On May 26, 7:55 pm, Lars Eighner <use...@larseighner.com> wrote:

In our last episode, <1180223548.958755.8...@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
the lovely and talented Wide Eyed in Wonder broadcast on alt.politics:

On May 26, 11:34 am, Lars Eighner <use...@larseighner.com> wrote:

In our last episode, <1180193696.624375.83...@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
the lovely and talented Wide Eyed in Wonder broadcast on alt.politics:

So, the conservative Christian population is growing by leaps and
bounds and the sinful population is rapidly killing itself off. Who
would EVOLUTION say is the "fittest" that are surviving, and who would
be the "weakest" that are dying away?

First, evolution is about biology, not culture. Second, no currently living
religion has existed for an evolutionary significant period of time. Third,
there is simply no evidence whatsoever that doctrine has any genetic
component. Fourth, while it seem true that islamic and christian extremist
cults have grown in recent years, that growth seems to be mostly at the
expense of more mainstream sects; skepticism grew at the same time. Fifth,
trying to outbreed competing ideologies simply has not worked as envisioned
so far: many formerly catholic countries are adopting strong human rights
laws in spite of opposition from the vatican. Church schooling and even
homeschool simply cannot defeat the will to liberty in many children. There
is no gainsaying that many --- perhaps most --- children never develop minds
of their own: we have always had sheeple and probably always will, but that
cuts both ways.

--

If evolution fails in the human creature, it can hardly be said to
apply to all creatures.

But it does. What it does not apply to is mythilogy, table manners,
voodoo, finger bowls, or other cultural invention.

Therefore, if it is true that the "fittest" survive

IF "fittest" means genes related to adaptive traits, that's a rough
approximation.

and Christianity causes a greater survival rate,

But it doesn't. And of course, evolution has only to do with the survival
rate of genes. There is nothing genetic about christian doctrine.

evolution says the religious are the most "evolved."

No, it doesn't.

And, the sinner who does drugs, engages in homosexual sex, aborts their
children, and does other acts that decrease their numbers, they would be
the "weaker" group...correct?

No. Doctrine is not genetic.

Do you understand logic? If God's law bans behavior that has a risk
of disease or death, then those that follow God's law have a ZERO risk
of that death or disease, while those that don't follow God's law have
a greater risk. Or, are you going to sit there and tell me that a
virgin till marriage that marries a virgin will have an equal risk of
getting AIDS or a VD?

On May 26, 7:55 pm, Lars Eighner <use...@larseighner.com> wrote:

No. Doctrine is not genetic.

Do you understand logic?

If God's law bans behavior that has a risk of disease or death,

then those that follow God's law have a ZERO risk of that death or
disease,

while those that don't follow God's law have
a greater risk.

Or, are you going to sit there and tell me that a virgin till marriage
that marries a virgin will have an equal risk of getting AIDS or a VD?

If evolution fails in the human creature, it can hardly be said to
apply to all creatures.

But it does. What it does not apply to is mythilogy, table manners,
voodoo, finger bowls, or other cultural invention.

Therefore, if it is true that the "fittest" survive

IF "fittest" means genes related to adaptive traits, that's a rough
approximation.

and Christianity causes a greater survival rate,

But it doesn't. And of course, evolution has only to do with the survival
rate of genes. There is nothing genetic about christian doctrine.

evolution says the religious are the most "evolved."

No, it doesn't.

And, the sinner who does drugs, engages in homosexual sex, aborts their
children, and does other acts that decrease their numbers, they would be
the "weaker" group...correct?

No. Doctrine is not genetic.

Do you understand logic?

If God's law bans behavior that has a risk of disease or death, then those that follow God's law have a ZERO risk
of that death or disease,

while those that don't follow God's law have a greater risk.

Or, are you going to sit there and tell me that a
virgin till marriage that marries a virgin will have an equal risk of
getting AIDS or a VD?

Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>

Wide Eyed in Wonder <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:

On May 26, 11:34 am, Lars Eighner <use...@larseighner.com> wrote:

In our last episode,
<1180193696.624375.83...@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
the lovely and talented Wide Eyed in Wonder broadcast on alt.politics:

So, the conservative Christian population is growing by leaps and
bounds and the sinful population is rapidly killing itself off. Who
would EVOLUTION say is the "fittest" that are surviving, and who would
be the "weakest" that are dying away?

First, evolution is about biology, not culture. Second, no currently
living
religion has existed for an evolutionary significant period of time.
Third,
there is simply no evidence whatsoever that doctrine has any genetic
component. Fourth, while it seem true that islamic and christian
extremist
cults have grown in recent years, that growth seems to be mostly at the
expense of more mainstream sects; skepticism grew at the same time.
Fifth,
trying to outbreed competing ideologies simply has not worked as
envisioned
so far: many formerly catholic countries are adopting strong human rights
laws in spite of opposition from the vatican. Church schooling and even
homeschool simply cannot defeat the will to liberty in many children.
There
is no gainsaying that many --- perhaps most --- children never develop
minds
of their own: we have always had sheeple and probably always will, but
that
cuts both ways.

If evolution fails in the human creature,

Evolution cannot "fail" since there is no meaningful definition of
"failure".

Whereas if one goes in for Intelligent Design, one has to wonder
why 99% of all Its designs have gone extinct.


-- cary

On May 29, 2:29 pm,

In article <1180451036.789028.127...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> writes:

On May 27, 12:59 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:

Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:1180193696.624375.83340@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:

Yesterday, I posted something on evolution that said Satirically that
if Christians were weak and the sinful strong, evolution would
conclude that the end result of evolution was corruption, not
perfection.

Now, let's look at it from another point of view. Think about
christians vs the sinful. Christians are well known for popping out

False dichotomy alert. Christians are as sinful as any other group. We
are just supposed to be DOING something about it. Nor do we even have a
monopoly on that, just a really good source of help.

--

Irrelevant to the point. You are claiming that Christians fail by
being sinful, too. Thus, you endorse my view that sin is the
destructive element. The less they do it, therefore, the more they
prosper.

And his point, of course, is: do Christians in actual practice
do it less, or not?

Or is it more likely that the better educated and more intelligent
tend to avoid impulsive, self-destructive practices (and also tend
to be less religious as well)?

-- cary

Again with the explicit prejudice? What makes you think that
Christians are less educated. Indeed, most denominations require
their pastors to have not only a Bachelor's degree but a 90 hour
Master's Degree...a requirement of ALL military chaplains (more
education than most of the other officers).

That being said, if you have two groups: a test group and a group that
is intent on not sinning; who do you think will do it less. If you
say the test group, you claim that humans, by nature, do the opposite
that they intend.

On May 29, 2:29 pm,

In article <1180451036.789028.127...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> writes:

On May 27, 12:59 am, Dave Oldridge <doldr...@leavethisoutshaw.ca>
wrote:

Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:1180193696.624375.83340@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:

Yesterday, I posted something on evolution that said Satirically that
if Christians were weak and the sinful strong, evolution would
conclude that the end result of evolution was corruption, not
perfection.

Now, let's look at it from another point of view. Think about
christians vs the sinful. Christians are well known for popping out

False dichotomy alert. Christians are as sinful as any other group. We
are just supposed to be DOING something about it. Nor do we even have a
monopoly on that, just a really good source of help.

--

Irrelevant to the point. You are claiming that Christians fail by
being sinful, too. Thus, you endorse my view that sin is the
destructive element. The less they do it, therefore, the more they
prosper.

And his point, of course, is: do Christians in actual practice
do it less, or not?

Or is it more likely that the better educated and more intelligent
tend to avoid impulsive, self-destructive practices (and also tend
to be less religious as well)?

-- cary

Again with the explicit prejudice? What makes you think that
Christians are less educated. Indeed, most denominations require
their pastors to have not only a Bachelor's degree but a 90 hour
Master's Degree...a requirement of ALL military chaplains (more
education than most of the other officers).