The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

wolfsbane

An interesting article on anti-creationist Peter Quinn's argument that Darwin was not quite so squeaky clean when it comes to dangerous social implications of his theory:

Darwin and eugenics
Darwin was indeed a ‘Social Darwinist’
http://creation.com/darwin-and-eugenics

I liked this from Quinn on today's 'Gentle Darwinists':
‘Educated at the best schools, winners in a global competition that has driven anonymous millions to the wall, the Gentle Darwinians’ effort to turn Charles Darwin into the sainted founder of a humanist creed undoubtedly reflects their own high position in today’s world order. But unlike their Victorian predecessors, they prefer a Darwin devoid of his social theories and his role in linking evolution with rank prejudice.’

The Mad Hatter

wolfsbane wrote: »

An interesting article on anti-creationist Peter Quinn's argument that Darwin was not quite so squeaky clean when it comes to dangerous social implications of his theory:

Darwin and eugenics
Darwin was indeed a ‘Social Darwinist’
http://creation.com/darwin-and-eugenics

I liked this from Quinn on today's 'Gentle Darwinists':
‘Educated at the best schools, winners in a global competition that has driven anonymous millions to the wall, the Gentle Darwinians’ effort to turn Charles Darwin into the sainted founder of a humanist creed undoubtedly reflects their own high position in today’s world order. But unlike their Victorian predecessors, they prefer a Darwin devoid of his social theories and his role in linking evolution with rank prejudice.’

Remarkable, isn't it, how they can write that whole article without once quoting Darwin?

robindch

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Remarkable, isn't it, how they can write that whole article without once quoting Darwin?

More remarkable still that four years into this thread, we have posters who've written literally thousands of posts damning Darwin from the highest pulpit in the land and blaming him for everything from the Holocaust to the hula-hoop, who have not found the time to crack open a single one of Darwin's books. And who choose to rely instead on the crayon-level warblings of a shower of deeply-weird, politically-motivated, banana-obsessed opportunists in constant need of funding.

It's comparable to trying to learn about Jewish comedy by buying British National Party agitprop and demonstrates an open fear of learning which is quite spectacular in its scale.

kiffer

It's not even like you'd have to type out the quotes yourself... copy+paste

http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/d#a485

marco_polo

wolfsbane wrote: »

An interesting article on anti-creationist Peter Quinn's argument that Darwin was not quite so squeaky clean when it comes to dangerous social implications of his theory:

Darwin and eugenics
Darwin was indeed a ‘Social Darwinist’
http://creation.com/darwin-and-eugenics

I liked this from Quinn on today's 'Gentle Darwinists':
‘Educated at the best schools, winners in a global competition that has driven anonymous millions to the wall, the Gentle Darwinians’ effort to turn Charles Darwin into the sainted founder of a humanist creed undoubtedly reflects their own high position in today’s world order. But unlike their Victorian predecessors, they prefer a Darwin devoid of his social theories and his role in linking evolution with rank prejudice.’

Been away for three months, so a bit of catch up reading to do. But it looks like the creationist barrel has been well and truely scraped at this stage .

Hope I didn't miss the forthcoming publication of Genetic Evidence for baraminology?

Flamed Diving

marco_polo wrote: »

Been away for three months, so a bit of catch up reading to do. But it looks like the creationist barrel has been well and truely scraped at this stage .

It's reached pathetically low levels. So much so that the thread contains little of interest anymore.

Galvasean

Flamed Diving wrote: »

It's reached pathetically low levels. So much so that the thread contains little of interest anymore.

Wadaya mean reached?

wolfsbane

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Remarkable, isn't it, how they can write that whole article without once quoting Darwin?

What article were you reading?

The one I posted has the following direct quotes from Darwin, marked out in green by me:

‘Darwin’s work is filled with references to the work of those involved in creating a radical new “scientific” justification for labeling races, classes, and individuals as “inferior”. … Darwin writes in The Descent of Man that “a most important obstacle in civilized countries to an increase in the number of men of a superior class” is the tendency of society’s “very poor and reckless”, who are “often degraded by vice”, to increase faster than “the provident and generally virtuous members”.’

‘All races, as it turns out, descend from the same ancestor but some are more descended than others. “I do not think that the Rev. Mr. Zincke takes an exaggerated view,” Darwin declares, “when he says: ‘All other series of events—as that which resulted in the culture of mind in Greece, and that which resulted in the empire of Rome—only appear to have purpose and value when viewed in connection with, or rather as subsidiary to … the great stream of Anglo-Saxon emigration to the west.’”’

‘Sounding more like Colonel Blimp than Lieutenant Columbo, Darwin envisions a far grimmer future for races or sub-species less fit than the Anglo-Saxon. “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world,” he predicts. “At the same time the anthropological apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state … even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.”’

‘Darwin is cavalier about the extermination of lesser breeds. He estimates that minimal force will be required, for “when civilized nations come into contact with barbarians the struggle is short, except where a deadly climate gives its aid to the native race.”’

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Not really. Only that the theory says nothing in itself. But if the theory is true, that informs us that man is not a sacrosanct being, one we are obliged to love as ourselves. He is just another bit of material in this universe, of no more worth than any other bit. We may invent a value for him, to suit our genetically conditioned emotions, but our rational ability tells us he is without objective value or purpose. That makes evolution a very dangerous idea.
But evolution does not in itself falsify your concepts of what makes humans sacrosanct. Remember that it is only a theory that explains the emergence of variation. The origin of species, including humans. It is mute as to the origin of life or the existence of the soul or of the divine.

I was refering to atheistic evolution. Obviously theistic evolution will have much the same morality as creationism.

Supposing it did throw all of that out, then as I've said before, knowing what life is does not change the fact that we value it. No more than knowing that a loved one is imperfect us can cause us to stop loving them. These things are not choices, even if we can evaluate them in a rational light. If anything, understanding the great rarity of our kind of life, the long struggle that it has taken to reach this point, confers quite a profound new respect. Life has a quality to it not previously imagined- a complexity in time and space of quite stunning beauty.

I have just come across a quote that puts it so well:
‘Darwinism can be used to back up two mad moralities, but it cannot be used to back up a single sane one. The kinship and competition of all living creatures can be used as a reason for being insanely cruel or insanely sentimental; but not for a healthy love of animals … That you and a tiger are one may be a reason for being tender to a tiger. Or it may be a reason for being cruel as the tiger. It is one way to train the tiger to imitate you, it is a shorter way to imitate the tiger. But in neither case does evolution tell you how to treat a tiger reasonably, that is, to admire his stripes while avoiding his claws.

If you want to treat a tiger reasonably, you must go back to the garden of Eden. For the obstinate reminder continues to recur: only the supernaturalist has taken a sane view of Nature.’
Chesterton, G.K., Orthodoxy, John Lane, London, pp. 204–205, 1927.

What I think it does force us to question is our valuation of the lives of other species. The seperation between us is no so clear.

If we are kin, then we should love them. If we and they are kin to the dirt under our feet...

The Biblical doctrine is to treat the biosphere with respect. We were put over it to care for it and to be served by it. We were later given it for food if required. But never for wanton killing, torture or abuse.

I question why the likes of J C insist on bringing morality into the argument on the veracity of evolution. As a statement of the stakes, perhaps it is relevant. But as I've just said, those are not the stakes regarding the theory of evolution. The real stakes for you guys is that it falsifies a literal reading of Genesis and, to your mind, undermines the inerrancy of the Bible. So talk of Hitler and eugenics is a bit of a cheap trick in my view.

As I said, atheistic evolution is a big threat to man, for it informs him that we are not all sacroscant. We are one with the animals, bacteria and inanimate atoms.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Yes, there are interactions we can test - Design, the Flood, for example - but most of the individual modern cases have already happened before we can do a 'before & after' test.

If you had a persistent medical problem that did not respond to all medical interventions, and you left off treating it and instead prayed God to heal it for you, and it disappeared - would you not think it likely to be answered prayer, even if you could not prove it to anyone else? And if such things had happened several times in your life, would you not be justified in thinking them more than coincidence? Sure, there is spontaneous remission as a logical possibility, but what about the probabilities?
Well there's a thing. We can test that, can't we? We can compare the rate of what appears to be spontaneous remission between those who pray for healing and those who do not. In fact, as I understand it, similar studies have been done before. I'm sure you can guess the outcome.

Did the studies differentiate between prayers offered by Bible-believing Evangelicals and those offered by nominal Christians/Hindus/Moslems, etc? Or was prayer alone the criteria?

If the latter, I could indeed guess the outcome.

kiffer

wolfsbane wrote: »

What article were you reading?

The same one as you are... Which version of The descent of Man did you read?

The one I posted has the following direct quotes from Darwin, marked out in green by me:

Right lets look quickly

Darwins work is filled with references to the work of those involved in creating a radical new scientific justification for labeling races, classes, and individuals as inferior. Darwin writes in The Descent of Man that a most important obstacle in civilized countries to an increase in the number of men of a superior class is the tendency of societys very poor and reckless, who are often degraded by vice, to increase faster than the provident and generally virtuous members.

If I recall correctly, Darwin is quoting someone else here, they are not his words. He goes on for quite a while after this.

All races, as it turns out, descend from the same ancestor but some are more descended than others. I do not think that the Rev. Mr. Zincke takes an exaggerated view, Darwin declares, when he says: All other series of eventsas that which resulted in the culture of mind in Greece, and that which resulted in the empire of Romeonly appear to have purpose and value when viewed in connection with, or rather as subsidiary to the great stream of Anglo-Saxon emigration to the west.

Again darwin is quoting some one else and goes on to talk about how despite not being descended directly from the greeks we make use of a lot of their work and ideas.
Again says quite a bit after this...

Sounding more like Colonel Blimp than Lieutenant Columbo, Darwin envisions a far grimmer future for races or sub-species less fit than the Anglo-Saxon.

sigh...

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world, he predicts. At the same time the anthropological apes will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.

He doesn't say that we should do this or that it's a good idea. It's a prediction based on what was seen to be happening... Also the bits of text that have been ellipsed out are interesting, again context, read the rest of the text.

Darwin is cavalier about the extermination of lesser breeds. He estimates that minimal force will be required, for when civilized nations come into contact with barbarians the struggle is short, except where a deadly climate gives its aid to the native race.

Yes? This is true. If a group of europeans with guns turns up in an area they can wipe out the locals. Again doesn't say they should do so or that it is moraly the correct thing to do or that the civilised man has the right to do so.

Flamed Diving

Galvasean wrote: »

Wadaya mean reached?

Sorry, I meant broke through.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

An interesting article on anti-creationist Peter Quinn's argument that Darwin was not quite so squeaky clean when it comes to dangerous social implications of his theory:

The "implications" of his theory?

Haven't we been over this already?

It seems to only be Creationists who think because Darwin said something happens in nature (a number of stuff he said were factually wrong or mistaken btw) that means it should be taken as that is what biologists should be doing.

It is like saying that the HIV virus infects people though blood, therefore the implications of this theory is that everyone should be given HIV.

wolfsbane

robindch wrote: »

Ham was recently in England and seems to have forgotten to take home a creationist "astrophysicist" who was subsequently invited onto the BBC to take part in an "examination of creationism". Unfortunately, it seems that he didn't realize that this meant that there was going to be any qualified scientists there, so when one showed up Ham's astrophysicist squealed home to Uncle Ham who released a blog statement accusing the BBC of lying and deceit.

More entertainingly, Ham also calls the BBC "obviously anti-Christian". And since the BBC's employees don't believe in god, they must therefore have no ethical problem with behaving deceitfully either!

I've read the blog statement. Seems OK to me - he was told the interview was to be an “examination of creationism.” But when he got there it was not an interview (as we had been led to believe), but a creation/evolution debate. I assume he would have preferred to have had time to prepare for a debate.

But providing they ask questions revelant to the field the creationist normally comments on, debate or interview hardly matter. In fact a scheduled debate by the two men had already taken place, in 29 November 2004:
Jason Lisle vs. Eugenie Scott on CNN!
http://answersingenesis.org/docs2004/1201debate.asp

BTW, I noticed you referred to Dr. Lisle as an "astrophysicist", implying I take it that he is not so qualified. This from his bio:
Dr. Lisle graduated summa cum laude from Ohio Wesleyan University where he double-majored in physics and astronomy, and minored in mathematics. He did graduate work at the University of Colorado where he earned a Master’s degree and a Ph.D. in Astrophysics. While there, Dr Lisle used the SOHO spacecraft to investigate motions on the surface of the sun as well as solar magnetism and subsurface weather. His thesis was entitled “Probing the Dynamics of Solar Supergranulation and its Interaction with Magnetism.” He has also authored a number of papers in both secular and creation literature.
http://answersingenesis.org/events/bio.aspx?Speaker_ID=40

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

BTW, I noticed you referred to Dr. Lisle as an "astrophysicist", implying I take it that he is not so qualified. This from his bio:

He is not so qualified. He isn't a biologist or even a chemist. He is a physicist.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

The "implications" of his theory?

Haven't we been over this already?

It seems to only be Creationists who think because Darwin said something happens in nature (a number of stuff he said were factually wrong or mistaken btw) that means it should be taken as that is what biologists should be doing.

It is like saying that the HIV virus infects people though blood, therefore the implications of this theory is that everyone should be given HIV.

I thought some of us had accepted that atheistic evolution informs our value system.

The fact (no longer theory) that HIV infects people though blood informs us that doing so is harmful to people. It does not tell us it is good or evil. But if atheistic evolution is true, that informs us we are essentially one with the elements, as is the rest of the biosphere. Our value system, if rational, will be adjusted accordingly.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

He is not so qualified. He isn't a biologist or even a chemist. He is a physicist.

My point was he is a qualified astrophysicist, not an "astrophysicist".

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

I noticed you referred to Dr. Lisle as an "astrophysicist", implying I take it that he is not so qualified.

Nope, I'm not trying to imply that he hasn't received a qualification, since it seems he has. What I am implying is that since Lisle no longer sticks to the rules that other astrophysicists play by, he's not therefore an astrophysicist in the standard sense of the term, hence the quotation marks.

They're the same kind of quotation marks that I'd include if I wanted to refer to David Irving as a "historian".

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

I thought some of us had accepted that atheistic evolution informs our value system.

In the same way that accepting the chemistry reduction-oxidation informs me whether I should set you on fire or not.

The implication of "accepting" this (I love the way you guys phrase this stuff, as if reality was based on what you were prepared to accept) are not that I should set you on fire, or that I shouldn't.

It is merely information about what would happen if I did.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The fact (no longer theory)

Considering it has been mentioned thousands of times on this thread that a fact is not greater than a theory I assume you are being knowingly ironic when you say that .. at least I hope so

wolfsbane wrote: »

But if atheistic evolution is true, that informs us we are essentially one with the elements, as is the rest of the biosphere.

My value system never assumed otherwise, so no it didn't need to be adjusted.

The only people who have trouble with the idea of the "implications" of evolution are those who can't think of any reason to value human life unless they are told to by a deity. Those people (who seem mostly to be Creationists) certainly would have to adjust their value system based on this. Remove the deity and they lose all reason to value human life.

The funny thing is that they really don't seem to want this to be so, which implies they do actually have a reason not disregard all value of human life even if evolution is true. They simply have trouble justifying this without the use of a deity. "I want to value human life" seems to not be an option to them for some bizarre reason.

robindch

Wicknight wrote: »

It is like saying that the HIV virus infects people though blood, therefore the implications of this theory is that everyone should be given HIV.

I'm still waiting for somebody to say that gravity is an false atheistic theory that caused the deaths of 170,000 people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Y'see, the bomb fell out of the door under the influence of so-called "gravity" and then the bomb exploded, killing the victims. Clearly, any theory which allows death to happen on this scale is dangerous and ungodly. And false as well obviously. Intelligent sucking and all of that....

kiffer

wolfsbane wrote: »

I thought some of us had accepted that atheistic evolution informs our value system.

The fact (no longer theory) that HIV infects people though blood informs us that doing so is harmful to people.

You know full well what that the word theory means in a scientific context...

It does not tell us it is good or evil. But if atheistic evolution is true, that informs us we are essentially one with the elements, as is the rest of the biosphere. Our value system, if rational, will be adjusted accordingly.

You seem to think rational atheist equals sociopath?

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

I'm still waiting for somebody to say that gravity is an false atheistic theory that caused the deaths of 170,000 people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Y'see, the bomb fell out of the door under the influence of so-called "gravity" and then the bomb exploded, killing the victims. Clearly, any theory which allows death to happen on this scale is dangerous and ungodly. And false as well obviously. Intelligent sucking and all of that....

That certainly was the implications of atomic theory (it is just a theory btw)

Once those atheists such as Einstein and Rutherford "accepted" the lie that is the theory of nuclear fission we had little alternative except to build a bomb and drop it on Japanese people (bizarrely using the same theory that isn't true)

If they had just realised that atomic theory was a lie of the devil and totally untrue that would never have been able to happen.

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

It seems that the small matter of my 15 questions (14769) and your 21 (14748) questions has still not been resolved. I posted 15 questions, you had replied and I had refuted your replies. So I'm waiting to hear counter arguments there. You also posted your own 21 or so questions from way back when which I have replied to in full. Waiting for your rebuttals there.

I also dismantled your probability argument as nonsense and would be most interested to hear your defence:



It has now been many weeks and you've not addressed any of this.

....I just don't have the time or the inclination .... what I have written, I have written....and the fact that you will not accept that God designed you doesn't invalidate the fact that He DID!!!:pac::):D

....look, it ultimately comes down to the fact that there isn't a shred of evidence or logic supporting the idea that genome information can be spontaneously increased by mutation or any other evolutionary process ....even the Great Prof Dawkins couldn't give an example of where this occurs!!!:D

.....and for those of you who still believe that if you stick a feather in the ground, it will (eventually) grow a hen .... after billions of years (that don't actually exist) you can get disabused of this notion here
http://creation.com/was-dawkins-stumped-frog-to-a-prince-critics-refuted-again

Prof Dawkins was asked to give JUST ONE EXAMPLE of an observed increase in genetic information via an evolutionary process ... and he was unable to come up with any example ... he then gathered his thoughts, and answered a different question ... and in the process he confirmed that he believed that Evolution DIDN'T involve fish evolving into reptiles nor reptiles evolving into mammals.

He is right about that ... they were ALL Directly Created!!!!!:D:ek:

wolfsbane

kiffer said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
What article were you reading?
The same one as you are... Which version of The descent of Man did you read?

I asked MH what article he was reading, because mine had quotes from Darwin, which apparently his hadn't. I am using the Online Reader version of The Descent of Man by Charles Darwin. I have only skimmed it, but any of the quotes I've found so far are accurate.

Quote:
Darwins work is filled with references to the work of those involved in creating a radical new scientific justification for labeling races, classes, and individuals as inferior. Darwin writes in The Descent of Man that a most important obstacle in civilized countries to an increase in the number of men of a superior class is the tendency of societys very poor and reckless, who are often degraded by vice, to increase faster than the provident and generally virtuous members.

If I recall correctly, Darwin is quoting someone else here, they are not his words. He goes on for quite a while after this.

Indeed, but he agrees with the comments, for he continues:
Or as Mr. Greg puts the case: "The careless, squalid, unaspiring
Irishman multiplies like rabbits: the frugal, foreseeing, self-respecting,
ambitious Scot, stern in his morality, spiritual in his faith, sagacious
and disciplined in his intelligence, passes his best years in struggle and
in celibacy, marries late, and leaves few behind him. Given a land
originally peopled by a thousand Saxons and a thousand Celts--and in a
dozen generations five-sixths of the population would be Celts, but five-
sixths of the property, of the power, of the intellect, would belong to the
one-sixth of Saxons that remained. In the eternal 'struggle for
existence,' it would be the inferior and LESS favoured race that had
prevailed--and prevailed by virtue not of its good qualities but of its
faults."

There are, however, some checks to this downward tendency.

Quote:
All races, as it turns out, descend from the same ancestor but some are more descended than others. I do not think that the Rev. Mr. Zincke takes an exaggerated view, Darwin declares, when he says: All other series of eventsas that which resulted in the culture of mind in Greece, and that which resulted in the empire of Romeonly appear to have purpose and value when viewed in connection with, or rather as subsidiary to the great stream of Anglo-Saxon emigration to the west.

Again darwin is quoting some one else and goes on to talk about how despite not being descended directly from the greeks we make use of a lot of their work and ideas.
Again says quite a bit after this...

Indeed, but again, he agrees with the author.

Quote:
Sounding more like Colonel Blimp than Lieutenant Columbo, Darwin envisions a far grimmer future for races or sub-species less fit than the Anglo-Saxon.

sigh...

Quote:
At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world, he predicts. At the same time the anthropological apes will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.

He doesn't say that we should do this or that it's a good idea. It's a prediction based on what was seen to be happening... Also the bits of text that have been ellipsed out are interesting, again context, read the rest of the text.

Here's the exact quote:
At some future period,
not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will
almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the
world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor
Schaaffhausen has remarked (18. 'Anthropological Review,' April 1867, p.
236.), will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his
nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a
more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.
Note, man in a more civilised state will be much more distanced from his nearest allies - gone will be the intermediaries such as the savage races (negro or Australian), the gorillas and baboons. It will be a bigger gap than now exists between the Caucasian and the baboon, and certainly much bigger than now exists between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. Or so Darwin hopes.

Quote:
Darwin is cavalier about the extermination of lesser breeds. He estimates that minimal force will be required, for when civilized nations come into contact with barbarians the struggle is short, except where a deadly climate gives its aid to the native race.

Yes? This is true. If a group of europeans with guns turns up in an area they can wipe out the locals. Again doesn't say they should do so or that it is moraly the correct thing to do or that the civilised man has the right to do so.

Yes, he seems quite detached about it. :rolleyes:

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

That certainly was the implications of atomic theory (it is just a theory btw)

Once those atheists such as Einstein and Rutherford "accepted" the lie that is the theory of nuclear fission we had little alternative except to build a bomb and drop it on Japanese people (bizarrely using the same theory that isn't true)

If they had just realised that atomic theory was a lie of the devil and totally untrue that would never have been able to happen.

You miss the point that atheistic evolution tells us something about our nature, our origins. Atomic theory tells us only how what we are made of holds together.

If atheistic evolution is true, we are only complex combinations of atoms. If creationism is true, those complex combinations form our bodies as a house of our non-material spirits. Both our body and spirit will one day stand before God and inherit everlasting life, or shame and everlasting contempt. Daniel 12:2.

wolfsbane

kiffer wrote: »

You seem to think rational atheist equals sociopath?

Yes, but thankfully most atheists are none too rational.

J C

robindch wrote: »

I'm still waiting for somebody to say that gravity is an false atheistic theory that caused the deaths of 170,000 people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Y'see, the bomb fell out of the door under the influence of so-called "gravity" and then the bomb exploded, killing the victims. Clearly, any theory which allows death to happen on this scale is dangerous and ungodly. And false as well obviously. Intelligent sucking and all of that....

.....you are completely missing the fact that the bomb was INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED .... and was dropped out of an INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED bomb door on an INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED jet plane by an INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED Human Being!!!!:pac::):D

....but such is the eternal dilemma for the Materialist who dares not allow a 'Divine Foot' inside the closed doors of his/her INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED mind!!!!:pac::):D

....and if you continue in denial ... you will have an eternity to think about the mistake that you have made!!!!:eek::eek:

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
But if atheistic evolution is true, that informs us we are essentially one with the elements, as is the rest of the biosphere.
My value system never assumed otherwise, so no it didn't need to be adjusted.

The only people who have trouble with the idea of the "implications" of evolution are those who can't think of any reason to value human life unless they are told to by a deity. Those people (who seem mostly to be Creationists) certainly would have to adjust their value system based on this. Remove the deity and they lose all reason to value human life.

The funny thing is that they really don't seem to want this to be so, which implies they do actually have a reason not disregard all value of human life even if evolution is true. They simply have trouble justifying this without the use of a deity. "I want to value human life" seems to not be an option to them for some bizarre reason.

We see no reason, no rational explanation, why human life has a value if atheistic evolution is true.

To date, I've heard none from you or anyone here. All I've heard is that you make one up so as to keep a quiet conscience and to encourage society to be a safer place for you. Nothing about human life being of value, intrinsically.

So, objectively, the sociopath is as rational and as moral as you. He goes with doing his thing and hoping to get away with it. He seems to have his conscience well suppressed, and statistically enjoys a fair chance of going undetected for many years. Can you tell him why he shouldn't rape/murder or whatever?

Genghiz Cohen

wolfsbane wrote: »

Wicknight said:

We see no reason, no rational explanation, why human life has a value if atheistic evolution is true.

I believe my life has value.
I am human.
If my human life has value, other human life must also have value.

Makes sense to me anyway.

J C

Darwin wrote:

All races, as it turns out, descend from the same ancestor but some are more descended than others

....I wonder, if this is a variant of the Orwellian idea that all people are equal ... but some people are more equal than others????:):D

J C

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

I believe my life has value.
I am human.
If my human life has value, other human life must also have value.

Makes sense to me anyway.

....YOUR belief that YOUR life has value is entirely SUBJECTIVE
...and you have no means of OBJECTIVELY supporting such a belief in the absence of EXTERNAL i.e. Divine confirmation.

....you're belief is a bit like a Banker who believes that he 'shouldn't get out of bed' for anything less than €1 million!!!!
....while this might make sense to him... it doesn't necessarily make sense to anybody else!!!!!:D

Equally, your statement that "if my human life has value, other human life must also have value" ... doesn't have any objective underpinning .... as all of the victims of Genocide and Warfare down the years, would confirm .... if they weren't actually DEAD!!!