The moral implications of evolution, and their discontents.

Please tell me it's not trans-fat! I've been feeding it to my girlfriend and I for many months now.Well, I suppose this means we'll be tasty for that witch from Hansel & Gretel (sp?).All joking aside, I believe that the statements that evolution makes (as postulated by Chiro) do have some inherent meanings in them. The problem, it seems to me, is that people come to the theory with preconcieved notions and then use it to support those notions, instead of letting the theory take you somewhere. That would be how you can get people using evolution as a racist ideology or an egalitarian ideology (or any other ideologies).

you shouldn't have said that. Now that ray has someone who disagrees with him, he knows he's right.Of course, he thought that well before anyone could agree or disagree with him.

well, that's the biggest piece of bullshit I've seen. That is, until I read this. Tell me, how did a species get here if it was never created? Becuase the ToE definitely doesn't assert that a species has always been in existence until it became extinct.Of course, I shouldn't take this too seriously, since these definitions are merely your crackpot ideas and are not representative at all with respect to what the ideas actually mean. And yes, I'm fully aware that you'll say I'm just an atheist and therefore have a vested interested in lieing about what the ideas actually mean and that your definitions are actually the truth.Tell me, are you ever wrong about anything you argue about? That is, do you accept that you are wrong?

replaced [evolution] with {fundamentalist religion}.Is that what you mean to say, ray? You know, because it's religion that is always claiming that evolution can't be accepted, it's religion that says such a compromise is bunk, its religion that is attacking.Yeah, I think you meant to say that it is modern fundamentalist religion that prevents a marriage with science.

thank you for proving my (our?) point that prior ideology is the cause behind people finding something in the ToE that is moral, social, or philosophical.

General Reader: This is a good example of why fundie creationists are considered dishonest. I (we) really do not expect to get a real answer, just more clowning around to evade their lack of knowledge and that they are in fact wrong. What else is new? This is the ray (herepton, CFO, etc) way specifically, fundie creo way in general: admit nothing even though it is beyond obvious.What you posted, ray, is bullshit and a lie (although a lie implies intentional disception, and I'm pretty sure you don't mean to intentionally decieve).What I have re-written is the truth. One need travel no further than Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, DSI, Behe, AIG, and any other creo organization or head person. One also need travel no further than the creos on this forum to see this in action.By the way, you never admit to being wrong or mistaken.

well, here's the thing. I do admit when I'm wrong or mistaken. The only way you could make that statement is if you have read every single one of my posts and if you actually knew me. You haven't, and you don't.
Hell, even AIG is beginning to admit that they've been seriously wrong on several points. The closer to sanity one is, the more likely they'll admit to being wrong about something.The trouble with ray (I don't know enough about you to say anything about your habits yet) is that practically every single statement he makes is wrong to some degree when compared to the reality everyone lives in. He may very well be right about things in his own deluded reality, but dead wrong in the one every single person actually lives in.We have another poster, buzsaw, who has some peculiar ideas about science. A poster who left a few months back displayed the same qualities--rob. Faith (yet another poster) would simply give up and say "I'm right, you're wrong, I just don't know how to prove it" no matter the evidence proving her wrong. These people have all been arguing, essentially, that 2+2=5 is right, and no amount of evidence proving that 2+2 actually =4 will convince them.The problem with your type is precisely what ray accuses us of (quite falsely, too)--a preset idea as to what is right with the compounded problem being willing to use any cockamnie idea to support your position, regardless of whether it does or not (hence ideas like the vapor canopy gain traction). You all lead the evidence to a predetermined conclusion, instead of approaching the subject with an open mind because you are afraid that anything you consider could diminish your god(s) will destroy your belief in said god(s). What kind of little god(s) do you belief in? And that's the saddest part, for me. You try to defend such little, unimportant, unimpressive godlets instead of some grand entity. Worse still, you think your godlet is the grand entity. Grow up. Just cause santa doesn't actually have flying reindeer doesn't mean he doesn't exist. It just means santa has become a littler bit more reasonable.

Then why didn't it stop Oral Robert's son from misspending all that money? Why doesn't it stop all those fleecing pastures and preachers? Why doesn't it stop people like Ted Haggard? Or Mark Foley? Or any other number of people? Or is it that these people are like Claudius--they know they're wrong but it just feels so good they won't stop? Which god? Your god? Ray's god? Jar's god? RAZD's god? Christina's god? Zues? Odin? Loki? Vishnu? Allah?
And how do we know we have that god's standard's right? Do you know what god wants or thinks? Why is it so many christians have no problem lying, when one of those commandents are "thou shalt not lie"? Or is it, for those who blatantly lie, "thou shalt not lie unless it's to help me"? or some such inanity? Can you actually demonstrate an absolute morality that holds up to examination? You know, they were saying the exact same thing before WWI. In fact, by that point, people were welcoming war to fix the social ills. Oh fuck, is this why conservatives support the Iraq war? Or you know, maybe the end of aparthied has actually raised the standards? A comment I'd expect someone to say who has never studied anything about evolution, or specifically what role society plays in evolutionary history and how society affects survival. Being shunned is not exactly a great way to get a mate. Oops, so much for being selfish being so great in a social species.The rest of your post is equally inane.

As far as I can recall, I've never been to Michigan.

Hitler's genocide may not be the first case, but it is, quite frankly, the most memorable. There are only two other cases of mass death that I know of that beat Hitler in terms of total dead--Russia and China.But Hitler's was the first that we discovered and thought "no more". Of course, we have learned of more and let them slide under the rug.How about you get a grip? It's not necessarily the fault of people that Hitler is synomonous with genocide.As to Hitler being insane, it's questionable, but looks like it. The medical evidence seems to suggest he was. His policies may or may not be a reflection of that.

Not too diminish what we did, but do we have accurate population figures? Or death figures?And did we kill as many in the same period of time as those three managed?In terms of total impact, we might just be greater on the list, though US history isn't my forte.And is South America one country?