The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Meh.

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

Yes, it is enlightening to see the current RCC side-step its own 'infallible' teaching.

The conclusion must be:
1. The RCC of today is not infallible.
or
2. The RCC of yesterday was not infallible.
and since the RCC has always claimed to be the one true Church:
3. The RCC is not infallible, and its claims to be the one true Church just form a part of that fallibility.

Thanks to their commitment to the lie of evolution, they may well open the eyes of many of their members to the truth of the Scriptures.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, it is enlightening to see the current RCC side-step its own 'infallible' teaching.

The conclusion must be:
1. The RCC of today is not infallible.
or
2. The RCC of yesterday was not infallible.
and since the RCC has always claimed to be the one true Church:
3. The RCC is not infallible, and its claims to be the one true Church just form a part of that fallibility.

Thanks to their commitment to the lie of evolution, they may well open the eyes of many of their members to the truth of the Scriptures.

Evolution's one of the few things they've gotten right really. At least they know when to accept the blatantly obvious. A lie indeed, what motive is there for such an elaborate lie? There can be none, especially from Catholics.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

.....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

Total rubbish. An "evolutionist", correct or not, believes that human behavior, including the cross-species empathy that drives us to protect the cuddly old panda, is a part of our evolution. So no contradiction, even if there's no directive. It's left to our reason.

Many species are endangered due to human domination, and yet some feel compelled to protect a status quo as though we had not risen to this position. Whatever the reasons for this desire, rational or otherwise, the desire is evolved in us. Further, evolutionary theory convinces us not only of the value of protecting the cuddlier species (which tug at our empathy) but of the value of conserving slugs, slimy growths and things with many legs. Again, no directive but no contradiction either.

The theory does not specifically direct us towards any action (does Relativity ask anything of us?), but the theory does tell us that for life to be safe and robust upon our planet, it must be diverse. So our strange emotional wants combine with intellectual notions derived from the theory to provide us plenty of motive to conserve.

No action is inconsistent with evolution, because scientific theories do not dictate actions and all actions are a product of the diversity of evolution.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

.....so there you have the 'morality' of an Evolutionist Ethecist laid bare......

.....you can apparently bugger a horse with impunity (provided you obtain the horse's consent first!!!!
.....you can murder any child that isn't healthy up to 28 days AFTER birth

.....but you must NEVER decapitate a weed flower without a VERY GOOD REASON!!!!

Those are the ethical pronouncements of at least two entirely different groups working on the general principles of biology and psychology rather than evolution alone. I'd be surpised if they weren't inconsistent. They stand as evidence of exactly nothing in terms of evolutionary theory. I can't understand why you keep trying to ascribe philosophies and behavior to the theory when it is quite distinct from such things. Oh no wait, I can- you'd like to pretend evolutionary theory makes a lot of bad stuff happens from Nazism to horse sodomy. It's a scientific theory! There's just data, no philosophy. That side of things is as open to human interpretation and abuse as Christianity.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Evolution's one of the few things they've gotten right really. At least they know when to accept the blatantly obvious. A lie indeed, what motive is there for such an elaborate lie? There can be none, especially from Catholics.

The best (worldly) motive of all: that which gives most credibility at the time. Never mind truth, go for that which gains you the most respect and power.

Should Creationism ever get that status again, be sure the RCC will follow suit.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

The best (worldly) motive of all: that which gives most credibility at the time. Never mind truth, go for that which gains you the most respect and power.

What power do they gain from support of the theory of evolution? What respect? The respect of evolutionary biologists? That isn't worth much in terms of power or money. As a scientist, were I motivated by money and power, evolutionary biology would be very, very low on my list of research areas.

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

No action is inconsistent with evolution, ........

.....The fact that "no action is inconsistent with evolution" is PRECISELY why Darwinism is so DANGEROUS......
........apart from being completely invalid......Evolution has no intrinsic morality.....BUT it can be used to justify everything from sex with horses to infantacide of sick children ........to criminalising the killing or neglect of a plant !!!!

......when one believes that people, horses and plants are all descended from a Pondslime common ancestor.......almost anything becomes possible......and to quote yourself "no action is inconsistent with evolution"......

.........so sex with a 'fellow animal' (like a Horse)......or euthenasia of sick people (just like we 'put down' sick dogs).......or the legal protection of plants (just like we legally protect the welfare of Humans).....all become 'logically possible'!!!!!!:)

......ultimately, rational morality can only be given to us independently by the revelation of God......

......when Humans try to determine 'morality' using their own individual beliefs (just like Adam and Eve did).......the result can range from total permissiveness such as the approval of bestiality and the killing of 'unfit' Humans.......
.......to ridiculous restrictiveness ...........like declaring the killing of plants to be a crime......or requiring that plants can only be harvested under licence!!!
.....and everything in-between!!!!!:eek::D

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

Originally Posted by AtomicHorror View Post
No action is inconsistent with evolution, ........

.....That is PRECISELY why Darwinism is so DANGEROUS......apart from being completely invalid......it has no intrinsic morality.....BUT it can be used to justify everything from sex with horses to infantacide of sick children ........to making the killing or neglect of a plant a criminal offence!!!!

I'm confused, are you condemning the various Darwinism philosophies (I'd condemn a number of them myself) or are you talking about Darwinian Evolution, the theory? Because the below quote makes that unclear:

J C wrote: »

......when one believes that people, horses and plants are all descended from a Pondslime common ancestor.......almost anything becomes possible......and to quote yourself "no action is inconsistent with evolution"......

"Anything" (from the wonderful list you provide below) is already possible... a scientific theory alone says nothing of morality either way. In fact, it is only when a theory is essentially proven true (in as much as that is possible) that the previously impossible becomes possible. The moral issues still remain for us to tackle. So if Evolution has empowered us to do things we could not do before, as you suggest, then logically that can only speak to its truth.

J C wrote: »

.........so sex with a 'fellow animal' (like a Horse)......or euthenasia of sick people (just like we put down a sick dog).......or the legal protection of plants (just like we legally protect the welfare of Humans).....all become 'logically possible'!!!!!!:)

I've never seen any of these things justified by evolutionary theory. Can you suggest how that would work?

J C wrote: »

......ultimately, rational morality can only be given to us independently by the revalation of God......

......when 'fallen' men try to determine 'morality' using their own (Materialistic)beliefs.......the result can range from total permissiveness such as the approval of bestiality and the killing of 'unfit' Humans.......to ridiculous restrictiveness ...........like declaring the killing of plants to be a crime......or requiring that plants can only be killed under licence!!!
.....and everything in-between!!!!!:eek::D

Yet again, the laughable suggestion that the world's morality would collapse without Christianity. Even when people try to derive morality from the bible the result is variable interpretation, debate and conflict. Philosophies have debated morality for centuries independently of Christianity and the world has not slid into a mess of bestiality and eugenics. Quite the opposite in fact, the mass morality of our species has seemed to be relatively consistent when you take a large scale world view over time. This has tended to be the case irrespective of prevailing religions, scientific knowledge or philosophy. Deviations have been remarkable and have stood out in history as condemned universally.

Galvasean

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I
I've never seen any of these things justified by evolutionary theory. Can you suggest how that would work?

I'm pretty sure basic biology indicates humans cannot procreate with horses. To that extent I don't see how J C can lump it into evolutionary theory which is all about producing fertile offspring.

PS: I'm all for saving the panda.

AtomicHorror

Galvasean wrote: »

I'm pretty sure basic biology indicates humans cannot procreate with horses. To that extent I don't see how J C can lump it into evolutionary theory which is all about producing fertile offspring.

I think the point was that measures of genetic similarity, evolution's resultant reduction of the boundaries between man, animal and plant somehow advocate immorality. The genetic similarities are a measured fact whether we accept the theory of evolution or not. So the moral issues raised by such similarities are independent of the theory.

A scientific theory may at the most be used as the justification of changing morality. We have seen such theories used and abused throughout history. Nor can it render something possible that was once impossible, rather it can only reveal to us that what we once thought impossible is not so. A theory cannot itself advocate nor reject a course of action, a human choice from the possible options. Evolution can no more advocate bestiality than Newton's laws of gravity could render human flight immoral.

AtomicHorror

Galvasean wrote: »

PS: I'm all for saving the panda.

As am I, though I have to recognise that our tendency to conserve is very much biased in favour of mammals with fur. The WWF are unlikely to adopt Megascolides australis as their new logo species!

AtomicHorror

Carbon isotope analysis suggests the presence of life on Earth as early as 250 million years after its formation:

http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn14245-did-newborn-earth-harbour-life.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news3_head_dn14245

Primary paper in Nature to follow. Not a certainty but it looks like there's a strong possibility that life was present on Earth over 4.25 billion years ago. If confirmed, this would raise a great many questions about the time scales involved in the transition of life to multicellularity as well as raising the possibility that an earlier major abiogenesis event occured, only to later fail.

Flamed Diving

Maybe God still had his L-plates back then?

Galvasean

AtomicHorror wrote: »

As am I, though I have to recognise that our tendency to conserve is very much biased in favour of mammals with fur. The WWF are unlikely to adopt Megascolides australis as their new logo species!

But its so cute!!!
In seriousness yes, you are right. We as a species are very biased in our conservation methods. Conservation shouldn't give priority to one animal over the other based on aesthetic qualities. What right to live has the panda or the tiger over say the orinoko crocodile or the olm?

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Carbon isotope analysis suggests the presence of life on Earth as early as 250 million years after its formation:

http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn14245-did-newborn-earth-harbour-life.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news3_head_dn14245

Primary paper in Nature to follow. Not a certainty but it looks like there's a strong possibility that life was present on Earth over 4.25 billion years ago. If confirmed, this would raise a great many questions about the time scales involved in the transition of life to multicellularity as well as raising the possibility that an earlier major abiogenesis event occured, only to later fail.

Interesting. One quibble which often pops up about abiogenesis is the fact that it only happened once and was a wild success against the odds of being so. If it could be proven that abiogenesis has occurred more than once (and only succeeding once) on this planet the long odds would be somewhat diminished.

AtomicHorror

Galvasean wrote: »

But its so cute!!!
In seriousness yes, you are right. We as a species are very biased in our conservation methods. Conservation shouldn't give priority to one animal over the other based on aesthetic qualities. What right to live has the panda or the tiger over say the orinoko crocodile or the olm?

The greater ecosystem is in my view a chaotic system (ie non-random but non-predictable, much like evolution). Our actions in eliminating any species have massively unpredictable outcomes due to the complexity of the interaction webs between species. We are ill-equipped to make any rational choices on species extinction other than to struggle to maintain the status quo. We may have to eventually accept that even this is impractical without the elimination of humans.

Galvasean wrote: »

Interesting. One quibble which often pops up about abiogenesis is the fact that it only happened once and was a wild success against the odds of being so. If it could be proven that abiogenesis has occurred more than once (and only succeeding once) on this planet the long odds would be somewhat diminished.

Abiogenesis, assuming it did occur here, would have occurred billions of times in many locations. The improbability of success was thus balanced by the time allowed for the event and the massively parallel nature of the reaction. What I was suggesting is that the larger timescale suggested by Geisler's work allows us time for more than one such reaction to have progressed to protocellularity.

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

.....The fact that "no action is inconsistent with evolution" is PRECISELY why Darwinism is so DANGEROUS......
........apart from being completely invalid......Evolution has no intrinsic morality.....BUT it can be used to justify everything from sex with horses to infantacide of sick children ........to criminalising the killing or neglect of a plant !!!!

Groan ... do you even realize how stupid that assertion is?

If evolution has no intrinsic moral opinion then how can it be used to justify any of those things (or anything for that matter)? Evolution doesn't say anything is or is not morally good or morally bad.

You see to be saying that since evolution has no moral opinion, therefore it doesn't say there things are bad, therefore that justifies them as good. Which is moronic.

The problem isn't evolution, the problem is Christians like yourself you can't make any moral decision unless they are specifically told what to believe

Unless you are specifically told by someone or something that raping horses is wrong you will think raping horses is fine.

Unless you are specifically told by someone or something that raping children is wrong you will think raping children is fine.

Your criticism with evolution is that it doesn't tell you these things, so therefore you assume they must be ok.

That is a flaw with you JC, not with evolution

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote:

Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.

Glad to see we finally agree.

And I know you didn't say this, but you attacked a quote in my sig a couple of pages back, so I figure I owe you the favour.

Just so you realise how imbecillic it is for you - a creationist - to have that particular quote in your sig, I'll break it down for you.

'Evolution is unproved...': scientific theories are never proven. The evidence is analysed and conclusions are drawn.

'...and unprovable.': scientific theories are never proven. The evidence is analysed and conclusions are drawn.

'...We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation...': There are always alternatives to scientific theories (see Intelligent Falling) but that doesn't mean that they make any sense.

'...and that is unthinkable.': A nice pun on the fact that creationism only makes any sense if you don't think about it; it is also unthinkable that people should be taught such nonsense.

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

The problem isn't evolution, the problem is Christians like yourself you can't make any moral decision unless they are specifically told what to believe

Unless you are specifically told by someone or something that raping horses is wrong you will think raping horses is fine.

Unless you are specifically told by someone or something that raping children is wrong you will think raping children is fine.

......the problem is that Evolutionists have NO MEANS of saying WHY having sex with horses or killing sick babies are WRONG.....
......and some evolutionists have proposed such things as morally correct.......even morally desirable........and other Evolutionists are intellectually and morally powerless to deny the immorality of such actions!!!!!

......if one accepts Materialistic Evolution as true.....then the ONLY morality is 'might is right'.......'might' could be a consensus or a majority 'feeling' about something....or it could be the personal opinion of some powerful dictatorial 'leader'.......or it could be the realisation that if I do something bad to somebody else.....they might do the same or worse to me or my family......
......in any event, OBJECTIVE morality cannot exist in a purely Materialistic World......and what is morally 'correct' changes in time and space......and at the whim of the individual and/or the society!!!!!

......when somebody believes that people, horses and plants are all descended from a Pondslime common ancestor.......almost anything becomes possible......and to quote AtomicHorror "no action is inconsistent with evolution"......

.........so sex with a 'fellow animal' (like a Horse)......or euthenasia of a sick baby (just like we 'put down' surplus puppies).......or the legal protection of plants (just like we legally protect the welfare of Humans and animals).....all become 'logically possible'......for some Evolutionists!!!!!

......ultimately, rational morality can only be given to us independently by the revelation of God......

......when Humans try to determine 'morality' using their own individual beliefs (just like Adam and Eve did).......the results can range from total permissiveness such as the approval of bestiality and the killing of 'unfit' babies.......
.......to over-the-top restrictiveness ...........such as criminalising the killing of plants!!!!

.....and everything in-between!!!!!

Christians have the Word of God to direct them infallibly when it comes to moral issues......and I can tell you that bestiality and infanticide are ALWAYS immoral!!!!!

......and ALL Humans have a God-given moral right and dominion to own, kill and eat plants.....AS THEY SEE FIT!!!:eek:

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

......the problem is that Evolutionists have NO MEANS of saying WHY having sex with horses or killing sick babies is WRONG.....and some evolutionists have proposed such things as morally correct.......even morally desirable!!!!!

Why should they?

......when somebody believes that people, horses and plants are all descended from a Pondslime common ancestor.......almost anything becomes possible......and to quote AtomicHorror "no action is inconsistent with evolution"......

I think you've been censured before for using misleading terms; specifically 'pondslime'. Evolution, like the whole of science, has nothing to do with morality. That* is why no action is inconsistent with it.

.........so sex with a 'fellow animal' (like a Horse)......or euthenasia of a sick baby (just like we 'put down' surplus puppies).......or the legal protection of plants (just like we legally protect the welfare of Humans).....all become 'logically possible'......for the Evolutionist!!!!!

Well, they're logically possible with or without supporters of evolutionary theory. They are not considered morally good by any society that I know of, whether that society supports evolutionary theory or not.

......ultimately, rational morality can only be given to us independently by the revelation of God......

Without using the word 'bible', please state why.

......when Humans try to determine 'morality' using their own individual beliefs (just like Adam and Eve did).......the result can range from total permissiveness such as the approval of bestiality and the killing of 'unfit' babies.......
.......to over-the-top restrictiveness ...........such as declaring the killing of plants to be a crime.......

.....and everything in-between!!!!!

Can you point out one example in history (christian or non-christian) where either of these things occurred?

Christians have the Word of God to direct them infallibly when it comes to moral issues......and bestiality and infanticide is ALWAYS wrong!!!!!

You really had to have someone else tell you that? And you're calling supporters of evolutionary theory immoral?!

......and ALL Humans have a God-given right to own, kill and eat plants!!!:eek:

Um...we need to do so to survive, you mean? I don't see how that's 'god-given', or how it's a right.

*See? It's perfectly possible to emphasise without resorting to block capitals and dozens of exclamation marks.

robindch

J C wrote: »

......the problem is that Evolutionists have NO MEANS of saying WHY having sex with horses or killing sick babies is WRONG

It's considered "wrong" because people don't like other people doing it. You'll no doubt be aware that there are laws enacted by, for example, the Dail which prohibit these things. Our lawmakers -- mirabile dictu! -- came up with these without having to call in a deity to help them figure it all out.

I must say that if I were a god and I'd created man, I'd be quite disappointed if my adorable little creations couldn't work out that killing themselves is a Bad Thing. Would reflect rather poorly on me as the designer.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

You'll no doubt be aware that there are laws enacted by, for example, the Dail which prohibit these things. Our lawmakers -- mirabile dictu! -- came up with these without having to call in a deity to help them figure it all out.

Actually, Robin, our lawmakers have come up with nothing at all without having to call in a deity to help them out. Each day's business at the Dail and the Seanad begins with the following prayer:

Direct, we beseech Thee, O Lord, our actions by Thy holy inspirations and carry them on by Thy gracious assistance; that every word and work of ours may always begin from Thee, and by Thee be happily ended; through Christ our Lord. Amen.

:pac:

J C

robindch wrote: »

It's considered "wrong" because people don't like other people doing it. You'll no doubt be aware that there are laws enacted by, for example, the Dail which prohibit these things. Our lawmakers -- mirabile dictu! -- came up with these without having to call in a deity to help them figure it all out.

.......there are many things that I don't like other people doing.....like 'shouting their mouths off' about Evolution....and picking their noses......but neither are immoral acts!!!!!

....equally, many people don't like each other and are prepared to kill each other in war and murder....and many LIKE commiting sins like fornication and adultery.....
......so people 'not liking something' is a pretty poor guideline as to it's morality!!!

...as I have already said, OBJECTIVE morality cannot exist in a purely Materialistic World......and what is morally 'correct' for a Materialist changes in time and space......and they tend to make up their 'morality' as they go along......using how they (or some other opinion maker) 'feels' about the issue at that particular point in time!!!!!:D

robindch wrote: »

I must say that if I were a god and I'd created man, I'd be quite disappointed if my adorable little creations couldn't work out that killing themselves is a Bad Thing. Would reflect rather poorly on me as the designer.

......God is VERY disappointed that most Humans show no gratitude to Him for creating them.....
.......and the extent of war, murder and mayhem indicates that 'fallen' Humans HAVEN'T worked out that killing themselves or each other is a bad thing!!!!
....and the fact that Adam and Eve FREELY chose to defy God DOESN'T indicate that He was a bad designer.......it only shows that He has great patience and love for Mankind......by giving them the FREEDOM to accept or reject Him!!!!:D

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

'Evolution is unproved...': scientific theories are never proven. The evidence is analysed and conclusions are drawn.

'...and unprovable.': scientific theories are never proven. The evidence is analysed and conclusions are drawn.

.....OK....so Evolution is unproven and unprovable......and the evidence indicates that it NEVER occurred.......makes one wonder why 'fallen' Humanity keeps parroting away about it as if it is a fact that it occurred!!!!!!:D

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

'...We (Evolutionists) believe it only because the only alternative is special creation...': There are always alternatives to scientific theories .........
.......but that doesn't mean that they make any sense.

......please note that Sir Arthur Keith said that the ONLY ALTERNATIVE to Evolution is Special Creation......NOT that there were many alternatives to Evolution!!!!!:eek::)

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

'...and that (Special Creation) is unthinkable.': A nice pun on the fact that creationism only makes any sense if you don't think about it; it is also unthinkable that people should be taught such nonsense.

.....it merely illustrates the irrational bias of the Atheist against God and all His works of loving Creation!!!!!
.....what Sir Arthur Keith clearly means by Special Creation being 'unthinkable' is that he is REFUSING to think about what Special Creation means for himself
......things like God's rightful claims upon His Creation....
....which means that we should obey and adore Him....and not other Created things or ourselves!!!:)

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Actually, Robin, our lawmakers have come up with nothing at all without having to call in a deity to help them out. Each day's business at the Dail and the Seanad begins with the following prayer:

Yes, I'm aware of that. Frightful piece of obsequiousness it is too and you wouldn't catch me saying it. With a straight face anyway.

Still though, how exactly does your god go about communicating to our own elected reps, his thoughts on how to deal with people who chop the heads off babies or spend their days and sweaty nights shagging horses?

And more pointedly, it must be very weird from a christian point of view, at least, to notice how the legislatures of so many countries with their various cultural or tribal allegiances to their various non-christian/non-presbyterian/non-catholic/non-whatever gods (or heavens, even no gods at all -- I dare say even the DPRK's courts will take a dim view of horse-sex) have exactly equivalent laws on their books?

It seems that if your god's going to spend his time approving the kind of legislation that everybody agrees upon anyway, then it really does seem to be a complete waste of time to ask him to direct proceedings. Wouldn't you agree?

MooseJam

PDN wrote: »

Actually, Robin, our lawmakers have come up with nothing at all without having to call in a deity to help them out. Each day's business at the Dail and the Seanad begins with the following prayer:


:pac:

do they actually say it or are they just supposed to say it

robindch

J C wrote: »

......so people 'not liking something' is a pretty poor guideline as to it's morality!!!

If you ever take the time to study anthropology -- and I'd recommend it to anybody -- you'll find that a general 'not liking something' within a population is an extremely good guide to working out what that population finds 'immoral'.

J C wrote: »

......God is VERY disappointed that most Humans show no gratitude to Him for creating them.....

No idea where you came from, my friende, but my parents created me and yes, I have said thanks, but I certainly don't get down on my knees for a few hours every week to mutter into the silence to them

PDN

MooseJam wrote: »

do they actually say it or are they just supposed to say it

According to http://www.irlgov.ie/oireachtas/a-misc/prayer.htm

The above prayer is said at the commencement of each day's business in the Dáil by the Ceann Comhairle, and in the Seanad by the Clerk of the Seanad.

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

......the problem is that Evolutionists have NO MEANS of saying WHY having sex with horses or killing sick babies are WRONG.....

No, they have no means of saying it is wrong that you understand because you (appear to) have no sense of internal morality.

You need to be told what is moral or not by someone else. That is a problem with you JC, not evolution (though it might explain why you are so fundamentally religious)

J C wrote: »

......if one accepts Materialistic Evolution as true.....then the ONLY morality is 'might is right'

Again your are contradicting yourself.

If Evolution has no opinion on morality, and assuming that evolution favours "might" (it doesn't by the way, but never let it be said you show any understanding of the subject you dismiss), then might is neither right or wrong according to evolution, because it has no opinion on morality

J C wrote: »

......when somebody believes that people, horses and plants are all descended from a Pondslime common ancestor.......almost anything becomes possible......and to quote AtomicHorror "no action is inconsistent with evolution"......

And equally no action is supported by evolution either. So, how would anyone use evolution to justify anything.

Seriously, what part of this do you not understand. Your comments are like saying "Rocks have no opinion on morality, therefore I use this rock to justify raping this woman because it said it was ok"....

Nonsense :rolleyes:

Flamed Diving

You don't think mere logic is going to stop JC from drawing wild conclusions, do you?

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

......the problem is that Evolutionists have NO MEANS of saying WHY having sex with horses or killing sick babies are WRONG.....
......and some evolutionists have proposed such things as morally correct.......even morally desirable........and other Evolutionists are intellectually and morally powerless to deny the immorality of such actions!!!!!

So your definition of an "evolutionist" is a person who believes in the Theory of Evolution and nothing else? I've never in my life met such a person. I imagine that he would be constantly confused as to why evolution cannot explain why things fall down. Ridiculous.

My personal morality is informed by my understanding of science, biology in particular, but cannot be dictated by it as it is not a moral philosophy.

It seems we need to repeat that point to you.

Evolution is not a moral philosophy. It is not intended to be a moral philosophy. Why are you attacking it as if it is?

To return to the earlier notion of the exclusive evolutionist, there simply is no such person. All people must derive morality based on the information available to them. The information alone does not dictate a course of action. My personal moral philosophy is a modification of the morality I derived from my Catholic upbringing combined with smatterings of feminist morality, utilitarianism and hedonism. A close examination of the actual morality of the vast majority of Christians and Atheists would probably reveal similar self-constructed moralities. They tend to have very similar outcomes too.

J C wrote: »

......if one accepts Materialistic Evolution as true.....then the ONLY morality is 'might is right

"Might is right" is a core tenet of various moral philosophies which claim to be derived from the theory of evolution. The theory itself says nothing of the sort.

J C wrote: »

......when somebody believes that people, horses and plants are all descended from a Pondslime common ancestor.......almost anything becomes possible......and to quote AtomicHorror "no action is inconsistent with evolution"......

Refusal to kill plants was not impossible prior to the theory of evolution. As an example, Jainism pre-dates the theory by some two thousand years. Bestiality has certainly occurred countless times in ignorance of the theory and prior to it. Eugenics was practised by the Spartans.

Which of the above has evolution made possible? None. All were possible before the theory. If we are to speak of "moral possibility" then we're talking nonsense. There's no such thing.

Morality is an axis (assuming we don't think simple black or white dichotomy) with shades of grey. At one end is "moral" or "right" and at the other is "immoral" or "wrong". Nowhere does "moral possibility" or "moral impossibility" exist. Actions are either absolutely possible or absolutely impossible and may thereafter (if absolutely possible) be judged moral or immoral.

J C wrote: »

.........so sex with a 'fellow animal' (like a Horse)......or euthenasia of a sick baby (just like we 'put down' surplus puppies).......or the legal protection of plants (just like we legally protect the welfare of Humans and animals).....all become 'logically possible'......for some Evolutionists!!!!!

These actions were always "logically possible" before the theory of evolution. Our moral assessment of these possibilities may be modified by information, but the moral assessment still remains for us to make.

J C wrote: »

......when Humans try to determine 'morality' using their own individual beliefs (just like Adam and Eve did).......the results can range from total permissiveness such as the approval of bestiality and the killing of 'unfit' babies.......
.......to over-the-top restrictiveness ...........such as criminalising the killing of plants!!!!

Then why, in tens of thousands of years of human civilisation across billions of individuals who did not embrace your religion, have these things you are so disgusted by not taken hold on any large scale?

Sparta has been judged harsh by the moral consensus. Jainism as ridiculously over-protective. Bestiality as taboo. On average these beliefs have held consistently and in the absence of your "objective morality" for millennia.