Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Options
Comments
-
Well, you lot do ask, and I try to answer. But I'm happy to focus on the model issue:Wolfsbane if you don't mind can we get back to you providing the scientific models that you claim Creationism have ...
This thread is after all supposed to be about Biblical Creationism ... for some strange reason we seem to spend an awful lot of time discussing Darwinian evolution ...
I had thought you guys were able enough to google or go to the Creation sites I gave and do a search on them. But since that has overtaxed you, here's a start:
Ashby Camp’s List of Articles Supporting Biblical Creation http://www.trueorigin.org/camplist.asp
From it you can find various articles that deal with either a full model or key aspects of one.
For example:
A Creation/Flood Model http://origins.swau.edu/papers/global/chadwick/default.html
CATASTROPHIC PLATE TECTONICS: A GLOBAL FLOOD MODEL OF EARTH HISTORY http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=researchp_as_platetectonicsl
CATASTROPHIC PLATE TECTONICS:
THE PHYSICS BEHIND THE GENESIS FLOOD http://www.globalflood.org/papers/2003ICCcpt.html
COMPUTER MODELING OF THE LARGE-SCALE TECTONICS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GENESIS FLOOD http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=researchp_jb_largescaletectonics
And an interesting comparison: Variation and natural selection versus evolution http://www.answersingenesis.org:80/home/area/re1/chapter2.asp0 -
No, the science is not to blame, it merely tells us the facts. If evolution were factual, it would not be to blame for racism, etc. But then racism would not be blameworthy. There would be no objective morality for a start, but even if we elevate logic to be moral it would mean that racism, etc. is the moral position.daithifleming wrote: »So the science that explains why the fire is hot is to blame for burning your hand? Not your action of putting your hand in the fire? FFS. Typical logic of a creationist.
Because evolution is false, the logic flowing from it leads to evil. Because Creationism is factual, the logic that flows from it leads to good. It holds man to be made in God's image and demands appropriate respect for him.0 -
No, the science is not to blame, it merely tells us the facts. If evolution were factual, it would not be to blame for racism, etc. But then racism would not be blameworthy. There would be no objective morality for a start, but even if we elevate logic to be moral it would mean that racism, etc. is the moral position.
Because evolution is false, the logic flowing from it leads to evil. Because Creationism is factual, the logic that flows from it leads to good. It holds man to be made in God's image and demands appropriate respect for him.
Evolution is false, creationism is true. Only good flows from religion. Hmm. You know if your werent a creationist i would swear you're a wum.0 -
daithifleming said:
The water that fell as rain and could be collected in barrels - just like we used to do in the country when I was a kid.Do i really need to point this out? Really? The water couldnt have been clean or safe, full of billions of dead humans/animals. Can you drink sea water Wolfy? Come on.
That's your problem. The reality is that God both caused the Flood and provided for all on the ark. Can I demonstrate that scientifically? No. Can you demonstrate scientifically that it was not so? No. Either you believe He did as He said or not. The consequences will be infinitely opposite.Ok... God did it. Thats not really satisfying for people who prefer explanations grounded in reality im afraid.
No. But I know the truth of the matter. Being unable to prove a thing does not make it true or false. It is or is not, no matter what one says. But God has revealed His truth, and it rules out a Flying Spaghetti Monster.Can you disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monsters existence?
A sensible point. The answer is that such a Judgement is coming again, only it will be by fire and final:So if it has all gone so wrong again why doesnt he flood the earth again.
2 Peter 3:1 Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder), 2 that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior, 3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men...
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.
He sent His Son, the fullest expression of Him. Jesus, after He had made atonement for His people, ascended to Heaven. From there He rules, awaiting the appointed hour when He shall come again to judge the world.In fact, why doesnt he even show up anymore like he used to.
We don't see Him like the people of Israel in NT times did. His presence is with us by the Holy Spirit whom He sent to indwell every Christian and to bless us as we meet together to worship Him.
And of course we still see Him in the things He causes on Earth, the answers to our prayers we experience; the judgements on sinners that cut them off from their wickedness; etc.
Some folk thought the Earth was flat, but it was not based on their knowledge of the Bible. The same folk not only claimed special visions of God they also brought up many fanciful ideas not in the Bible, e.g. a priesthood, alter, monastic orders, etc. But the flat-earth idea was so weak it did not survive. Indeed, By the 12th century (despite Edward Blick’s implication to the contrary), the flat-earth concept was essentially a dead letter in the West.You know, like for those people he appeared before who believed the earth was flat and all that.
The modern flat-earth movement was launched in England, in 1849, with the publication of a 16 page pamphlet, Zetetic Astronomy: A Description of Several Experiments which Prove that the Surface of the Sea Is a Perfect Plane and that the Earth Is Not a Globe! by “Parallax.”, to quote an atheist writer.0 -
daithifleming wrote: »Evolution is false, creationism is true. Only good flows from religion. Hmm. You know if your werent a creationist i would swear you're a wum.
Wum is a new one for me. Can you enlighten?0 -
Advertisement
-
I've already posted what Darwin taught. Call it what you will, it amounts to the same thing:Scofflaw wrote:Which would make your case, if only Darwin had taught Social Darwinism. Since he didn't, I can't see the relevance.
However, Darwin felt that "social instincts" such as "sympathy" and "moral sentiments" also evolved through natural selection, and that these resulted in the strengthening of societies in which they occurred, so much so that he wrote about it in Descent of Man: "..at some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world."[1] from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism
Dear me - where do we start?
First, that's not Social Darwinism - and call that what you will, the problem is that you need Darwin to have been promoting Social Darwinism for your point that Social Darwinism is a logical outcome of evolutionary theory.
Second, you've missed Darwin's point almost entirely - his point is that the civilised races, being better adapted, will exterminate and replace the savage races. That's an observation, or rather a prediction, which once again you have taken as an exhortation or normative statement - as if me saying "Ireland will almost certainly win the rugby, because they have a better team" was identical to "Ireland must get a better team, because we have to win the rugby".
Third, it doesn't matter what Darwin thought, because he is not a prophet or religious leader. You seem to have a really amazing amount of difficulty with this concept.Their misguided generosity toward the apes is in fact a denial of the logic of evolutionism: it teaches no such compassion on near relatives. The rule of the fittest is what counts.
Sigh. No, taking care of your kin has well-understood evolutionary benefits. Games theory has more recently shown the benefits of altruism directed at unrelated strangers.
The idea of "nature red in tooth and claw" and the "unremitting struggle for survival" is a racist just-so story that has no backing in evolutionary theory. I can see why you choose to perpetuate it (as do right-wing "pro-market" ideologues), but I'm sorry, you're completely out of date.I was not thinking so much of Man's powerful position relative to the rest, but of his nature. Man, in the evolutionary scenario, is entirely the same as the rest of the universe: energy tied up on a bunch of molecules. That is his significance in relation to everything else: exactly the same. Of no more worth than the dirt on one's shoe. Any significance we give him must be entirely subjective. So when someone finds it profitable/enjoyable to rape/murder another, there is nothing bad/evil about that: it is just an action.
Not at all. Again, morality is an evolved concept - immorality is a very poor long-term strategy compared to 'moral' behaviour. There's a lot of games theory work that shows how populations of individuals pursuing different strategies (from psychopathic to saintly) tends to evolve in the direction of what we see today - the majority of the population are co-operative and generally moral, but that very fact allows a few to benefit by pursuing immoral strategies.The 'science' of evolution, in its billions of years of suffering and death, strongly supports the idea that there is no God, or purpose, or anything of that kind. It is the logical deduction we may make from the 'fact' of evolution. Atheism is bold enough to declare it.
Well, my own view is that "hard" atheism is a statement of faith, because you have to positively say "there is no God - absence of evidence is evidence of absence" - not a scientifically correct position.
However, you've actually jumped the gun. Science may imply that there is no God, but you are assuming that there is therefore no such thing as morality, because you see morality as deriving from God alone. If there is no God, then morality clearly must arise somewhere else, since morality certainly exists. Therefore, if science were to state that there is no God, then by exactly the same logic, it cannot claim that there is no morality.
Of course, science does neither. Science cannot deal with the supernatural, which lies entirely outside its remit as a tool of naturalistic enquiry - and therefore cannot determine God's existence (consider this, for example). As a tool of enquiry, it cannot make normative statements, any more than a gun can tell you who to shoot.As I said, we draw the logical conclusions. But the science enables that.
No, there's nothing logical about not sticking your hand in the fire, except if you don't want to get it burned. First you have to have an intention, and then you can use science to determine the best way to carry out that intention.
Your claim, that science implies actions, is like saying that the flashlight shows you the way to the shed - a confusion of language.You are denying the logical conclusions these evolutionists have drawn. They seem perfectly logical to me. They are wrong and wicked because the first premise (evolution) is wrong.
Yes - unfortunately, that's because your logic is faulty, and based on incorrect premises - and that in turn is partly because you do not understand the science of evolution, or science in general. You still seem to be unable to distinguish between it and religion, despite a number of rather obvious pointers.
You see, even if you were correct that evolution is wrong, your conclusions about science "telling us" to do this or that are still completely invalid - science is descriptive, not prescriptive. What does the Theory of Gravity tell us to do? Or quantum physics? What moral lessons can we draw from cytokinesis?
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Scofflaw said:
The replacement of the 'savage' races by the 'civilized' races seems to be a part of this definition of Social Darwinism: Social Darwinism is the idea that Charles Darwin's theory can be extended and applied to the social realm, i.e. that just as competition between individual organisms drives biological evolutionary change (speciation) through "survival of the fittest" (not a scientific term itself), competition between individuals, groups, nations or ideas drives social evolution in human societies.(Wiki). Certainly it may be applied to individuals, but also to whole societies, whether nations or 'races'.First, that's not Social Darwinism - and call that what you will, the problem is that you need Darwin to have been promoting Social Darwinism for your point that Social Darwinism is a logical outcome of evolutionary theory.
If you don't want to include race replacement in Social Darwinism, I'll not press the point. My point is that Darwin clearly saw such race replacement as the natural outworking of evolution.
I agree it is not an exhortation. It is a (supposed) observation of how we got here - how modern man replaced Neanderthals, etc., and a prediction that the 'civilized' (read 'white') race will replace the 'savage' races (read non-white). Yes, that is still not an exhortation to help things along, but it makes such racism a logical course.Second, you've missed Darwin's point almost entirely - his point is that the civilised races, being better adapted, will exterminate and replace the savage races. That's an observation, or rather a prediction, which once again you have taken as an exhortation or normative statement
The context of my use of near relatives was that of apes to man. Not of an unknown member of my 'race' to myself. Racism can happily accept altruism toward a fellow Aryan, for example, even though unrelated by family of even aquintance.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Their misguided generosity toward the apes is in fact a denial of the logic of evolutionism: it teaches no such compassion on near relatives. The rule of the fittest is what counts.
Sigh. No, taking care of your kin has well-understood evolutionary benefits. Games theory has more recently shown the benefits of altruism directed at unrelated strangers.
So evolution shows us that we got here by kindness toward our competitors? That it was only enviroment that selected, not individual and social strength?The idea of "nature red in tooth and claw" and the "unremitting struggle for survival" is a racist just-so story that has no backing in evolutionary theory. I can see why you choose to perpetuate it (as do right-wing "pro-market" ideologues), but I'm sorry, you're completely out of date.
Again, the morality is toward one's own. But even that means that 'morality' is just as you said, an evolved concept, not something an individual need consider. It is merely a group concept. For the individual, theft, rape and murder may well be the most logical course.Not at all. Again, morality is an evolved concept - immorality is a very poor long-term strategy compared to 'moral' behaviour. There's a lot of games theory work that shows how populations of individuals pursuing different strategies (from psychopathic to saintly) tends to evolve in the direction of what we see today - the majority of the population are co-operative and generally moral, but that very fact allows a few to benefit by pursuing immoral strategies.
I agree, even bad science cannot prove there is no God.Well, my own view is that "hard" atheism is a statement of faith, because you have to positively say "there is no God - absence of evidence is evidence of absence" - not a scientifically correct position.
What I said is that is no objective morality - a morality that is absolute, not dependant on what we think of it. Your morality is an invented one, a human construct that enables society to survive. It cannot bind the conscience of an individual. For society, theft, rape and murder are harmful, and are therefore 'immoral'. But for an individual they may be just what he needs to be happy, and are therefore 'moral'. Real morality for the materialist is totally irrational.However, you've actually jumped the gun. Science may imply that there is no God, but you are assuming that there is therefore no such thing as morality, because you see morality as deriving from God alone. If there is no God, then morality clearly must arise somewhere else, since morality certainly exists. Therefore, if science were to state that there is no God, then by exactly the same logic, it cannot claim that there is no morality.
Not wanting to get your hand burned is logical for all but the insane. I thought I was debating with those who would at least meet that standard.:DNo, there's nothing logical about not sticking your hand in the fire, except if you don't want to get it burned. First you have to have an intention, and then you can use science to determine the best way to carry out that intention.
You're confusing the image. Science tells me the flashlight emits light. I deduce from that that it can illuminate my way to the shed. Evolution tells me that I am not fundamentally different from the stardust, rock or plants. I deduce from that that any morality I feel is just that - a feeling, not a real knowledge of man's significance. I am left to get through my life as best I see fit. There is no real morality.Your claim, that science implies actions, is like saying that the flashlight shows you the way to the shed - a confusion of language.
Evolution (naturalistic) purports to tell us the origins of man. Unless we import additional facts, that leaves us with a concept of man as of no more value than any other combination of molecules, and an awareness that we got here by replacing less-fitted organisms. Our key to group survival (if we bother to have one) is domination/extermination of competition. Our key to individual survival/happiness may be social co-operation or amoral behaviour - whichever best accomplishes our goal.You see, even if you were correct that evolution is wrong, your conclusions about science "telling us" to do this or that are still completely invalid - science is descriptive, not prescriptive. What does the Theory of Gravity tell us to do? Or quantum physics? What moral lessons can we draw from cytokinesis?
The moral lessons are based on the facts, as we see them. Faulty facts lead to faulty actions.0 -
Scofflaw said:
The replacement of the 'savage' races by the 'civilized' races seems to be a part of this definition of Social Darwinism: Social Darwinism is the idea that Charles Darwin's theory can be extended and applied to the social realm, i.e. that just as competition between individual organisms drives biological evolutionary change (speciation) through "survival of the fittest" (not a scientific term itself), competition between individuals, groups, nations or ideas drives social evolution in human societies.(Wiki). Certainly it may be applied to individuals, but also to whole societies, whether nations or 'races'.
If you don't want to include race replacement in Social Darwinism, I'll not press the point. My point is that Darwin clearly saw such race replacement as the natural outworking of evolution.
I agree it is not an exhortation. It is a (supposed) observation of how we got here - how modern man replaced Neanderthals, etc., and a prediction that the 'civilized' (read 'white') race will replace the 'savage' races (read non-white). Yes, that is still not an exhortation to help things along, but it makes such racism a logical course.
How does it make racism a logical course? Darwin's observation that societies would develop by the civilised groups dominating over the un-civilised ones does not mean that people should kill all 'black/savage' races so that we can evolve as a society. :rolleyes:You're confusing the image. Science tells me the flashlight emits light. I deduce from that that it can illuminate my way to the shed. Evolution tells me that I am not fundamentally different from the stardust, rock or plants. I deduce from that that any morality I feel is just that - a feeling, not a real knowledge of man's significance. I am left to get through my life as best I see fit. There is no real morality.
Are you somehow disappointed by the fact that the science behind using a flashlight to find your way to a shed has 'no real morality'? Science is about trying to find out, logically, more about the world around us. There is no 'morality' in science.Evolution (naturalistic) purports to tell us the origins of man. Unless we import additional facts, that leaves us with a concept of man as of no more value than any other combination of molecules, and an awareness that we got here by replacing less-fitted organisms. Our key to group survival (if we bother to have one) is domination/extermination of competition. Our key to individual survival/happiness may be social co-operation or amoral behaviour - whichever best accomplishes our goal.
The moral lessons are based on the facts, as we see them. Faulty facts lead to faulty actions.
Oh, like The Crusades, religious wars that kill thousands? Sounds like an example of faulty facts leading to faulty actions. Christians believe that Jesus brought God's message of peace and love. Muslims believe Mohomad brought THE SAME GOD's message of peace and love. So they kill each other. Has science every caused bloody wars between physicists and biologists or chemists?0 -
Originally quoted by Wolfsbane
Darwin felt that "social instincts" such as "sympathy" and "moral sentiments" also evolved through natural selection, and that these resulted in the strengthening of societies in which they occurred, so much so that he wrote about it in Descent of Man: "..at some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world." from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_DarwinismDarwin was wrong
OK.....an admission after 7488 posts that Darwin was WRONG....
.......progress of sorts, I suppose!!!:D:eek:
....and I have further bad news for you .......Darwin was also WRONG about the 'Descent of Man' from Apes (or 'Ape-like creatures as neo-Darwinists like to call them):D
........and the reason that Darwin's so-called 'missing links' between ALL Created Kinds are still MISSING......is because he was WRONG about them as well .......as these hypothetical creatures have NEVER existed either!!!:D
Leaving aside these Human failings, Darwin should be credited with making the scientific breakthrough of describing the main mechanisms of Natural and Sexual Selection.....which Creation Scientists accept as fully scientifically valid........
.......it's the unfounded extrapolation that 'Primordial Molecules Evolved into Man' which has the scientific validation problem!!!:D
With loving thoughts
J C0 -
The replacement of the 'savage' races by the 'civilized' races seems to be a part of this definition of Social Darwinism: Social Darwinism is the idea that Charles Darwin's theory can be extended and applied to the social realm, i.e. that just as competition between individual organisms drives biological evolutionary change (speciation) through "survival of the fittest" (not a scientific term itself), competition between individuals, groups, nations or ideas drives social evolution in human societies.(Wiki). Certainly it may be applied to individuals, but also to whole societies, whether nations or 'races'.
If you don't want to include race replacement in Social Darwinism, I'll not press the point. My point is that Darwin clearly saw such race replacement as the natural outworking of evolution.
As you have quoted it, the idea is unexceptionable. Competition (or rather as we now see it, competition and cooperation) between social groups almost certainly does drive social change. However, to continue your quote:
"The term was popularized in 1944 by the American historian Richard Hofstadter, and has generally been used by critics rather than advocates of what the term is supposed to represent (Bannister, 1979; Hodgson, 2004).
While the term has been applied to the claim that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection can be used to understand the social endurance of a nation or country, social Darwinism commonly refers to ideas that predate Darwin's publication of his theory. Others whose ideas are given the label include the 18th century clergyman Thomas Malthus, and Darwin's cousin Francis Galton who founded eugenics towards the end of the 19th century."
In other words, it appears we are arguing about two things here, one of which is a logical extension of evolutionary theory, the other of which is not. It is certainly logical to propose that selective pressures and competition for resources will drive social change just as they drive genetic change in organisms - it's an analogy, but will bear weight.
Racism, and eugenics, are not logical extensions of evolutionary theory - they are examples of 'scientific racism', a broad movement that started before Darwin and continued well after. If you study any racist, you will see that anything that sounds even slightly like it justifies the racist is pressed into service, whether it really does so or not. Racists are enormously keen to point out any genetic differences between themselves and their chosen bete noirs, ignoring the larger picture that genetic differences within 'races' are everywhere much larger than differences between 'races'.
Evolutionary theory is just another square peg hammered into a round hole by racists. That it lends itself to such a thing means nothing whatsoever, since almost anything can.I agree it is not an exhortation. It is a (supposed) observation of how we got here - how modern man replaced Neanderthals, etc., and a prediction that the 'civilized' (read 'white') race will replace the 'savage' races (read non-white). Yes, that is still not an exhortation to help things along, but it makes such racism a logical course.
If you believe that the observation logically promotes the action, then the following are also true:
1. you will die some day, so you should commit suicide now
2. everyone will die some day, so murder is logical
3. at some point you will probably have a car accident, so you should drive as recklessly as possible to promote this
...and so on. You are welcome to agree that the above are perfectly logical, but it's frankly silly.The context of my use of near relatives was that of apes to man. Not of an unknown member of my 'race' to myself. Racism can happily accept altruism toward a fellow Aryan, for example, even though unrelated by family of even aquintance.
Er, yes - and kindness to apes is a logical extension of that.So evolution shows us that we got here by kindness toward our competitors? That it was only enviroment that selected, not individual and social strength?
Pretty much. There is no 'struggle' between red and grey squirrels. There is competition for food and nesting sites, but there is no violence, no way in which the grey squirrel is 'better' or 'dominant'. It just happens to be able to eat acorns, which the red can't, it is resistant to (but carries) a particular disease, and is more tolerant of disruption of its environment.Again, the morality is toward one's own. But even that means that 'morality' is just as you said, an evolved concept, not something an individual need consider. It is merely a group concept. For the individual, theft, rape and murder may well be the most logical course.
Morality is not a 'group concept' in an evolutionary sense, it is literally built in to nearly everyone (the exception being psychopaths). It is similarly built in to monkeys.What I said is that is no objective morality - a morality that is absolute, not dependant on what we think of it. Your morality is an invented one, a human construct that enables society to survive. It cannot bind the conscience of an individual. For society, theft, rape and murder are harmful, and are therefore 'immoral'. But for an individual they may be just what he needs to be happy, and are therefore 'moral'. Real morality for the materialist is totally irrational.
1. see above
2. Epicurus
But mostly 'see above'. Morality is not a choice. You're born with it, and culture and religion add frills - but they wouldn't even be able to do that if you didn't have the necessary capacity to learn added morality. It takes work to be immoral, even if you're a materialist.
Of course, that's impossible for you to accept, because a morality not backed by God is not really a morality, is it? It's just a set of convenient social conventions - even if they're exactly the same as the Biblical morality, they remain arbitrary conventions as far as you're concerned. I'm afraid that tells me more about you than it does about the nature of morality (no offence is intended by that, but I don't seem to be able to rewrite it in such a way that it doesn't sound snide).Not wanting to get your hand burned is logical for all but the insane. I thought I was debating with those who would at least meet that standard.:D
Hmm. If you were on the Western Front, a burned hand could be a Blighty wound, in which case it's a perfectly logical course of action to stick your hand in a fire. If something immensely valuable is in the fire, and your only option is to snatch it out, you're going to get a burned hand.
Logic suggests nothing at all. There are people who suffer from a mental condition that makes them completely logical and emotionless. Left to their own devices, they do nothing whatsoever. They don't even eat, because you have to want to live in order to want to eat, and "want" is not part of logic.You're confusing the image. Science tells me the flashlight emits light. I deduce from that that it can illuminate my way to the shed.
Exactly. The flashlight is only a tool you use to provide light. You know where you want to go, and you want to go there.
Science is exactly the same. It can throw light on things, but that's all. It doesn't tell you to go to the shed - you provide that bit.Evolution tells me that I am not fundamentally different from the stardust, rock or plants. I deduce from that that any morality I feel is just that - a feeling, not a real knowledge of man's significance. I am left to get through my life as best I see fit. There is no real morality.
There is an enormous assumption built in to what you've said here - and that assumption is that only a 'God-backed' morality is real morality, and only 'God-given' significance is real significance. You have already decided that humans cannot meaningfully set their own morality or significance - so your discovery that there is no real morality without God is not a deduction at all, but simply a mirror image of your original decision.
If, instead, I decide arbitrarily that humans are the best judge and source of human significance and morality, then I will deduce that in the absence of God we have real morality and real significance - again, it's just mirroring my original decision.Evolution (naturalistic) purports to tell us the origins of man. Unless we import additional facts, that leaves us with a concept of man as of no more value than any other combination of molecules,
Not at all. That's like saying that because a diamond is made of carbon, it's no more valuable than graphite.and an awareness that we got here by replacing less-fitted organisms.
Sometimes, but some probably died out by themselves (and in many places, certainly did, because they were gone before humans got there - H. florensis is a good example). In other places, there was no similar organism to replace.
Once again, you're falling into the "evolution as struggle" fallacy. Most of the time, humans were simply able to survive in environments that their predecessors weren't. We didn't replace anything.Our key to group survival (if we bother to have one) is domination/extermination of competition.
No. Come on, this is getting tedious - we don't have to dominate or exterminate the competition, because that's not what competition means in an evolutionary sense. Let me give you a simplified example:
1. take two populations of rabbits - one eats mostly fescue, and a bit of mat grass (Pop I), the other (Pop II) does the reverse.
2. the two populations are initially equal in numbers, and occupy the same meadows
3. the fescue gets a mosaic virus, and mostly dies out
4. Pop II does just fine, but Pop I goes to the wall. While they do eat a little mat grass, it's not enough to keep them alive. Their population crashes, and the few remaining weak rabbits fall prey to disease and predators.
Where exactly is the 'struggle'? What 'competition'? Are Pop II really 'competitors' of Pop I? In what way did they 'dominate/exterminate' Pop I?
You have to stop projecting the active conception of "struggle" onto evolution - the correct version is as in "struggling to survive", or "my life is a daily struggle", which don't mean you literally have to fight your way out your front door every morning.Our key to individual survival/happiness may be social co-operation or amoral behaviour - whichever best accomplishes our goal.
That, at least, is true. There are times when an amoral action can lead to increased future happiness - voting FF because they have promised a tax break that directly and greatly benefits you, for example.
However, most of the more serious immoral actions (murder, for example) do not increase the perpetrator's happiness, because of the unpleasantness of guilt. Empathy makes it difficult for most of us to avoid feeling bad about actions which harm another, although we can make ourselves deliberately callous by learning to suppress our empathy (which is also what allows doctors to deal with patients in pain).The moral lessons are based on the facts, as we see them. Faulty facts lead to faulty actions.
Faulty premises lead to faulty logic...
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
I had thought you guys were able enough to google or go to the Creation sites I gave and do a search on them.
We have. We can't find ANY SCIENTIFIC MODELS in them :rolleyes:
Does the very fact that you can't seem to find them either not suggest something to you ....
All of us here could just say "Read a biology book" to all your questions about evolution. We don't, we attempt to explain to you your specific questions. There are two reasons for that
1 - The actual evolutionary theories/models exist to be explained in the first place
2 - We actually have researched and studied these theories, some in more detail that others, and can explain them to you in what ever terms you like.
Neither of those points seem true for the Creationist side.
To be quite honest I'm getting a bit sick and tired of having ever specific question we ask answered by a vague link to a Creationist database that claims to be scientific but after one reads it for a bit it turns out to be about as scientific as a Junior Cert report on ponds.From it you can find various articles that deal with either a full model or key aspects of one.
Which ones?
Because all I can see (and I'm not prepared to read all of them just so you don't have to) is article after article (not scientific paper, but articles) attacking accepted biological theories. I don't give a hoot about them.
Which one explains the full model??.
That is the only one I want.
Please either link to it, or even better, explain the full model yourself.0 -
What I said is that is no objective morality - a morality that is absolute, not dependant on what we think of it. Your morality is an invented one, a human construct that enables society to survive. It cannot bind the conscience of an individual. For society, theft, rape and murder are harmful, and are therefore 'immoral'. But for an individual they may be just what he needs to be happy, and are therefore 'moral'. Real morality for the materialist is totally irrational.
The rapist, be they Christian or Atheist, doesn't think they are doing something wrong, so your point is rather well pointless.
You seem to want to be able to say "You can't rape that girl because my god says its wrong"
That will be no more convincing to the rapist than me saying "You can't rape that girl because my consciousness says it is wrong, and here why..."Not wanting to get your hand burned is logical for all but the insane. I thought I was debating with those who would at least meet that standard.:D
And fire fighters ...
You are attempting to draw absolutely conclusions from situations. Which is a bit silly.
Science can tell you that fire burns and damages human skin, and it can tell you that the house is on fire and the fire it quite hot.
But if can't (and doesn't try) tell a human that they should not enter the fire, because the context of what a human would do that is not something for science to measure.
Science will tell the human that if they enter the fire they are most likely going to be burned or even die. But that is not the same as telling the human not to enter the fire.
Because the person may die entering the fire does that mean if the human does enter the fire are they committing an immoral action? Of course not, you need to know the context of why they decided to enter the fire. Are they saving a 5 year old child or are they committing suicide? Neither of these points has anything to do with the fact that fire damages human skin and can lead to death.
You seem to be having great difficultly with this point.Evolution tells me that I am not fundamentally different from the stardust, rock or plants.
Well no actually it doesn't. Chemistry tell you that. You are made up mostly of hydrogen, oxygen and carbon, which are found all over the universe.I deduce from that that any morality I feel is just that - a feeling, not a real knowledge of man's significance. I am left to get through my life as best I see fit. There is no real morality.
That grand, but that is your deduction It has nothing to do with the science. You could have made a different deduction with the exact same science.Unless we import additional facts, that leaves us with a concept of man as of no more value than any other combination of molecules, and an awareness that we got here by replacing less-fitted organisms.
Again that can be your deduction, but it is certainly not the only deduction one can make from the same facts.
At the end of the day "value" is a human concept, be a person religious or not. We choose to value things, things aren't inherently valuable.
You may to decide that the Bible is a valuable book. But a Hindu might use it for fire wood. You value it, he doesn't. Nature isn't going to make that Hindu value the book, there is nothing in the properties of the book itself that make the Hindu consider it differently.Our key to group survival (if we bother to have one) is domination/extermination of competition.
That isn't true, as has been explained to you already.
For example there are various examples of species becoming running into great problems because they managed to become dominate in an environment, and the fact that their numbers continued to expand with no control lead to unpredictable outcomes, such as disease, that wiped large amounts of the population out.
At the end of the day attempting to control evolution, trying to figure out how to be "top dog", is ultimately completely missing the point of Darwinism.
Which is why "social Darwinism" is not actually Darwinism. You cannot figure out the "key to survival" because there is no key or top dog.
The variables are way way too large and the environment is constantly changing.
You might think "Ah we need to kill off all members of Tribe B and then we will be the strongest tribe and have all the food"
And you kill off all of Tribe B and then realize that that they had a genetic marker that kept at bay a killer virus that proceeds to wipe your entire tribe out.
Who is top dog now? Probably the virus that just wiped your tribe out.Our key to individual survival/happiness may be social co-operation or amoral behaviour - whichever best accomplishes our goal.
The moral lessons are based on the facts, as we see them. Faulty facts lead to faulty actions.
Only if one says "happy outcome = moral decision" which I don't think anyone apart from you is suggesting.0 -
"ALTHOUGH a high standard of morality gives but a slight or no advantage to each individual man and his children over the other men of the same tribe... an advancement in the standard of morality will certainly give an immense advantage to one tribe over another."
Charles Darwin, Descent of Man 1871.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Yes, I think Darwin at least got that right. A tribe that looks after its members will be advantaged over another tribe that does not."ALTHOUGH a high standard of morality gives but a slight or no advantage to each individual man and his children over the other men of the same tribe... an advancement in the standard of morality will certainly give an immense advantage to one tribe over another."
Charles Darwin, Descent of Man 1871.
cordially,
Scofflaw
The individual has a choice between looking after one's individual interest and that of the tribe. Where those interests coincide, there is no problem. But what if I'm in a position that my selfish actions will not so destabilize my tribe that it will weaken my defenses? If I can steal, rape, murder and my tribe will still be strong enough to withstand the other tribes? It would make sense for me to serve myself and not the tribe. And I only need the tribe to hold up until I grow old in luxury and die in peace. After that, I, the evolutionary materialist, will not know nor care what happens to them.
I lately came across several interesting quotes from evolutionary experts myself. Here's some from Jacques Monod: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v3/i2/monod.asp0 -
Yes, I think Darwin at least got that right. A tribe that looks after its members will be advantaged over another tribe that does not.
The individual has a choice between looking after one's individual interest and that of the tribe. Where those interests coincide, there is no problem. But what if I'm in a position that my selfish actions will not so destabilize my tribe that it will weaken my defenses? If I can steal, rape, murder and my tribe will still be strong enough to withstand the other tribes? It would make sense for me to serve myself and not the tribe. And I only need the tribe to hold up until I grow old in luxury and die in peace. After that, I, the evolutionary materialist, will not know nor care what happens to them.
I lately came across several interesting quotes from evolutionary experts myself. Here's some from Jacques Monod: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v3/i2/monod.asp
...from the same website you have been referencing since the beginning. I would recommend this, it would suit you:
whyevolutionsucksbecauseitclasheswithmypersonalbeliefs.com0 -
I see that virtually everything you link to is from AiG these days.wolfsbane wrote:I lately came across several interesting quotes from evolutionary experts myself
Out of interest, is there anything on AiG that you don't believe?0 -
Yes, I think Darwin at least got that right. A tribe that looks after its members will be advantaged over another tribe that does not.
Which doesn't make much sense except within an evolutionary model.It would make sense for me to serve myself and not the tribe.
But evolution isn't that exact. It has not set up your emotional systems, such as empathy, guilt, love, companionship, on an individual case by case system. You feel guilty if you do something this is considered "wrong" in the vaguest sense. We might not even fully understand why we feel guilty, it certainly isn't a rational response. The guilt doesn't easily subside because in one particular case you manage to some how reason yourself out of blame (though this of course doesn't stop people from trying).And I only need the tribe to hold up until I grow old in luxury and die in peace. After that, I, the evolutionary materialist, will not know nor care what happens to them.
Except you will care. You will feel guilty, even if you don't know really why. That is evolution pulling you in a certain direction. You can fight against it, you can pretend it isn't there. It can completely fail in an individual producing a psychopathic person. But the emotional systems exist in most people.I lately came across several interesting quotes from evolutionary experts myself. Here's some from Jacques Monod: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v3/i2/monod.asp
He makes a good point against theistic evolution. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense that God would decide to create and develop life in this fashion.0 -
Wicknight said:
My point is that real morality does not depend on what anyone thinks - something is right or wrong.The rapist, be they Christian or Atheist, doesn't think they are doing something wrong, so your point is rather well pointless.
If my first premise is correct, then the rapist has every reason to heed me. If yours is correct, he need pay no heed - his consciousness is a valid as yours.You seem to want to be able to say "You can't rape that girl because my god says its wrong"
That will be no more convincing to the rapist than me saying "You can't rape that girl because my consciousness says it is wrong, and here why..."
It is you that is having great difficulty understanding plain English. I did not say science prescribes the action. In fact, I specifically said it did not. What science does is give the basis for man to make the logical deduction.Science will tell the human that if they enter the fire they are most likely going to be burned or even die. But that is not the same as telling the human not to enter the fire...
You seem to be having great difficultly with this point.
Chemistry can only comment on my material composition. It says nothing about my origins or other aspects of my nature. Evolutionary theory tells me that I came from the stardust, via slime and brute beasthood.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Evolution tells me that I am not fundamentally different from the stardust, rock or plants.
Well no actually it doesn't. Chemistry tell you that. You are made up mostly of hydrogen, oxygen and carbon, which are found all over the universe.
Really? Let's have an example.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I deduce from that that any morality I feel is just that - a feeling, not a real knowledge of man's significance. I am left to get through my life as best I see fit. There is no real morality.
That grand, but that is your deduction It has nothing to do with the science. You could have made a different deduction with the exact same science.
That is exactly the accusation I'm making: that your system is objectively amoral. I'm glad you confess it.At the end of the day "value" is a human concept, be a person religious or not. We choose to value things, things aren't inherently valuable.
Life is complex and dangerous. One action may lead to prosperity or calamity. Depends on many contingencies. But dominance is usually better than subservience.For example there are various examples of species becoming running into great problems because they managed to become dominate in an environment, and the fact that their numbers continued to expand with no control lead to unpredictable outcomes, such as disease, that wiped large amounts of the population out.
Yes, that concurs with what I wrote above, except that life has its top dogs. Sure, they may bring disaster on themselves by their arrogance, but generally they are crafty enough to dominate and control those useful to them, and exterminate the unnecessary or dangerous opposition.At the end of the day attempting to control evolution, trying to figure out how to be "top dog", is ultimately completely missing the point of Darwinism.
Which is why "social Darwinism" is not actually Darwinism. You cannot figure out the "key to survival" because there is no key or top dog.
The variables are way way too large and the environment is constantly changing.
You might think "Ah we need to kill off all members of Tribe B and then we will be the strongest tribe and have all the food"
And you kill off all of Tribe B and then realize that that they had a genetic marker that kept at bay a killer virus that proceeds to wipe your entire tribe out.
Who is top dog now? Probably the virus that just wiped your tribe out.
No, you are not listening. My point is that one can be subjectively moral and do objective evil, and be happy. One can believe the 'facts' of evolution and so deduce it fitting to cull the weak/diseased members of our society. I'm sure many eugenics practicitioners considered themselves 'moral'.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Our key to individual survival/happiness may be social co-operation or amoral behaviour - whichever best accomplishes our goal.
The moral lessons are based on the facts, as we see them. Faulty facts lead to faulty actions.
Only if one says "happy outcome = moral decision" which I don't think anyone apart from you is suggesting.0 -
Wicknight said:
I've found them and given them to you - but you deny they are SCIENTIFIC MODELS. So see below.We have. We can't find ANY SCIENTIFIC MODELS in them
Does the very fact that you can't seem to find them either not suggest something to you ....
It may well be that I'm completely misunderstanding what you want when you ask for a scientific model. So I propose you give me one of the evolutionary models and I will see what you are after. I will then try to parallel it with the creationist model. OK?1 - The actual evolutionary theories/models exist to be explained in the first place
2 - We actually have researched and studied these theories, some in more detail that others, and can explain them to you in what ever terms you like.0 -
daithifleming wrote: »...from the same website you have been referencing since the beginning. I would recommend this, it would suit you:
whyevolutionsucksbecauseitclasheswithmypersonalbeliefs.com
So you think Monod's quotes are...?
Maybe it is your personal beliefs that are getting in the way of honest thinking.0 -
Advertisement
-
I see that virtually everything you link to is from AiG these days.
Out of interest, is there anything on AiG that you don't believe?
I link to it mainly for convenience. There are all the other sites I referred to, but it does an adequate job and has a lot of news and comment as well as articles.
I haven't read most of what's on it, so I can't say. Anything I have read seemed reasonable. Maybe you have an example you wish me to comment on?0 -
So you think Monod's quotes are...?
Maybe it is your personal beliefs that are getting in the way of honest thinking.
Are what?
When i see a property developer on the news in Ireland, saying that the housing market is fine and that there is nothing to worry about i always think: 'Well you would say that wouldn't you?'
When people research a topic which clash with their own personal/vested interests they tend to fall victim to making the facts fit the frames. And if the facts don't fit the frames, the facts are kept and the frames are ignored. Personal beliefs get in the way of good research, and generally lead a person to bending the truth to suit their own agenda. Thats why i cant take what you are saying seriously. I doubt that you understand any of the science behind evolutionary theory, but that doesn't matter does it? All that matters is that in flies in the face of your beliefs so that means it MUST be wrong. Otherwise your whole life to date would count for nothing. It must be terrible to deal with, living in such denial.
I must ask, what other areas of science are you so passionately opposed to? Are they exclusive to areas that contradict what the bible says?0 -
What is "real" morality. Even in your own religion the morality is based on what God himself is supposed to think.My point is that real morality does not depend on what anyone thinks - something is right or wrong.If my first premise is correct, then the rapist has every reason to heed me. If yours is correct, he need pay no heed - his consciousness is a valid as yours.
Well the only reason he has to heed you is punishment from your God, and the reason he has to heed me is punishment from my society that includes me. In neither case the rapist himself change his mind about how he views what he has done.
Yes but you seem to be implying that the science leads itself to one ethical deduction over another. It doesn't. The science is utterly neutral as to what deduction should be taken either way.What science does is give the basis for man to make the logical deduction.Chemistry can only comment on my material composition. It says nothing about my origins or other aspects of my nature. Evolutionary theory tells me that I came from the stardust, via slime and brute beasthood.
As I said evolution does not tell you that you came from star dust, chemistry and physics models do through study of your material composition and theories about where these materials originated in the universe. The models of biological evolutionary theory have nothing to say about where the individual atoms of life came from originally. It is not a factor in these models and never has been.
This goes back to the rather ridiculous missunderstand that Creationists seem to have that every theory in science that in any way conflicts with Genesis is some how "evolutionary" in nature. The simple fact of the matter is that theories such as how the solar system developed, how stars produce the heavier atoms etc etc have absolutely nothing to do with biological evolution. They were developed independently in different fields. Call astro-physics professors who work on Big Bang models "evolutionists" (as AiG so likes to do) is missclassification to the point of utter irrelevance.
Well you deduce that there is a "real" morality and that everyone should follow it.Really? Let's have an example.That is exactly the accusation I'm making: that your system is objectively amoral. I'm glad you confess it.
"Confess" it? I've been saying that for most of my life.
What I don't accept is your idea that because morality is at the end of the day simply a human concept it is therefore utterly worthless and should some how be ignored, simply because it isn't coming from God.
Firstly why is God's judgement on morality any more relievant than anyone else? He did some pretty immoral things in the Old Testament so he certainly isn't someone I would go to for advice on ethical issues.
Secondly I don't require an over all authority to proclaim to me what I should believe is or is not ethical. I can figure out what should be or shouldn't be ethical myself. I certain welcome ethical discussion, but I've yet to hear any ethical proclamation that I agreed with without first accepting it.
You will probably say how do I know my ethics are any more "right" than a serial killer. But your probably is that you are still thinking of this in terms of how closely an individual's moral outlook matches some magical universal moral standard. You are saying I don't know what this universal standard is so how can I compare my morality to it to see if I'm right or not
The point is that there is no universal standard (in my opinion) so I don't need to compare it to anything to see if I'm right. I don't lock up the rapist because my moral standard is more right than his moral standard. I lock up the rapist because he is raping someone and I don't want him to
It is as simple as that.
Well I mean I don't know what you want me to say. That sentence is meaningless.Life is complex and dangerous. One action may lead to prosperity or calamity. Depends on many contingencies. But dominance is usually better than subservience.
Are there examples where dominance is "better" (very hard to define in itself, I assume you mean from the point of view of most of the species not dying) than subservience? Yes. Are there examples where subservience is "better" than dominance? Yes.
In evolution and natural selection "usually better" has no meaning because no two environments are the same.
Also evolution isn't trying to make things "better" in the first place. It is trying make things adaptable so that the replication system continues to function. Its as simple as that. "better" is a meaningless concept in terms of evolution. How it does this is dependent of the environment, and often the environment gets the better of the process. Evolutionary history is full of dead ends where species simply went extinct because evolution could not adapt to the environment quickly enough.
It doesn't though, that is the point.Yes, that concurs with what I wrote above, except that life has its top dogs.
One can certainly pick an arbitary characteristic and study which life forms do that particularly well, but that is simply arbitary characteristics.
For example, who is "top dog", humans or the bacteria that live under your finger nails?
To figure that out you would first have to define how you measure "top". And then you have to ask yourself why did you pick those particular characteristics?One can believe the 'facts' of evolution and so deduce it fitting to cull the weak/diseased members of our society.
Someone can say that they believe that killing weak memebers of the society will produce a "better" evolutionary out come in the long run for their species. But that person would have as bad an understand of evolution as you do, because as I explained there is no such thing as a "better" evolutionary out come.
But even if that was true, why is a better evolutionary out come the "moral" choice to take? That is an ethical decision to take, and actually has nothing to do with the actually science (which as I explained above isn't even the actual science)0 -
It may well be that I'm completely misunderstanding what you want when you ask for a scientific model.
I think you do
Put simply I want something I can enter into a computer and model
I can do this with neo-Darwin evolutionary biology. I can model evolution from the molecular level of DNA and RNA interaction and mutation right up to species change over hundreds of thousands of years.
I want to be able to model "Creationism". I want to be able to run a simulation of year dot up to now using the theories you claim Creationists have.
Can you help me out here?
For a start tell me what a "kind" actually is to the level that I can model it with a computer, and then tell me how a "kind" changes into the species we have on Earth today, to the level that I can model in a computer.
I want to be able to run a computer simulation and watch a "kind" turn into a new species using that process0 -
daithifleming wrote: »...from the same website you have been referencing since the beginning. I would recommend this, it would suit you:
whyevolutionsucksbecauseitclasheswithmypersonalbeliefs.com
Perhaps you should try this 'website' :-
whyevolutionsucksbecauseit-is-a-load-of-old-cobblers.com:eek::D:)0 -
daithifleming wrote: »
When i see a property developer on the news in Ireland, saying that the housing market is fine and that there is nothing to worry about i always think: 'Well you would say that wouldn't you?'
When people research a topic which clash with their own personal/vested interests they tend to fall victim to making the facts fit the frames. And if the facts don't fit the frames, the facts are kept and the frames are ignored. Personal beliefs get in the way of good research, and generally lead a person to bending the truth to suit their own agenda. Thats why i cant take what you are saying seriously.
........funny thing then that most Creationists are former Evolutionists ........but I know of NO Evolutionists who are former Creation Scientists!!!
daithifleming wrote: »I doubt that you understand any of the science behind evolutionary theory
I have yet to meet ANY Evolutionist who understands any of the science behind 'Molecules to Man Evolution'.......perhaps it is because it is only a 'just-so' story that "molecules evolved into cells, into multicells, into Man, over millions of years" and it actually has NO science behind it at all!!!!:eek::D:)0 -
Parsley
Post #3 from this thread:
Originally Posted by Dades
I doubt you'll see a debate. For that you need differing views and I've yet to actually meet somebody (on or offline) who supports creationism
Parsley
Hehehe. Three-hundred and seventy-odd pages later...
Obviously Dades didn’t meet the MILLIONS of Evangelical Christians, Roman Catholics, Baptists, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Lutherans, Calvinists, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses……..who are CREATIONISTS!!!:D:)
…….or the many World Class Scientists who are Creation Scientists!!!:D:)
Originally Posted by Dades
I doubt you'll see a debate. For that you need differing views and I've yet to actually meet somebody (on or offline) who supports creationism.
Scofflaw
Yes, that may be one of the most comprehensively wrong predictions ever.
Indeed………but it certainly isn't the most comprehensively wrong IDEA ever………..which is neo-Darwinian Evolution!!!!:D:)
2scoops
No sign of J C.
I quite enjoyed his swashbuckling style as he, a single creationist, deflected the arguments of over 100 ATHEISTS! Heroic.
I will take his absence as an admission of defeat and I hereby claim this thread for Evolution
I have been in Europe on business and pleasure………but NOW I’M BACK!!!!:eek::D:)0 -
Put simply I want something I can enter into a computer and model
I can do this with neo-Darwin evolutionary biology. I can model evolution from the molecular level of DNA and RNA interaction and mutation right up to species change over hundreds of thousands of years.
I want to be able to model "Creationism". I want to be able to run a simulation of year dot up to now using the theories you claim Creationists have.
Can you help me out here?
For a start tell me what a "kind" actually is to the level that I can model it with a computer, and then tell me how a "kind" changes into the species we have on Earth today, to the level that I can model in a computer.
He that can DOES ..... and he that can't MODELS!!!!!:eek:
The evolutionist can't demonstrate any aspect of 'Molecules to Man Evolution' and so he has to resort to MODELS (of a computer variety, I hasten to add)!!!!:eek::D
On the other hand, the Creation Scientist can EXPERIMENT to demonsrate the boundaries of Created Kinds.
For example, the 'Large Cat Kind' includes at least Panthers, Lions, Tigers and Leopards......which are cross-fertile / physically homologous.
Equally, Horse, Zebra and Donkey are all members of the 'Equine Kind'......and Domestic Hens and various assorted Pheasants are all cross-fertile and menbers of the 'Fowl Kind'.
Similarly, all Domestic Ducks and most wild Ducks are members of the 'Duck Kind' ......on the basis that they are cross fertile.......
.......and, after all, if it waddles like a Duck and quacks like a Duck it is a kind of a Duck!!!!:eek::DI want to be able to run a computer simulation and watch a "kind" turn into a new species using that process
You can watch a Kind demonstrate ITSELF......by putting a Lion and a Tigress in a cage and watch them produce Ligers!!!!!:D
.....who said that Creation Science wasn't fun???:D
......and, as I keep telling my son, put away the computer for a while and smell the roses......or look at the Ligers!!!!:D0 -
........funny thing then that most Creationists are former Evolutionists ........but I know of NO Evolutionists who are former Creation Scientists!!!
I have yet to meet ANY Evolutionist who understands any of the science behind 'Molecules to Man Evolution'.......perhaps it is because it is only a 'just-so' story that "molecules evolved into cells, into multicells, into Man, over millions of years" and it actually has NO science behind it at all!!!!:eek::D:)
Wow, it must be difficult to be so ignorant.0 -
Advertisement
-
Lion and a Tiger in a cage and watch them produce Ligers!!!!!
.....who said that Creation Science wasn't fun???
......and, as I keep telling my son, put away the computer for a while and smell the roses......or look at the Ligers!!!!
nice example,,,
and if a snake egg is hatched by a hen is it a basilisk?
cant wait to try that one out0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement