Jump to content


Photo

Evolution Ethics Poll


  • Please log in to reply
70 replies to this topic

Poll: Does belief in evolution create a de-valuing of life? (18 member(s) have cast votes)

Does belief in evolution create a de-valuing of life?

  1. Yes (9 votes [50.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 50.00%

  2. No (9 votes [50.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 50.00%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#41 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 29 April 2011 - 07:44 AM

People can twist evolution to fit their racist ideas. But the fact remains that the differences between the races is minute. We branched out so recently ago, that no real change has had enough time to occur, and even if it did, I'm not sure under what circumstances natural selection would choose against intelligence.

Point is, the people who use evolution as an excuse to push their racist agenda aren't doing so because of evolution, but because they are racist. Evolution doesn't work work in a linear way(no species in nature is inferior to another just different). The reason why darker people have darker skin is because the sun is so intense where they originated. People with lighter skin have so because where they originated the intensity of the sun is less.

View Post


It does not take much twisting.

All you have to do is look at history.

Posted Image

I wonder where he got the idea to compare the human race to apes? Was there someone else that had the same idea as Darwin?

#42 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 29 April 2011 - 07:51 AM

Even if evolution promoted racism or any other morality (which it does not), I'd rather be an "evolutionist" than get my morals from the Bible. I do not think that YOU get your morals from there unless you think it's okay to

-kill a handful of children just because they mocked your bold hair

" And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them  "
2 Kings 2:24

- Beat your slave with a rod but only so hard that (s)he recovers after a day or two

20And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
21Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
Exodus 2:20-21

-Slaughter an entire city in the name of God

And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.

So the LORD was with Joshua; and his fame was noised throughout all the country.
Joshua 6:21, 6:27

I quoted the Holy Bible just to point out that it is not a as good source of moral, as some people might think. Also evolution is a scientific fact, not a moral codex. It tells us where we come from but not where we must go. It doesn't say more about ethics than Maxwell's equations.

View Post


The reason you use old testament as an example to justify the wrong doings of what you believe. Is because you don;t understand how the old covenant worked. In the OT, when you died you did not go to Heaven or Hell right off. And because of this punishment for sin was carried out on earth. The children were guilty because the sins of their fathers made them that way. God's word warned them but they would not listen.

The new covenant is where everyone goes to where they are supposed to when they die. This is why Christ told the story about the rich man and the poor man. It was an illustration that punishment for sin will no longer be carried out here while alive. it's done after death.

#43 ashleyhunt60

ashleyhunt60

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Age: 18
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Arizona

Posted 29 April 2011 - 07:59 AM

You cannot use immaterial phenomena in your definition (i.e. thought, emotions, conscience, etc…) as they are not “physical matter”. Therefore your definition fails at its base...

But, if you can show me a physical “conscience”; if we can touch it, taste it, smell it, see it and hear it; then I am fully capable of admitting I was wrong, and will admit you were right. Are you willing to od the same?
No, because your definition is left wanting on many levels. It is basically conversion by definition.
It might not be necessary if you cannot deal with the truth, but it is definitely necessary to show everyone at this forum how some atheists attempt to borrow from, and re-define, the metaphysical, in order to lend credence to their flawed “materialistic” philosophy.
No, I’ll stick with real definitions, not those from a mistaken worldview.

View Post

I'm sure Glaucus will take this point up, but I'm not a fan of playing word games. If you don't think my beliefs match up with being a materialistic atheist, then stop thinking of me as one. Just think of me as an atheist then. :unsure:

#44 TheGene

TheGene

    Newcomer

  • Banned
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Székesfehérvár, Hungary

Posted 29 April 2011 - 08:16 AM

You are aware of the fact that Hitler was a fundamental catholic, right?

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.."
- Adoph Hitler (Mein Kampf, Chapter 2

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people." –Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922

You do have to say that because there are some pretty bad things about him. But does that also mean that you guys will also consider it irrelevant any Christians past? I don't think so. So unless your side is willing to treat people the way they want to be treated, the past history of Darwin will be posted again and again. We will stop when you do.


Darwin had morals and scientific achievements. We admire the scientific achievements not the morals. BTW almost everyone was racist in time of Darwin.

First part of that quote is a perfect example of humanism. "I" decide what's right or wrong, "I" decide how to live my life. That's why I believe the way I do


Just let me remind you (supposing that you claim to get your morals from the Bible) that the Bible was also written by men, so your ethics is just as humanist as ashley's or mine.

I guess no one has ever shown you the long list of non-religious people who killed and murdered in history.


Such a shame we don't have such a nice list of the religiously induced wars of the last 3000years.... Not like numbers mattered. The listed crimes were committed by atheist (except for Hitler) but not because they were atheists. Their reasons were purely political. It is quite obvious that if they had been religious, they would still have committed those crimes, moreover they could have supported their acts with their belief just as Hitler did (even thought I it is not very likely that his intentions were purely religion-based.)

There is not way to justify the racism that evolution plainly shows,and will not back down. Why do you think the KKK loves the theory so?


BY KKK you mean the Ku Klux Klan? The protestant racist group that partially was founded against the immigrants and their catholicism? The group that still burns crosses as a symbol of the glory of Jesus?

#45 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 29 April 2011 - 08:28 AM

You are aware of the fact that Hitler was a fundamental catholic, right?

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.."
- Adoph Hitler (Mein Kampf, Chapter 2

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter.  It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth!  was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.  In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders.  How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison.  To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross.  As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice…  And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people."  –Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922


I'm sure he was, he was a chronic liar as well.
Posted Image

We get atheists here all the time that use some sort of belief in Christian faith to hide behind and and try to get away with more things. Plus it helps them try to convert (evangelize) Christians away from the faith.

Darwin had morals and scientific achievements. We admire the scientific achievements not the morals. BTW almost everyone was racist in time of Darwin.
Just let me remind you (supposing that you claim to get your morals from the Bible) that the Bible was also written by men, so your ethics is just as humanist as ashley's or mine.


Did Darwin have any degrees in science?

Such a shame we don't have such a nice list of the religiously induced wars of the last 3000years.... Not like numbers mattered. The listed crimes were committed by atheist (except for Hitler) but not because they were atheists. Their reasons were purely political. It is quite obvious that if they had been religious, they would still have committed those crimes, moreover they could have supported their acts with their belief just as Hitler did (even thought I it is not very likely that his intentions were purely religion-based.)
BY KKK you mean the Ku Klux Klan? The protestant racist group that partially was founded against the immigrants and their catholicism? The group that still burns crosses as a symbol of the glory of Jesus?

View Post


There is a difference between professing Christ and actually possessing Christ. Anyone can hide under any banner or world view. What proves what you are is your life actions that are an example. KKK sets no example here.

#46 ashleyhunt60

ashleyhunt60

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Age: 18
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Arizona

Posted 29 April 2011 - 08:54 AM

Regardless of how many people use evolution to agree, regardless of what Darwin believed, the theory of evolution doesn't support racism. People use it to support racism, but if you look at the the theory itself, there's no way that within the time the races branches off of each other that any significant changes could occur. And again, it's not likely that a species, once evolving higher intelligence, would go back on it. The differences between the races is exactly what we'd expect to see. Small changes that provide some extra benefit for their given environment.

Who believed what seems irrelevant at this point. Just because interpret the theory of evolution means that there are lesser racers doesn't mean that is what the theory says. This can be easily checked by seeing if any of the races are indeed lesser(and communication with them proves that no, there are no lesser races).

#47 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 29 April 2011 - 09:14 AM

Regardless of how many people use evolution to agree, regardless of what Darwin believed, the theory of evolution doesn't support racism. People use it to support racism, but if you look at the the theory itself, there's no way that within the time the races branches off of each other that any significant changes could occur. And again, it's not likely that a species, once evolving higher intelligence, would go back on it. The differences between the races is exactly what we'd expect to see. Small changes that provide some extra benefit for their given environment.

Who believed what seems irrelevant at this point. Just because interpret the theory of evolution means that there are lesser racers doesn't mean that is what the theory says. This can be easily checked by seeing if any of the races are indeed lesser(and communication with them proves that no, there are no lesser races).

View Post


Why are lower evolved humans always dark skinned?
Can you show me where a site on evolution has a non-racist human evolution chart?

You see with all the things going around about race, if evolutionists wanted to be politically correct, it could have already been done several time over. But they hold on the the racist human evolution chart for a reason. It's because the bases of human evolution are founded upon racism. Why do you think Darwin names part of his book as favoring a certain race?

Posted Image

Then he makes racist comments.

Posted Image

The human evolution charts are always racist.

Posted Image

Posted Image

I wonder if it would offend evolutionists if I made a human evolution chart that shows whites evolving into blacks?

#48 ashleyhunt60

ashleyhunt60

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Age: 18
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Arizona

Posted 29 April 2011 - 10:03 AM

Why are lower evolved humans always dark skinned?

Because, at least where I'm from(America) that is the most common type. Darker people could just as well claim that the lighter-skinned ones are the inferior race. they'd be just as wrong.

Can you show me where a site on evolution has a non-racist human evolution chart?


The chart you provided.
Posted Image
It shows the evolution from apes to a particular race of humans. You can shows the same chart only for any race.

We started in northern Africa, hence dark skin. Dark skin is better in climates where the sun is stronger, helps prevents sun burns and skin cancer. Some humans stayed in Africa(some even in went to southern Africa)and others went north. When they came to lands where the sun is less intense, lighter skin allowed them to absorb the sun. So that chart is correct in that Caucasians did evolve from darker-skinned early Africans. And since the early Africans stayed in their environment, they didn't need to change as much as the people who migrated about.

It's not racism, it's just adaptation. Just because white people evolved from black people doesn't mean that white people are superior(or vise versa). Really all it means is a steady climate means little change, while a changing climate(or a population moving to a new climate as the case is) means more rapid change. It doesn't mean anything other than if I want to hike outside in the hot Arizona sun, I better bring lots of sunblock.

You see with all the things going around about race, if evolutionists wanted to be politically correct, it could have already been done several time over. But they hold on the the racist human evolution chart for a reason. It's because the bases of human evolution are founded upon racism.

What about all the biologists that accept evolution but aren't insulating in any way that one race is better than the other? Most are politically correct. The charts don't mean anything other than white people use to be black people, which seems counter to the idea that evolution is a racist idea.


Why do you think Darwin names part of his book as favoring a certain race?

Posted Image

Then he makes racist comments.

Posted Image

Darwin could have believed whatever he wanted, the fact of it all is that if he truly was a racist, it doesn't matter. And idea is independent of the people who conceived it. We can see that no race is lesser or great, and that racism is wrong.

I wonder if it would offend evolutionists if I made a human evolution chart that shows whites evolving into blacks?

View Post

No one would care. And lighter skinned people have evolved back into darker skinned people. When people migrated from Africa to modern day Russia, their skin turned from dark to light to match their bodies needs of the sun. Then, when they migrated from Russia to the Americas and back down to climates with more intense sun light, their skins turned dark again. This is widely believed by most people who accept evolution. There was no racist cries of wrong, there was no riots, it was simply accepted as another fact.

#49 Glaucus

Glaucus

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Colorado

Posted 29 April 2011 - 10:34 AM

Ironic you would say that when people who believe as you do think such attacks and past history reminders do exactly what you claim you disagree with. A creationist puts up with this every time he debates. And you would be the first to come here and not do it. So you will have to excuse me when I say: I don't believe you.

View Post



If I'm arguing about a holy book being the source of morality, then it's a valid argument to compare the morality of it's followers and it's creators. But to debate Creation shouldn't require ad hominmem attacks, rather it should be a fight between evidence for a model.

I guess no one has ever shown you the long list of non-religious people who killed and murdered in history.

128,168,000 VICTIMS: THE DEKA-MEGAMURDERERS
61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State.
35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill.
20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State.
10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime.

19,178,000 VICTIMS: THE LESSER MEGA-MURDERERS
5,964,000 Murdered: Japan's Savage Military.
2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State.
1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey's Genocidal Purges.
1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State.
1,585,000 Murdered: Poland's Ethnic Cleansing.
1,503,000 Murdered: The Pakistani Cutthroat State.
1,072,000 Murdered: Tito's Slaughterhouse.

4,145,000 VICTIMS: SUSPECTED MEGAMURDERERS
1,663,000 Murdered? Orwellian North Korea.
1,417,000 Murdered? Barbarous Mexico.
1,066,000 Murdered? Feudal Russia.

So ditto.

View Post


How many of these people were killed because they weren't atheists? Or were they killed for other reasons? (Again, rhetorical).

#50 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 29 April 2011 - 10:39 AM

Now for the point of this thread as a whole. My morals and my ethics come from myself, from what my conscious naturally decides is right and wrong.

View Post


That is not only illogical, but it is irrational as well. If according to your logic that YOUR “morals and ethics come from” YOU, then mine come from me, as do every other individual. And based upon that “lack” of rationale, I can claim that my “morals and ethics” are superior to yours, that you deserve to die, and that it would be perfectly ethical for me to carry out the elimination of you!

Now, is this how rationale, logic, and civil discourse proceed? Of course not! There are absolute ethical and moral rights and wrongs. And to suggest “each person makes their own ethics and morals is silly, inane and chaotic at best. By making such a claim, you forfeit ANY AND ALL ethical and moral right to condemn the millions of murders by Stalin, Pol Pot, Adolph Hitler (etc…).


It is not dictated by a religion, which is why I don't disagree with g*y marriage and stem cell research(things that have no reasoning against them other than religion.)

View Post

Again, according to you own logic; you have absolutely no principled right to complain about religious ethics! Why, because according to your own logic, everyone makes their own morals and ethics, and all religious peoples think your morals and ethics are inferior. Further, since you are inferior, according to “survival of the fittest”, you need to be eliminated so that your genes cannot be passed on to pollute the world’s gene pool.


I do feel it's wrong to hurt others.

View Post

That doesn’t even matter, because of your illogical ethical and moral stance; I can simply say that my ethics and morals tell me that you need to die. And because I can “make my own morals and ethics”, I can stand by my principled stand and carry out my right!

I do feel it's wrong to kill others.

View Post

That doesn’t even matter, because of your illogical ethical and moral stance; I can simply say that my ethics and morals tell me that you need to die. And because I can “make my own morals and ethics”, I can stand by my principled stand and carry out my right!


You may ask, why do you care if you're an atheist?

View Post

Once again, according to your silly logic, it doesn’t matter! (At some point, you may actually come to the realization that your initial statement is self-stultifying. Then again, you may obstinately and dogmatically continue to defend your weak logic, at which point I continue to use your non sequitur as an example to the entire forum).

I care because I'm human.

View Post

No, according to your atheistic logic, you are nothing more than another animal. A bag of biological stuff that cannot even explain its own origins, or the origins of ethics and morals, let alone the metaphysical phenomena you are attempting to use.

While I don't think i have to balance my actions so i won't go to hell, I have empathy.

View Post


Empathy? What kind of phenomena is that, where did it come from, and can you show me one?

I know what pain feels like, and I don't want others to feel it. I know what it is to experience sorrow and heartbreak, and i don't want others to have to experience the same.

View Post

Really? Can you show me a pain? Can you show me a sorrow? Can you show me a heartbreak?

The biggest claim here is that you can't have ethics without religion, because religion is a foundation.

View Post

Firstly – Can you show me where I made that statement?
Secondly – Atheism is a religion, so by you logic you should have the ability to have ethics.
Thirdly - It doesn’t even matter, because of your illogical ethical and moral stance; I can simply say that my ethics and morals tell me that you need to die. And because I can “make my own morals and ethics”, I can stand by my principled stand and carry out my right!

I find that incredibly funny because we've all seen how throughout history, religion has also been a major foundation for death and lack of morals as well.

View Post


First – I agree, and just like all other religions, atheism has been the foundation for millions of deaths as well.

Second - It doesn’t even matter, because of your illogical ethical and moral stance; they can simply say that their ethics and morals tell them that people needed to die. And because they can “make their own morals and ethics”, they can stand by their principled stand and carry out their rights!



Note: I hope you see and understand the total irrationally of your relativistic bent.

#51 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 29 April 2011 - 10:51 AM

You cannot use immaterial phenomena in your definition (i.e. thought, emotions, conscience, etc…) as they are not “physical matter”. Therefore your definition fails at its base...

But, if you can show me a physical “conscience”; if we can touch it, taste it, smell it, see it and hear it; then I am fully capable of admitting I was wrong, and will admit you were right. Are you willing to od the same?
No, because your definition is left wanting on many levels. It is basically conversion by definition.
It might not be necessary if you cannot deal with the truth, but it is definitely necessary to show everyone at this forum how some atheists attempt to borrow from, and re-define, the metaphysical, in order to lend credence to their flawed “materialistic” philosophy.
No, I’ll stick with real definitions, not those from a mistaken worldview.

View Post

I'm sure Glaucus will take this point up, but I'm not a fan of playing word games. If you don't think my beliefs match up with being a materialistic atheist, then stop thinking of me as one. Just think of me as an atheist then. :P

View Post


I can see that you (as well as Glaucus) cannot even defend your materialistic and relativistic world-views. So, in not being able to accomplish such, you use the standard Bible scoffer’s tactic of “I’m not a fan of word games” (etc…) in an attempt to cover for your lack of refutations, and lack of factual support of your assertions.

Further, as you’ll quickly notice, Glaucus has attempted to “take up the point”, but has failed. And, as I am wont to do, I will state again; if you are going to make an assertion/accusation it is YOUR responsibility to provide the FACTS to support them. In every case, you (and your recent friend here) have failed miserably to do so. Oh, you have provided plenty of opinion… but no facts whatsoever.

I can say this much, if you continue to do so, you won’t last long here.

#52 TheGene

TheGene

    Newcomer

  • Banned
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Székesfehérvár, Hungary

Posted 29 April 2011 - 10:54 AM

Okay we can agree that Hitler was a liar, and we will probably never know what his religious belief was really.

Did Darwin have any degrees in science


Lol, know, but why would he need one? Pythagoras didn't have any degrees, but he accomplished much. Faraday couldn't even do simple math, but he realized the laws of electromagnetism. Darwin had a really good sense of collecting and sorting out facts, and drawing the right conclusion. There are things he wasn't right in. For example he accepted the Lamarckian theory of inheritance, which was wrong. He might have been racist, yes. Nobel prize winner physicist Fülöp Lénárd was a nazi. Newton was a positive nuisance.
None of these ethics, or characteristics are a reason to ignore anyone's scientific achievements.

Is because you don;t understand how the old covenant worked. In the OT, when you died you did not go to Heaven or Hell right off. And because of this punishment for sin was carried out on earth. The children were guilty because the sins of their fathers made them that way. God's word warned them but they would not listen.

Where do I find that in Bible?

There is a difference between professing Christ and actually possessing Christ. Anyone can hide under any banner or world view. What proves what you are is your life actions that are an example. KKK sets no example here.

So you are saying that there are two types of people who claim to be christians. Those who do good stuff, are the true 'saved', and those who do bad stuff are lying and not really religious. :/ That's just....

#53 ashleyhunt60

ashleyhunt60

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Age: 18
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Arizona

Posted 29 April 2011 - 10:58 AM

I can see that you (as well as Glaucus) cannot even defend your materialistic and relativistic world-views. So, in not being able to accomplish such, you use the standard Bible scoffer’s tactic of “I’m not a fan of word games” (etc…) in an attempt to cover for your lack of refutations, and lack of factual support of your assertions.

Further, as you’ll quickly notice, Glaucus has attempted to “take up the point”, but has failed. And, as I am wont to do, I will state again; if you are going to make an assertion/accusation it is YOU responsibility to provide the FACTS to support them. In every case, you (and your recent friend here) have failed miserably to do so. Oh, you have provided plenty of opinion… but no facts whatsoever.

I can say this much, if you continue to do so, you won’t last long here.

View Post


For the record, I only claimed to an atheist. You're the one who inserted materialistic into that title. Also, if I assert something that you disagree and feel needs proper citation, point it out and I will either supply proper citations or back down from that stance. If I say something that I know will need citation, I'll add one, but I'm still not sure how much common ground we share, so it's very likely that I'll use a claim as part of an argument that you don't believe without realizing that we don't share that belief.

#54 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 29 April 2011 - 11:22 AM

I can see that you (as well as Glaucus) cannot even defend your materialistic and relativistic world-views. So, in not being able to accomplish such, you use the standard Bible scoffer’s tactic of “I’m not a fan of word games” (etc…) in an attempt to cover for your lack of refutations, and lack of factual support of your assertions.

Further, as you’ll quickly notice, Glaucus has attempted to “take up the point”, but has failed. And, as I am wont to do, I will state again; if you are going to make an assertion/accusation it is YOU responsibility to provide the FACTS to support them. In every case, you (and your recent friend here) have failed miserably to do so. Oh, you have provided plenty of opinion… but no facts whatsoever.

I can say this much, if you continue to do so, you won’t last long here.

View Post

For the record, I only claimed to an atheist. You're the one who inserted materialistic into that title. Also, if I assert something that you disagree and feel needs proper citation, point it out and I will either supply proper citations or back down from that stance. If I say something that I know will need citation, I'll add one, but I'm still not sure how much common ground we share, so it's very likely that I'll use a claim as part of an argument that you don't believe without realizing that we don't share that belief.

View Post


For the record, my original post, that you replied to, was directed to “Materialistic Atheists”. As I said “you responded to it". Maybe you should go back and re-read…

Further, if you make a statement as if it we fact, you are responsible to provide the evidence for it. If you have a problem with that, maybe you need to find a forum that has no rules or standards to go by.

#55 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 29 April 2011 - 11:25 AM

While I agree that it's an incomplete model, it does seem to be the current model that best fits the data at hand (expanding universe, background radiation, etc.)

I actually have an issue with this approach due to the fact that many hypothesis that attempt to rectify the issue with this model do indeed defy physics and chemistry. I believe that trying to prove a theory that has already been falsified gravely affects Science, just as many atheists argue that believing in God would destroy Science(Which history shows that this is not true of course. :P)

#56 ashleyhunt60

ashleyhunt60

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Age: 18
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Arizona

Posted 29 April 2011 - 11:32 AM

Further, if you make a statement as if it we fact, you are responsible to provide the evidence for it. If you have a problem with that, maybe you need to find a forum that has no rules or standards to go by.

View Post


I say a lot of facts. I've said that darker skin prevents sun burn. I've said that all races are members of the same species. I've said that Russia is colder than Africa. I don't think I have to prove that Russia's climate is generally colder than Africa's. That's what I'm talking about. Obviously, since we are coming from two very different world views, there will be a lot of factual disagreements, but I don't feel the need to cite a scientific paper saying that Russia is north of Africa. The line that separates what should be cited and what doesn't need to be cited isn't exactly clear to me, and I'd appreciate it if someone would point out when I have crossed this line. That is all.

#57 TheGene

TheGene

    Newcomer

  • Banned
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Székesfehérvár, Hungary

Posted 29 April 2011 - 12:01 PM

The basic idea of the Big Bang, is scientific fact. There could be, and there are of course debates over the details, but the literal big bang is fact. That's due to the inflation of the universe, and the equal distribution of background radiation.

believing in God would destroy Science(Which history shows that this is not true of course. )

The mere existence of this forum proves the opposite. If I look around this forum I see that you deny the Fact of Evolution in a purely religious basis despite the overwhelming evidence that is:

-the similarities in the genotype of species.
-The geological distribution of species
-The fossil record
-What you would call "micro evolution" IS evolution.
-The anatomy of species: vestigial limbs, nervus vagus. etc.
I will not cite a scientific paper on every one of these facts. You can google them, but I guess you are already aware of these.
Ah yes and a last one just for fun:
-The fact that evolution is happening and we can observe it in labs. http://myxo.css.msu....s.php?group=aad

#58 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 29 April 2011 - 12:22 PM

The basic idea of the Big Bang, is scientific fact. There could be, and there are of course debates over the details, but the literal big bang is fact. That's due to the inflation of the universe, and the equal distribution of background radiation.

I'd like to know where you, Ashley, and Glaucus came from. I'm pretty sure that all of you came here together. The Big Bang is not fact, how do you reconcile the abundance of lithium in metal poor stars if The Big Bang is a fact? The abundance of lithium in metal poor stars is a huge problem for The Big Bang, the solution offered by scientists defies physics. It goes to show that our speculative origin is more important than the observed laws of physics.

The mere existence of this forum proves the opposite. If I look around this forum I see that you deny the Fact of Evolution in a purely religious basis despite the overwhelming evidence that is:


That was a rather rude statement.
-the similarities in the genotype of species.
This is as much of evidence for a designer as it is for common descent. The issue isn't the evidence, it is the interpretation of the evidence, it has been shown numerous times that while Scientists are good at analyzing data for current phenomenon, when it comes to matters of the past, they are horrible guessers.(Remember the T-Rex blunder?)


-The geological distribution of species

I don't view the fossil record as a viable testimony for either side due to the tendency of organisms disappearing and reappearing in the strata.


-The fossil record

See my point above.

-What you would call "micro evolution" IS evolution.

This is a form of equivocation. While evolution happens, we assert that it has limits, living fossils are in correlation with this assertion. Micro evolution and common descent are not synonymous terms as you are trying to imply it to be. I don't understand why you guys can't get your point across without resorting to logical fallacies such as these. I recommend that you read the rules before you start posting again or else your stay here will be rather short. I'd love to have an intelligent discussion with you, but so far I am disappointed.

The anatomy of species: vestigial limbs, nervus vagus. etc.

There isn't any empirical evidence that any organs are vestigial, it is only assumed based on an unproven prediction by Darwin.(Who was not a scientist.)

I will not cite a scientific paper on every one of these facts. You can google them, but I guess you are already aware of these. 
Ah yes and a last one just for fun:
That isn't a problem, we only require you to provide your sources unless asked, unless you were copy and pasting from them that is.
-

The fact that evolution is happening and we can observe it in labs.
This is a common misconception from atheists, Creationists do not dispute that evolution is happening, we just say that evolution has limits.


Please don't take offense to me pointing out that you broke some rules in this post. I just suggest that you go read them before you continue posting or else your stay here will be short. Thanks.

#59 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 29 April 2011 - 12:41 PM

-the similarities in the genotype of species.


10% of the genome between humans and chimps just mysteriously evaporated from the genome, yet you call that evidence of common descent? I would think that the theory predicted vestigial DNA, but a common designer does not.

#60 Crocoduck

Crocoduck

    Newcomer

  • Banned
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Age: 18
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Massachusetts

Posted 29 April 2011 - 01:07 PM

]
So do you also justify killing people because Jeffery Dahmer did? What I find ironic is your logic that says: If so and so does it, then if we do it it's not that bad.
You do have to say that because there are some pretty bad things about him. But does that also mean that you guys will also consider it irrelevant any Christians past? I don't think so. So unless your side is willing to treat people the way they want to be treated, the past history of Darwin will be posted again and again. We will stop when you do.
Not at all. In fact, that's the exact opposite of what I was doing. All I was pointing out is that you're trying to say the theory of evolution promotes racism, just because Darwin may have been racist. If you noticed, I asked if god promoted racism, which he/the bible doesn't, yet people have used religion to promote racism. So just because somebody uses an idea or a religion to support another idea, it does not mean that said idea/religion promotes this idea. And I'm afraid your comparison doesn't quite work. Darwin's life is irrelevant, but Christianity's past (for the most part) isn't. Darwin provided a theory of evolution, but evolution itself doesn't have any racist ideas in it, that is A) just the way darwin might have felt and :P how most people felt at the time. Christianity's violent past, however, involves sticking religion down people's throat which at many times has resulted in executions. The difference is that the bible directly instructs its followers to spread the word of God and condemns all those who don't believe to go to hell. So you would have a point, if the theory evolution stated "Races of humans are superior to one another."


There is not way to justify the racism that evolution plainly shows,and will not back down. Why do you think the KKK loves the theory so?
Again, Evolution DOESN'T show racism. One human is not more evolved than another, they're just better fit for the environment that they're native too. White Europeans are better suited to survive in Europe, but in Africa, those with dark skin are better suited. Likewise, Native Americans are better suited for their environment than the white people who invaded it much later on are. This does not make dark skinned or white skinned people better than one another and nobody that understands evolution could claim it to be so.
Still trying to justify it. It's okay because someone was already doing it, right? I hope society never applies that to everything. it would be a lawless evil world.
As I stated above, that's not what I'm saying at all. Actually, I don't even see how you think I'm doing that. I clearly don't agree with racism, and I don't agree with Darwin being racist either. What I'm saying is that evolution does not promote racism, people are racists for whatever reason and they may use evolution to support their reason, but nobody is a racist BECAUSE of the theory of evolution.
First part of that quote is a perfect example of humanism. "I" decide what's right or wrong, "I" decide how to live my life. That's why I believe the way I do. And because I hate religion, all those who disagree, and all that is wrong with the world is their fault, right? Then you turn around and add some good to your post in hopes that it balances out the bad you just listed. What this shows is that you know it's wrong, or you would have stuck to your guns and not cared what people thought.
What? In what way shape or form did I say that religion is at fault for the problems of the world? I said that I have morals and ethics, but only morals and ethics supported by reason. My morals are not affected by supernatural reasonings. What reason is there to mistreat h*m*sexuals or ban H*mos*xual marriage? None other than "the bible says it's wrong."
I guess no one has ever shown you the long list of non-religious people who killed and murdered in history.
Oh, they have. They have just failed to show me the handy dandy non-theist hand book that directed them to do it.


(I'll respondn to Ron once I return from my sister's swimming lesson.)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users