-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Evolution and its effects.
- Thread starter Truster
- Start date
Lon
Well-known member
Greatly whitewashed. There is not a 'slight' uptake but a violence rate that is the same as the highest on record these past two years.Barbarian observes:Spoiler
It 'seems' your data is off. Further? We had violence 'among' people, not random acts of violence. I don't mind of you use data, but if you aren't willing to look at the converse, then the one-sided is just confirmation bias.
My eternal optimism that someone will read and observe statistics correctly is to blame
Where there's life, there's hope. :thumb:
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Greatly whitewashed. There is not a 'slight' uptake but a violence rate that is the same as the highest on record these past two years.
It 'seems' your data is off. Further? We had violence 'among' people, not random acts of violence. I don't mind of you use data, but if you aren't willing to look at the converse, then the one-sided is just confirmation bias.
My eternal optimism that someone will read and observe statistics correctly is to blame
Lon, you know as well as I do that any accusations of trolling where it comes to Barb are simply born out of dishonesty, dislike or personal malice. I agree with him on the whole over this and you and I probably disagree on things for the most part but I respect your integrity even then because it's honest.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Last edited:
Lon
Well-known member
Thank you. While there are times I do tire (and I know you grasp this) of repeated conversation where you can't seem to get through, I'm not generally bothered by such and don't find the obtuse-ion (is obtusion a word?) trollish.
Data on this particular is difficult. With Barbarian, I agree there is a whole lot of corollary. Tying those to the data is the difficult part.
The data from the center of Disease control does, however correlate with the removal of prayer and bible from the classroom. In the end, it has to do so: The government removed moral teaching in the name of promoting faith by government but it didn't replace moral teaching at that point. It was gone.
Some will argue 'government' doesn't do that but I contest that if it takes a village, and the government has them for 6 hours, they (court and classroom) then are remiss at an essential time of social interaction, from doing what is right. A system of simple correction doesn't do it. Morals are lost AND the data, as far as I'm looking, suggests this strongly as being the case.
way 2 go
Well-known member
if someone survives cancer that does not mean cancer is not a killer
if someone believes evolution & does not kill them self or commit violence
violence and suicide are still acceptable in evolution
evolution is simply a lie in which violence and suicide are acceptable.
Christianity and evolution are mutually exclusive
way 2 go
Well-known member
Originally Posted by way 2 go
atheist believe evolution
They believe electricity, too, which the consequences of electricity are violence and suicide are acceptable.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Uh, I already stated that cancer is a killer full stop. You can repeat the same ignorant mantra all that you want it isn't going to make any more sense.
Garbage on the first and the second, so "way to go" I suppose.
Otherwise, plenty of Christians have no hang up with it.
Since evolution is completely consistent with scripture, there is no conflict between evolution and Christianity. There is a conflict between science and YE creationism, but creationism is not Christianity, even if some Christians are creationists. There are more Muslims who are YE creationists than there are YE creationists who are Christians.
Originally, YE creationism, with it's "life ex nihilo" doctrine was also contrary to scripture, but many YE creationists have now rejected that doctrine.
Originally, YE creationism, with it's "life ex nihilo" doctrine was also contrary to scripture, but many YE creationists have now rejected that doctrine.
:rotfl:
"In six days" God created the heavens and the Earth and all that is in them.
Your modern invention is laughably stupid.
"In the beginning" He created people male and female.
Your modern invention is laughably stupid.
Show us that. We know all you have is obfuscation and misrepresentation.
Darwinists love talking about who believes what and how popular an idea is. They think it's evidence. :chuckle:
Nope. God created the universe from nothing.
Want to learn why that must be true oh I forgot you hate rational dialogue.
The highest on record is over double what it is now. Did you not look at the data I showed you? And the uptick after Trump's election was tiny, less than a 5% increase. C'mon. Look at the graph. It's right in front of you.
It's FBI data. Do you have something more accurate? Show us, with your evidence that it is more accurate.
All violence is among people. That's how it works. And yes, in the past there were lots of cases of random killings. Would you like some examples?
So far, you haven't shown us your source that refutes FBI data. I can't look at it, if you don't show it to us.
This whole discussion is based on a false premise, i.e. that "Darwanism" is a kind of religion. It isn't. There is another assumption here as well: that religions should be judged based on how violent or suicidal their adherents are. I think anyone who wants to claim that should look in a mirror and a history book first.
Then engage sensibly over the evidence. You know: Science.
Lon
Well-known member
I understand your data was from the FBI.
The CDC is at-a-glance so easy to look at.
Random violence vs domestic (did you not pick up on that?).
Your Gallup poll coincides well with the CDC statistics.
Your second chart isn't linked, but doesn't coincide with CDC. Perhaps just crimes the FBI itself has dealt with is going down (I'd need the link)
Your third chart is dated so is incomplete. The CDC is the current one.
this thread is about the "effects" of evolution. Not the science. I would be glad to to have a sensible discussion of Evolution with honest sensible people who know some science.
Which only again exposes your religious devotion to an idea; your assumption of the truth of evolution trumps all.
Then engage over the evidence; you know: Science. :up:
It works pretty well, because the previous decades you're talking about were also FBI stats, based on the same criteria. Apples to apples.
Oranges. Which means you can't compare them with decades past.
There was, as I said, random violence in the past as well. Would you like some examples? It's not a new thing.
Like so many other positivistic inquiries in social science, such “measurement” jars our sense of proportion by setting down with mathematical exactitude data that have in actuality little of the precision apparently conveyed by the figures in which they are reported. It is a bit hard to understand what we are being told when we learn that the “magnitude of civil strife” in Venezuela for the troubled five-year period 1961–5 was 20.3 while that of France was 12.1, and that of the United States for the five years 1963–8 was 13.8. The fact that the estimated casualties for the United States per hundred thousand were five, whereas those for France were four, may not tell us quite what we want to know about the comparative importance of violence in the polities of the two countries. There were more casualties in the local encounter over the “People’s Park” in Berkeley in May 1969 than in the convulsive upheaval throughout France a year earlier.
Nonetheless, the figures compiled by the National Commission’s experts constitute the only check we have thus far against arbitrary impressions, and they confirm our sense that the United States is far from being the most peaceful among the Western or other industrial nations with which comparison seems most appropriate. These experts find in the United States of recent years a magnitude of civil strife that compares very unfavorably with most other nations of a high level of economic development, and somewhat unfavorably even with some nations of a medium level of economic development. This country has been, for example, less strife-ridden than Indonesia, Algeria, Rhodesia or Venezuela, about as strife-ridden as France, India, and Ecuador, and far more so than the United Kingdom, West Germany, the USSR, Puerto Rico, Taiwan, and the Scandinavian countries, to choose more or less at random from a large number of countries with less domestic violence than our own.
There is another respect in which such data should be looked at carefully: the level of civil strife has no consistent relation to political freedom. The United States in the 1960s showed a relatively high level of freedom and permissiveness in its policies toward domestic protest at a time when it had profoundly divisive domestic problems and a simultaneous unsuccessful and unpopular foreign war. This reads like a prescription for violent disturbances. By contrast, nations governed by dictators or firmly installed authoritarian systems—Portugal and Spain, the USSR, Poland, Yugoslavia, and Rumania, as well as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Republic—all stand well below the United States in the dimensions of their civil strife. Yet the internal peace enjoyed by some polities rather resembles that of the graveyard, and here invidious comparisons with American violence would have little meaning. One might well prefer to endure occasional and limited violence if the only alternative is a state of almost unlimited repression. . . . https://thebaffler.com/ancestors/reflections-violence-united-states
Over the decades, it does. The marked decline in violence since the 1980s is correlated with an increasing acceptance of evolution by the American people. But correlation is not necessarily causation. Could be that education has affected both. Or something else; the mere correlation of lower violence with increasing acceptance of evolution by the American people during the same time does not, in itself, prove anything.
Notice it says "FBI 2019." Go to:
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45236.pdf
Page 2. Same data. The uptick in the violent crime rate has occurred mostly in cities, and not in all of them. You can ask what happened in America since 2015, but I don't know that anyone has shown a cause as of yet. The point remains; the dramatic decrease in violent crime over the last few decades is correlated with an increasing acceptance of evolution. Which pretty much demolishes the OP.
There is science involved in the question of violence. As the data show, the great decrease in violent crime over the past few decades is most likely due to the aging of the boomers; as the number of young adults decreases, so does violence. For reasons everyone should understand.
The fact that this decrease is correlated with increasing public acceptance of evolution is interesting, but does not prove that acceptance of evolution causes a decrease in violent crime. It does demolish the argument that acceptance of evolution causes violence.