The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

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.

Atomic theory (which is just a theory) tells us how to blow up cities in an instant.

Surely then the implications of this knowledge is that we are compelled to blow up cities? Correct?

Isn't that your argument? That once we know how something works we are compelled to do it?

If that isn't your argument then why do you keep saying that once people discovered evolution that meant that they were some how compelled to start killing handicapped people or controlling breeding?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Wicknight said:

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

No, you see no reason, no rational explanation why human life has value if "atheistic evolution" (ie evolution and a whole lot of stuff to do with God that has nothing to do with evolution) is true because you only see human life has having value because someone told you they value it (ie God)

Which is a bit like saying you only "like" watching Friends because your girlfriend tells you that you should because she thinks it is funny, and if you weren't going out with her you wouldn't watch it all.

Which no offence Wolfsbane, it is a little sad. If you can't find any reason to value human existence beyond simply being told by someone you fear and respect that you should, then I'm not sure I can help you.

wolfsbane wrote: »

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.

Value is not intrinsic, so that is some what of an oxymoron. It is like saying something is intrinsically disgusting, or intrinsically pleasant.

None of these words mean anything independently of the being that is using them to judge something so.

You some what nonsensically believe that God's opinion on something makes that opinion some how intrinsic to the thing itself. It doesn't. It is still simply his opinion on the matter. His opinion does not become a property of the thing independently of him making that judgement.

So rather than intrinsic properties of something that exist as part of it independent to anything else what you are really talking about is authority.

You take head of God's opinion on something because you consider him to be an authority on the matter. You don't give a hoot about my opinion on something because you don't consider me to be an authority on the matter.

That is fair enough, but it is important to realise that you are not talking about value as a property of something, simply value as an assigned judgement.

Evolution doesn't change this one bit. With or without evolution human life has no value apart from the value beings (God, you, me) judge it to have.

wolfsbane wrote: »

So, objectively, the sociopath is as rational and as moral as you.

But there is no "objectively", that is the point. There is no object standard to measure him more or less moral than me, such an idea doesn't make sense.

There is his standard and my standard, and that is it. By my standard he fails miserably. He may disagree, but I don't care any more than I care about the opinion of someone that Boyzone are good singers or their opinion that wine tastes better when chewing gun.

Saying that Boyzone are objectively bad singers doesn't make sense because there is no objective standard of bad signing. There is simply opinion. Personal opinion, collective opinion, but opinion none the less.

If someone where to say that because of this I can't say Boyzone are bad singers I would say that is a silly thing to argue. It is assuming a framework of an objective standard that has some how been removed, where in fact the frame work never existed. There has never been objective standard of bad singing, that has always been opinion, so the claim that I can't say they are bad is oxymoronic. It doesn't make sense.

Even if God says they are bad singers that is still simply his opinion on the matter. God thinking Boyzone suck doesn't make it a fundamental intrinsic property of Boyzone that would exist if nothing else existed (shutter the thought) to judge them.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Can you tell him why he shouldn't rape/murder or whatever?

I don't think I would bother. If he doesn't already agree with me I don't think I could convince him, any more than you saying "God doesn't want you to" would stop him if he didn't agree that he should listen to what God wants him to do.

I would just lock him up.

robindch

J C wrote: »

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

Nope, I won't be thinking about anything. I, like you, am not immortal

J C

robindch wrote: »

Nope, I won't be thinking about anything. I, like you, am not immortal

....but we are BOTH Immortal Beings, Robin!!!!
....and that is why I have such loving concern for your eternal welfare!!!

Please believe on Jesus Christ .... and be Saved ... before it is too late, Robin.

Mark Hamill

wolfsbane wrote: »

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

I see no reason, no rational explanation, why human life has a value if creationism is true. To a fully omnipotent god, we and our entire existence, are truely nothing. True omnipotence means that the creation/alteration/destruction of absolutely everything is all equally possible and all require absolutely no effort to achieve. We would seem to be at the mercy of a god who can completely wipe out all evidence of our existence with no effort and completely start over with something new with absolutely no reason not to, a god who, by definition, has absolutely no need for our existence. Now, according to you, atheistic evolution implies that human life has no value, but if god exists, then he doesnt value us either so we would still be in the same boat.

wolfsbane wrote: »

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.

There is not a simgle thing in existence that has intrinsic value. All value is defined by supply and demand. The more of something we have, the less valuable it is and vice versa. If there is no demand for something, it is worthless, until the demand is there.

MatthewVII

J C wrote: »

....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.

Right, and your belief in your God is subjective. And your moral values and ideals based on that religious subjective belief are also entirely subjective. Any "confirmation" you receive of your beliefs is a subjectively interpreted phenomenon. The way you express your belief in your subjective view of subjective morals eschewed by a subjective god are completely subjective.

So what's the problem? Valuing human life is by nature subjective, some value it more than others for different reasons. The reason why people value human life doesn't mean there is a difference in how that value is perceived by others or the effect it has on society at large. So why should a theists's subjective value of human life be more inherently valuable than an atheist's subjective value of human life?

J C

MatthewVII wrote: »

Right, and your belief in your God is subjective. And your moral values and ideals based on that religious subjective belief are also entirely subjective. Any "confirmation" you receive of your beliefs is a subjectively interpreted phenomenon. The way you express your belief in your subjective view of subjective morals eschewed by a subjective god are completely subjective.

So what's the problem? Valuing human life is by nature subjective, some value it more than others for different reasons. The reason why people value human life doesn't mean there is a difference in how that value is perceived by others or the effect it has on society at large. So why should a theists's subjective value of human life be more inherently valuable than an atheist's subjective value of human life?

..a Christian's valuation of Human life is not inherently more valuable than an atheist's valuation of human life ... but it is more accurate ... because it is informed by the Person who created all Human life, in the first place!!!!!!!!:pac::):D

J C

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I see no reason, no rational explanation, why human life has a value if creationism is true. To a fully omnipotent god, we and our entire existence, are truely nothing. True omnipotence means that the creation/alteration/destruction of absolutely everything is all equally possible and all require absolutely no effort to achieve. We would seem to be at the mercy of a god who can completely wipe out all evidence of our existence with no effort and completely start over with something new with absolutely no reason not to, a god who, by definition, has absolutely no need for our existence. Now, according to you, atheistic evolution implies that human life has no value, but if god exists, then he doesnt value us either so we would still be in the same boat.

...you are correct that an Omnipotent God COULD do all those things and COULD ignore His Creation IF He so desired ..... but God DOESN'T do this.

He loves each one of us and wants to Save us ... and all He asks is that we voluntarily love Him and trust in Him to Save us!!!!

Mark Hamill wrote: »

There is not a simgle thing in existence that has intrinsic value. All value is defined by supply and demand. The more of something we have, the less valuable it is and vice versa. If there is no demand for something, it is worthless, until the demand is there.

...supply and demand is only one means of establishing 'value'.

All Human Beings have intrinsic (God-given) value ... even when they have no demand for their services or are found in abundance!!!

J C

Originally Posted by 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.

Mark Hamill wrote:

There is not a simgle thing in existence that has intrinsic value. All value is defined by supply and demand. The more of something we have, the less valuable it is and vice versa. If there is no demand for something, it is worthless, until the demand is there.

....two OPPOSITE and equally SUBJECTIVE views on how to 'value' Humans .... with dramatically different possible results for anybody having their 'value' assessed by each belef system.:eek::)

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Atomic theory (which is just a theory) tells us how to blow up cities in an instant.

Surely then the implications of this knowledge is that we are compelled to blow up cities? Correct?

Isn't that your argument? That once we know how something works we are compelled to do it?

If that isn't your argument then why do you keep saying that once people discovered evolution that meant that they were some how compelled to start killing handicapped people or controlling breeding?

No, that is not my argument. My argument is that the theory of evolution informs us (rather, claims to) of our nature/origins. Atomic theory makes no such claims.

wolfsbane

Mark Hamill said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
We see no reason, no rational explanation, why human life has a value if atheistic evolution is true.
I see no reason, no rational explanation, why human life has a value if creationism is true. To a fully omnipotent god, we and our entire existence, are truely nothing. True omnipotence means that the creation/alteration/destruction of absolutely everything is all equally possible and all require absolutely no effort to achieve. We would seem to be at the mercy of a god who can completely wipe out all evidence of our existence with no effort and completely start over with something new with absolutely no reason not to, a god who, by definition, has absolutely no need for our existence. Now, according to you, atheistic evolution implies that human life has no value, but if god exists, then he doesnt value us either so we would still be in the same boat.

As JC pointed out, God COULD have treated us so, and justly, when man sinned. But He does not - quite to the contrary, He takes upon Himself our human nature and Himself bears the penalty due for the sins of His people.

And this love is not a passing fad, as is so much human love. His love is total and unending - the marriage of God and His people is eternal.
Romans 8:31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? 32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? 33 Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. 34 Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? 36 As it is written:


“ For Your sake we are killed all day long;
We are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.”

37 Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. 38 For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, 39 nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
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.
There is not a simgle thing in existence that has intrinsic value. All value is defined by supply and demand. The more of something we have, the less valuable it is and vice versa. If there is no demand for something, it is worthless, until the demand is there.

Thank you for confirming what I said: the rational atheist puts a value on things according to his needs, and accepts that nothing has any value in itself.

The Christian says things have the value God puts on them, whether any man values them or not. All men are made in God's image and we are to treat them with due respect. They are not one with the animals or atoms.

Also, regardless of our obligations to value God's creation appropriately, God Himself has a value on each individual. All are His creation and He shows His kindness to even the evil, by sending rain and sunshine in its season. More importantly, God loves His elect, the Church, with a special love and grants them repentance and faith. He forgives their sin and makes them fit for heaven. They are precious in His sight.

The poor beggar covered in sores may be a drag on society, but he may also be the love of God's heart and the one whom angels carry to His presence when he dies. The rich man may be the wealth-generator and powerbroker of society, but when he dies he may lift up his eyes in hell.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, that is not my argument. My argument is that the theory of evolution informs us (rather, claims to) of our nature/origins. Atomic theory makes no such claims.

Atomic theory informs us about how atoms work. Evolution informs us about how biological life (among other things) works.

But what does that have to do with social engineering or eugenics or killing handicapped children?

How does informing ourselves about how something works imply that we are compelled to act in a certain way or to carry out something?

Why do Creationists like yourself keep trying to tie Darwin with eugenics or genocide? Even if Darwin did believe in such things (there seems little evidence he did and far more he didn't) why would that matter?

If the scientists who build the atomic bomb believed in dropping it on Japan does that mean that anyone who learns about atomic theory is required to believe that nuclear genocide is a good idea?

Your logic for this stuff is all over the place Wolfsbane.

kiffer

In the last while I've been typing up posts and deleting them before I hit submit, this post is an amalgam of these posts and as such may be a little extra ranty and disjointed ... .

Arguments for universal/objective morality can be made (rightly or wrongly)... and can be used to argue in favour of the existence of a god... but the existence or non-existence of God (theistic, deistic or otherwise-istic) is frankly completely irrelevant to the physical evidence that is on the table in favour of an old Earth, evolution and so on.

While it is true that evolution does not require God, it does not preclude the existence of the divine. It makes no moral arguments, merely seeking explaining the HOW of development and change of lifeforms overtime. There are strong arguments and evidence for evolutionary origins of human behaviors and morals, but again this does not preclude the existence of the divine, although it does show that God is not necessary to explain the existence of morals, compassion and so on... which obviously appeals to atheists.

As has been said a number of times abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution, also (as far as I'm aware) abiogenesis has not yet reached theory status, currently there are several hypotheses some stronger than others, but there is a lot of work to be done before we could start to talk of the theory of abiogenesis...
Even if this point is never reached and the abiogenesis gap is never plugged leaving a place for God to hide then that takes nothing away from the evidence in favour of an old Earth, nothing away from the body of evidence in favour of natural selection / evolution and so on... nor would it make "Flood Geology" in any way plausible.


Wolfsbane has presented a Staw Vulcan, where rational atheist seems to mean sociopathic, emotionless, jerk.
The jerk part is necessary in his idea of a 'rational atheist' because he need this person to come to ... distasteful conclusions... but it is it quite possible that even wolfsbane's rational (read:sociopathic) atheist could come to a conclusion that the best sort of society to create, in order to improve the chances of their descendants, is one of highly tolerant people that co-operate and are highly empathic... rather than an ethnically cleansed world in which further future ethnic cleansing may take place in the wiping out said descendants in later purges.

Then having come to this conclusion wolfsbane's atheist could of course decide to pull a bit of a Dexter, killing off other sociopaths and aggressive people capable of killing in this way...
Luckily for us all, rational and logical do not mean what wolfsbane implies with his rational atheist / sociopath.

Frankly, the current discussion about morality is an attempt to distract from the facts involved by making appeals to emotion.

"...If we have evolved from other animals, then we are just animals and so there would be no reason to not go raping and killing..."

ok... we disagree about that... maybe *you* would have no reason to not go on such a spree if you thought there was no God... however, what does that have to do with anything?

God or no God, Objective Morality or "merely" Subjective Morality... You're just running from the fact that you've been unable to find any real world evidence for creationism that hasn't been easily shown to be full of failures of logic, failure of basic rigor or containing shocking misunderstandings various topics.

I think Creationists were better off when they claimed that all the geological evidence was planted there by Satan to mislead us...

Eugenics... generally speaking more up to date creationist accept micro-evolution, artificial selection (as can be seen in domestic animals/plants, and in the lab), natural selection, and some even accept that speciation takes place so all that's really in dispute these days are starting conditions and timescale...

um... wait ...Eugenics.
All that eugenics needs is artificial selection to be effective... we know that artificial selection works.
Do we think that either killing people we don't like or sterilizing them by force are morally sound courses of action?
I, and as far as I can tell most of the other non-creationist posters think that such actions would not be morally sound, and also would possibly be based on short sighted criteria which may back fire in the long run.

By what standard do we base our opinion for this decision on such moral issues? I think that's a topic for a big thread on the A+A forum.





Objective Morality?
Elsewhere on this forum I stated that "It's never ok for a master to beat his servent", and wolfsbane came back with "It is if the master is God."
Subjective or what?

wolfsbane

robindch wrote: »

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".

He doesn't stick to the rules that other astrophysicists play by? Have you evidence of that? Does he deny the Laws of Motion? Or what?

Or do you mean he denies biological evolution? What has that got to do with astrophysics?

Or that the universe is billions of years old? Must an astrophysicist believe those things? Can alternative scientific explanations not be made?

Feedback: Stellar Evolution and Millions of Years
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/02/08/feedback-star-progression

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Can alternative scientific explanations not be made?

Not if you throw out science to make them...

It would be like arguing a position on Christianity by starting with "Now, lets ignore what Jesus said for a minute..."

You either choose to follow the standards or you don't. If you don't that is fine but don't pretend you do. You wouldn't accept a Mormon saying they are as Christian as you, why do you expect scientists to accept this guy simply because he claims to be a scientist yet disregards scientific standards.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Atomic theory informs us about how atoms work. Evolution informs us about how biological life (among other things) works.

But what does that have to do with social engineering or eugenics or killing handicapped children?

How does informing ourselves about how something works imply that we are compelled to act in a certain way or to carry out something?

Why do Creationists like yourself keep trying to tie Darwin with eugenics or genocide? Even if Darwin did believe in such things (there seems little evidence he did and far more he didn't) why would that matter?

If the scientists who build the atomic bomb believed in dropping it on Japan does that mean that anyone who learns about atomic theory is required to believe that nuclear genocide is a good idea?

Your logic for this stuff is all over the place Wolfsbane.

You are slipping from atheistic evolution - which entails the concept of a materialistic universe - to just the mechanics of biological evolution. The latter would tell us little about our nature - we could be God's chosen but have come by this means. Which is why I have been critiquing atheistic evolution. It informs us we are nothing more than matter, and rationally, of no intrinsic value. You and several others have agreed.

I agree with you - believing in atheistic evolution does not compel one to eugenics, genocide or any other course of action. You choose. But it does compel us to regard all things as having no intrinsic value above anything else. Atheists may invent a high value on human life to suit their emotional needs, but they may not rationally claim their morality is any better than one which puts no value on it.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Not if you throw out science to make them...

It would be like arguing a position on Christianity by starting with "Now, lets ignore what Jesus said for a minute..."

You either choose to follow the standards or you don't. If you don't that is fine but don't pretend you do. You wouldn't accept a Mormon saying they are as Christian as you, why do you expect scientists to accept this guy simply because he claims to be a scientist yet disregards scientific standards.

I'm not aware he disregards any scientific standards. Care to specify?

The Mad Hatter

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm not aware he disregards any scientific standards. Care to specify?

Peer review? Burden of proof? Assessing all of the evidence? Seeking answers?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

You are slipping from atheistic evolution - which entails the concept of a materialistic universe - to just the mechanics of biological evolution.

If you say so. :pac:

wolfsbane wrote: »

You and several others have agreed.

Not sure what you think I agreed to. To me a phrase like "atheist evolution" is like saying atheist cooking or atheist dry cleaning.

wolfsbane wrote: »

But it does compel us to regard all things as having no intrinsic value above anything else.

But so does Christianity? So what is the difference?

You only believe things have value not because they have intrinsic value but because God is of the opinion they have value and you have chosen to respect God's opinion.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Atheists may invent a high value on human life to suit their emotional needs, but they may not rationally claim their morality is any better than one which puts no value on it

Why not? How is that any different to claiming that God's morality is any better than anyone else's?

Again all we are talking about here is opinion. You either agree with something or you don't. Nothing in this is an intrinsic property of something.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm not aware he disregards any scientific standards.

Are you aware of him at all? Have ever read anything he has written?

I good go to the trouble of listing all the things Lisle has stated that are grossly unscientific (he has been discussed before on this thread), but I'm getting a sneaking feeling you don't actually care that much ...

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

He doesn't stick to the rules that other astrophysicists play by? Have you evidence of that? Does he deny the Laws of Motion? Or what?

Evidence? Why the sudden interest in that?

No, Lisle works for an organization -- AiG and the (self-declared) Bearded Wonder -- which declares that absolutely anything that disagrees with company policy is, de facto, false.

Creationists from the backwoods of Kentucky, or any other place where the light of civilization is, frankly, rather faint, might consider that to be science in some way. But members of the reality-based community who have to make real contributions to humanity find it a rather sick and dishonest joke.

Hence my putting quotes around Lisle's "job" title.

Mark Hamill

J C wrote: »

...you are correct that an Omnipotent God COULD do all those things and COULD ignore His Creation IF He so desired ..... but God DOESN'T do this.

He loves each one of us and wants to Save us

From himself?

J C wrote: »

... and all He asks is that we voluntarily love Him and trust in Him to Save us!!!!

Voluntary? If you dont, you are threatened with eternity of pain and suffering. If you truely believe in god and truely understand the concept of eternity, then there is no choice.

J C wrote: »

...supply and demand is only one means of establishing 'value'.

Can you name another?Take away the demand for something and it loses all value. Even your gods "value" of human life is based on his bizarre need for people to love him.

Mark Hamill

wolfsbane wrote: »

Mark Hamill said:

As JC pointed out, God COULD have treated us so, and justly, when man sinned. But He does not - quite to the contrary, He takes upon Himself our human nature and Himself bears the penalty due for the sins of His people.

Would that be the penalty that he imposes on us? The one that is due as a result of the nature he knowingly and purposely instilled in us? That penalty?

J C

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Would that be the penalty that he imposes on us? The one that is due as a result of the nature he knowingly and purposely instilled in us? That penalty?

...it is the penalty that God's perfect JUSTICE imposes on us ... but God is prepared to grant us an unmerited amnesty ... IF we voluntarily believe on Him and ASK for mercy to be shown us!!!

....it's literally the bargain of a lifetime!!!!

....imagine if an amnesty were to be granted for parking tickets and somebody had one ... practically EVERYBODY would avail of the €80 amnesty...

.....and yet many people refuse an amnesty on their eternal destiny!!!!

....foolhardiness doesn't even begin to describe such a 'cavalier' attitude to Spiritual Safety!!!!:eek::eek:

J C

http://creation.com/was-dawkins-stumped-frog-to-a-prince-critics-refuted-again

Two questions :-

1. Is the lack of evidence for any increase in genome information by evolutionary processes causing anybody on this thread to have a crisis of faith ....... in Materialistic Evolution?:eek::D

...and, as a result....

2. Are any of you in danger of becoming 'Intellectually Unfulfilled Atheists'?:eek::D

I have also noted that the most recent 'tribute' programme to Darwin on BBC was hosted by Journalist and former Political Correspondant Andrew Marr.
Andrew graduated with a degree in English from Cambridge ... so I guess he is an excellent person to present a programme on Darwin's contribution ... to English Literature!!!!!:eek::D

I think I will ask all of the 'Budding Evolutionists' out there to have a go at writing an essay (max 20 words) on the following topic:-
Although 'The Descent of Man' has little scientific standing nowadays, it may still have considerable literary merit....
.... DISCUSS.:eek::D

wolfsbane

New book that should be very helpful for all who wish to understand the creation/evolution debate:

The New Creationism by Paul Garner
http://www.epbooks.org/the-new-creationism-p-2034.html?cPath=3_48

wolfsbane

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Would that be the penalty that he imposes on us? The one that is due as a result of the nature he knowingly and purposely instilled in us? That penalty?

No, the penalty that man brought on himself by disobeying God. Started with Adam & Eve and continues with everyone since - except One who was born without a sinful nature.

That One came to rescue us from the consequences of our sin, by bearing the penalty Himself. He gives salvation to all who turn from their sins and trust in Him. That salvation means not only freedom from the power of sin in this life, but freedom from the penalty and presence of sin in the next.

wolfsbane

robindch wrote: »

Evidence? Why the sudden interest in that?

No, Lisle works for an organization -- AiG and the (self-declared) Bearded Wonder -- which declares that absolutely anything that disagrees with company policy is, de facto, false.

Creationists from the backwoods of Kentucky, or any other place where the light of civilization is, frankly, rather faint, might consider that to be science in some way. But members of the reality-based community who have to make real contributions to humanity find it a rather sick and dishonest joke.

Hence my putting quotes around Lisle's "job" title.

I think I pointed it out before, but it's worth repeating: AiG is a religious organisation. It does science so that it may show that true science does not conflict with the Bible. All its members have to agree with its religious basis. But that does not stop them being scientists or doing proper science.

Your error is in failing to separate their religious beliefs from their scientific methods. They manage to do that just fine. They do not offer any religious dogma as a part of their scientific argument.

If you try harder to ignore your prejudices, you will be able to critique their scientific theories without trying to disqualify the scientist.

wolfsbane

kiffer said:

Wolfsbane has presented a Staw Vulcan, where rational atheist seems to mean sociopathic, emotionless, jerk.
The jerk part is necessary in his idea of a 'rational atheist' because he need this person to come to ... distasteful conclusions... but it is it quite possible that even wolfsbane's rational (read:sociopathic) atheist could come to a conclusion that the best sort of society to create, in order to improve the chances of their descendants, is one of highly tolerant people that co-operate and are highly empathic... rather than an ethnically cleansed world in which further future ethnic cleansing may take place in the wiping out said descendants in later purges.

Then having come to this conclusion wolfsbane's atheist could of course decide to pull a bit of a Dexter, killing off other sociopaths and aggressive people capable of killing in this way...
Luckily for us all, rational and logical do not mean what wolfsbane implies with his rational atheist / sociopath.

If you had carefully followed what I said, you would have seen I agree that the rational atheist could go either way. He could be a promoter of humanism, or a sociopath. The essential point is that he would be making the choice in the light of his perceived truth (materialism). That is, he knows man is without any value, but he may choose to pretend he believes otherwise in order to achieve his goals. Maybe he just wants a peaceful life and reckons that best achieved by being a humanist and promoting it. Or he may want to rule a country and thinks the image of a caring benefactor will get him there.

Alternatively, he may fancy his chances as a conqueror and start up a party based on the conquest and enslavement of the weak. Or he may have more modest goals - the torture and rape of abducted men, women or children.

All of these ends are rational choices for the one who knows we are only material and there is no God.

Frankly, the current discussion about morality is an attempt to distract from the facts involved by making appeals to emotion.


God or no God, Objective Morality or "merely" Subjective Morality... You're just running from the fact that you've been unable to find any real world evidence for creationism that hasn't been easily shown to be full of failures of logic, failure of basic rigor or containing shocking misunderstandings various topics.

I'm glad to refer you to the Creationist sites where your scientific arguments are challenged, and to JC's sterling work on this thread. You of course reject their arguments - but they likewise reject your's. The issue is who is right. I know who is right by the revelation I have from God's word - but there are others who are confused. It is for them especially I engage here, to show them there is an alternative to the scientism falsely calling itself science.

I think Creationists were better off when they claimed that all the geological evidence was planted there by Satan to mislead us...

I have never heard any creationist make that case. References?

generally speaking more up to date creationist accept micro-evolution, artificial selection (as can be seen in domestic animals/plants, and in the lab), natural selection, and some even accept that speciation takes place so all that's really in dispute these days are starting conditions and timescale...

That is what I have always encountered in my reading of creation material, and I've been doing so since the mid-1970's.

No um... wait ...Eugenics.
All that eugenics needs is artificial selection to be effective... we know that artificial selection works.
Do we think that either killing people we don't like or sterilizing them by force are morally sound courses of action?
I, and as far as I can tell most of the other non-creationist posters think that such actions would not be morally sound, and also would possibly be based on short sighted criteria which may back fire in the long run.

Quite so - but you have no rational reason for believing in such a morality. You may choose to adopt it, to suit your needs, but you cannot defend it as any better than that of those who murder for fun. Your only rational defence for not practicing eugenics is the unforseen consequences. And that has to be offset against both the forseen and unforeseen consequences of allowing the unfit to live and breed.

By what standard do we base our opinion for this decision on such moral issues? I think that's a topic for a big thread on the A+A forum.

Yes, it would be good for you guys to really think this through, maybe in a place where you would not feel the need to be so defensive.

Objective Morality?
Elsewhere on this forum I stated that "It's never ok for a master to beat his servent", and wolfsbane came back with "It is if the master is God."
Subjective or what?

That's not subjective - if one accepts the concept of the Creator God, the One who is the standard of all that is moral and the One who has exclusive rights over His creation - then one will see He is not limited in His rights to discipline, the way sinful man is.

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

AiG is a religious organisation. [...] All its members have to agree with its religious basis. But that does not stop them being scientists or doing proper science.

I'm afraid it does. If they start with a conclusion and refuse to test it -- as they're not permitted to do by AiG's employment conditions -- then they're not doing science. It really is that simple.

wolfsbane wrote: »

If you try harder to ignore your prejudices, you will be able to critique their scientific theories without trying to disqualify the scientist.

I've already read their stuff and (as I've pointed out before time and time again) it's the kind of amusingly dumb rubbish that a well-informed ten-year old can rip to shreds.

Flat-earther-level stuff. It's embarrassingly stupid.