The lie of evolution

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
Scott, like so many, is committing an elementary logical fallacy. It goes like this:

Evolution is wrong; therefore, the fruits of believing in evolution are evil.

No Paul, my reasoning goes like this: God claimed credit for creating the universe directly. Denial of truths proclaimed by God is evil and has both direct and indirect negative consequences. Evolution denies that God was necessary or played an active role in creation. Therefore evolution will have both direct and indirect negative consequences.

I did not say always since God's grace and mercy still preserve the world that is... only that it is a biblical certainty.

Understanding the common descent of all life and the ancient age of the earth doesn't drive ME to want to go out and murder people I don't like; I fail to see why it should.

It doesn't only because you have accepted by some reasoning a standard that says such behavior is wrong. I assume and hope it is because the Bible forbids it and at least on the issue of morality you accept the Bible as an objective, literal standard of truth.

Perhaps, by examining the behavior of animals, I can better understand the wellsprings of some of my temptations. Does that mean I can excuse myself from the obligation to be a moral agent? If I discover the biological roots of addiction, am I therby enabled to be an innocent partaker of drugs?

You would be better served to consult the scriptures and understand that these things are spiritual issues with material effects.

Such would seem to be the logical beliefs of someone who holds that evolution fosters immorality. 'taint necessarily so.

Actually, you just briefly asserted that evolution does foster immorality. You said that you could understand the "wellsprings" of temptations by studying animals. This implies that man and his since of morality have evolved from these lower cousins.

You said that sin has a biological in addition to or rather than spiritual root.

Your examples reflect a relationship that you claim mustn't exist.

 

[Scott J]

All lay out what one ought and ought not to do. I don't understand your balking at the word "ought."

Because it is sorely (another obsolete usage) insufficient to define or delineate "morality".

I don't buy Humes position that morality is experential or wholly emotional in origin. I believe that morality is an absolutely objective truth from God... and more importantly, that the violation of those objective truths have just as certain a consequence as the violation of natural law.

 

[Scott J]

The viewpoint of eugenics is a morality because it makes value judgements as to what is desireable and sets a standard of right or good conduct. In this case, right or good conduct is killing those you don't like because they are inferior and their very existence is an insult. Yes? They make a leap in logic and say that because a certain person is more likely to die than another (as all observers would agree) then that person ought to be exterminated (as not all would!). Leaping from "is" to "ought".

If evolution is true and in particular if naturalism is true then eugenics is not a morality. It is an amoral product of evolution. The fit survive and eliminate the unfit to conserve resources and to ensure that the weak do not reproduce. It isn't only a fact of nature... for natural selection to work it is absolutely imperative that it happens.

Hitler's goal was to achieve the next level of evolution through the aryan race. Elimination of corrupted races and defective people was an evolutionary necessity, not an option, if the goal was to be achieved.

This by the way provided much of the coherence to some of his arguments.

 

[Scott J]

I wish I were so secure in my intellectual abilities that I could just wave aside philosophers and scientists without having really read their works, but I don't think that would be wise on my part.

You know... it is incredibly difficult to respond by an equally condescending and offensive remark... but I will.

From my reading Hume makes a good point and a good argument against the moral relativists' suggestion that morality can be derived simply from what people and animals do (thereby making homosexuality and infanticide ok) and what occurs in the natural world (making "ethnic cleansing" ok). Because we can't logically bridge this gap to obtain a conclusion regarding proper morality God gave us his revelation in Scripture.

Your last statement disagrees with Hume.

His argument fails in its insistence that morality is emotion driven and not reason driven. It is both.

For this reason, the moral relativist has little to fear from Hume. If morality is ultimately emotional and experential then it is also subjective. IOW's, if I feel OK about it and can get away with it... then it isn't necessarily immoral.

But now you would like to throw the baby out with the bathwater and say that observation of natural law and human and animal behavior can validly be used to synthesize a system of morality (although wrong morality), which seems rather, dare I say, liberal.

No. On this point, I would say that even with my obvious close-mindedness and intellectual inferiority I have been clear and consistent.

There is no objective morality with a sovereign Creator God who will judge according to the Laws He has set forth both in scripture and human conscience (see Romans 2).

 

[Bunyon]

"Oh. Well some of us don't see it yet - can you spell out the logic please?

Use formal logic pattern. For example, All men are mortal, I am a man, therefore I am mortal"------------------------------------------------

How could you not get it? Evolution's watch words are "survival of the fittest". Hitler's Aryans are the fittest and therefore, like animals, are morally allowed to kill off the inferior competetor race. Get it?

 

[Petrel]

Originally posted by Scott J:
The fit survive and eliminate the unfit to conserve resources and to ensure that the weak do not reproduce. It isn't only a fact of nature... for natural selection to work it is absolutely imperative that it happens.

The fit do not necessarily outright eliminate the unfit. The unfit are chiefly eliminated by disease, accident, low reproduction as the result of inadequate resources, or the mere unwillingness of the more fit to reproduce with them.

You still are unable to show why people are obliged to oppress the weak because natural selection favors the fit. As I pointed out before, natural selection in human populations is an observable fact (the propagation of sickle-cell and CCR5 mutations show this). Yet somehow none of us feel logically compelled to go kill people with genes that make them not as suited for survival in some situations. Natural selection also favors people who have many children, but the below-replacement birth rates in industrialized nations show that people certainly don't feel obliged by this to produce as many children as possible. Just saying over and over again that evolution demands genocide is not going to prove anything.

I apologize for assuming that you knew very little about Hume. I had the impression that you were simply dismissing him outright.

Hume definitely is not the relativist's friend. While he believes the morality is driven by emotion, he also says that the key driving force is our sociability and the point of morality is to enable us to live together peaceably. Because of this absolute relativism is ruled out--only what forwards society can be good, therefore rape, murder, and theft are bad. The stimulus towards morality arises within each individual, but the end product should be fairly universal.

I actually think that this is a fairly decent explanation for some of the universal moral laws that we find. Every society agrees that killing people without reason is wrong--just some societies limit this only to killing someone in the family or clan, while outsiders are fair game. There is an incest taboo in practically every society (and I'm qualifying that just out of caution, as I am aware of no society that commonly condones incest), which can only be broken under the most unusual circumstances, such as when members of a royal family marry to continue the bloodline. Every society thinks that generosity is good, again with the caveat that they may limit the recipients of that generosity.

My opinion is that these commonalities reflect a tendency towards morality that God placed in each of us (per Romans 2:14 "Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them."), but that in every case it is marred by the sin nature. That is why we needed Scripture to make it clear.

Interesting stuff!

 

[JWI]

UTEOTW

Hitler was not an evolutionist? Really?

Well, here is a statement Hitler made. If this is not evolution, I do not know what is.

"The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness, only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he, after all, is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail any conceivable higher development of organic living beings would be unthinkable."

If this is not survival of the fittest, what is it?

It is absurd to say Hitler was not an evolutionist. He preached endlessly on the SUPERIORITY of the Aryan race and the inferiority of other peoples as the Jews, Gypsies, and many others.

The statement above is pure evolutionary teaching. Hitler said the superior race MUST dominate the inferior for the higher DEVELOPMENT of organic living beings.

Give me a break.

 

[JWI]

 

[Mercury]

JWI, are you sticking by your claim that the subtitle of Origin of Species is racist because it mentions favoured races? I pointed out that the meaning of the word "race" has shifted a bit since when Darwin wrote. It used to be used as a synonym for species. The first races mentioned in the book were races of cabbage.

Just curious if these facts caused you to reconsider that specific claim.

 

[JackRUS]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JackRUS:

And as I have noted here many times before, Jesus also took a literal view of Genesis. Why don't you?

Jesus never said anything that opposes interpreting Genesis to be in accord with the findings of science. In order to believe this, you have to add to what He said. </font>[/QUOTE]I didn't say that Jesus said anything about science. I said that He interpreted Genesis literally.

On the subject of a literal Adam and Eve, which is anathema to evolutionists BTW, He said:

"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." Mark 10:6

There is not room here for man evolving from apes. None. Jesus takes Genesis 1:27 and 2:21-23 in this verse literally, and so do I.

And since man was here from the beginning of the creation as Jesus said, how could there have been billions of years of evolution after the beginning of the creation before man comes on the scene as evolutionists suggest?

I wonder how you interpret Gen. 2:7 and 3:19? Did God really say that we can from dust, or should He have from apes?

Jesus also took the Global Flood literally:

"But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe
entered into the ark,
And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." Mt. 24:37-39

And BTW, He also took the account of Jonah in the whale literally:

"But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to
it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of
the earth." Mt. 12:39-40

So again I ask...why don't you and the other evolutionists here also take these passages literally when God Almighty does?

Job 38:2-4, 42:2-6

 

[JackRUS]

Paul of Eugene wrote:

Just to lay to rest any doubts about my own case, I walked the aisle to accept Christ as my personal saviour at about the age of nine. I recall the moment today, as I was walking towards the preacher, and Christ came into my heart between one step and the next. I was raised by a Christian family and they taught me to tithe my allowance, and so I can say to this day every penny I have ever earned has been tithed all of my life. I know that doesn't save me, but I simply submit that as evidence, in line with Christ's words, "where a man's treasure is, there will his heart be also".

I have a job as a serviceman and we hired a new guy that I was training. We were in my van and we had some time before our next service call. We were riding down the road and ventured past a place that sells adult books and magazines. He suggesed that we go there and spend some time, and I told him right there that I was a born again Christian and that I wouldn't be caught dead there.

After a minute or two of silence he said, "So you're born again. So am I. I was born again in a church where I made a altar call." I worked for two years with this guy and he was no more born again than my cat.

It reminds me of a story that D.L. Moody told about a drunk that he met on a train who approached and said "Aren't you D.L. Moody?" He replied that he was. And the man told Moody: "You saved me at one of your revivals." at which Moody replied "I'm believe that I must have saved you because it sure wasn't Jesus!"

Many are saved at altar calls, but that is no assurance at all because many make those calls and are not saved at all. I personally know of two such men. The changed man is however is better proof. 2 Cor. 5:17; Rom. 8:14.

That's not to say that you weren't saved, but I can hardly believe that the Holy Spirit would teach anyone that Jesus created them out of evolution.

1 John 2:20, 4:6

 

[UTEOTW]

"Hitler was not an evolutionist? Really?"

I would not really call Hitler a evolutionists or a creationists or a Christian or an atheist or anything else like that.

He was a sociopath who played to the weknesses of the people with his demagoguery. He used religious language. He used prejudice. He used whatever was at his disposal. All of his talk or the superior Aryans was to use racism to his advantage, not some sort of Darwinian mandate.

BTW, did you get a chance to read the responses to the problems you posted concerning radiometric dating?

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JWI:
Radiometric Dating is very controversial and has been shown to very inaccurate in a number of cases.
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html#Why%20methods%20in%20general%20are%20inaccurate

And here is a two part response to that very website.

http://www.tim-thompson.com/plaisted-review.html
http://www.tim-thompson.com/plaisted-review2.html

And to show I am a sporting fellow, here is the response to the criticism by the author of the page to which you linked.

http://www.tim-thompson.com/plaisted-review3.html

Just give it all a good read.

You will find that this link of yours, just like the others you have provided, is found to be wanting when weighed in the balances. It is another case of making hay with misepresention of the facts. </font>[/QUOTE]

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by JackRUS:
"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." Mark 10:6

There is not room here for man evolving from apes. None. Jesus takes Genesis 1:27 and 2:21-23 in this verse literally, and so do I.

You have added to what Jesus said, as I pointed out before you would have to do. You have added the interpretation that the creation Jesus refers to is not the creation of Adam and Eve but rather the creation of the whole universe. Everybody knows, however, that literally, Adam and Eve were not the beginning of creation but its end, in the Genesis narrative.

And since man was here from the beginning of the creation as Jesus said,

You repeat the falsehood. They didn't arrive until day six of Genesis one. That is not the begnning.

Oh, Jesus was not telling a lie. He was speaking of the beginning of creation of MANKIND.

Did God really say that we can from dust, or should He have from apes?

Both Apes and Men are made from dust, a very basic simple process, by means of evolution, adding air and water of course.

Jesus also took the Global Flood literally:

I call on all who witness these threads to take note how the word "global" has been ADDED to what Jesus said.

"But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe
entered into the ark,
And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." Mt. 24:37-39

Nope, no word "global" there. You lose that one.

And BTW, He also took the account of Jonah in the whale literally:

????? and what is the relevance to our discussion?

 

[Bro. James]

Good News from God by John, the apostle: "In the BEGINNING was the Word; and the Word was with God; and the Word was God. the same was in the BEGINNING with God. ALL things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not...John 1:1-5. See also vss. 9-14.

Now let us harmonize the paradigms of evolution and theistic evolution with the revealed Word of God.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by Bro. James:
Good News from God by John, the apostle: "In the BEGINNING was the Word; and the Word was with God; and the Word was God. the same was in the BEGINNING with God. ALL things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not...John 1:1-5. See also vss. 9-14.

Now let us harmonize the paradigms of evolution and theistic evolution with the revealed Word of God.

Selah,

Bro. James

Amen brother, let us do that and stop this nonsense of saying they are in conflict.

 

[Bro. James]

Clarification: There is no way to harmonize evolution--athestic or theistic with scripture. Not only is there a conflict but also there is direct contradiction. In other words, there is no way to harmonize the wisdom of men with the wisdom of God.

As long as there is no consensus up front that there is an infallible standard for comparison, there really is no basis for discussion or debate. It is like trying to harmonize scripture and the traditions of men--there is no harmony. Man is infinitely depraved, God is infinitely Holy. There is no middle ground.

Now what?

"Let God be found true--and every man a liar."

Selah,

Bro. James
the less

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Oh. Then why did you quote verses that express no problem in harmonization?

 

[Petrel]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
Oh. Then why did you quote verses that express no problem in harmonization?

I'm befuddled as well!

 

[Bro. James]

Check your vineyard for alien mold spores.

Then what?

Let God show you what John 1:1-5 really mean.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[Paul of Eugene]

But of course, He's been doing that, with the traces He left in the universe all this time . . .

You think some human hand created the light that comes 2.9 million light years across the void from the great andromeda Galaxy? You think some human hand reached in and altered vitamin c genes in the primates? You think some human hand caused whales to grow legs as embryos and then reabsorb them? You think some human hand laid down 400,000 annual layers of snow in Antartica? You think some human hand left you with ear wiggling muscles? With a coccyx? Some human hand left fossils of horses with three toes? Some human hand made the atoms of uranium decay into lead as if for 4 billion years?

No human can do those things. They are from the hand of God.