The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

...'hard reason' which Darwin deplored, would allow people to die lingering deaths from starvation or disease without medical attention. Sympathy is not doing so...

Right, so what you're now suggesting is that Darwin saw only two ways: sympathy (which you say is eugenics) or hard reason (the withdrawal of poor laws and medical attention). Aren't those actually the same thing, one by action and the other by inaction? Both "survival of the fittest"? Basically you're saying that in that sentence Darwin is saying "we could not let active eugenics get in the way of passive survival of the fittest without dehumanising ourselves"? Sure, that makes sense.

In the previous sentence Darwin uses the word "sympathy" to describe "the aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless" which is the medical attention and poor laws he'd mentioned before. Why would he suddenly decide to switch to using "sympathy" to describe selective breeding? Sorry, but you're either misunderstanding badly or just lying.

J C wrote: »

.....but the clear import of the REST of the quote is that Darwin supported the controlled breeding of Humans in similar fashion to the existing practice of controlled breeding of animals!!!

Your assertion is just not supported by the evidence. Nowhere does Darwin suggest using selective breeding on humans. He uses the example of selective breeding, along with his mention of native tribes to illustrate the species-level benefits selection. But the options he presents for humans are sympathy or hard reason. Sympathy as we've seen from its prior use is medicines and social welfare for the weak, hard reason is the withdrawal of these.

At no point is the suggestion made that humans should be bred selectively. Nor could that be considered "sympathy", even if we ignored Darwin's earlier use of that word for the simple reason that we are sympathetic towards individuals, and selective breeding benefits only the species (and only for an externally chosen function).

J C wrote: »

....so Darwin , set the scene so to speak by referring to 'Savages' ... by which he meant people that don't look like him!!!!
.... a racist term if ever I saw one...

No. You are ignorant of the contemporary language. Read much 19th century literature, J C? "Savages" was a term frequently used to describe "natives". It had no negative nor positive connotations at the time, though it acquired them in the public eye and the word is now not used since the word came to be used as a pejorative. In a similar manner, another word he uses is "imbeciles", which would later be softened to "retards" which itself fell out of favour and became "disabled". In each case because of hijacking as pejorative.

J C wrote: »

then he goes on to make the UNFOUNDED claim that these so-called 'savages' eliminate the "weak in body or mind"!!!!

No, it is implied that natural selection does this, not the natives themselves. Eliminated due to illness or accident in a harsh environment with none of the protections or medicines of the 19th century west. Indeed, the passage we're discussing opens thus:

But some remarks on the action of natural selection on civilized nations may be worth adding...(Followed by a mention of contemporary writers on the topic)... With savages, the weak in body and mind are soon eliminated...

So he's actually opening with a compare-and-contrast. Natural selection on "savages" versus natural selection on "civilized nations". Where does Darwin suggest that the natives kill their own? Can you find an example of this elsewhere in Darwin's work that would justify such a reading of that statement were we to consider it ambiguous (and we don't)?

J C wrote: »

There is no evidence that other peoples are any less caring for 'the weak and helpless' than people like Darwin... and the experience with the Social Darwinist movement would indicate that, if anything, the reverse may actually be true!!!

Darwin isn't suggesting as such, but is suggesting that harsher living conditions and poor medical technology in developing countries take their toll on the weak and helpless. This is true. We can still see it today.

J C wrote: »

He then makes the UNFOUNDED claim that "those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health." A vigorous state of health is PRIMARILY the result of good food and water, good housing and sanitation as well as a good health service ... and Eugenics contributes nothing to any of these issues ... and therfore nothing to population health!!!

Darwin isn't referring to eugenics here, he's using native tribes as an example of obvious and strong natural selection at work on humans.

J C wrote: »

"We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox.

...the 'clincher' on whether I am correct, is the above statement that modern medicine and hospital care allows the so-called 'weak' to survive and he expresses the following ultra-Eugenic opinion on this out-turn:-
"Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man."

This is just an observation that the "weak" survive better in the developed world and can thus propagate due to medicine and such. At most, you might read this as a justification for the withdrawal of medical technology, which is no kind of eugenics I've ever heard of.

J C wrote: »

... so his 'sympathy' logically DOES NOT extend to encouraging, possibly even allowing, "the weak members of civilized societies (to) propagate their kind"!!!!

Clearly wrong, since sympathy is not an emotion applicable to a race or species. Selective breeding is not sympathetic towards the individual.

J C wrote: »

Although Darwin claims that our 'better instincts' propel so-called 'Civilised Man' to check what he calls 'the process of elimination' ... and he lists some ways that this is done...he THEN states that this "must be highly injurious to the race of man" ... something that every Eugenecist has used to JUSTIFY sterilisation (and sometimes worse) for those deemed to be potentially "injurious to the race of man" ... as Darwin ERRONEOUSLY described these fabulous PEOPLE!!!!

And he might well be correct in that. But that fact alone is not a justification of eugenics, as Darwin then makes clear.

J C wrote: »

...and to remove all doubt about his Eugenicist credentials, Darwin then goes on to say:-
"It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed."

.....the EXCEPTION that is clearly in Darwin's mind, is the supposed 'ignorance' of allowing uncontrolled 'breeding' by Man...rather than Mankind being excepted from such controls!!

He's making the observation that it might be argued that the species as whole would be stronger for selective breeding or for natural selection. Again, it is possible that he is correct, but this would still not be an automatic argument for eugenics. If you'd read the source material (have you ever read Darwin outside of a creationist website?), you'd note that the sentence directly following the passage we're discussing removes all doubt:

...but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind.

J C wrote: »

Darwin's basic position is that Man is JUST another animal....and he calls the 'intentional neglect' of the 'weak and helpless' to be "an overwhelming present evil"...just like the 'intentional neglect' of ANY animal (or Human) is morally wrong!!!!

You're the one who would consider being an animal to be "just" anything. Darwin doesn't imply that being animal is degrading or lessens humanity, indeed he goes on to assert the importance of humanity.

J C wrote: »

Controlled breeding as well as the neutering and euthenasing of 'weak and helpless' animals is accepted as morally correct behaviour in relation to animals ... and it is therefore by implication, ALSO acceptable for Humans IF one considers them to be 'just another animal'!!!!

Where does Darwin even mention euthanasia? You're over-extrapolating now. This is your own stuff, not his.

What you've done is start with the assumption that Darwin was a eugenicist, read every ambiguous statement as supporting that and then read between the lines a whole lot.

As I've said before: at worst, the full statement is ambiguous on the matter of eugenics, at best it rejects it. Stein's version presents Darwin as unambiguously pro-eugenics. That is dishonest.

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

....early Christianity inherited the Jewish moral framework in relation to sex and Marriage ... so there was a moral imperative protecting children from sexual predation in these societies.

Er...where? Standard marriage age at the time was like twelve.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

...and like I have already said, AH, the first rule when you are in a hole ... is to stop digging!!!!!

....but so far, the clay is furiously eminating in copious quantities, from your direction!!!!:pac::D:):eek:

On the contrary, I think you're delighted that we're not discussing posts #14748 and #14707. You'll happily debate ad hominems and morals, but these don't meaning anything at all to whether evolution is true. Why are you so willing to debate these irrelevancies and so afraid to discuss the science?

MatthewVII

wolfsbane wrote: »

Homosexuality negatively impacts on society by its dangerous sexual practices - as does heterosexual promiscuity. You agree then that these are immoral?

No, it doesn't. Homosexuality and heterosexuality can both damage society if it involves risky practice (unprotected sex, disease transmission etc). To suggest that risk is more associated with homosexuality is pretty small-minded of you. I suggest you get to know more homosexuals. Might open your eyes a bit.

wolfsbane wrote:

In the evolutionary model, if the earliest type of ape had cared for all of his fellows as we aspire to today, would homo sapiens have arisen? Does struggle within species not form a big part of the necessary evolutionary process?

No, evolution does not mean we get into fights amongst ourselves, the strongest wins, killing everyone else and passing on their genes. It's a passive process, with advantages adding up over time, traits which are beneficial meaning people are more likely to survive to procreate.

wolfsbane wrote:

Would looking after the healthy and euthanizing the feeble not be better for the group as a whole? Was not Hitler then acting nobly by gassing the mentally unfit and forcibly sterilizing many other types? He had to supress his natural feelings in the cause of the higher good.

Again, evolution is a passive process. Killing others doesn't improve the chances of an indivdual's genetics surviving, so why would they do it? People who have disadvantages (such as the mentally unfit) are less likely to reproduce than people without. Over time, this leads to an evolutionary disadvantage. Their offspring may have similar genetic traits which lead to a similar disadvantage. So over time, the traits are selected out. It's not a case of murdering people to remove them from the gene pool, evolution ensures that the more advantageous genes have a slight benefit, which when taken over a vast period of time in a huge population cause traits to diminish.

wolfsbane wrote:

You never felt guilt?

I fail to see the link between feeling guilty and an afterlife. I feel guilt if I do something which can negatively impact on another. This is a social mechanism which developed to prevent me doing it again to ensure that the population I am living in suffers as little as possible. There is no logical reason to assume a feeling of guilt suggests the existence of an afterlife

wolfsbane wrote:

which is why I ask you to admit there is no real morality, and wonder why you balk at it.

Time and again you fail to listen to what the evolutionists are saying. Of course there is morality, underlying themes which run through all humans whether they are religious or not. This doesn't mean that they have been hard-coded by a deity, it means that societies have developed to reduce human desire to perform harmful acts.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

......it starts with the amazing FACT that after 150 years of brainwashing, only 28% of Americans believe in Evolution and 62% want Creation Science taught along with Evolution in school ...
.... with these figures, and America being a Democracy, with 'rule by the PEOPLE' ... you MIGHT think that Creation Science WOULD be taught in American schools ... BUT you would be WRONG ... it is COMPLETELY BANNED from schools instead!!!

...so here we have a law imposed by a 28% MINORITY of Evolutionists...who dismiss the wishes of a 62% MAJORITY of the population!!!!

Schools are supposed to teach, to give new knowledge to people. If school syllabuses were controlled by direct representation of what the populace already believe, then the process would become cyclical and we'd still be teaching people that Zeus is the king of the gods. I'm sure that you would love for the situation to be thus now since your God is in vogue, but it would undermine education entirely.

Instead, the syllabi are determined by experts in a given field. People who dedicate their careers to that area and who stand on the shoulders of giants. So the history syllabus reflects the consensus in that field of study, rather than accepting popular conspiracy theories or legends. The same with science. Make sense?

Even if we were to accept creationist researchers as a part of the scientific community, they'd make up some 0.03% of the total population. That's beyond a fringe theory and would never be included in the life science syllabus.

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

....such is the ultimate moral 'dilemma' of a society 'without God'!!!!

I agree it is a dilemma and it requires careful consideration, but it has nothing do with it being without God.

Universal morality doesn't exist any more if God exist, it simply is God's opinion, which is no more universal than mine or yours.

You can argue that God's opinion carries more weight, or that you agree with it, but that isn't the same thing at all.

J C wrote: »

....so, for example, in a society overwhelmed by sexual perversion ... even Paedophilia COULD be 'morally' countenanced (if nearly everybody were engaging in it) ... and hetrosexual marriage COULD be morally 'outlawed' (if nearly nobody wanted to be married)!!!! :eek::)

All true. And rape and genocide could be morally justified if one is happy to accept God's opinion on what is to be considered moral.

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Schools are supposed to teach, to give new knowledge to people. If school syllabuses were controlled by direct representation of what the populace already believe, then the process would become cyclical and we'd still be teaching people that Zeus is the king of the gods. I'm sure that you would love for the situation to be thus now since your God is in vogue, but it would undermine education entirely.

Instead, the syllabi are determined by experts in a given field. People who dedicate their careers to that area and who stand on the shoulders of giants. So the history syllabus reflects the consensus in that field of study, rather than accepting popular conspiracy theories or legends. The same with science. Make sense?

Even if we were to accept creationist researchers as a part of the scientific community, they'd make up some 0.03% of the total population. That's beyond a fringe theory and would never be included in the life science syllabus.

....the best excuse I have ever heard for one religion (Atheistic Humanism) having full unchallenged access for it's unfounded ideas ... to children of ALL other religions!!!!:eek:

...even the Roman Catholic Church, in it's heyday, CONFINED it's dogmatic control to what Catholic children were taught (and they did so largely with the FULL approval of the parents concerned)...
They also largely respected the right of people of other faiths to NOT have their children indoctrinated with Roman Catholic beliefs!!!

...not so the latter day Atheists, who apparently NOW, .... via an infitessimally small minority of 'experts' in Materialistic Dogma determine what should and shouldn't be taught to ALL children in relation to BASIC religious issues (like the origins question) ... while completely ignoring the fact that MOST people and their children are NOT Atheists!!!!:eek::eek:

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

....the best excuse I have ever heard for one religion (Atheistic Humanism) having full unchallenged access for it's unfounded ideas ... to children of ALL other religions!!!!:eek:

...even the Roman Catholic Church, in it's heyday, CONFINED it's dogmatic control to what Catholic children were taught (and they did so largely with the FULL approval from the parents concerned)...
They also largely respected the right of people of other faiths to NOT have their children indoctrinated with Roman Catholic beliefs!!!

...not so the latter day Atheists who apparently NOW, .... via an infitessimally small minority of 'experts' in Materialistic Dogma determine what should and shouldn't be taught to ALL children in relation to BASIC religious issues (like the origins question) ... while completely ignoring the fact that MOST people and their children are NOT Atheists!!!!:eek::eek:

Are you saying that Creationism has no relevance to non-Christian children?

If you have to be a Christian for Creationism to be true surely that means Creationism is simply religious theology, rather than anything based on reality or science?

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

....the best excuse I have ever heard for one religion (Atheistic Humanism) having full unchallenged access for it's unfounded ideas ... to children of ALL other religions!!!!:eek:

It's not the consensus of atheists that determines the syllabus for life sciences J C. It's the consensus of life scientists. That includes a mixture of faiths. As I said, even counting creationists, your "version of the truth" doesn't even register on the same level as fringe hypotheses.

J C wrote: »

...even the Roman Catholic Church, in it's heyday, CONFINED it's dogmatic control to what Catholic children were taught (and they did so largely with the FULL approval from the parents concerned)...
They also largely respected the right of people of other faiths to NOT have their children indoctrinated with Roman Catholic beliefs!!!

Science is not a faith. Nor is history, nor languages, nor art. The syllabi of all of these, without exception, is determined by the consensus of the experts in those fields. Whether those teachings contradict any faith is not a consideration. Why should we discriminate against biology in this matter?

J C wrote: »

...not so the latter day Atheists who apparently NOW, .... via an infitessimally small minority of 'experts'

Not atheists, J C- biologists. They are not equivalent, regardless of your paranoia.

J C wrote: »

in Materialistic Dogma determine what should and shouldn't be taught to ALL children in relation to BASIC religious issues (like the origins question) ... while completely ignoring the fact that MOST people and their children are NOT Atheists!!!!:eek::eek:

Right... so you reckon that what people are taught in school should just reflect what they already believe. That's moronic.

So tell me o wise J C, in developing countries where the populace still attribute natural phenomena to Gods that you don't believe in, does your rule hold? Should we respect that public consensus? Should they be taught only that the majority are correct?

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Er...where? Standard marriage age at the time was like twelve.

...yes people COULD be betrothed once they reached puberty ... this is the origin of the Jewish Bar Mitzvah when Jewish boys and girls become adults in the eyes of Jewish law.

Marriages were arranged between the parents of the young people concerned...which totally protected the young people involved from the sexual predations of much older people!!!

There was also a long bethrothal or engagement period, during which the groom would build a house, start a business or otherwise prove his readiness to marry.
It also gave the young people concerned, and their parents, significant time to fully consider the suitability of their future marriage partner and added considerable stability to their lives.

While fourteen or fifteen seems very young to be getting married, by today's standards, we should bear in mind that many young people today ALSO have sexual experiences with other young people at this age ... and in much more risky and manipulative situations than would be the case within the bonds of a stable betrothal/marriage relationship in early New Testament times.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
....the best excuse I have ever heard for one religion (Atheistic Humanism) having full unchallenged access for it's unfounded ideas ... to children of ALL other religions!!!!

Wicknight
Are you saying that Creationism has no relevance to non-Christian children?

If you have to be a Christian for Creationism to be true surely that means Creationism is simply religious theology, rather than anything based on reality or science?

....IF you read my quote above, you would see that the origins question has relevance to ALL religions.

...Spontaneous Evolution is an unfounded idea within the religious dogma of Atheistic Humanism ... and Prof Dawkins has confirmed this when he said that it allows him to think of himself as an intellectualy fulfilled ATHEIST!!!!

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

....IF you read my quote above, you would see that the origins question has relevance to ALL religions.

...Spontaneous Evolution is an unfounded idea within the religious dogma of Atheistic Humanism ... and Prof Dawkins has confirmed this when he said that it allows him to think of himself as an intellectualy fulfilled ATHEIST!!!!

What's "spontaneous evolution"? Atheists accept evolution, atomic theory and the theory of gravity amongst others. Before we understood these things, atheists had to be satisfied to say "I don't know" a lot more often. This acceptance does not make any of these things dogmatic elements of atheism. Christians accept gravity (many many of them accept evolution), but it is not a part of Christian dogma.

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

...Spontaneous Evolution is an unfounded idea within the religious dogma of Atheistic Humanism

You are honestly saying that Biblical Creationism only has relevance to Christians

Do you know how dumb that sounds? What ever assertion about reality is true it effects everyone, not just a certain subset of the population who believe in one religion.

There isn't a seperate version of reality for Christans and one for everyone else.

Mickeroo

J C wrote: »

....BUT Evolution IS the ideology of Atheistic Humanism masquerading as 'Science' ...

....and because there is actually NO scientific evidence favouring the spontaneous evolution of ANYTHING .... these Atheistic Humanists and their 'fellow travellers' are denying ALL of the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE in relation to the origin of life!!!!

Could I remind you again, that this law (banning Creation Science and insisting on Evolution only being taught) is being imposed by a 28% MINORITY of Evolutionists...who dismiss the wishes of a 62% MAJORITY of the population!!!!
According to the 'logic' of your argument , NOT doing what 62% of the electorate WANT isn't political suicide????

....but it is somehow a good idea to not grant the deeply held wishes of 62% of the people... even in regard to THEIR OWN children's schooling!!!!:(

....and in a 'multi-cultural society' do you REALLY THINK that doing what a SMALL MINORITY of militant ATHEISTS want .... and teaching their unfounded ideas as 'scientific' FACT to ALL children of EVERY faith is some kind of 'multiculturalism'????!!!!:(

Small minority of militant atheists? You mean the teachers and most of the scientific community? Evolution is not an ideology it's a SCIENTIFIC THEORY, it has nothing to do with culture or religion. Dp you have any objection to children being taught the THEORY of gravity?

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

...yes people COULD be betrothed once they reached puberty ... this is the origin of the Jewish Bar Mitzvah when Jewish boys and girls become adults in the eyes of Jewish law.

Marriages were arranged between the parents of the young people concerned...which totally protected the young people involved from the sexual predations of much older people!!!

except when the 12 year old girl is being married off to the much older sexual predator of course ...

J C wrote: »

While fourteen or fifteen seems very young to be getting married, by today's standards, we should bear in mind that many young people today ALSO have sexual experiences with other young people at this age ... and in much more risky and manipulative situations than would be the case within the bonds of a stable betrothal/marriage relationship in early New Testament times.

you mean it is ok to experiment with sex when you are 12 when you are trapped in a marriage arranged by your parents that you can never leave

Do you think 12 year olds are emotionally mature to know that the person they are with is the person they will want to spend their entire lives with.

Or do you think that it doesn't really matter, once the ring is on they just have to put up with it.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Our wickedness comes from our spiritual nature, not from our physical makeup.
Then how come the amount of harm or malice someone desires to do can be controlled physically.

For example stroke victims who suffer brain damage can become violent, quick to temper and aggressive, even to close family members. Equally mood altering drugs can stop people with violence tendencies from losing control and attacking people.

How come links have been shown between people with parents prone to violence and them themselves being violent, even if they were not raised by those parents. A whole host of mental illness has been linked to genes.

All evidence indicates that our emotional desire to be good or bad, to help or to harm, to love or to hate, come from the physical properties of the brain, how it has developed and how it is functioning at that moment.

There is no evidence that our "spiritual" nature even exists, let alone is responsible for our emotions.

And even if our spiritual nature exists it clear comes a distant second to our physical nature.

That is to confuse our mental faculties with the spiritual. It is not easy for us to distinguish at times, for our brain is the interface with our spirit and our spirit can only express itself via the chemistry there.

Again this is God of the gaps nonsense. You are just making stuff up to suit a particular theological out look on life, with nothing to back any of it up.

If I were discussing science, you might have a point. But in this discussion I am asserting the Biblical explanation - so I don't have to scientifically prove it. But I'll return to that below.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Our nature comes from Adam. His was perfect but free to choose to sin and did so. Then it became corrupt like ours.
How?

Firstly detail how Adam changed his own spiritual make up (what ever that is), then how we inherit spiritual make up from one another, then how spiritual make up can effect the brain and emotions.

I'm not going to hold my breath.

Good. I wouldn't like to see you expire in unbelief.

God doesn't say how Adam was changed - just that He promised that in the day he sinned he would die. And so he did. Adam died spiritually, was cut off from God.

Again, how our spirits are descended from Adam, God does not say. Just that we are born in Adam, both his spiritual and bodily descendants.

I'm don't think we can say our bodies became corrupt by the action of our spirit upon them - rather both body and spirit fell with the first sin.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Yes, the evolution model covers both animal and human morality. So does the creation model.
You don't have a model. You have an unsupported assertion. "God did it, but we don't know what he did or how he did it" is not a "model"

The creation model accepts as a given that creation is now corrupt, subject to decay, imperfect. How that physically was initiated we cannot say - but we can point to its universal existence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Animals have a spirit too, they are not just flesh and blood. God gives them appropriate instincts and responses, and they too degenerated in the Fall. Back up there a minute.

We get our wickedness from Adam because we inherit it from him correct?

Correct. Well, our fallen natures, not our specific sins.

Now leaving aside the fact that no one has ever explained how Adam actually had the ability to alter his spiritual make up, nor how one inherits a spiritual make up from their parents, where the heck did the animals get their wicked nature from?

Animals are not moral beings, so cannot be wicked.

Did they inherit it from Adam also? Was Adam producing off spring with sheep and wolves and bears?

As above - animals are not sinners. They were subjected to decay because of Adam, their 'overlord'. All his dominion died with him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Our morality comes from our spirit, not our body.
All evidence suggests otherwise, but keep saying that over and over and some people may believe you.

All evidence suggests morality comes from our body OR is mediated by it. The existence of a spirit world has been experienced by many, so it is no suprise they go for the latter explanation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The Fall degraded our DNA, but did not scramble it - so no need for re-design.
First of all "The Fall" was either an action by Adam to eat a piece of fruit, or an action by God to punish Adam for eating a piece of fruit. The Fall itself isn't a thing, it isn't an agent, is a name of an event involving 2 entities.

"The Fall" didn't do anything, any more than the "World Cup" creates jobs, or "China" persecutes Christians. It is the people in those events that actually do things.

So which agent (God or Adam) "degraded" human DNA. If it was Adam please explain how Adam, a human, was able to resequence his own DNA. If it was God please explain why God decided it was a good idea to mess with his creation and make us wicked?

God brought corruption and death on creation in response to Adam's sin. God did not make Adam sin, but He did make him decay and die.

And you will notice I asked for the process that managed to resequence our DNA without simply scrambling it? How did what ever was doing the resequencing know how the order to rearrange our DNA so that Adam's first born son wasn't a mass of bloody foetal tissue.

No problem for the inventor of DNA (and everything else in the universe).

You say it was "degraded". What do you mean? DNA is sequences of molecules. You either have a sequence or you don't. You can't have a slighly blurry unclear sequence, like a degraded photograph. If you start simply rubbing out bits of DNA you end up with a dead cell.

So the DNA sequence must have been rearranged. By who, and how did they make sure that the rearrangement of the DNA still produced something that was human?

God. The Inventor Himself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
As above - the animal world was degraded by the Fall.
How?

Are you saying that not only was human DNA resequenced, and Adam's spirit altered, but this mystery entity also resequenced all DNA of all life on Earth and also re-jiggered the make up of their spirits as well?

Why? And how?

As above: Why, because of Adam's sin. The How, we don't know.

And where is the evidence for this? Where are the models of how this works?

A model of perfect biology being made subject to corruption and death? I would imagine any general imposition of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics would do the trick.

I'm no scientist, but anything I see eventually degrades and dies, losing all its specified complexity, reducing to basic chemicals, etc.

wolfsbane

MatthewVII said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Homosexuality negatively impacts on society by its dangerous sexual practices - as does heterosexual promiscuity. You agree then that these are immoral?
No, it doesn't. Homosexuality and heterosexuality can both damage society if it involves risky practice (unprotected sex, disease transmission etc). To suggest that risk is more associated with homosexuality is pretty small-minded of you. I suggest you get to know more homosexuals. Might open your eyes a bit.

I was referring to anal sex and promiscuity. They characterise homosexuality more than they do heterosexuality. But please answer my question: do you agree that such practises are immoral?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
In the evolutionary model, if the earliest type of ape had cared for all of his fellows as we aspire to today, would homo sapiens have arisen? Does struggle within species not form a big part of the necessary evolutionary process?
No, evolution does not mean we get into fights amongst ourselves, the strongest wins, killing everyone else and passing on their genes. It's a passive process, with advantages adding up over time, traits which are beneficial meaning people are more likely to survive to procreate.

So caring for the mentally and physically feeble, enabling them to pass on their genes, makes evolutionary sense? That's a new one on me. Do your fellow-evolutionists agree? I gather Darwin didn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Would looking after the healthy and euthanizing the feeble not be better for the group as a whole? Was not Hitler then acting nobly by gassing the mentally unfit and forcibly sterilizing many other types? He had to supress his natural feelings in the cause of the higher good.
Again, evolution is a passive process. Killing others doesn't improve the chances of an indivdual's genetics surviving, so why would they do it? People who have disadvantages (such as the mentally unfit) are less likely to reproduce than people without. Over time, this leads to an evolutionary disadvantage. Their offspring may have similar genetic traits which lead to a similar disadvantage. So over time, the traits are selected out. It's not a case of murdering people to remove them from the gene pool, evolution ensures that the more advantageous genes have a slight benefit, which when taken over a vast period of time in a huge population cause traits to diminish.

I can see how the tiny margin would accumulate over vast times. But would competing apes who did not care for their weak not be much more likely to prosper? Or even those who kill any offspring not theirs - the male lion, for example.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
You never felt guilt?
I fail to see the link between feeling guilty and an afterlife. I feel guilt if I do something which can negatively impact on another. This is a social mechanism which developed to prevent me doing it again to ensure that the population I am living in suffers as little as possible. There is no logical reason to assume a feeling of guilt suggests the existence of an afterlife

So its just a feeling arising from DNA traits, not a feeling based on the fear there is an account to be given sometime?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
which is why I ask you to admit there is no real morality, and wonder why you balk at it.
Time and again you fail to listen to what the evolutionists are saying. Of course there is morality, underlying themes which run through all humans whether they are religious or not. This doesn't mean that they have been hard-coded by a deity, it means that societies have developed to reduce human desire to perform harmful acts.

Oh, I do understand them to say that. Several have lately done so. It's just that so often they speak as if they believed some actions were morally wrong as such, not just in the opinion of some.

If all moralities are equally valid - being human inventions and dependant on the individual - surely the evolutionist should be less condemnatory of folk like Hitler who sought to give evolutionary advantage to his sort of people.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Wicknight said:
That is to confuse our mental faculties with the spiritual.

You are claiming something that is strongly contradicted by all available evidence. Our mental faculties control our emotions and our moral judgements.

You introduced the "spritual" as being responsible for this but have no evidence to back that up. Saying that I am confusing the two is just silly. I'm not confusing anything, as far as I'm concerned "the spiritual" does nothing

wolfsbane wrote: »

It is not easy for us to distinguish at times, for our brain is the interface with our spirit and our spirit can only express itself via the chemistry there.

Which makes the spirit as a concept rather redundant. What you are claiming is like saying the chocolate bars (I'm eating one now) aren't actually made in the factory where we see all the machines and the chocolate. They are made in an invisible undectable factory behind the chocolate factory, and then passed to the factory who makes them all again for no particular reason, and we end up with our bars. So even if it looks completely like the bars were made in the chocolate factory, they weren't, they were made in the invisible factory behind the chocolate factory.

If the system works just as well without the invisible factory, and there is no evidence that invisible factory does anything or even exists, why introduce it. Occam's Razor is it were.

There is nothing the spirit is needed to explain. Our brains do everything and this is what the evidence reveals. To claim that the spirit really does everything and our brains just mimic the spirit is down right silly.

wolfsbane wrote: »

If I were discussing science, you might have a point. But in this discussion I am asserting the Biblical explanation - so I don't have to scientifically prove it. But I'll return to that below.

There is no Biblical explanation. We are talking about concepts that the people who wrote the Bible had no concept of. It is simply your assumption that things like "heaven and Earth" refer to the universe, since the people who wrote those passages had no idea of the universe.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Again, how our spirits are descended from Adam, God does not say.

God doesn't say our spirits are actually descended from Adam, or that our spirits "interface" with the brain. He certainly doesn't say that Adam's DNA was perfect, or that the Fall caused it to change.

Modern Christians just made up all that to try and fit the vague descriptions in Genesis with modern knowledge.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm don't think we can say our bodies became corrupt by the action of our spirit upon them - rather both body and spirit fell with the first sin.

"Fell" where? "Fell" how? The Bible doesn't mention anything happening to our bodies beyond women experiencing painful child birth.

Again you guys are just making this stuff up.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The creation model accepts as a given that creation is now corrupt, subject to decay, imperfect. How that physically was initiated we cannot say - but we can point to its universal existence.

You don't have a "model". Do you understand what that word means. "God did it" is not a model.

A little hint is that anything you say you believe "as a given" is not a model. :rolleyes:

wolfsbane wrote: »

As above - animals are not sinners. They were subjected to decay because of Adam, their 'overlord'. All his dominion died with him.

Because of Adam how? How did Adam change the genetic structure of all life on Earth?

How do animals inherit this from one generation to the next. You have already said that animals have spirits. If we inherit our "decayed" spirit from our parents back to Adam, who do the animals inherit their decayed spirits from? Adam?

wolfsbane wrote: »

All evidence suggests morality comes from our body OR is mediated by it. The existence of a spirit world has been experienced by many, so it is no suprise they go for the latter explanation.

Well yes, but then people can be pretty dumb, that is not evidence for something. An awful lot of people like Celine Dion.

An awful lot of people like to believe they have experienced something they haven't, particularly if the idea brings them comfort.

wolfsbane wrote: »

God brought corruption and death on creation in response to Adam's sin. God did not make Adam sin, but He did make him decay and die.

Finally we get to the terrible conclusion. God decided that all of his own creation will decay and suffer, from all humans to all animal life.

So it is his fault we are like this. Well at least you are finally admitting that is the only logical conclusion.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The How, we don't know.

But you know it happened, right :rolleyes:

wolfsbane wrote: »

A model of perfect biology being made subject to corruption and death? I would imagine any general imposition of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics would do the trick.

So that would be a no then. You don't have the evidence. You don't have the models. You don't have the science.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

Oh, I do understand them to say that...

If all moralities are equally valid - being human inventions and dependant on the individual - surely the evolutionist should be less condemnatory of folk like Hitler who sought to give evolutionary advantage to his sort of people.

You say you understand, and yet then you come out with this.

Our position is that morality is not purely rational. We can purely rationally understand its nature as being both emotional and rational, but we cannot hold a moral system itself based purely on rationality. It would have no subjective meaning. Just as we can dissect the nature of love rationally, but cannot experience it rationally. So even if we could rationally claim that Hitler was serving evolution, that won't change our values or our feelings regarding human life or suffering. Those who will come to the moral conclusion that Hitler was right do not do so on the basis of rationality. They must also hold values in line with his.

As it stands, we can't even rationally say that of Hitler since his "eugenics" served only his own ideals. If one wishes to serve evolution, one does nothing at all in its name. Evolution will do as it does.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

So its just a feeling arising from DNA traits, not a feeling based on the fear there is an account to be given sometime?

No, but you saying that goes an awful lot towards explaining your motivation here.

The majority of people feel guilty because it is triggered by them causing harm to others, not because they rationalise they are going to get in trouble for it. This feeling is out of their control, it is an evolutionary emotion that is supposed to guide us into getting along with each other better.

It is funny how often discussions about morality on this forum come back to the idea that Christians fear God's punishment.

If you guys really can't see a reason to be moral beyond that you will get in trouble if you aren't, I can certainly understand why you have such trouble understanding atheist morality. You see us not believing this punishment exists and therefore cannot fathom why we are not out raping and pillaging, something presumably you guys would be if you didn't worry about what would happen to you.

wolfsbane wrote: »

If all moralities are equally valid - being human inventions and dependant on the individual - surely the evolutionist should be less condemnatory of folk like Hitler who sought to give evolutionary advantage to his sort of people.

All moralities are not equally valid. Where did you get such a bizarre idea?

That is like saying all opinions on what is the best movie of all time are valid. They aren't. Some are stupid. Porkies is not the best movie of all time. Someone can claim it is, but they are just being stupid.

Flamed Diving

wolfsbane wrote: »

That is to confuse our mental faculties with the spiritual. It is not easy for us to distinguish at times, for our brain is the interface with our spirit and our spirit can only express itself via the chemistry there.

I think you're the one who is confused. The brain and the spirit are the same, melded together by the Great Spider of Blargon 7 when our spiritbrain is conceived in the Fountain of Naglar and implanted in our real world mothers womb.

Equally valid.

MatthewVII

wolfsbane wrote: »

MatthewVII said:

I was referring to anal sex and promiscuity. They characterise homosexuality more than they do heterosexuality. But please answer my question: do you agree that such practises are immoral?

On the first point, I would not say that promiscuity is in any significant way more prevalent in homosexuals than it is in heterosexuals. I know people like to stereotype homosexuals as lusty sexual animals who care for nothing but their next bedroom encounter but in reality they have the same drives and desires as heterosexuals. To get to your point, I do not believe that anal sex and promiscuity are immoral, provided proper protection is used if sexually transmitted infections are an issue, and provided that it is consensual. Why would it be immoral if it doesn't harm anyone?

wolfsbane wrote:

So caring for the mentally and physically feeble, enabling them to pass on their genes, makes evolutionary sense? That's a new one on me. Do your fellow-evolutionists agree? I gather Darwin didn't.

Then you don't understand Darwin very well. You also completely ignored my last post. The genetically infirm have much less chance of passing on their genes. This means that over time, their contribution to the gene pool will be negligible compared to people with more advantageous traits. That is why we don't have an evolutionarily derived desire to kill the infirm, because their DNA will be less viable in the long term. You still seem to view evolution as a very fast process, where the survival of a few individuals in the short term can damage the gene pool. This isn't really the case.

wolfsbane wrote:

I can see how the tiny margin would accumulate over vast times. But would competing apes who did not care for their weak not be much more likely to prosper? Or even those who kill any offspring not theirs - the male lion, for example.

Even the weak and infirm can still contribute to a society and make it more successful.

wolfsbane wrote:

So its just a feeling arising from DNA traits, not a feeling based on the fear there is an account to be given sometime?

If one thinks about it logically, people who were genetically inclined to feel bad after doing damaging things would be less likely to do it again. This means that their society would thrive relative to one where a selfish gene was prevalent. There is no reason to jump to conclusions about an afterlife.

wolfsbane wrote:

If all moralities are equally valid - being human inventions and dependant on the individual - surely the evolutionist should be less condemnatory of folk like Hitler who sought to give evolutionary advantage to his sort of people.

Of course not all moralities are equally valid. The gene pool really gains nothing by culling the weak, as I have explained earlier. People can always contribute and strengthen a society.

Stop trying to link evolution to lack of morality. Just because there isn't someone telling us what to believe doesn't mean that morality doesn't exist.

The Mad Hatter

wolfsbane wrote: »

So caring for the mentally and physically feeble, enabling them to pass on their genes, makes evolutionary sense? That's a new one on me.

That's because you get your information on evolution from creationist websites.

Pahu

Fossil Gaps 2a

The Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago has one of the largest collections of fossils in the world. Consequently, its former dean, Dr. David Raup, was highly qualified to discuss the absence of transitions in the fossil record:

“Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information—what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin’s problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.” David M. Raup, “Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,” Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 50, No. 1, January 1979, p. 25.

“Surely the lack of gradualism—the lack of intermediates—is a major problem.” Dr. David Raup, as taken from page 16 of an approved and verified transcript of a taped interview conducted by Luther D. Sunderland on 27 July 1979.

“In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.” Stanley, p. 95.

“But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition.” David S. Woodruff, “Evolution: The Paleobiological View,” Science, Vol. 208, 16 May 1980, p. 716.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences27.html#wp1049019

Fanny Cradock

Pahu, I have previously warned you in this thread that if you again copy and paste without adding your own opinion you will be banned. What you are doing is nothing more than spamming.

Take a week off.


::Edit::

Regrettably, as you have elected to not receive PMs, the only way to do this is in a public manner. People are perfectly capable of reading through creationscience.com themselves. You really don't need to keep quoting from it. Please bear this in mind if you decide to post again.

robindch

J C wrote: »

Darwin did conclude that intentionally neglecting "the weak and helpless" would be evil

Good, so we agree that Darwin made it quite clear what the moral imperative was.

So, to ask again, what do you make of Stein who (a) removed words from Darwin's text until what remained meant the exact opposite of what was written and who (b) spent much of the film attempting to blame the Jewish Holocaust on Darwin, while ignoring entirely the rich vein of German anti-semitism which had preceded Hitler by many centuries, and is evidenced by no better man than the christian Martin Luther who called, in his notorious and splendidly incoherent 1543 rant, "On the Jews and Their Lies" for the state to dispossess every jew in the country, and murder any jewish clerics who dared to teach their religion:

Martin Luther wrote:

[...]set fire to their synagogues [...] I advise that their houses be destroyed [...] all their prayer books taken from them [...] I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life [...] I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews [...] I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them [...] if the authorities are reluctant to use force and restrain the Jews' devilish wantonness, the latter should, as we said, be expelled from the country and be told to return to their land and their possessions in Jerusalem, where they may lie, curse, blaspheme, defame, murder, steal, rob, practice usury, mock, and indulge in all those infamous abominations which they practice among us [...] and leave us our government, our country, our life, and our property [...] undefiled and uncontaminated with their devilish tyranny and malice

AtomicHorror

Far from being any sort of racist, Darwin in fact dedicated an entire chapter of the book we're discussing (The Descent of Man), to rubbishing the notion of any meaningful biological or evolutionary differences between the races of humans. The work massively undermined many of the "scientific" justifications for slavery prevalent at the time, some of which contended that blacks were of a "lower" species than whites. But to Darwin, the only meaningful distinction to be made between groups of humans was cultural, not biological.

Galvasean

All this deliberate misquoting of Darwin is so very childish.
It's like you took this statement: "I'm not racist", removed the word 'not' and cried foul.

Zombrex

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

That's because you get your information on evolution from creationist websites.

Never a truer word spoken :pac:

wolfsbane

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

That's because you get your information on evolution from creationist websites.

Not at all - I'm working from first principles here, trying to put together what you guys say and make sense of it. If 'progress' in evolution comes by the elimination of the less fitted, how can ensuring the survival of them be beneficial? It need not shipwreck the good ship Evolution, but it sure would slow it drastically. And while the group that did so crawled along, the competing groups would thrive.

Please explain why this is not so.