Jump to content


Photo

Is Evolution Responsible?


  • Please log in to reply
155 replies to this topic

#1 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,507 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 10 June 2015 - 07:38 PM

Is evolution responsible?

I think one of the most amazing things I've noticed about alleged atheists/ evolutionists is that they don't seem to realize that if they claim to be the only game in town their beloved evolution is the cause of all the problems on planet Earth. When you confront them with this obvious conclusion I have never observed them answer and accept the responsibility for the implications of their pet idea baby evolution. I think they need to be taken to task for this.

Is it fair that alleged atheists/ evolutionists acept that evolution has caused the mess we experience on planet earth today?

#2 macten

macten

    Bare Assertion Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 324 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 39
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Nottingham, England

Posted 11 June 2015 - 02:03 AM

What are all the problems on Earth?

I can only think of man made problems.

Are you saying man evolved therefore evo is to blame?



#3 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,429 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 11 June 2015 - 02:15 AM

Mike, they chide us with the 'Oh, God-did-it' sarcasm. Then they often proceed to tell us how badly 'God' created things, etc. vestigial organs, disease, sickness, etc.and that if there were a God He certainly did a poor job concerning all of the trouble: war, bloodshed, disease, racism, murder, hatred, and ignorance.

 

Let's assume they are right and there is no God. Who is to blame?

 

Answer: "Evolution-did-it". :rolleyes: 

 

In removing God from the picture in their thinking do not all the problems just listed still exist? Then the blame can only be laid on what they have replaced Him with:evolution.



#4 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,406 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 11 June 2015 - 03:13 AM

Macten, I agree the problems are mad-made, which leads us to ask, "what is wrong with man?" The problems aren't animal-made.

 

There is a difference with man. The true cause of sin is the sinful nature, and our ability to create. Our creativity can be used to cause evil because of our ability to imagine scenarios. We are made in God's image, so we can use our creativity for brilliant things, harmless things, but the true cause of the worlds problems is sin, not evolution. If it was evolution then we would be the same as all of the other animals. The cause is sin. 

 

We also see this in people. The problem with atheists is they don't study testimonies, but those of us who watch Christian tv on a weekly basis, are exposed to hundreds of testimonies of people who have come to faith.

 

Just last week I was listening to a guy say that basically he was a gangster and would shoot at houses not caring who was inside just as long as he thought his enemy was inside the house. He then received the Holy Spirit and said "I would shoot at houses before, basically I just did not care about my actions or care about anyone".

 

we see amazing change, real-life change, when people turn to God, because they address their sinful nature, which is the true problem with the world.



#5 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,507 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 11 June 2015 - 06:41 AM

What are all the problems on Earth?

I can only think of man made problems.

Are you saying man evolved therefore evo is to blame?

Absolutely "f" man evolved then that would be a logical  conclusion .  . 



#6 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,406 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 11 June 2015 - 06:48 AM

Mike, I find it funny how Dawkins always tries to blame religion. Religion would be the result of chemical interactions in minds caused by biological evolution. The ultimate cause if evolution is true, would be evolution.

 

This just shows how redundant the implications-of-atheism are, because every single moral system would only be an expression of the relative conclusions of a certain group of chemical-agents. No system would be any better than any other system, since they would all be chemical concoctions invented for evolution -reasons.

 

In reality we can see that the fruit of the spirit is not relative, because it can apply to all people, and breaks no law. "Love, peace, joy, patience, self-control, gentleness," ETC.

 

Dawkins stands on a hill (morality) in order to refute the existence of hills. (there is no morality, because it's evolution). So he says, "look at all the bad things religion has done, oh and by the way, there is no such thing as bad things."

 

Lol!



#7 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,507 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 11 June 2015 - 06:52 AM

Cal said:

Mike, they chide us with the 'Oh, God-did-it' sarcasm. Then they often proceed to tell us how badly 'God' created things, etc. vestigial organs, disease, sickness, etc.and that if there were a God He certainly did a poor job concerning all of the trouble: war, bloodshed, disease, racism, murder, hatred, and ignorance.

Let's assume they are right and there is no God. Who is to blame?

Answer: "Evolution-did-it". :rolleyes:
In removing God from the picture in their thinking do not
who all the problems just listed still exist? Then the blame can only be laid on what they have replaced Him with:evolution.


Exactly!
So I'm not crazy? It would seem to me that since they believe there is no God, they would accept the responsibility for evolution causing all the disease, the bloodshed, the religions, etc. What is war accept survival of the fittest? And yet, every time I hear Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens et al they never point out that evolution did it. Who or what can they blame except the process that they hold so dearly? And yet it's hard to believe that it never seems to dawn on them that such is the case..

#8 macten

macten

    Bare Assertion Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 324 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 39
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Nottingham, England

Posted 11 June 2015 - 07:02 AM


Dawkins stands on a hill (morality) in order to refute the existence of hills. (there is no morality, because it's evolution). So he says, "look at all the bad things religion has done, oh and by the way, there is no such thing as bad things."

 

Lol!

 

More untruths Mike?

 

Whenever I have heard Dawkins talk on morality it is when he is asked:

 

'If God doesn't exist where do we get our morality from?'

 

His usual stock answer is ''Well we certainly don't get it from the bible, (he then lists lots of truly immoral things as advocated from bible/God)

Then goes on to say 'I get my morality from a sense of be kind to your kin, treat others how you want to be treated 'etc.. and explains how this would be

a beneficial trait from an evolutionary stand point.

He usually concludes his answer that someone who acts in a moral way for reward or fear of punishment can't have had the nicest of intentions in the first place.

 

So where you get 'Dawkins says there is no morality, because it's evolution' simply isn't true.



#9 macten

macten

    Bare Assertion Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 324 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 39
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Nottingham, England

Posted 11 June 2015 - 07:12 AM

 

Cal said:

 


Exactly!
So I'm not crazy? It would seem to me that since they believe there is no God, they would accept the responsibility for evolution causing all the disease, the bloodshed, the religions, etc. What is war accept survival of the fittest? And yet, every time I hear Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens et al they never point out that evolution did it. Who or what can they blame except the process that they hold so dearly? And yet it's hard to believe that it never seems to dawn on them that such is the case..

 

 

I am of the view that it matters not to them that evolution could be argued to be the blame for all ills.



#10 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,507 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 11 June 2015 - 07:22 AM



Mike, I find it funny how Dawkins always tries to blame religion. Religion would be the result of chemical interactions in minds caused by biological evolution. The ultimate cause if evolution is true, would be evolution.

Precisely! Add that to the fact that materialism says there is no such thing as free choice and as Cal said, "Evolution Did It!"

This just shows how redundant the implications-of-atheism are, because every single moral system would only be an expression of the relative conclusions of a certain group of chemical-agents. No system would be any better than any other system, since they would all be chemical concoctions invented for evolution -reasons.

Eactly. As the Scripture Says "Out of their own mouth..."

In reality we can see that the fruit of the spirit is not relative, because it can apply to all people, and breaks no law. "Love, peace, joy, patience, self-control, gentleness," ETC

The only thing I have to add is that when I'm dealing with non-Christians I usually explain that the Holy Spirit can mean "the holy attitude". Obviously God's attitude is love towards the beings he created. He thinks we are more important than matter. With that in mind, if we had that attitude towards one another I things things would go much better with us.

diminish
Dawkins stands on a hill (morality) in order to refute the existence of hills. (there is no morality, because it's evolution). So he says, "look at all the bad things religion has done, oh and by the way, there is no such thing as bad things.

Lol!

ludicrous, isn't it?
  • mike the wiz likes this

#11 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,406 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 11 June 2015 - 07:26 AM

 

 

Macten: 'Dawkins says there is no morality, because it's evolution' simply isn't true.

 

The implications, the logical implications of atheism and evolution is that there is no ultimate, objective morality. This means that all moral-systems are just predicated upon personal judgements, including Dawkins' system. So anything he says about the actions of religious people, he is saying from his own system, which is no more or less valid than any other system, if they are all creations of the evolved mind.

 

I will give you an example. My sister recently was given change from a shop that was wrong. She is not a Christian. She didn't go and give the change back because she didn't think it was immoral to keep it, but she is pretty well off financially. But then a while later, I also was given the wrong change in the post-office. I went back and gave it back because I am a Christian and it is wrong to steal but I am financially poor. It was hard to go back like that, to put my energy into going all the way back there on my bicycle, yet if we are listen to people like you, I am not moral and I am doing righteous things for a reward.

 

I didn't do it for a reward, and I don't want a reward, only atheists say that Christians do moral things for reward, but they only say that because they don't understand what it means to be a Christian. They make that claim to make out that they are moral without a reward, which is begging-the-question, because first they have to prove they are moral, but it can be shown that their morality is only created to suit their lifestyle.

 

Recently my sister also said I could make money by doing questionnaires online, she said to me, "the more you give the answers they want you to give, the more they ask you to do more questionnaires, and the more money you get". I said, "I can't do it, it's lying for money". There was a GREAT SILENCE in the room, because the people just didn't understand why I wouldn't do it. After that silence she said, "but it is only a white lie". I said, "that's an excuse for sin"

 

The point I make is that, in actual fact my sister is quite moral as an agnostic, when it suits her. Every time someone mistreats an animal or eats meat, she gets very moral, because the truth is, relative-morality is not true morality.

 

True morality and righteousness, is to do the right thing because it is righteous, as God has told us, because the world is a better place when love and righteousness is at the forefront of our thinking. True morality means doing the right thing even when it means sacrifice, and losing out, while the atheists just employ utilitarianism to achieve their goals. The bible notes this when in the psalms the psalmist complains to God about how the wicked are "at ease", and are blessed, but the righteous and upright man of morality and belief in God, is suffering loss, and not benefiting like the atheists around him. 

 

The implications of atheism and what Dawkins says, isn't meant to be a quote from him, it is meant to show you an example of the un-stated premises of his arguments which he himself is not aware of. He doesn't realize that relative morality can't lead you to a position where you say that religious morality is poor morality, because your conclusion would ALSO be relative, if there is no ultimate reality.

 

It's the old, "I can judge your ideologies, but mine can't be judged". Ultimately this type of morality is called, magisterial-reason, where the person decides which things are moral, according to their desires. That's why none-believers like my sister can lie and steal, because they DECIDE as a puney-god, that it is "okay" to steal and lie.

 

 

 

Macten: He usually concludes his answer that someone who acts in a moral way for reward or fear of punishment can't have had the nicest of intentions in the first place.

 

And I agree that I see this in atheists all of the time. These days many things are considered moral that they are only doing for reward. They abort babies so they can have promiscious s@x, they lie to make money, they cheat and steal and play survival-of-the-fittest.

 

So you make a good point that people are only moral when it rewards them, their morality is moulded around the sins they want to commit, so it is okay to steal, it is okay to lie for money, etc...don't pretend you have never done such things Macten, we all have, but those who come to Christ value righteousness more, because they see what a lovely world the world could be if everyone valued it. This is why we look forward to a new heaven and a new earth, God's kingdom is called, "the HOME of righteousness", and every day I wish the world was a part of that kingdom because of the terrible sin in the world, committed by those living outside of God's love and righteousness. Not that I am not also a sinner, but obviously the Holy Spirit is sanctifying those who believe, and bettering us in preparation for the kingdom to come.



#12 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,406 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 11 June 2015 - 07:40 AM

 

 

Mike: ludicrous, isn't it?

 

It is, because the implications of atheism is that there is no such thing as ultimate morality. When a little child is murdered, an atheist says, "on that is terrible, and immoral and bad", but if they are truly honest with themselves, they believe that ultimately it isn't bad because if God does not exist then the universe is an indifferent place, so they actually believe that it isn't bad or wrong, they actually believe that, it just is. Or, it just happened.

 

But to be honest, I really do think it genuinely is a terrible sin when a child is murdered, I think that it is objectively "real" that it is ultimately wrong. God is not indifferent, even if the universe is, and all sin will be punished.

 

Atheists CAN'T believe it is ultimately wrong, because in an atheist universe, there can't be ultimate wrong, LOGICALLY. It's a contradiction.

 

The reason atheists are really moral, is because really they can see that ultimate wrong does actually exist, and they can't bring themselves to deny that.  So they have to borrow morality from those who acknowledge the reality of ultimate-right-and-wrong. (Christians)



#13 macten

macten

    Bare Assertion Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 324 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 39
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Nottingham, England

Posted 11 June 2015 - 07:43 AM

It is, because the implications of atheism is that there is no such thing as ultimate morality. When a little child is murdered, an atheist says, "on that is terrible, and immoral and bad", but if they are truly honest with themselves, they believe that ultimately it isn't bad because if God does not exist then the universe is an indifferent place, so they actually believe that it isn't bad or wrong, they actually believe that, it just is. Or, it just happened.

 

 

What an awful thing to say.



#14 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,406 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 11 June 2015 - 07:58 AM

 

 

Macten: What an awful thing to say.

 

But I have debated atheists that have said it. I can show you the debate if you want, one of them said in response to me saying, "it is sin".

 

He said, "it does not exist". He was talking about sin - he was saying sin doesn't exist. If sin doesn't exist, then how can it be a sin to murder a child? How can it be a sin, if God is not there, and the universe doesn't exist for any reason and is just an accident? "sin" would just be a word humans had invented. "wrong" would just be a word. (This is why Brady the child-murderer, read books on atheist philosophy that said that "eevrything is lawful" if there is no God".) Arguably, he is correct, because if God doesn't exist, which we declare to you that He does, then who is to say that anything is wrong? That would be a word our chemically evolved brains had invented. An irrelevant word, irrelevant to reality.

 

But we know it is a terrible sin in reality, so I am not saying it - I am saying that these are the logical implications of an atheist philosophy.

 

But when you believe in God, you can acknowledge the terrible reality that murder is one of the most horrible sins, AND you can actually believe that it genuinely is a sin, in objective reality - rather than to deny it is a sin by arguing that the universe is an accident, because then it can't be a sin, even though it is "terrible" to the individual. "terrible" would be a RELATIVE term. For everyone who thinks it is terrible, I can find another person that thinks it is absolutely fine and dandy to murder.

 

THIS is why morality can't come from humanity - it must come from a correct moral-authority otherwise it is all just a game-of-words, and a war between different groups, that all have different moralities.

 

My proof? Put ten reasonable atheists in one room, you will likely have ten different sets of "morality". Please tell me, LOGICALLY - which morality is "true" and which morality is, "right"?

 

None - for they would be inventions of the mind, depending on how each mind thinks. One will think it is okay to abort, another will think it is fine and dandy. Go figure.



#15 macten

macten

    Bare Assertion Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 324 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 39
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Nottingham, England

Posted 11 June 2015 - 08:20 AM

Well I can honestly say I do not share your athiest debaters philosphy on that matter and know of no other person that thinks that way - everyone I know bar one Muslim guy is Athiest/Agnostic.

So you do yourself a disservice to tar all Athiests with the same brush.



#16 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,507 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 11 June 2015 - 01:47 PM

Macten

Is evolution responsible? Or, do you plead the fifth? lol :)

#17 Iguana

Iguana

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 296 posts
  • Age: 18
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Colombia

Posted 11 June 2015 - 02:11 PM

The difference here is that no one claimed evolution had to be morally responsible, that is, no one ever said evolution has good intentions, quite far from it, what we do claim is that it has no intentions. It doesn't conform to our morality any more that combustion does. You, on the other hand, claim that God is perfectly moral.



#18 Iguana

Iguana

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 296 posts
  • Age: 18
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Colombia

Posted 11 June 2015 - 02:13 PM

But I have debated atheists that have said it. I can show you the debate if you want, one of them said in response to me saying, "it is sin".

 

He said, "it does not exist". He was talking about sin - he was saying sin doesn't exist. If sin doesn't exist, then how can it be a sin to murder a child? How can it be a sin, if God is not there, and the universe doesn't exist for any reason and is just an accident? "sin" would just be a word humans had invented. "wrong" would just be a word. (This is why Brady the child-murderer, read books on atheist philosophy that said that "eevrything is lawful" if there is no God".) Arguably, he is correct, because if God doesn't exist, which we declare to you that He does, then who is to say that anything is wrong? That would be a word our chemically evolved brains had invented. An irrelevant word, irrelevant to reality.

 

But we know it is a terrible sin in reality, so I am not saying it - I am saying that these are the logical implications of an atheist philosophy.

 

But when you believe in God, you can acknowledge the terrible reality that murder is one of the most horrible sins, AND you can actually believe that it genuinely is a sin, in objective reality - rather than to deny it is a sin by arguing that the universe is an accident, because then it can't be a sin, even though it is "terrible" to the individual. "terrible" would be a RELATIVE term. For everyone who thinks it is terrible, I can find another person that thinks it is absolutely fine and dandy to murder.

 

THIS is why morality can't come from humanity - it must come from a correct moral-authority otherwise it is all just a game-of-words, and a war between different groups, that all have different moralities.

 

My proof? Put ten reasonable atheists in one room, you will likely have ten different sets of "morality". Please tell me, LOGICALLY - which morality is "true" and which morality is, "right"?

 

None - for they would be inventions of the mind, depending on how each mind thinks. One will think it is okay to abort, another will think it is fine and dandy. Go figure.

Let me see if I understand something, would you agree to the following statement?

 

"If God doesn't exist, then it is okay to murder a child"



#19 macten

macten

    Bare Assertion Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 324 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 39
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Nottingham, England

Posted 11 June 2015 - 02:55 PM

It's a hard one to answer Mike.

I agree the worlds problems are man made.

I suppose one could tenuously argue that because evolution resulted in man then evolution is the cause of the worlds problems.

One could equally argue that evolution is the cause of all the greatness and awe we experience on this planet because we wouldn't be here without it.

 

As Iguana says, evolution is a natural process with no intention so I think it is better to ask 'what's wrong with man?'

I'm of the opinion that we are apes that are too smart for our own good.



#20 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,507 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 11 June 2015 - 06:10 PM

Macten

It's a hard one to answer Mike.


You have to tell yourself something you're not saying for it to be hard to answer. I fully accept that God is responsible for creating man. He clearly states, "it was he that made us and not we ourselves". Creators are responsible for their creation. But since you don't believe in God evolution has to be responsible for what evolved. Evolution is man's creator.

I agree the worlds problems are man made.

I agree also.

I suppose one could tenuously argue that because evolution resulted in man then evolution is the cause of the worlds problems.

I would say so. What I'm saying is that no alleged atheist/ evolutionists can realistically claim that God and or religion causes all our problems. And yet Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens et al attack nonexistent entities all the time. Most reasonable people would think that if somebody doesn't exist they can't be blamed for "anything" that happens.


One could equally argue that evolution is the cause of all the greatness and awe we experience on this planet because we wouldn't be here without it.

Of course. All I am concerned about is that alleged atheist can't blame God and religion for the causes of the unniceties of life.

As Iguana says, evolution is a natural process with no intention so I think it is better to ask 'what's wrong with man?'

But, as my mom would say, "You can't have your cake and eat it too
".
I don't think it would be logical to isolate man from his cause--evolution. Darwin's rationale for developing hs book and his theory of evolution was to explain the existence of diverse life without intelligence. I suppose it is ironic that intelligence was supposedly caused by evolution. Nevertheless, if you're going to accept atheism/ evolution one has to accept the good with the bad. I don't think what iguana says make sense. Isn't evolutin's goal, "survival of the fittest?"

I'm of the opinion that we are apes that are too smart for our own good.

Okay. I have said on many occasions that if evolution were true it seems to have obsoleted itself by causing intelligence. lol :)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users