Simple Questions For Those Who Believe That Evolution Is The Answer For Everything

originally posted by: WarminIndy

Wow. Keep backtracking. Every post you make gets further and further from your original points.

It isn't an assumption to say that better adapted creatures have a better chance to survive in a given environment.

The scientific links you post usually have nothing to do with the arguments, for example your post with epigenetics.

www.discovery.com...

evolution.berkeley.edu...

www.pnas.org...

www.actionbioscience.org...

This last one is a link to an interview with a scientist about natural selection. Note this part specifically:

Can natural selection select for future needs of a species?

Futuyma: No, because natural selection is not like Mother Nature watching over us. Since natural selection is totally an impersonal process that is nothing more than a difference, generation by generation, in the reproductive success of one genome over another, there’s no way that it can look forward to the future or guard against the possibility of extinction. What individuals have right now that gives them superior adaptation may lead to disaster tomorrow.

Could you give us an example of natural selection at work in the recent past?

Futuyma: There are so many examples of that! One example is the apple maggot fly. About 100 years ago it started to become a serious pest of apple orchards in New England and New York State. It’s now a threat throughout most of northern United States. It originally fed just on hawthorn fruits, but then it adapted to apple and it’s become a serious threat to the industry. That is a genetic change propagated by natural selection.

Perhaps much more crucial is an issue that agriculture has to deal with all the time: the evolution in hundreds of species of insects of resistance to various chemical insecticides. The insects then become more and more difficult to control.

Closer to home, and more serious, is the single greatest crisis in medicine: antibiotic resistance. The fact is that enormous numbers of the most dangerous bacteria and viruses have evolved to be resistant to the antibiotics or other drugs that used to be effective against them. An obvious example is the HIV virus, which, as we know, is capable of rapidly evolving resistance to drugs that once were effective against it.

So we agree that mutations can't be random if environmental factors also directly affect the genome. And I am not talking about the field mice. It can be assumed that is the reason for brown and black field mice but it doesn't answer for why there are albino mice.

No we do not agree. Just because a few traits can be triggered by environmental factors, does not mean that this is an organism adapting TO a change in the environment. You have no evidence of this whatsoever. If you hadn't completely ignored my response about how these changes do not make a species better adapted you might have realized this. Explain how male pattern baldness makes a human better adapted or addresses a problem. Explain how black paws and ears helps a rabbit survive better in colder temperatures.

You are arguing using mostly non sequiturs and instead of addressing my points directly you pretend they haven't been said. If you want me to back anything up that I've just said, simply name it and I'll do it. Most of what I'm saying should be common knowledge to anybody that has studied evolution as you claim you have.

I honestly don't care about Dawkins books. He's done some fine work when it comes to actual science research, but he is very pro-atheist and often belittles religious folk to make his points seem stronger. I don't agree with insulting religious people no matter how badly they deserve it. I fight with scientific facts. But again, Dawkins has zero to do with your arguments and questions you posed. You keep going off on unrelated tangents instead of addressing my post directly. Science is based on experiments, not Dawkins books, even though they are largely factual and accurate.

I'm keeping the goal post at "please provide evidence for your claim". So I ask, please rebut any of the scientific evidence in the articles themselves.

The problem isn't what is in your links. The problem is your interpretation of them and what you are suggesting they indicate. You are way off the mark and using them to back up irrelevant parts of the argument. I haven't seen you offer any rebuttals to my science links or anybody else. In fact, you haven't even offered any rebuttals to any of the main points. You go off on unrelated tangents every time, ie your Dawkins argument. Natural selection is not subjective, and not based on assumptions.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
Whatever you say, warminindy will just twist your words. Look at everyone of her replies. None of them have anything to do with what the poster wrote. This is worse than mere trolling. This is compulsive misrepresentation of the argument. Whatever you try to explain will be twisted and thrown back at you until you throw your hands up in disgust. . This is willful ignorance at it's worse.

This thread is 23 pages deep and she hasn't made a sensible post yet. She not only doesn't understand what you are saying, but she doesn't understand what she is saying either. This is a nightmare for the world as a whole.

a reply to: Barcs

Yes, I've noticed this. If I didn't have some free time at work I wouldn't be bothered with this but it's kind of funny watching her back track out of every argument and change the subject or divert it whenever something is posted that she does not agree with. It seems like she is arguing for argument's sake, but she isn't address any counterpoints.

a reply to: Barcs

So my interpretations are wrong because.....??? Do my interpretations NEED to line up with your worldview?

Let's go back to the beginning...

1: Does every individual of any group of species mutate at the same rate as all members?

Everyone said no. OK, this is related to speciation.

Explain that while it is no, then how does it remain part of the species...because the individual might be a transitional species. And as the claim is that it takes millions of years for "individuals" to mutate, then the species is not given a name unless all members are the same species, correct?

2: If the definition of species is "members of a group who are capable of interbreeding" and species first began in a singular biome, then if there is another biome in which a species population resides, did the species in the biomes mutate at the same rate?

Does this include members who are not capable of interbreeding and reproducing? What species does this little guy belong to?



Obviously NOT capable then to be able to interbreed and yet a human mother. Ata, 6 inch human

Was this the result of speciation? What did he diverge from? This is what I mean by individuals, because we are classifying species according to a group concept, population. If evolutionary processes are different for individuals, then anomalies such as this do not qualify under the rules of speciation.

Things like this make me ask questions, because it doesn't seem to follow the rules. That's why he is an anomaly.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Where's your the data that says Ata wasnt capable of breeding with other humans? There is absolutely nothing that indicates anything other than human DNA and only a few decades old at that. The Ata remains are no less human than someone born with Downs Syndrome or any other genetic anomaly.

Why doesn't it follow the rules to call it a human? Wat exactly is anomalous about this?

Your concerns over speciation and the point where one individual becomes a seperate species are more baffling to me than a morphological anomaly. One individual does not make a new species, at least not that we have ever seen in the fossil record or in living people. The genetic changes are so small and slow that you're never going to have just be individual becoming a seperate species unless a speciation even occurs as did 600-800,000 years ago and then old and new meet, mate and produce a hybrid such as when HSS and HNS met upon HSS exit from Africa and into areas already inhabited by HNS.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: WarminIndy

Where's your the data that says Ata wasnt capable of breeding with other humans? There is absolutely nothing that indicates anything other than human DNA and only a few decades old at that. The Ata remains are no less human than someone born with Downs Syndrome or any other genetic anomaly.

Why doesn't it follow the rules to call it a human? Wat exactly is anomalous about this?

I know he is human, but would you call him Anatomically Modern Human? He has less ribs, and obviously he died too young to interbreed. Would he be Homo Sapien Sapien?

Ata was 6-8 years of age, fully formed, and yes as a human. But as Homo Sapien? Why do I ask this? Because of Homo Florienses

And what makes him anomalous is the fact that he has fewer ribs. If he were an aborted fetus, that was done by a sharp object, there should be forensic evidence of metal cuts on the skull. That hasn't been offered yet. If it is possible that he evolved from a non Homo Sapien, but still human, then perhaps AMH has not lost traits of archaic humans.

He clearly is not phenotypically AMH with the lack of the two ribs found in all AMH.

But the issue I have with speciations of human groups, they were based on phenotypical features, such as wrist bones.
And here is a reason I believe that Neanderthal had stockier bones, in their environment they were exposed to higher amounts of strontium and metals from the glacier run off. Even in my community in Ohio, we were exposed to this in our ground water, we all drank from wells that were not treated. We didn't have water filtration systems from those underground streams, but high amounts of Strontium was present.

One of the prevailing features of people in my area is that we do exhibit stronger bones, remarked by physicians. If a group of people had access to vast river systems that were glaciated water with high metallic content, then what would happen in 20 generations if they all drank the same water, before it went so far into the ground? Would there be phenotypical expressions in the genome?

Strontium in groundwater and I would imagine that if they were eating a lot of meat or fish, they probably were ingesting high amounts of calcium as well.

Ohio Groundwater Quality

The county I am from is the fifth county down, on the left side (Indiana) and we had a carbonate well. I would have been the fourth generation on the property, but it is a common knowledge that my community and surrounding county was well-known for stronger teeth, when I was 8 years-old, the US Army came to my school to test the teeth of the boys, because it was at that time an unusual phenomenon.

Effects of Strontium on bones

Now imagine a group of people that have lived in an area for 20 generations, drinking water saturated with higher amounts of metals, because of glacier run offs, then what would the effects be?

originally posted by: WarminIndy

I know he is human, but would you call him Anatomically Modern Human? He has less ribs, and obviously he died too young to interbreed. Would he be Homo Sapien Sapien?

I wouldn't call anyone born in the last 80,000 years AMH, we are HSS and so are these remains according to the genetic tests.

Ata was 6-8 years of age, fully formed, and yes as a human. But as Homo Sapien? Why do I ask this? Because of Homo Florienses

I don't know how you feel comfortable giving such a clear and concise answer for the age of these remains when the people studying them have yet to be able to determine that and have repeatedly stated that more tests need to be carried out. Hopefully they will be able to extract hemoglobin from the marrow to compare ratios of fetal vs adult proteins to get a better idea as there is conflicting data in the post cranial skeleton making it difficult to determine an age with any degree of accuracy.

And what makes him anomalous is the fact that he has fewer ribs. If he were an aborted fetus, that was done by a sharp object, there should be forensic evidence of metal cuts on the skull. That hasn't been offered yet. If it is possible that he evolved from a non Homo Sapien, but still human, then perhaps AMH has not lost traits of archaic humans.

it doesn't have to be aborted to be a fetus. Still births are not uncommon even today, especially in impoverished areas of the world such as the area of Chile these remains are from. its not at all possible that the remains are the result of anything having to do with a NON HSS. That is a huge stretch of the imagination in my opinion and there's no evidence for it and a ton of evidence against it.

He clearly is not phenotypically AMH with the lack of the two ribs found in all AMH.

then its a good thing the DNA says it is HSS. AMH is a point of reference for humans leaving Africa 100KYA, not for people living today.
It's far more likely for some type of environmental or chemical poisoning similar to what happens when mothers ingest thalidomide for example, than it is that the remains are something other than HSS

But the issue I have with speciations of human groups, they were based on phenotypical features, such as wrist bones.

50 years ago... maybe. But even then there was cross referencing of data. There is no 1 method of determination, everything is cross referenced and with new advances in genetic testing, DNA usually gets the finally ruling once all data points are cross referenced. Wrist bones alone have never been a determining factor in determining the point of divergence or speciation.

And here is a reason I believe that Neanderthal had stockier bones, in their environment they were exposed to higher amounts of strontium and metals from the glacier run off. Even in my community in Ohio, we were exposed to this in our ground water, we all drank from wells that were not treated. We didn't have water filtration systems from those underground streams, but high amounts of Strontium was present.

Correlation is not equitable with causation. If this were the case we would see higher levels of bone density in European mammals across the spectrum not just in HNS and that simply is not the case.

One of the prevailing features of people in my area is that we do exhibit stronger bones, remarked by physicians. If a group of people had access to vast river systems that were glaciated water with high metallic content, then what would happen in 20 generations if they all drank the same water, before it went so far into the ground? Would there be phenotypical expressions in the genome?

it wouldn't show up in the genome, it would show up in tooth enamel

Strontium in groundwater and I would imagine that if they were eating a lot of meat or fish, they probably were ingesting high amounts of calcium as well.

The county I am from is the fifth county down, on the left side (Indiana) and we had a carbonate well. I would have been the fourth generation on the property, but it is a common knowledge that my community and surrounding county was well-known for stronger teeth, when I was 8 years-old, the US Army came to my school to test the teeth of the boys, because it was at that time an unusual phenomenon.
Now imagine a group of people that have lived in an area for 20 generations, drinking water saturated with higher amounts of metals, because of glacier run offs, then what would the effects be?

Then how would you account for there being a consistent morphology expressed in all HNS regardless of geographic location? There certainly weren't any glaciers in what is now the Middle East yet HNS thrived there and if I put a skeleton from a Croatian or French HNS next to the remains of an Israeli or Portuguese HNS, you wouldn't be able to tell me which was which because there was no difference morphologically and they were separated by 10's of thousands of years and many miles with completely different diets and varying access to glacial water and soil compounds. Their DNA is also very different from HS and HSS. They have a very distinct identity separate from and older than ours.

If the strontium in your water supply is attributed to glacial deposits, its a result of soil scraped up by the glaciers not the actual water content of the glaciers themselves. Canadian soil content is not he same as Western and Northern European soil and I've seen no studies that indicate high levels of strontium anywhere in Europe during or before the LGM, unless you can point me to a paper that says otherwise. In North America, glaciers stretched from the Atlantic to the Pacific yet incidence of high strontium levels are isolated, for something like that to create higher bone density in an entire species or subspecies, it would have to be prevalent everywhere and it would affect ALL species on that continent. None of that is the case in Europe.

a reply to: peter vlar

I think I had inadvertently knocked out an important relevant paragraph, but I am sleepy.

I will read more of yours in the morning.

Were the Alps the result of glaciers pushing against a tectonic plate? What is interesting in my genome results is that at 2.9% Neanderthal, there seems to be a high correlation with ancestry that I have no known documentation for, but all the calculators consistently place my ancestry from Iberia, through that lower band of Croatia and then up to Russia. I know my ancestry for the past 500 years, so either it is from 1,000 years ago, or it is expressing that archaic population because the greatest percentage is shown across that region and really not higher and very little under that.

I made up a new name for it, Tyrolian Alpiner. Somehow that didn't seem to pleasant for some people, so in jest, I even went further and mashed all the known ancestry into one, like portmanteu. I am Hungerfranirish. I have no written or recorded documentation of ancestry from Croatia, but it consistently pops up.

Evolution is a lie spread by Satan to provide an alternative to the truth for people to turn away from God.

a reply to: WarminIndy

I know about this specimen. It was actually a six year old child with a deformity. There was DNA evidence actually that showed this was a human being.

a reply to: mikefougnie

Evolution is a lie spread by Satan to provide an alternative to the truth for people to turn away from God.

How thoughtful of Satan. But are you sure it really is his work?

Who buried the fossils? Was it Satan?

Was it Satan who provided all the 'evidence' that the Universe is immense, and billions of years old? Was it Satan who made the sky dark at night, and ordained that the speed of light in vacuo must be a constant?

Show us the evidence.

a reply to: Astyanax

The evidence does not include a time stamp tag on the fossils which were buried in the flood.

originally posted by: mikefougnie
a reply to: Astyanax

The evidence does not include a time stamp tag on the fossils which were buried in the flood.

How could it when there was no global flood. But if hooked on phonics had worked for you, there would at least be an awareness that the flood has been discussed already. Or are you just jumping in to the tail end of a lengthy thread to impart your delluvian wisdom without having gone through the actual thread first? If that's the case I'll take my chances with Satan. At least he engages in due diligence.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum
You have provided no evidence for your claim about religion. Please provide links.

None that you've bothered to look at, you mean.

There is some doubt whether you really try to understand the links you provide yourself.

Not that it is likely to matter either, as you seem to just ignore, deflect or assign irrelevant fallacies to cover it.

The Chronic Dependence of Popular Religiosity upon Dysfunctional Psychosociological Conditions

It has long been noted that religion proliferates more in poorer and underprivileged societies..."the sigh of the oppressed creature". The US was considered the "exception" that put paid to this correlation. Until people decided to study it and found the same prevailing societal conditions associated with less developed societies, despite the US wealth. Heres a look at 1st world nations (the ones that have reliable figures), using general indicators of societal health.

It is worth noting that the correlation (religion - societal dysfunction) still holds, with or without the US in this study.

It is also worth noting that in regions where religious belief is low in the US, many of these societal conditions improve to the point of being within European norms.

As you have already ignored similar links, heres a few examples from the study.

Religion has been sending otherwise intelligent people around the bend for millenia. Hard to disagree with Hitchens.

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: mikefougnie
a reply to: Astyanax

The evidence does not include a time stamp tag on the fossils which were buried in the flood.

How could it when there was no global flood. But if hooked on phonics had worked for you, there would at least be an awareness that the flood has been discussed already. Or are you just jumping in to the tail end of a lengthy thread to impart your delluvian wisdom without having gone through the actual thread first? If that's the case I'll take my chances with Satan. At least he engages in due diligence.

Some people have the idea that they don't need to read what's on the other side of the fence. Even that particular believer should know the Bible verse where the prophet said "Come, let us reason together". You can't reason with another unless you know what they are talking about.

Even Paul demonstrated this, because he understood the different views of the Greek philosophers when he said "Even as your own poets have said".

There has never been a restriction in Judaism or early Christianity to never read any other philosophy, because in those days, debate was what intelligent people engaged in. Even in rabbinical literature, they don't simply take what one person says, they sat in councils and all offered opinions on what Torah said. That's why they have a phrase, "ask ten Jews a question and you get eleven different answers".

It gets down to your own interpretation of the evidence that you see, but it behooves people to understand what the other believes. A person can only ultimately interpret the world according to the level at which they understand it.

I will say there are some Christians who did not receive intellectual education and have never wanted to achieve anything because they were told that intellectualism is a form of Satan worship. I will say this is for some, not all. But on the other side, there are some non-Christian youths who are told that intellectualism means that one must deny every other worldview, except theirs, and then become close-minded themselves.

As demonstrated over and over, there was an assumption that all religious people are unintellectual, however, for many Christians and Jews, and even for all other religious systems, we are encouraged to question the world around us. And this is what used to be called shifting paradigms. A person learns more and then understands more.

There is no harm in "come, let us reason together, but some people are afraid that within that reasoning, they will lose what they believe, so they never study anything else. Non-Christians repeat mantras and parrot things about what they think all Christians are like. There seems then to be a fragility within their egos.

As a Christian, people were upset with me that I went to film school, because to them it meant I was throwing away all my Christian knowledge to embark a career in an industry that they felt was too worldly. But the entertainment industry has become unbalanced, with one side being able to present their worldviews and be accepted by the general public and it created a vacuum. Even Star Wars was written from the Buddhist worldview.

But in films there is a concept called Universal Themes, which are shared ideas within worldviews that are common across the entire spectrum of cultures and societies. For instance, familial love and loss of tradition in Fiddler on the Roof spoke not only to the Jewish community, but it was embraced in Japan, within the Shinto faith system, because it addressed the universal themes.

I am a writer and have published several articles about film, I have written theater plays and film scripts and have worked with actors within both, that's why I can say in threads where people are taking film messages and applying it to their worldview, that the writer introduced his worldview to the viewer.

Every film has a worldview from the writer and it contains universal themes, the symbolism (iconography) is part of the archetype protagonists' and antagonists' worldviews. Rocky exemplifies this, because the universal theme is the desire that man has to become greater than what he is, the archetype was a male warrior figure that had to go through the hero's journey through the idea that even within the solitude of his own mind, he was on this journey alone, but that "no man is an island" as John Donne said. We find this universal archetype across different cultures, such as the rituals of Dreamtime among aboriginals of Australians and Native American spirit quests.

But I had to watch movies to learn about this, so it does not make me unintellectual because I still have faith in what I believe. I even disagreed with some religious people over a Christian movie One Night With the King because it wasn't pleasing from a cinematography point of view. It didn't suspend my disbelief, even though the intended message of Esther was contained in it.

But all of that doesn't relate to the thread, just my musing that people have forgotten that it will not destroy them if they actually study what the other side believes. Non-believers and believers alike are sometimes afraid that if they give in, it means they will lose something fundamental about themselves. No one wants to be perceived as stupid, so that's why it is easy to throw the accusation onto someone else.

I just read something today, in a video lecture about fractals, some non-Christians were saying, in an attempt to maintain a worldview, that humans invented math. It wasn't that man understood math principles because math is a language that man learned to understand, instead, they said man invented math. This is the level of defense for a worldview and not based on understanding that math is a concept of a language represented by symbols.

All the words I have typed here are symbols of written communication, but the result of algorithms going on behind the scenes. Yet, you understand my language and communication because of the symbols. And that's how some believers accept God, because of what is going on behind the scenes, and all we see is communicated in a language represented by symbols.

a reply to: WarminIndy

I'm sorry that you get the impression that I think that religious people are all ignorant or uneducated, it really isn't the case. Some of the smartest people I know are religious yet have a heavy science background. The vet I bring my dogs to is a very religious Jew. He and his wife also went to Cornell University's renowned veterinary school and we have very interesting conversations about everything from new medical treatments to convergent evolution between humans and companion animals and livestock. One of my best friends did his undergrad work at Cornell and his Masters and Phd at Harvard and he and I went to the same Catholic church as kids. Being religious isn't an indictment on an individuals intelligence.

At the same time, I think you assume, or at least give the distinct impression as such, that just because someone does not believe Christian theology that they have no background or understanding of the viewpoint. I can say with a great deal of certainty in a general sense that most agnostics and atheists I know grew up in a religious background and are well versed in Christian teachings. From a personal perspective, I can say that I am very well aquatinted with all aspects of Christian theology on an intimate level. I grew up in a devout Irish Catholic family, went to church 6 days per week, went to Catholic school and was an altar boy who might have ended up in seminary were it not for that pesky prohibition on marriage and the unreasonable need for celibacy. I studied the bible in depth for many years and that is how I became all too familiar with the vast array of contradictions in the new testament, the inability to reconcile the alleged god of the OT with the new and improved loving god of forgiveness in the NT and plagiarizations from earlier theologies of both testaments. These are the works of man, by man for the purpose of controlling other men. Its no coincidence that 97% of Bronze Age adults were illiterate and that the Catholic Church kept it that way through the Middle Ages up until the Rennaisance and Age of Enlightenment. Its easier to control to people when they have to take your word for what god allegedly says and can't read the written work for themselves. I also find it remarkable that a god wh couldn't help but meddle in the affairs of his creations suddenly ceases to make his presence known in such an in your face fashion right around when writing came onto the scene. Even the Hebrew texts refer to everything in the past tense.

You can make whatever claims you like about god being represented by some special symbolism, but if there is a form of communication being given then it is observable by all. If it is able to be observed, it is able to be interpreted and understood just like math, Latin, Greek or any other form of communication. It could be misinterpreted perhaps, but it would still be observable and that doesn't seem to be the case. Just because I'm not inclined to believe however should not be construed as there definitely is no god or higher power or however you want to refer to it. It just means that in my opinion, I have seen no evidence of such. Just like I would when looking at evidence of evolution or cohabitation between HNS and HSS, I would follow the evidence and data. If it indicated evidence of a god or higher power then that's what the evidence states,its that simple.

Where I take exception is when people don't bother to do their due diligence and instead copy and paste data, often times without giving appropriate credit to the true author, from a creationist web page that supports their preconceived notions without actually understanding what they are even copy and pasting. They take the easy way out and assume because its on a website created and maintained by someone who believes the same things they do, that it must be real without verifying the veracity of the information at hand. They choose to simply parrot what they read.

I may not agree with the vast majority of what you post but I at least respect the fact that you take the time to at least do your own research and attempt to grasp the source material. You go above and beyond what the vast majority of people on your side of the coin are willing to do so for that I applaud you. This however is the exception not the rule and when people make blanket statements such as the previous poster I replied to, I'm going to call them out on it. Perpetuating ignorant statements isn't honest and can't be tolerated just because it doesn't seem prudent or respectful of someone else's belief system to speak out.

a reply to: WarminIndy

But all of that doesn't relate to the thread, just my musing that people have forgotten that it will not destroy them if they actually study what the other side believes. Non-believers and believers alike are sometimes afraid that if they give in, it means they will lose something fundamental about themselves. No one wants to be perceived as stupid, so that's why it is easy to throw the accusation onto someone else.

what makes you think we have not examined the other side? we are 24 pages into a discussion that does exactly that.

All the words I have typed here are symbols of written communication, but the result of algorithms going on behind the scenes. Yet, you understand my language and communication because of the symbols. And that's how some believers accept God, because of what is going on behind the scenes, and all we see is communicated in a language represented by symbols.

but what that language says is a matter of subjective interpretation, which undermines the whole "universal language" thing. in the same way, you could call a painting or sculpting a language.

a reply to: peter vlar

I don't think I was implying that you are, because I said some people.

The poster you responded to was one of those some from my side. But there are some people on both sides who don't know what the other side actually believes.

I was agreeing with your thought. Perhaps I should insert that before my comments, even though it is responded to your comment, it isn't directed to you.

I am not Catholic and no one in my family has been for several hundred years, so I don't misrepresent Catholics and what they believe. I wouldn't take one verse of their Douhay-Rheims or American Standard Version and believe all Catholics believe in all things the same way, that's why there are schisms within Catholicism.

I have the convenience of sitting back and listening to them debate about the merits of popes, it seems the current one is quite the radical. But I wouldn't purposely misrepresent all Catholics. The same with Jews. I can address particular points when people assume all Christians are the same, and yet we are not. The poster above you probably would think I am going to hell.

The logical fallacies against religious people is this...

A: There are Catholic priests that are pedophiles
B: Catholics are Christians
C: Therefore, Christians are pedophiles.

That is a common one. Another one is this...

A: Adolph Hitler was baptized Catholic
B: Catholics are Christian
C: Therefore, Christians are Nazis

These are two very common logical fallacies going around.

We could point out the logical fallacies from believers

A: Stalin was an atheist
B: Atheism is part of Communism
C:Therefore, atheists are Communists.

None of those have any logic following. Yes, Adolph Hitler was baptized Catholic and Joseph Stalin was atheist, but those facts don't have bearing on the following statements. Communism was based only in those particular atheists worldviews, not every atheist. Nazism was not based in Catholicism, however many Catholics joined the Nazi party, but not all Catholics everywhere.

And not all atheists would be comfortable living under a Communist dictatorship, because a lot of atheists value freedom of speech and thought.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Oh but those paintings and sculptures are conveying a message, it is communication. Didn't you take Art History? Or was that someone else?

What is the artist telling us? Visual path, focal point, balance, harmony and asymmetry all guide you into interpreting what you see. Film is 72 frames per second of still images, but through persistence of vision, you believe that what you are seeing is moving.

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: TzarChasm

Oh but those paintings and sculptures are conveying a message, it is communication. Didn't you take Art History? Or was that someone else?

What is the artist telling us? Visual path, focal point, balance, harmony and asymmetry all guide you into interpreting what you see. Film is 72 frames per second of still images, but through persistence of vision, you believe that what you are seeing is moving.

i have not taken art history in any serious sense, but the fact remains that paintings and sculptures are not languages. inspirations and elements that mean something to one person mean nothing to someone else because they arent familiar with the cultural references. the painting itself doesnt determine what it means to us. you assign meaning and thats what makes it subjective rather than a reliable means of communication such as language which has a extrapersonal meaning that can be referred to and applied as needed. not sure how any of this concerns evolution.