The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

What emotive qualifiers does the term "Darwinian evolution" have. Name me one please.

......Darwinian Evolution has so much historical emotional baggage attached to it ......that it would take a train to carry it all.

Grim Darwinian Evolution and its 'survival of the fittest' has been used and abused to justify some some of the most henious acts perpetrated over the past century and a half!!!!

AtomicHorror wrote: »

So we'll play word games rather than debate the topic? You're an idiot J C.

.....you're the one playing the word games......and you're a precious son of God whom Jesus Christ loves very much and wants to save!!!:D

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I'm confused... Scofflaw is no longer posting so that's one less opponent but you're still counting the other 90-odd people who have also left? Those you vanquished because they got bored of repeating themselves.

Scofflaw DID say that he was afraid to discuss the Georgia Guidesones and Aleins.....so he WASN'T bored by these subjects.
I do understand how Scofflaw and others could have become bored by Evolution and its invalid 'just-so' stories.....there is only so much of this Evolutionist doggerel that anybody can take!!!:D

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
.......Materialistic Evolution is SPONTANEOUS Evolution is Darwinian Evolution......and all three terms are interchangable!!!!!!!
....and I will continue to use either or all terms, as I see fit!!!

AtomicHorror
You are being deliberately misleading and I find it remarkable that you are allowed to do so. I've stated many times why the above is untrue.

We have an obvious DIFFERENCE OF OPINION on how Evolution should be named......so I guess we will just have to agree to differ on this one!!!:pac::):D

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

Interestingly, both Communism and Nazism claimed to be scientifically based philosophies.....and a key part of their claim to scientific legitimacy relied on Evolution.....to justify their racist and eugenics policies in the case of the Nazis....and to justify their Atheism in the case of the Communists!!!!!

And interestingly Evolution is a scientific theory used to justify exactly nothing. It is not a philosophy, it is merely information. So, why are we discussing Nazism and Communism? Because you'd love a chance to attach them to evolution in some way.

J C wrote: »

What changed from the 1930s onwards was the ascent of Atheism in its various guises.....and its inflitration within many leading educational establishments produced what is called "the modern synthesis" of evolution......

The ascent of atheism amongst scientists (and the public at large) was already well under way by the end of the nineteenth century. Hardly surprising since the works of Marx, Feuerbach and Nietzsche gained popularity during the 1800s. So first of all your convenient little timeline is broken. Secondly, if the times coincided it would not be enough to indicate a causal link between the the rise of atheism and evolution. A scientist would know that.

I'm sure that there are links between the two. Evolution must surely have influenced atheistic thinking. But in the reverse, science can at best be inspired into initial action by philosophy. Our observations are as they are- they can't themselves be changed by philosophy.

J C wrote: »

...which is overtly hostile to ANY questioning of the validity of Spontaneous Materialistic Darwinian Evolution (SMDE)......and this hostility will be visited upon all challenges to SMDE from either Intelligent Design Evolutionists or Creation Scientists!!!!

And with a wave of his hands, J C invents a new movement. One which he can claim we follow but which is easier for him to attack than Evolution.

Evolution is not spontaneous. Spontaneous means occurring without external influence. External does not mean supernatural. It means external to the context. Evolution happens to organisms, so external means external to the evolving organisms. The theory of evolution is not spontaneous and SMDE is an invention.

J C wrote: »

...........I have been taking up the invalid assumptions and conclusions of Spontaneous Materialistic Darwinian Evolutionists with themselves on this thread for the past two years!!!!

How could people have been supporting a movement for two years when you just invented it in the last paragraph?

J C wrote: »

......I haven't had to bother (scientifically questioning God).......there has been plenty of questioning of the existence of God by Spontaneous Materialistic Darwinian Evolutionists on this thread for the past two years.....

How very convenient. This thread has encouraged me to delve deeper into evolution as well as religion. A shame you'd rather stay comfortable.

J C wrote: »

.....I have confined myself to merely pointing out the invalidity of their assumptions and conclusions!!!!:D

And you have failed at every turn.

J C wrote: »

.......the guys claiming that there is no scientific evidence to support the existence of God are either Atheists or Agnostics........and perhaps some Deists.....
.....the Theists are either ID Proponents or Creation Scientists who know that the Universe and all life decare the glory.......and the existence of God !!!!:D

They just know, huh? That's why it's not science. You're incredibly eager to pick apart anything that isn't your own house of cards.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

......Darwinian Evolution has so much historical emotional baggage attached to it ......that it would take a train to carry it all.

The theory of evolution has been invoked to do wrong. The theory itself is stainless. Did the USA use mathematics to bomb Hiroshima? There are few people gullible enough to be unable to separate ideas from actions.

J C wrote: »

Grim Darwinian Evolution and its 'survival of the fittest' has been used and abused to justify some some of the most henious acts perpetrated over the past century and a half!!!!

Christianity has been used to justify oppression, violence and genocide for over two thousand years. Are the core teachings of Jesus stained by these acts? No, of course not. And evolution is similarly free of any reasonable negative attachments.

AtomicHorror

Established names are established so that we can understand each other. You prefer the opposite I think. Did you watch Flamed Diving's video? Excellent points made. You are attempting to disprove evolution by asking it to do things which are inconsistent with the theory.

J C wrote: »

We have an obvious DIFFERENCE OF OPINION on how Evolution should be named......so I guess we will just have to agree to differ on this one!!!:pac::):D

Really? And should I choose to name creationism something other than creationism or creation science, would that be acceptable? Should it be? If I decided to place an adjective before creationism on my every use of the term which changed its meaning and implied things not actually present in that framework, would that be acceptable?

Would it be a difference of opinion, or would it be deception? I have a funny feeling I'd find myself suddenly unable to speak here for a time were I to use such underhanded tactics.

MooseJam

Imaginary creationism has a ring to it

AtomicHorror

MooseJam wrote: »

Imaginary creationism has a ring to it

It might be easier to argue for than spontaneous evolution... but yeah, that's my point. We can play this silly game or we can use language that everyone can research if need be.

wolfsbane

I've got some further detail on the Roman Catholic position on creation/evolution. It appears the recent acceptance of evolution is not quite what it seemed.

From their infallible, unchangeable dogmas it emerges that mankind was created:
1. From one single pair.
2. Free from irregular desire.
3. Bodily immortal.
4. Free from suffering.
5. Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil.
http://www.catholicfirst.com/thefaith/churchdocuments/dogmas.cfm

Surely that qualifies any understanding of evolution for the devout Catholic?

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

I've got some further detail on the Roman Catholic position on creation/evolution. It appears the recent acceptance of evolution is not quite what it seemed.

From their infallible, unchangeable dogmas it emerges that mankind was created:
1. From one single pair.
2. Free from irregular desire.
3. Bodily immortal.
4. Free from suffering.
5. Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil.
http://www.catholicfirst.com/thefaith/churchdocuments/dogmas.cfm

Surely that qualifies any understanding of evolution for the devout Catholic?

Meh.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

MrPudding

MooseJam wrote: »

Imaginary creationism has a ring to it

Retarded, pathetic, simplton, closed minded, idiotic, unrealistic. Of course any of them could also be used to describe those that believe it as well as the idea itself.

MrP

AtomicHorror

MrPudding wrote: »

Retarded, pathetic, simplton, closed minded, idiotic, unrealistic. Of course any of them could also be used to describe those that believe it as well as the idea itself.

MrP

Not the way to win people over though really, is it?

MrPudding

No. Assuming they could be won over in the first place. Realistically this is the impression they give.

MrP

AtomicHorror

MrPudding wrote: »

No. Assuming they could be won over in the first place. Realistically this is the impression they give.

MrP

Debating is to convince the undecided. The hypothetical audience. Anything more is a bonus.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
Interestingly, both Communism and Nazism claimed to be scientifically based philosophies.....and a key part of their claim to scientific legitimacy relied on Evolution.....to justify their racist and eugenics policies in the case of the Nazis....and to justify their Atheism in the case of the Communists!!!!!

AtomicHorror
And interestingly Evolution is a scientific theory used to justify exactly nothing. It is not a philosophy, it is merely information. So, why are we discussing Nazism and Communism? Because you'd love a chance to attach them to evolution in some way.

.......Some Evolutionists became Nazis and Communists.....and Nazism and Communism adopted Evolution as an 'Article of Faith'......I guess one could conclude that there was quite a close attachment between Evolution and Nazism / Communism during the 1930s.......which in fairness, has thankfully been largely abandoned today!!!:eek:
However, grim Darwinian Evolution and its 'survival of the fittest' has been used and abused to justify some some of the most henious acts perpetrated over the past century and a half.........and the use of the 'neo-Darwinian Evolution' moniker certainly helps to 'rebrand' Evolution away from its past historical associations and 'baggage'!!!!

wrote:

AtomicHorror
The ascent of atheism amongst scientists (and the public at large) was already well under way by the end of the nineteenth century. Hardly surprising since the works of Marx, Feuerbach and Nietzsche gained popularity during the 1800s. So first of all your convenient little timeline is broken. Secondly, if the times coincided it would not be enough to indicate a causal link between the the rise of atheism and evolution. A scientist would know that.

.......whatever about the timing details, you are correct about the general rise in Atheism being directly correlated with the general rise in Evolutionist thought....and visa versa!!!
It isn't in the least surprising that the rise in the acceptance of Materialistic Evolution and Atheism should go hand in hand with each other.....as they both lend support to each other, and they are actually 'two sides of the Atheistic/Materialistic Coin' so to speak!!!

wrote:

AtomicHorror
I'm sure that there are links between the two. Evolution must surely have influenced atheistic thinking. But in the reverse, science can at best be inspired into initial action by philosophy. Our observations are as they are- they can't themselves be changed by philosophy.

.....as I have already said, Materialistic Evolution and Atheism DO go hand in hand with each other.....as they are both 'two sides of the Atheistic/Materialistic Coin' so to speak!!!

wrote:

AtomicHorror
Evolution is not spontaneous. Spontaneous means occurring without external influence. External does not mean supernatural. It means external to the context. Evolution happens to organisms, so external means external to the evolving organisms. The theory of evolution is not spontaneous and SMDE is an invention.

....as I have already said, we will have to agree to disagree on this point......and if I was still an Evolutionist I might even welcome a rebranding of Evolution under a 'Materialistic' or 'Spontaneous' adjective......whilst jettisoning the historical 'baggage' associated with 'Darwinism'!!!

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
......I haven't had to bother (scientifically questioning God).......there has been plenty of questioning of the existence of God by Spontaneous Materialistic Darwinian Evolutionists on this thread for the past two years.....

AtomicHorror
How very convenient. This thread has encouraged me to delve deeper into evolution as well as religion. A shame you'd rather stay comfortable.

.....I do believe that this thread has been blessed by the Holy Spirit......and if this has 'discomforted' you in your Atheism and encouraged you to delve deeper into the things of God, then the thread has performed a very good service indeed.

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
.....I have confined myself to merely pointing out the invalidity of their (Evolutionist) assumptions and conclusions!!!!

AtomicHorror
And you have failed at every turn.

......I can only try.......one can lead a horse to water ......but he may refuse to hydrate himself!!!!
.....it is therefore up to you to avail of salvation....or not.....as you may freely decide!!!

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
.......the guys claiming that there is no scientific evidence to support the existence of God are either Atheists or Agnostics........and perhaps some Deists.....
.....the Theists are either ID Proponents or Creation Scientists who know that the Universe and all life decare the glory.......and the existence of God !!!!

AtomicHorror
They (Creation Scientists) just know, huh? That's why it's not science.

......so are you actually saying that knowledge ISN'T science.....
.......and do you therefore believe that Evolutionist Scientists DON'T know what they are talking about.....and that this is WHY Evolution is Scientific.....and should be believed-in by us???!!!
You appear to be suggesting that 'ignorance is bliss'.......... as far as Evolutionists....and Science is concerned????!!!!!:eek::)

MrPudding

No, you are right. I just find it really frustrating, I don't know how you cope.

MrP

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by MooseJam
Imaginary creationism has a ring to it

MrPudding
Retarded, pathetic, simplton, closed minded, idiotic, unrealistic. Of course any of them could also be used to describe those that believe it as well as the idea itself.

......Retarded, pathetic, simplton, closed minded, idiotic.....are terms of abuse.......

.......Spontaneous Evolution is a valid descriptor of Materialistic Evolution......just like Planned Creation is a valid descriptor of Direct Creation......and NONE of these adjectives are terms of abuse!!!!:D:)

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I've got some further detail on the Roman Catholic position on creation/evolution. It appears the recent acceptance of evolution is not quite what it seemed.

From their infallible, unchangeable dogmas it emerges that mankind was created:
1. From one single pair.
2. Free from irregular desire.
3. Bodily immortal.
4. Free from suffering.
5. Our first parents became subject to death and to the dominion of the Devil.
http://www.catholicfirst.com/thefait...nts/dogmas.cfm

Surely that qualifies any understanding of evolution for the devout Catholic?


AtomicHorror
Meh.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

Wolfsbane's link proves that Roman Catholic 'Infallible' Dogma declares Creation to be true ........and Evolution to be invalid................thereby mandating a belief in the Direct Creation of Adam and Eve .......and ruling out a belief in Evolution for all 'Devout Catholics'!!!

However, the link posted by AtomicHorror, would indicate that the Vatican itself DOESN'T appear to continue to believe in the Roman Catholic Church's OWN 'Infallible' Dogma on Direct Creation anymore!!!!!:eek::)

.......so I wonder, if there are no 'Devout Catholics' in the Vatican (who continue to believe in the Roman Catholic Church's OWN 'Infallible' Dogma on Direct Creation)......WHERE will you find such 'Devout Catholics'????:D

J C

MrPudding wrote: »

No, you are right. I just find it really frustrating, I don't know how you cope.
MrP

......I have found that believing on Jesus Christ to save me.....has helped me to cope!!:eek::)

......I think that it may have something to do with being indwelt by the Holy Spirit after being Saved!!!!:D

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

.......Some Evolutionists became Nazis and Communists.....and Nazism and Communism adopted Evolution as an 'Article of Faith'......I guess one could conclude that there was quite a close attachment between Evolution and Nazism / Communism during the 1930s.......which in fairness, has thankfully been largely abandoned today!!!:eek:

So what? How many Christians became Nazis during the 1930s? How many of them followed Mussolini? How many of them rode off to Antioch to massacre it's civilian population? Just what is your point? Nothing in evolution or Christianity permits atrocities.

J C wrote: »

However, grim Darwinian Evolution and its 'survival of the fittest' has been used and abused to justify some some of the most henious acts perpetrated over the past century and a half.........and the use of the 'neo-Darwinian Evolution' moniker certainly helps to 'rebrand' Evolution away from its past historical associations and 'baggage'!!!!

As has been explained to you before, Neo-Darwinian Evolution is a term used to specify the modern theory which takes into account Mendelian inheritance and of course the discovery of the molecular basis of genetics.

J C wrote: »

.......whatever about the timing details, you are correct about the general rise in Atheism being directly correlated with the general rise in Evolutionist thought....and visa versa!!!
It isn't in the least surprising that the rise in the acceptance of Materialistic Evolution and Atheism should go hand in hand with each other.....as they both lend support to each other, and they are actually 'two sides of the Atheistic/Materialistic Coin' so to speak!!!

I would certainly agree that evolution helped the rise of Atheism, but not the reverse. Evolution does not require a social or religious philosophy, no part of science does.

J C wrote: »

.....as I have already said, Materialistic Evolution and Atheism DO go hand in hand with each other.....as they are both 'two sides of the Atheistic/Materialistic Coin' so to speak!!!

I'm not so sure. A comprehensive theory of the origins of life and the origins of the observable universe would be much more useful to the Atheists. These are still open areas of science really.

J C wrote: »

....as I have already said, we will have to agree to disagree on this point......and if I was still an Evolutionist I might even welcome a rebranding of Evolution under a 'Materialistic' or 'Spontaneous' adjective......whilst jettisoning the historical 'baggage' associated with 'Darwinism'!!!

It doesn't take a very critical mind to differentiate between Darwinism and the theory of evolution. You seem to have some trouble separating philosophy from science though.

J C wrote: »

......so you believe that knowledge ISN'T science.....

No, I believe "knowledge" is not knowledge at all if it is not firstly testable and then tested. It is assumption, speculation, faith. That is all.

J C wrote: »

.......are you therefore saying that Evolutionist Scientists DON'T know what they are talking about.....and this is WHY Evolution is Scientific!!!

No. Where'd you get that from? Scientists test their hypotheses. Robust models are what we know.

J C wrote: »

You appear to be suggesting that 'ignorance is bliss'.......... for Evolutionists????!!!!!:eek::)

I don't appear to be suggesting that. I suggested it about Creationism.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

[/B]Wolfsbane's link proves that Roman Catholic 'Infallible' Dogma declares Creation to be true ........and Evolution to be invalid........
........thereby mandating a bekief in the Direct Creation of Adam and Eve .......and ruling out a belief in Evolution for all 'Devout Catholics'!!!

......however, the link posted by AtomicHorror, would indicate that the Vatican itself DOESN'T appear to continue to believe in the Roman Catholic 'Infallible' Dogma on Direct Creation anymore!!!!!:eek::)

.......so I wonder, if you can't find 'Devout Catholics' (who continue to believe in Roman Catholic 'Infallible' Dogma on Direct Creation) in the Vatican, where will you find such 'Devout Catholics'????:D

You're unlikely to find anyone among your hundreds of "evolutionist" opponents who cares much about this issue. The word from the Vatican seems pretty clear-cut. Evolution is in, creationism is out.

AtomicHorror

MrPudding wrote: »

No, you are right. I just find it really frustrating, I don't know how you cope.

MrP

The thoughts that people could take creationism seriously is a hefty inspiration. We can't let that comforting divine foot in the door, after all.

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

So what? How many Christians became Nazis during the 1930s? How many of them followed Mussolini? How many of them rode off to Antioch to massacre it's civilian population? Just what is your point? Nothing in evolution or Christianity permits atrocities.

......you are correct that nothing in Christianity permits atrocities.....although some nominal Christians may have engaged in such behaviour.....they were acting AGAINST the fundamental principle of their faith to LOVE their enemies!!!

However, no such restraint is provided by Evolution......indeed a simplistic acceptance of 'survival of the fittest' could (and did) propel people to carry out henious acts over the past hundred and fifty years!!!!!:D

In fairness, modern Evolutionists completely dissociate themselves from such horrific behaviour......but the principle of 'dog eat dog' Evolution, in and of itself, doesn't provide any restraint against evil!!!

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I would certainly agree that evolution helped the rise of Atheism, but not the reverse. Evolution does not require a social or religious philosophy, no part of science does.

.......rising Atheism has ALSO helped the rise in Evolution......which is in direct contradiction of the tenets of nearly all historic strands of orthodox Christianity and Judaism.

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
.....as I have already said, Materialistic Evolution and Atheism DO go hand in hand with each other.....because they are both 'two sides of the Atheistic/Materialistic Coin' so to speak!!!

AtomicHorror
I'm not so sure. A comprehensive theory of the origins of life and the origins of the observable universe would be much more useful to the Atheists. These are still open areas of science really.

.......the invalidity of Evolution....and the lack of an adequate Materialistic 'Origins Explanation' are indeed serious problems for Atheists and Materialists.......precisely because both Materialistic Evolution and Atheism are 'two sides of the Atheistic/Materialistic Coin' so to speak!!!:D

wrote:

AtomicHorror
It doesn't take a very critical mind to differentiate between Darwinism and the theory of evolution. You seem to have some trouble separating philosophy from science though.

.....WHY do you keep insisting that I call it 'Darwinian Evolution' then????

......and calling me a liar......when I don't!!!!:pac::):D

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

The thoughts that people could take creationism seriously is a hefty inspiration. We can't let that comforting divine foot in the door, after all.

.....this thread shows such a conclusion to be well-founded!!!!:D

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
Wolfsbane's link proves that Roman Catholic 'Infallible' Dogma declares Creation to be true ........and Evolution to be invalid................thereby mandating a belief in the Direct Creation of Adam and Eve .......and ruling out a belief in Evolution for all 'Devout Catholics'!!!

However, the link posted by AtomicHorror, would indicate that the Vatican itself DOESN'T appear to continue to believe in the Roman Catholic Church's OWN 'Infallible' Dogma on Direct Creation anymore!!!!!

.......so I wonder, if there are no 'Devout Catholics' in the Vatican (who continue to believe in the Roman Catholic Church's OWN 'Infallible' Dogma on Direct Creation)......WHERE will you find such 'Devout Catholics'????

AtomicHorror
You're unlikely to find anyone among your hundreds of "evolutionist" opponents who cares much about this issue. The word from the Vatican seems pretty clear-cut. Evolution is in, creationism is out.

......I find myself in agreement with you on this one as well.

It seems obvious that various types of Atheists and Agnostics will happily go along with Evolution.......
......because Evolution is on the 'flip side' of the 'Atheistic/Materialistic Coin'....after all!!!:D

......but the fact that the Vatican now seems to be joining the Atheists and the Agnostics, in direct contravention of previously defined Roman Catholic 'Infallible' Dogma which declared the Direct Creation of Adam and Eve to be true ........and Evolution to be invalid........should give any 'Devout Catholics' out there pause for thought......
.....always assuming that there are ANY 'Devout Catholics' still out there........and they are willing to pause for thought !!!!:D

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

......you are correct that nothing in Christianity permits atrocities.....although some nominal Christians may have done so.....they were acting AGAINST the fundamental principle of their faith to LOVE their enemies!!!

However, no such restraint is provided by Evolution......indeed a simplistic acceptance of 'survival of the fittest' could (and did) propel people to carry out henious acts over the past hundred and fifty years!!!!!:D

There's no specific restraint because evolution is a scientific theory, not a moral or social philosophy. We've already had the discussion about what "survival of the fittest" actually means and what it suggests, or rather doesn't. Several dozen pages ago I explained to you that evolution could as easily be used to justify conservation and biodiversity promotion (and indeed it has very effectively been used to do so).

J C wrote: »

In fairness modern Evolutionists completely dissociate themselves from such horrific behaviour......but the principle of 'dog eat dog' Evolution doesn't provide any restraint against evil......in and of itself!!!

Nor does it encourage evil. People will simply cherry pick, and even misinterpret, the parts of a system (be it a science, philosophy or religion) that suit the goals they have pre-determined. An intellectual polish for dirty deeds.

J C wrote: »

.......rising Atheism has ALSO helped the rise in Evolution......which is in direct contradiction of the tenets of nearly all strands of orthodox Christianity and Judaism.

Atheism would certainly have opened the theory to a new audience, but the theory itself takes nothing from the philosophy any more than the big bang theory does. It's just the model that fits our measurements best.

J C wrote: »

AtomicHorror
It doesn't take a very critical mind to differentiate between Darwinism and the theory of evolution. You seem to have some trouble separating philosophy from science though.

.....WHY do you keep insisting that I call it 'Darwinian Evolution' then????

......and calling me a liar......when I don't!!!!:pac::):D

Because Darwinism and Darwinian evolution are two distinct concepts. Darwinism is a set of social and moral philosophies and Darwinian evolution is the scientific theory.

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

There's no specific restraint because evolution is a scientific theory, not a moral or social philosophy.......

......Darwinism and Darwinian evolution are two distinct concepts. Darwinism is a set of social and moral philosophies and Darwinian evolution is the scientific theory.

......I think that your own words show just how easily Darwinian Evolution (the Science) COULD be translated into Darwinism (the philosophy).....and when this has happened in the past great evil was the result!!!!:eek::D

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Nor does it encourage evil. People will simply cherry pick, and even misinterpret, the parts of a system (be it a science, philosophy or religion) that suit the goals they have pre-determined. An intellectual polish for dirty deeds.

.......people have to pervert Christianity to 'polish off' dirty deeds.....but they only need to follow through on Darwinism to produce great evil!!!!:eek:

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

......I think that your own words show just how easily Darwinian Evolution (the Science) COULD be translated into Darwinism (the philosophy).....and when this has happened in the past great evil was the result!!!!:eek::D

Which is not the fault of the theory but of people being people. Truth is merely truth, what is done with that knowledge is another matter.

J C wrote: »

.......they will need to pervert Christianity to do so.....but they only need to follow through on Darwinism to produce great evil!!!!:eek:

That's over-simplifying it really. There are many variants of the Darwinism philosophies. It could be argued that conservation efforts are a form of Darwinism which emphasises the importance of biodiversity as a means of protecting the robustness of the ecosystem and the future potential for new speciation. Conversely, there are certainly strands of Darwinism with a much darker motive. Throughout history though, we have seen destructive motive precede intellectual and moral justification.

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

.......There are many variants of the Darwinism philosophies. It could be argued that conservation efforts are a form of Darwinism which emphasises the importance of biodiversity as a means of protecting the robustness of the ecosystem and the future potential for new speciation.

....one could argue that conservation efforts where species are endangered through their own lack of adaptability......is almost ANTI-Darwinism!!!!
Humans are actually intervening in an ecosystem that is supposedly 'red in tooth and claw' (according to Darwin himself) in order to save an 'unfit' specimen!!!
....and the beautiful 'cuddly' (but 'unfit') Giant Panda is another reason why I reject Darwinism!!!!:):D

AtomicHorror wrote: »

.......there are certainly strands of Darwinism with a much darker motive. Throughout history though, we have seen destructive motive precede intellectual and moral justification.

.......very worrying indeed..........foetal sex selection as well as eugenics initiatives are also forms of Social Darwinism!!!!!

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

....and the beautiful 'cuddly' (but 'unfit') Giant Panda is another reason why I reject Darwinism!!!!:):D

Assuming Darwinian evolution does not exist, do you think the panda could still go extinct?

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
....and the beautiful 'cuddly' (but 'unfit') Giant Panda is another reason why I reject Darwinism!!!!

Galvasean
Assuming Darwinian evolution does not exist, do you think the panda could still go extinct?

.....yes, the Panda could go extinct whether Creationism or Darwinism is true......but a Creationist would have a better philosophical basis than an Evolutionist for intervening to save the Panda!!!:)

......the Creationist would be intervening to save an amazing and irreplacable part of God's Creation.......while the Evolutionist would be holding back Evolution and preventing NS eliminating a species that has become unable to compete in the 'survival stakes' that Darwinian Evolution supposedly is!!!!:D

.....and because I believe in saving the Panda ......this is another reason why I reject the philosophy of 'red in tooth and claw' Darwinian Evolution......
.....of course, the fact that Darwinian Evolution actually never happened......is ALSO another good reason to reject Darwinism!!!!:D:)

By saving the Panda, a Creationist would be behaving in accordance with God's command to have dominion responsibility for His Created creatures.......but the Evolutionist would be preventing Evolution from operating to eliminate yet another species amongst the millions of creatures that have become extinct down the years.....so that other better adapted creatures could replace them!!!!:D

.....the Evolutionist and the Creationist might have the same emotional commitment to saving the 'cuddly' Panda.......but ONLY the Creationist would ALSO have the intellectual and philosophical basis for doing so !!!!

......yet another good reason to become a Creation Scientist!!!!!:D

.....the slogan "become a Creation Scientist......and save the Panda".......has an intellectually consistent 'ring' to it!!!!!:D



......of course Evolutionists don't have to be intellectually consistent......they don't even have to be consistent at all!!!!
Recently, a Swiss Ethics Committee on Non Human Gene Technology (ECNH) broke new ground by exploring the "dignity" of plants.
ECNH's study of plants stated, "The Committee members unanimously consider an arbitrary harm caused to plants to be morally impermissible. This kind of treatment would include, e.g. decapitation of wild flowers at the roadside without rational reason." A majority of the committee also concluded that plants, "are excluded for moral reasons from absolute ownership. By this interpretation no one may handle plants entirely according to his/her own desires."

I wonder then.......if you cannot absolutely own a plant ......can you still absolutely eat it???

......anyway......make sure that you have watered your Geraniums....otherwise you could eventually face a long prison term......for being cruel to a PLANT!!!!!:D

........and you can read all about this Evolutionist 'wisdom'....here:-
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3705

.....and here is some further gems of Evolutionist 'wisdom' :-
A Princeton Professor of Bioethics says that when it comes to bestiality and sex with farm animals, the only real issues are whether you get the animal's consent first--and you don't kill or injure it as part of your pleasure:-
http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=85000772

.....equally he believes that "Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons." But animals are self-aware, and therefore, "the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee."

Accordingly, in an article on "Should the Baby Live?" an Evolutionist Ethecist has stated that "It does not seem wise to add to the burden on limited resources by increasing the number of severely disabled children."
....and "a period of 28 days after birth might be allowed before an infant is accepted as having the same right to live as others."

and you can read all about it here:-
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/hentoff091399.asp

.....so apparently:-

.....you can have sex with a horse with impunity (provided you obtain the horse's consent first)!!!!

.....you can kill a precious little baby that happens to be sick for up to 28 days AFTER it is born!

.....and if milk is scarce and you have to decide whether to feed a dog or a newborn baby....the dog should be fed first!!!!

.....but you must NEVER arbitrarily pull the flowers off a weed without a VERY VERY GOOD REASON!!!!


.....and I am still trying to work out how somebody is supposed to go about getting the consent of a horse before having sex with it!!!!!

....the following verses of Scripture seem to be particulary appropriate:-
Ro 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness,
19 because the thing which may be known of God is clearly revealed within them, for God revealed it to them.
20 For the unseen things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being realized by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, for them to be without excuse.
21 Because, knowing God, they did not glorify Him as God, neither were thankful. But they became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing to be wise, they became fools
23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man, and birds, and four-footed animals, and creeping things.
24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves.
25 For they changed the truth of God into a lie, and they worshiped and served the created thing more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.