The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

rockbeer wrote: »

But that's the point of my post - which you've ignored twice now. It actually doesn't look designed at all - or at least only superficially, and only to people unfamiliar with what you call 'the hallmarks of design'.

(William Dembski actually made up that 'Complex Functional Specified Information' definition of design just for this purpose, didn't he? Because it certainly doesn't fit with the known (i.e. human) examples of design we have to draw on. I think you are confusing two completely independent entities here.)

This, I think, is what is popularly known as wanting it both ways. You want to argue simultaneously that nature both 'looks designed' and that it doesn't due to 'degeneration'.

But that doesn't change the fact that on close examination nature shares few characteristics other than 'mostly fit for purpose' with any known, provable examples of design (ours). Indeed we have taken nature's undirected, undesigned blueprint and used our intelligence to improve on it considerably in many ways, and in a very short time. You might argue, correctly, that we have not yet come up with anything as complex as an eye or whatever, and of course you'd be right. But we've only been at this a few thousand years and we're already pretty close to emulating god and 'creating' life. Evolution has had many millions to do its work. What won't we have achieved in a million years time? If we haven't destroyed ourselves first thanks to our (obviously evolved - who other than a sadist would have deliberately built us this way?) aggressive and competitive natures.

If only we'd be designed we would probably be capable of so much more...

We have free will ... and we can therefore use our faculties for good or evil.

The CFSI in our DNA is mathematical proof that we were designed by intelligence(s).

We can debate who the intelligence(s) might have been ... but if you argue that the CFSI could be produced by spontaneous processes then such a position is so evidentially challenged that it has never been observed to occur ... unless you know better??

rockbeer

J C wrote: »

... so do you think that Humans would behave like Lions, and kill other people's children, if it was to their advantage? ...

I don't think it, I know it, as should you. As does anyone who bothers to do any actual research. That is exactly how we behave.

Statistically, stepchildren are 65 times more likely to be murdered than children who live with both natural parents.* We all like to think we're immune to genetic imperatives, but the numbers tell us how wrong we are.

As for your other post, a reply is pointless since you've once again elected to avoid addressing my actual point, preferring as usual to make an unrelated (and, needless to say, meaningless) one of your own.

* Daly, M & Wilson, M, Homicide, Aldine, New York 1988

PDN

rockbeer wrote: »

I don't think it, I know it, as should you. As does anyone who bothers to do any actual research. That is exactly how we behave.

Statistically, stepchildren are 65 times more likely to be murdered than children who live with both natural parents.* We all like to think we're immune to genetic imperatives, but the numbers tell us how wrong we are.

I think that, while your statistics may be correct, the conclusion you draw from them is unwarranted.

Firstly, it could be argued that people who get separated or divorced and then remarry are on average less stable than others - thus placing their children at greater risk.

Secondly, since there is a link between socio-economic status and divorce/remarriage, stepchildren are statistically more likely to live in low income housing (where homicide rates are much higher) than are children in a conventional nuclear family.

Thirdly, children who have been through the trauma of a broken marriage (or who indeed never knew their father) are statistically more likely to manifest behavioural problems of the kind which produce risky behaviour that makes them more likely to be a murder victim.

So, the statistics are much more complex than simply proving that we all have some kind of inbuilt desire to kill other people's kids.

(Before any single parents start hysterical protests, let me stress that I am not stereotyping anyone, and the trends I refer to are statistical averages. There are plenty of wonderful single parents and step-parents out there whose children are perfectly well-adjusted. Also, I grew up as a stepchild myself.)

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

While it was pretty civil he still basically lied about the state of evolution, summed up pretty well when he said Its like drawing three dots on a black board and then extending the line 10 miles without any further evidence, to which Dawkins simply and correctly stated Well there is a lot of further evidence.

Whether you disagree with this evidence or not it still exists, and rather disingenuous for him to claim otherwise. He then back tracks (looking some what nervous) and says "they are all fish", which wasn't his original statement that he didn't accept evolution of species takes place. This is remarkably similar to conversations that have taken place on this forum, where debates that species change isn't possible quickly, when faced with evidence that it does, turn into requests for evidence that a dog evolved into a horse, often including the standard Creationist disclaimer I'm not a biologists but..." that he uses as well with Dawkins. If you ain't a biologists then why are you claiming 99% of them are wrong and they have no evidence for their theories? Thats right because it fits a religious agenda.

I think there was some confusion of terms, the evolution of 'species' (molecules to man) confused with speciation (one species of fish 'evolving' into another species of fish). Evolutionists believe in both, Creationists only in the latter. Evolutionists hold that it is all one process - evolution. Creationists hold that this change fish-fish is not evolution in that sense at all, just limited change within one sort of organism.

So the creationist was right to point out that extrapolating from the small change to the molecules-man sort is not self-evidently valid. The interpretation of evidence to support the case is disputed by other scientists just as well qualified to speak on the subject as the evolutionists.

_________________________________________________________________
Proverbs 14:12 There is a way that seems right to a man,
But its end is the way of death.

wolfsbane

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Give examples of perfect creatures. If they existed 6000 years ago, it shouldn't be that hard, should it?

Man. Created perfect. Now fallen - but still in the image of God.

___________________________________________________________________
Proverbs 14:12 There is a way that seems right to a man,
But its end is the way of death.

housetypeb

wolfsbane wrote: »

Man. Created perfect. Now fallen - but still in the image of God.

___________________________________________________________________
Proverbs 14:12 There is a way that seems right to a man,
But its end is the way of death.

Which image was that ? Neanderthal or cro-magnon?

wolfsbane

housetypeb wrote: »

Which image was that ? Neanderthal or cro-magnon?

Image of GOD. Man made in His image. Not God made in man's image.

If your question is really about the identity of Neanderthal and cro-magnons, that is another issue.
____________________________________________________________________
Proverbs 14:12 There is a way that seems right to a man,
But its end is the way of death.

rockbeer

PDN wrote: »

I think that, while your statistics may be correct, the conclusion you draw from them is unwarranted.

All the points you make are valid to an extent. However, our propensity to kill other peoples' kids reflect precisely similar behaviour throughout the natural - especially mammalian - world. Why (other than our well-documented discomfort at the prospect of acknowledging the more animal aspects of our natures) should we plead a special case for ourselves, excusing or explaining our behaviour on the grounds you cite, when we in fact behave in so many ways just as most other animals do?

It seems more reasonable to me to deduce that we are simply subject to the same genetic imperatives as they are. Especially as I could cite so many similar examples.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
... so do you think that Humans would behave like Lions, and kill other people's children, if it was to their advantage?

rockbeer
I don't think it, I know it, as should you. As does anyone who bothers to do any actual research. That is exactly how we behave.

Statistically, stepchildren are 65 times more likely to be murdered than children who live with both natural parents.* We all like to think we're immune to genetic imperatives, but the numbers tell us how wrong we are.

Thanks for being so frank!!!
Sounds like certain aspects of evolutionism could be downright dangerous!!!
... indeed the increase in the general murder rate over the past century is also correlated with the increase in Evolutionism.

A 65 fold increase in a murder rate is indeed 'hair raising'!!!
You put it down to an Evolutionary imperative ... I put it down to gross evil !!!!

... as the Good Book says :-
Prov 23:7 For as a man thinketh in his heart, so he is.

PDN

rockbeer wrote: »

All the points you make are valid to an extent. However, our propensity to kill other peoples' kids reflect precisely similar behaviour throughout the natural - especially mammalian - world. Why (other than our well-documented discomfort at the prospect of acknowledging the more animal aspects of our natures) should we plead a special case for ourselves, excusing or explaining our behaviour on the grounds you cite, when we in fact behave in so many ways just as most other animals do?

It seems more reasonable to me to deduce that we are simply subject to the same genetic imperatives as they are. Especially as I could cite so many similar examples.

This thread is discussing whether we were specially created or evolved from other mammals. Do you see the circularity of therefore arguing a point about humans on the basis of what mammals do?

J C

housetypeb wrote: »

Which image was that ? Neanderthal or cro-magnon?

They're both actually the same species ... Homo Sapiens ... so they are both made in the image of God and possess an eternal soul.

Genghiz Cohen

J C wrote: »

They're both actually the same species ... Homo Sapiens ... so they are both made in the image of God and possess an eternal soul.

J C

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Have I rocked your World???:)

... and has the truth set you free ... yet?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

I think there was some confusion of terms, the evolution of 'species' (molecules to man) confused with speciation (one species of fish 'evolving' into another species of fish). Evolutionists believe in both, Creationists only in the latter.

The only confusion was on his end. He stated that he does not accept speciation (at 0:29 in the second video) and says there is no evidence for it.

When Dawkins confronts him with the fact that yes actually there is tons of evidence for it and rigorous tested scientific theories explaining it, he falls back on the Creationist tact of "well it was still a fish wasn't it"

In other words he does what Creationists on this forum do as well, moving from the specific well defined definitions to general vague definitions that sound impressive but have little to do with biology.

I've had similar debates with you Wolfsbane where you have wanted to see examples of speciation and when presented with them you have fallen back on "well it is still a fly isn't it" type responses.

wolfsbane wrote: »

So the creationist was right to point out that extrapolating from the small change to the molecules-man sort is not self-evidently valid.

And Dawkins is right to tell him that that isn't what scientists do, that there is tons of evidence and scientific theory supporting "macro-evolution".

If this guy really thinks that scientists simply guess that because micro-evolution takes place well then obviously macro-evolution must be the answer then he is too ignorant of science and Darwinian theory in the first place to assess that it is wrong.

Lets not forget as well that this guy is a Young Earth Creationist, so not only does he reject most of biology he rejects most of pyshics and chemistry as well.

But when pressed with difficult questions from Dawkins he falls back on the age old "Well I'm not a biologist" response, thus justifying up front any ignorant or misleading statements he is about to make.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The interpretation of evidence to support the case is disputed by other scientists just as well qualified to speak on the subject as the evolutionists.

It is disputed by a handful of scientists, most of them who don't work in the area of evolutionary biology and nearly all of whom subscribe to literal interpretation of religious text.

If you look at any field you will get a handful of people who greatly disagree with the general consensus. There are a handful of historians who think Jesus didn't exist. There are a handful of engineers who think the world is flat.

These people tend to make a lot of noise but, like yer man in the video, say very little.

rockbeer

PDN wrote: »

This thread is discussing whether we were specially created or evolved from other mammals. Do you see the circularity of therefore arguing a point about humans on the basis of what mammals do?

That's a little strange PDN. Obviously if we have evolved from other animals we would expect to see similar trends of behaviour to other animals. Whereas if we were created we might expect to see ourselves behave quite differently.

Evidence that illustrates our similarity to other mammals therefore supports the evolutionary case. How is this circular reasoning?

rockbeer

J C wrote: »

A 65 fold increase in a murder rate is indeed 'hair raising'!!!
You put it down to an Evolutionary imperative ... I put it down to gross evil !!!!

I didn't mention an increase, that was your addition. The 65% figure is a snapshot of a single moment in time. I don't know whether the historical data exists to examine any change in the murder rate of stepchildren, however I wouldn't be surprised if it had remained reasonably constant. Of course this is total speculation.

PDN

rockbeer wrote: »

I didn't mention an increase, that was your addition. The 65% figure is a snapshot of a single moment in time. I don't know whether the historical data exists to examine any change in the murder rate of stepchildren, however I wouldn't be surprised if it had remained reasonably constant. Of course this is total speculation.

Not 65%, 65 times (what's that? 6000%?). I doubt, however, if any of us are going to read all 333 pages of your link to verify the figure.

That's a little strange PDN. Obviously if we have evolved from other animals we would expect to see similar trends of behaviour to other animals. Whereas if we were created we might expect to see ourselves behave quite differently.

Evidence that illustrates our similarity to other mammals therefore supports the evolutionary case. How is this circular reasoning?

1. JC questioned whether humans show the same propensity as other mammals to kill the young of their species.

2. Your response was to cite some statistics to show they do.

3. I pointed out that the statistics did not necessarily point to what you had claimed.

4. So you in turn respond by admitting that my point was valid but pointing out what other mammals do.

Which, of course, leads us in a perfect circle back to JC question.

It is circular to say:
Here are some statistics that demonstrate that humans share the propensity of other mammals to kill the young of their species. Yes, I know the statistics can be interpreted differently, but my interpretation is more likely to be correct because other mammals kill their young and it reasonable to assume that humans do the same.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

The only confusion was on his end. He stated that he does not accept speciation (at 0:29 in the second video) and says there is no evidence for it.

Yes - without me checking the clip again - the confusion was down to him. But it would be very strange for a YEC to be denying news species of fish arise, so I took him to be referring to macroevolution rather than microevolution. His subsequent comments confirmed that. Pity he confused the issue by using 'speciation' to refer to macroevolution.

I've had similar debates with you Wolfsbane where you have wanted to see examples of speciation and when presented with them you have fallen back on "well it is still a fly isn't it" type responses.

And I've pointed out that evolutionists and creationists agree that new species of fish are still fish, so it is you who is reading into 'speciation' more than it warrants.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
So the creationist was right to point out that extrapolating from the small change to the molecules-man sort is not self-evidently valid.
And Dawkins is right to tell him that that isn't what scientists do, that there is tons of evidence and scientific theory supporting "macro-evolution".

If this guy really thinks that scientists simply guess that because micro-evolution takes place well then obviously macro-evolution must be the answer then he is too ignorant of science and Darwinian theory in the first place to assess that it is wrong.

I assume he knows the evidence that is used to support evolution, just that he thinks it does not. Interpretations differ, the evidence is neutral.

Lets not forget as well that this guy is a Young Earth Creationist, so not only does he reject most of biology he rejects most of pyshics and chemistry as well.

Some of the interpretations of biologists, physicists and chemists - not the proved science.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The interpretation of evidence to support the case is disputed by other scientists just as well qualified to speak on the subject as the evolutionists.
It is disputed by a handful of scientists, most of them who don't work in the area of evolutionary biology and nearly all of whom subscribe to literal interpretation of religious text.

In their own fields, that relate to the claims of the theory of evolution, they are qualified to speak.

If you look at any field you will get a handful of people who greatly disagree with the general consensus. There are a handful of historians who think Jesus didn't exist. There are a handful of engineers who think the world is flat.

These people tend to make a lot of noise but, like yer man in the video, say very little.

I thought the man in the video did quite well. And his fellow scientists who hold to Creation/ID are not a few weirdos, but many thousands of respected professionals and Christian witnesses.

_________________________________________________________________
1 John 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by rockbeer
Statistically, stepchildren are 65 times more likely to be murdered than children who live with both natural parents.* We all like to think we're immune to genetic imperatives, but the numbers tell us how wrong we are.

Originally Posted by J C
A 65 fold increase in a murder rate is indeed 'hair raising'!!!
You put it down to an Evolutionary imperative ... I put it down to gross evil !!!!

rockbeer
I didn't mention an increase, that was your addition. The 65% figure is a snapshot of a single moment in time. I don't know whether the historical data exists to examine any change in the murder rate of stepchildren, however I wouldn't be surprised if it had remained reasonably constant. Of course this is total speculation.

You stated that the infanticide rate of step-children was 65 times (6,400%) greater than the infanticide rate of children living with both natural parents ... and you indicated that this was directly linked to some kind of Evolutionist imperative.
If your figure is true then it is indeed 'hair-raising' and if the link with evolutionism is true ... then it would indicate that some aspects of 'Darwins dangerous idea' are very dangerous indeed!!!

rockbeer

PDN, I've missed your strange and convoluted approach to logical thinking.

PDN wrote: »

Not 65%, 65 times (what's that? 6000%?). I doubt, however, if any of us are going to read all 333 pages of your link to verify the figure.

Indeed, 65 times more likely. My careless mistake. I would have linked to a more specific paragraph but Google Books helpfully omits the relevant pages.

PDN wrote: »

1. JC questioned whether humans show the same propensity as other mammals to kill the young of their species.

2. Your response was to cite some statistics to show they do.

3. I pointed out that the statistics did not necessarily point to what you had claimed.

4. So you in turn respond by admitting that my point was valid but pointing out what other mammals do.

Which, of course, leads us in a perfect circle back to JC question.

No it doesn't. Here's what actually happened.

1. JC questioned whether humans show the same propensity as other mammals to kill the young of their species.

2. My response was to cite some statistics to show they do.

So at this stage we have established the answer to JC's question: both lions and humans are inclined to kill offspring other than their own. No need to come back here at all.

3. You acknowledged that my statistics 'may be' accurate (in other words, I take it, agreeing - albeit reluctantly - that humans, like lions, are in fact more likely to kill other peoples' kids than our own.) You went on to suggest that there may be different explanations for this behaviour in the cases of lions and humans. You don't speculate on the reasons why lions do this, but you do speculate that humans do so for a range of social reasons.

4. I agreed that there may be different reasons. More specifically, I accept that your social factors may go some way to explaining the figure of 65 times more likely, but stick to my guns on what I consider to be the primary explanation for the behaviour while acknowledging that further data is needed to arrive at a firm conclusion.

We are now at an impasse, agreeing that stepchildren are in more danger than others but lacking enough evidence to be certain why.

PDN wrote: »

It is circular to say:
Here are some statistics that demonstrate that humans share the propensity of other mammals to kill the young of their species. Yes, I know the statistics can be interpreted differently, but my interpretation is more likely to be correct because other mammals kill their young and it reasonable to assume that humans do the same.

It would be, but that isn't what I'm saying. What I'm actually saying is:

Here are some statistics that demonstrate that humans share the propensity of other mammals to kill the young of their species. It is possible to speculate that there may be different reasons for human behaviour than that of other animals, but until you can provide actual evidence to support this contention, I'm inclined to favour the idea that we behave in similar ways for similar reasons.

After all, while there may well additional factors involved, you haven't actually produced any evidence to back up this speculative idea. Without further data, as I've said, we are at an impasse. With my position favourite, because of the facts that we do in fact behave just as other mammals do, and that we do so in any number of ways, not just in terms of killing children. If you want to argue that we do so for different reasons, you really need to provide some supporting evidence above and beyond your desire to believe (I suspect for religious reasons) that we are, somehow, magically and inexplicably, just 'different'.

All the evidence is that we are in fact, generally speaking, pretty much 'the same'. There is very little behaviour that is unique to humans. I can hardly come up with any. And the more we learn about other animals, especially mammals, the more similar we are revealed to be. It's not just a question of infanticide; that just happened to be the example that arose in the current discussion. There are any number of similar examples, all supported by solid numerical data. Whereas in your corner we have little but the speculative notion that we are 'created in the image of god'.

rockbeer

J C wrote: »

You stated that the infanticide rate of step-children was 65 times (6,400%) greater than the infanticide rate of children living with both natural parents ... and you indicated that this was directly linked to some kind of Evolutionist imperative.
If your figure is true then it is indeed 'hair-raising' and if the link with evolutionism is true ... then it would indicate that some aspects of 'Darwins dangerous idea' are very dangerous indeed!!!

The facts are the facts, JC. Darwinism doesn't in any sense cause the infanticide - it just explains the observed data, equally for lions and humans. It isn't the ideas that are dangerous - it's us humans.

And the children are being killed regardless. If evolutionary pressures don't explain this fact then something else must. And since, according to you, we were 'created in god's image', it would be logical, if you are correct, to hold him responsible for all this infant death.

J C

rockbeer wrote: »

The facts are the facts, JC. Darwinism doesn't in any sense cause the infanticide - it just explains the observed data, equally for lions and humans. It isn't the ideas that are dangerous - it's us humans.

And the children are being killed regardless. If evolutionary pressures don't explain this fact then something else must. And since, according to you, we were 'created in god's image', it would be logical, if you are correct, to hold him responsible for all this infant death.

Human evil explains it ... like all murder.

... but if you are saying that some kind of evolutionist belief is also a factor ...

... then as the Good Book says :-
Prov 23:7 For as a man thinketh in his heart, so he is.

rockbeer

J C wrote: »

Human evil explains it ...

And what about the lions?

J C

rockbeer wrote: »

And what about the lions?

Instinct driven by NS may explain why some lions kill the offspring of other lions.

... but a Human saying "it was my genes me Lo'd" ... isn't an acceptable defense to a charge of murder!!!!

... and if somebody rationalises Human infanticide because some Lions kill other lions' cubs then this would be a vary dangerous use of Evolutionist 'logic' indeed!!!

rockbeer

J C wrote: »

... but if you are saying that some kind of evolutionist belief is also a factor ...

This is just plain weird. Belief has nothing to do with it - one need know or believe nothing about genetics, nor even that it exists, in order to be 'under the influence'.

J C wrote: »

Instinct driven by NS of lions who kill other lions offspring may explain the lions.

Could you elaborate please? This sentence means nothing to me at all.

J C wrote: »

... but a Human saying "it was my genes me Lo'd ..." isn't an acceptable defense to the charge of murder!!!!

It could be argued that the reason that every society has such strong, rigorously enforced laws against murder is because we have such strong tendencies towards it. If we weren't so inclined to go round habitually wiping each other out there would be less need to proscribe it so strongly. No, genetic impulses are not a defence, but that doesn't mean they don't provide an explanation.

J C wrote: »

... and if somebody rationalises infanticide because some Lions kill other lions cubs then this would be a vary dangerous use of Evolutionist 'logic'!!!

That's an entirely different matter. Although I would question whether it is any more dangerous than rationalising it because 'humans are evil'. On the contrary, I would have thought being intrinsically evil would be an excellent defence against a murder charge. If, as you suggest, I'm inherently evil and this situation is entirely beyond my control, how can I be reasonably held responsible for my actions?

But you are again being ridiculous. No one is excusing infanticide because lions kill cubs. That is a ludicrous misrepresentation of my argument, as you very well know, and not in the least logical. I am saying that humans and lions are subject to similar genetically influenced impulses. That we are inclined to kill other peoples' young for similar reasons that lions are. The only difference is that we expect ourselves to reign in such impulses, but we don't expect that of lions. It's utterly irrational to argue that lions are 'instinctive' but that we are 'evil', especially with no supporting evidence and in the absence of a meaningful, testable definition for 'evilness'. As has been said already, other mammals exhibit both altruistic and destructive behaviour and so do we. Why conclude that our reasons for this are different to theirs? We share massive amounts of DNA with them; our physical 'wiring' shares much in common with theirs, and is certainly not inherently different. It actually seems pretty obvious and entirely unsurprising that we also have, to varying degrees, a great deal of behaviour in common with them. It's equally unsurprising that our behaviour is most similar to our closest genetic relatives. We humans do, of course, have many attributes which often allow us to moderate our more murderous instincts, but that doesn't mean such instincts don't exist. And of course all the evidence tells that that they do.

There certainly seems to be a high level of instinctive fear on the part of stepchildren, especially sons, of stepfathers, and human oral traditions are full of stories involving wicked step-parents.

As I say, the facts are the facts. I don't see how "we're evil" is a particularly useful contribution towards understanding them.

Judging by the evidence, if we were really made in the image of god then so was everything else. Now that would be really worrying.

J C

rockbeer wrote: »

Please elaborate. This sentence means nothing to me at all.

Instinct reinforced by NS may explain why some lions kill the offspring of other lions.

rockbeer wrote: »

It could be argued that the reason that every society has such strong, rigorously enforced laws against murder is because we have such strong tendencies towards it. If we weren't so inclined to go round habitually wiping each other out there would be less need to proscribe it so strongly. No, genetic impulses are not a defence, but that doesn't mean they don't provide an explanation.

... the vast majority of people never commit murder ... and the reason for the severe sanctions against murder is because of the seriousness of the offence ... and not because of the likelihood of it happening!!!

rockbeer wrote: »

That's an entirely different matter. Although I would question whether it is any more dangerous than rationalising it because 'humans are evil'. On the contrary, I would have thought being intrinsically evil would be an excellent defence against a murder charge. If, as you suggest, I'm inherently evil and this situation is entirely beyond my control, how can I be reasonably held responsible for my actions?

... our ability to commit evil allows us to murder ... it doesn't make us do it!!!!

rockbeer wrote: »

But you are again being ridiculous. No one is excusing infanticide because lions kill cubs. That is a ludicrous misrepresentation of my argument, as you very well know, and not in the least logical. I am saying that humans and lions are subject to similar genetically influenced impulses. That we are inclined to kill other peoples' young for similar reasons that lions are. The only difference is that we expect ourselves to reign in such impulses, but we don't expect that of lions.

I feel protective towards all children ... both my own and other peoples.
I see no possible advantage to killing anybody ... and especially children.

The fact that lions eat raw meat doesn't mean that I am in the least interested in killing an antelope with my bare hands and eating it alive either!!!
It is yet another mistake that Evolutionists make ... to extrapolate the behaviour of animals and claim that it has any evolutionary connection to how Humans behave!!

I hope for everyone's sake, including your own ... that you don't really believe that Humans (with the exception of serial killers) are inclined to kill other peoples children.

... and are you really saying that you have impulses towards infanticide ... but you are succeeding in reigning them in????

rockbeer

J C wrote: »

I hope for everyone's sake, including your own ... that you don't really believe that Humans (with the possible exception of serial killers) are inclined to kill other peoples children.

So you deny the evidence?

J C

rockbeer wrote: »

So you deny the evidence?

Serial killers and other assorted very sick people may kill children ... but I cannot see where evolution has anything to do with it ... unless you are arguing that Evolutionism predisposes some people towards killing children???

Infanticide is one of the purest forms of evil that I know of.

Most female animals will utterly reject the young of other females ... but Human women and men will adopt and foster other peoples children.

Like I say, it is another mistake that Evolutionists make, by expecting animal behaviour to be replicated by people.

rockbeer

J C wrote: »

Serial killers and other assorted very sick people may kill children

So, then, you must be saying that step-parents are 65 times more likely than blood parents to be 'very sick people'.

Unless you deny the evidence?

J C

rockbeer wrote: »

So, then, you must be saying that step-parents are 65 times more likely than blood parents to be 'very sick people'.

... how was this figure of 65 arrived at?

... what are the underlying numbers ... and where/how were they established?