I think that the problem is misunderstanding justice for rage. All of the "rages", I guess when you can say that God "flips out" in the Bible are cases where people violate his law and receive the punishment for doing so.

Exactly. They committed to his law--his commandments--and when they utterly failed to follow through, justice was served... No "rage" to it. It's no different than committing to the laws of any society by being a member of that society. When you fail to follow through, when you break the laws of that society, you suffer the consequences for your choices.

__________________
Political Diplomacy Game Map
Forum Diplomacy Game Discussion Thread
__________________
"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."
-John F. Kennedy

"Education begins the gentleman, but reading, good company and reflection must finish him."
-John Locke

"What worries you, masters you."
-John Locke

Well, drouning entire peoples, hardly can be just as it is a huge generalisation. All people suffer the same, while not everyone wears the same guilt for sure.

Thats not justice, its rage.

hehe, its not just the name that changes.
The basis on which the different species are labelled, sorted and organized into groups etc is changed.

Actually the name for the organisms themselves dont change really. But the groups they organized within. The essential point is that they are not changed for the fun of changing it and not based on your favorite colors or food preferences, but based on the new knowledge modern genetics has granted to us about those organisms.

The proof lies in the DNA of the organisms.

That's a passage in the Bible, yes. The Bible also says at the time of that flood the entire population had become murderers, thieves--selfish sinners and that was the reason for God's decision, they were doing a fine enough job of killing and hurting each other by themselves, he started things over with a clean slate because of the choices of mankind--according to the Bible.

__________________
Political Diplomacy Game Map
Forum Diplomacy Game Discussion Thread
__________________
"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."
-John F. Kennedy

"Education begins the gentleman, but reading, good company and reflection must finish him."
-John Locke

"What worries you, masters you."
-John Locke

OK. When someone breaks the law and the receive the appropriated punishment, it is unjust? It must be another one of those new European ideas that throws me for a loop.

You're misunderstanding my question, but regardless the original point stands: evolution requires assumptions. You've contended that we'll prove evolution with the new groupings - but we haven't, and you're making a second assumption in order to jump over the first. It's not all too convincing.

The same very harsh punishment can't be the "appropriate" punishment for everyone. Or does god punish people just becase they belong to a certain tribe, city etc rather than on what this person has done in detail?



I have not the slightest idea what you are talking about.
We have analyzed the "construction plan" of many species. When comparing those construction plans with each other one can identify the correlation between them. Based on this analysis one can group the species.

In further detail on many occasions scientists have already found out how by positive mutation, one gene can transform into another gene with different or enhanced functions.


If your point is that at some point one has to make assumptions, yes one has to make assumptions. But its a difference if you make some random assumptions because you like it that way, or if you make "assumptions" that are complying with good scientific practice and are not the result of some random guess but rather indicated by some damn good arguments.

To set everything assame, scientific rules or not, randomn guesses or not, and stir it around to deliver that comparision between the scientific theory of evolution on one side and creationism on the other, thats not a honest comparision.

Come on, no matter what they have become, its pretty impossible that each and every of them was equally guilty. Because only if all of them were equally guilty this extremely harsh punishment would have been just for everyone.

I can only guess how for example the one year olds have already committed as terrible sins as a mid-thirty massmurder...

Only merciful to people who come begging to him for forgiveness. He condemns every non believer to hell. He is by no means tolerant of religious dissent, and damns anyone to hell who does not receive his teachings. If he existed today we'd call him a religious bigot.

"He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day." John 12:48

"He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad." Matthew 12:30

"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city." Mark 6:11

"Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:" Matthew 7:13

__________________

OK, as has been said a half a dozen times (when you combine posts made by others and myself), they broke God's law and received the punishment. The Bible says that there were few that were innocent, and they were spared.

To your repeated point about unequal guilt, let me propose a situation. Let's say that the law for killing another man is death. So, what if person x kills two men? Are you going to drown him twice?

Ultimately, as has been said, they broke God's law and received the punishment for said crime, that is not unjust.





I've put in italics what I feel is the only portion actually addresses my point which you had originally disputed, that evolution requires assumptions.

I first want to say that I think you're making the error in thinking that I'm defending creationism. I wasn't putting forth Creationism as the right idea at all, I originally said that both require assumptions, neither are proven, but I did say that evolution is a very good theory.

Secondly, ok - no "random guesses". No matter how much you or anyone else wants to disrespect ID (or evolution), neither of them are "random guesses".

As far as the comparisons not being fair, I wasn't trying to equate them. I said that they both require assumptions in order to be accepted, and they do. If it's unfair to say that, then I'm an unfair person and will say it outright.