Science, Creation & EvolutionHelix - atheistAttempting to catch up here -- we spent a lot of yesterday trying to tame a two hundred foot blackberry hedge along the back of our property. Natural selection not only does not favor those who live a good life, it mitigates against them! Selfishness is the order of the day for natural selection. So how and why would the concept of 'charity is good' have entered the human consciousness? WHO MADE UP THOSE MORAL RULES? It was not man, for man is constantly rebelling against them! Please, think about that. You wrote, in response to God'schild: While I do regret the attitude that God'schild is taking on many of his/her posts, I hope you know that is false! First of all, there is no such thing as a "Christian country." There never has been one. There have been state religions enforced on people, but that does not make that country Christian! Christianity is based on a personal relationship between Christ and a person -- and that is something no one can force! Therefore, the first point is that NO country, USA included, can claim it is rich or influential based on the fact that it is or used to be Christian. Secondly, however, most cruelty and wars have not been based upon religion but upon money and land. Religion was sometimes used as an excuse (for instance, the Crusades), but the driving force behind man's aggression towards his own kind -- and, in fact, towards nature itself -- has been greed: the desire for power, money, land. We see this as bad. Why? If we are evolved creatures, then this is very good! This is what we should be doing! But we don't see it that way, do we? We see it as bad. And that has nothing to do with language or culture, for it transcends both. By the way, God'schild, you might want to read up more on Newton.... Nor was Hitler an example of evolution. He was an example of evil. Evil did not evolve, either. Jovaro, Israel was given to Abraham by God and then to the Israelites, who are descended from Abraham, by God as well. That is historical. That tiny little sliver of land we have allowed Israel today should mean nothing to the Arabs OR Palestinians, who have so many other options! The argument goes far deeper than the land itself. Land that has historically been the Jews'. Also, Jovaro, the European nations did NOT prosper as a result of sacking and pillaging third world countries. Please read your history. They were held in bondage to the Pope through the Dark, or Middle, Ages and when that was thrown off, they began to prosper, via the Renaissance and the rise of Protestantism. They began to prosper as Universities arose in Europe and trade began to open up with the East. Trade, not the Catholic warfare! THIS is what led to Europe's rising from the ashes of the Dark Ages. Back to Helix. You wrote:
Helix, have you read the Bible? That stoning stuff applied ONLY to the theocracy of Israel a long time ago. The Bible is pretty clear about that! But yes, there was a burning bush that was not consumed. Is the Bible a science book? Of course not. But where it does state facts, those facts are true. Scientific, historical, or otherwise. Then you wrote: Evolution is not a religion in itself; humanism is that religion. And you are DEEPLY involved with that, for it proclaims that humans can determine and know what there is to determine and know. Missionaries? Oh yes you have! In every school in the land and in the press and all public communications! You have a missionary system that is legally enforced and pervasive. You don't need Darwin's Beagle (and it wasn't his, but that's beside the point) -- you have the imaginary stories enshrined in picture and figure in every museum around! Oh, you are FAR worse than the religionists, for you are proclaiming truth in the face of known untruths in the very sciences you claim back you up: biology, genetics, geology and physics! You wrote Up to that point I had been thinking you were somewhat rational! A few hours in biology class? YOU CANNOT ENROLL IN A Ph.D. PROGRAM IF YOU ARE IDENTIFIED WITH ANYTHING OTHER THAN STANDARD EVOLUTION THEORY. YOU LOSE TENURE, PUBLISHING RIGHTS, AND EVEN SABBATICALS IF YOU IDENTIFY WITH ANYTHING OTHER THAN STANDARD EVOLUTIONARY THEORY. The problems are multitudinous for anyone not toeing the line. Evolutionists and secular humanism have a stranglehold on our education system and most of our public communications. Give me a break! It is the evolutionists who control every major university and you are complaining that there are a few Christian colleges that are still hanging in there? Come ON! As far as the 'feathered' dinosaurs in China. Aside from the known fakes, all that has been discovered are the presence of possible feather shafts, which very well may not be feathers at all, in conjunction with some of the fossils. This is a FAR cry from the evolutionists trumpeting, falsely, 'feathered dinosaurs.' Best read the original reports, OK? Later you responded to the definition of a god with To which God Himself answers you: "I said, 'You are gods'; you are all sons of the Most High.' But you will die like mere men; you will fall like every other ruler." Now, Helix, I want to take apart your last post (at least 'last' at the time I am writing this) bit by bit, because it is utterly illogical. Here it is:
1. Laws are made by lawmakers. The concepts of not murdering, stealing, etc., are not part of the laws of a number of cultures throughout history. We can definitely imagine living without them! And we have lived without them. Historically, until the time of ancient Israel, and then later the time of the Medes and Persians, man was above the law and whomever was in power could make whatever laws he chose, without regard to complications like morality. Law above man is not a popular concept, which is exactly why people keep challenging the law and Constitution today, here in the USA. 2. Urges are suppressed because they are known to be wrong. Selfishness is evolutionarily necessary but, in human beings, wrong. Lust you don't mind because you get personal gratification, regardless of the damage it may do to someone else. Damaging someone else is not evolutionarily bad, but morally wrong. The urge for revenge is evolutionarily right, but morally wrong. IF WE ARE THE PRODUCTS OF EVOLUTION, WHY DO WE DEFINE AS WRONG THOSE VERY THINGS WHICH WOULD BE THE PRODUCTS AND DEFENSE OF EVOLUTION? 3. If men turn to looting and stealing because of their natures when the law is gone, as you have said happened in Iraq -- and also happens anywhere in America when possible! -- then WHO defined it as wrong, if it, like the lust you enjoy, is simply a part of human nature? Another human defined it as wrong? Are there two classes of humans, then, in your book? One class perhaps more highly developed who determines what is right and wrong and judges all others by it? Why do you think all that looting and stealing is wrong if it is human nature and human nature is simply a result of evolution? These are people who can communicate in a human language and have human brains? As an evolutionist, how dare you judge them? 4. You say a sense of morality is maintained by a fear of repercussions. That's utter nonsense. A sense of morality exists in all cultures everywhere, whether or not repercussions exist. Might I suggest a cultural anthropology course? 5. Is morality an illusion? No, or we would not see those who are immoral as wrong. And you clearly see the men who have hurt others in Iraq as wrong. But if morality is an illusion, you have no grounds upon which to stand there. You are not only not being logical, you are not being observant. |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame