... with a Fanatic Evolutionist

After another debate

which I had closed with "thanks for the debate":

Stu Vinyl

@ Hans-Georg Lundahl -- There was no debate, there was you throwing out a huge amount of convoluted BS, while you're just a believer of fairy-tales.....just stfu! How the fuck can a made up thing like God explain morals but a proven and obvious fact like evolution can't?....Damn you're a tool. People like you make me real angry because your stupidity is fucking HARMFUL to the other people.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"How the fuck can a made up thing like God explain morals but a proven and obvious fact like evolution can't?"

OK, how can a made up thing like Trojan war but not an obvious proven thing like Homer being several explain the Iliad ...?

Best parallel to such a very idiotic kind of statement!

If evolution CANNOT explain morality, and it cannot, if by morality we mean sth universally valid, how can it explain it? If morality is there and evolution can't explain it, maybe God is not made up?

Stu Vinyl

+Hans-Georg Lundahl You said: "OK, how can a made up thing like Trojan war but not an obvious proven thing like Homer being several explain the Iliad ...?"....that is unintelligible and even if I am understanding it correctly, it's wrong....LMFAO...Dude....lol.....oh man....just because YOU can't wrap your little bity mind around a huge subject like evolution does not mean that it does or does not explain anything...your lack of understanding of evolution adds up to exactly ZERO importance. But the fact that you instantly fill in anything you don't understand with MAGIC is saddening. I'm torn between wanting to help people like you and wanting people like you to die off. Not sure what would be best for the human species.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"that is unintelligible"

Best parallel I could come up with, with short notice and too little sleep!

"and even if I am understanding it correctly"

To understand it correctly : it is by now certain or nearly so there was a Trojan war. There are by now none or very few experts on Greek letters who accept the "snowball theory" that several successive writers are responsible for Iliad and the unique Homer of it a myth (btw, there is still some debate whether Iliad and Odyssey have same author - I think they had - but they certainly had single authors).

"it's wrong"

Just because you say so?

"LMFAO"

If figuratively speaking, enjoy.

If literally true, don't, you may need it!

"Dude"

You got my gender correct at least!

"lol"

Can't hear it, and sorry, I can't do it here, it's a library!

"oh man"

Yes, you got my gender right, but you already said so.

"just because YOU can't wrap your little bity mind around a huge subject like evolution does not mean that it does or does not explain anything"

Are you treating your own mind about this huge subject as you are treating mine?

Or would you happen to have some clue yourself as how an evolutionary process starting out with strictly amoral ingredients (non-living atoms, since abiogenesis is - at least on your atheist view - involved before evolution "properly speaking" takes over) could result in moral laws that are universally valid?

"your lack of understanding of evolution adds up to exactly ZERO importance."

If I had such a lack, that would indeed add up to zero importance.

But I think I DID in fact show some understanding of your world view (that is what evolution and the rest add up to). I said it started out with totally amoral ingredients. Is this getting evolution wrong? Somewhere along the line, I also mentioned that evolution (on your view) diversifies into kinds with very different morality from the human one (check what spiders do to their hubbies and their offspring to its mother). It also say that genetic differences between humans and genetic difference between human and spider are only a difference of degree of same process of diversification going on to before the Cambrian Revolution (did I get that wrong? You do still think we and spiders both evolved from LUCA, right?)

I was not asking "explain evolution to me, I don't understand a bit", I was asking how evolving from amoral ingredients in parallel with antimoral kinds (if their behaviour were transferred to our kind, at least) can explain mankind having one valid morality with universal moral laws applicable to just everyone. Note, I am not saying ALL moral laws are (some morality is profession related, like a priest and a young man trying to find a wife need different moralities about how to approach female company), but SOME moral laws are applicable to everyone, and that is why AronRa has had to answer a question how this came about by evolution from non-moral ingredients (as in amoral) beside evolutions of non-moral (as in immoral, anti-moral) other kinds. I suppose you realise there is a problem, I hope. And saying "elephants show lots of behaviour which we consider moral" won't help that elephants and spiders both come from LUCA on your world view. It is in fact a kind of special pleading "look at this side of the story" (and let's hope you don't look at the other side). Saying "we are closer related to elehants than to spiders" will kick off next un-faithful spouse telling his dececived wife "we are closer related to chimps than to elephants".

"But the fact that you instantly fill in anything you don't understand with MAGIC is saddening. I'm torn between wanting to help people like you and wanting people like you to die off."

Who says we are dying off?

Actually, people like you pretending to "help" me have made it LOTS more difficult for me to get paid for writing and to get a wife. Not sure if those bad days are over yet. But I am not forgetting nearly everyone among those posing obstacles was pretending to try to "help" me.

"Not sure what would be best for the human species."

How about what would be more honest?

I think taking a debate would be more honest. But perhaps you are into evolutionary loyalty to "the human species" as your one moral absolute. In that case, you have shown that evolution belief does tend to make people immoral - notwithstanding anything AronRa said. The one kind of evolutionist who is even more immoral is of coruse the Transhumanist. The one who ditches his loylaty to the human species and transfers it to evolution as such, and hopes to promote the next step of evolution FROM mankind on.

But if you are better than your stated principles (which some people are when they have bad ones), how about a little debate?

Like, for starters, what exactly do you mean with "the fact that you instantly fill in anything you don't understand with MAGIC" - in fact I wasn't. Not with what we Christians are used to calling magic.

Stu Vinyl

+Hans-Georg Lundahl I'm not debating you. If there were a god resembling the Christian god, I would hate him because he is clearly evil. Fortunately, God is a fairytale. To believe in Christianity is to believe in magic. Bad magic. Evolution is a fact. Christians are either dumb or malevolent. Goodbye.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

In other words, you are prejudiced, both about fact and about values.

Updates

Stu Vinyl

+Hans-Georg Lundahl You clearly have very poor reading comprehension.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I don't think so, no. Why, precisely?

Stu Vinyl

Precisely because the things you say have no apparent connection to anything I have said. You are just looking to argue and have no idea what you're reading, or writing, for that matter. Just fuck off. I have no time for people who believe in fairy tales. Really!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

It appears YOU had no idea when you started.

Unless it is simply that you are evil and looking to an occasion to insult and to denigrate.

If you had only commented on my initial comment, you might for instance not have thought there had been a debate either, but you might not have known I had claimed there was in my last words to Paul Wettstein.

Him:*

"I am tired of the constant back and forth of this conversation so it must come to a close."

Me:

"Thank you for the debate."

You, first time:

"There was no debate, there was you throwing out a huge amount of convoluted BS,"

Indeed, there was.**

First one with njintau, then one with Paul Wettstein.

You, this time:

" I have no time for people who believe in fairy tales. Really!"

Well, why are you answering? YOU started the exchange with me, you are free to stop it.

Btw, these two comments also come to an update to my blog.

* Wettstein. ** A debate. Not me throwing out a huge amount of convoluted BS.