about evolution in a public school, and basing my comments off of that. But to be honest, starting this argument with you was a mistake. I've tried it before, and they get nowhere. So I apologize, and nevermind. I just want to politely disagree with the claims that many of those questions are dishonest.