Jump to content


Photo

What Are The Moral Pillars Of Evolution?


  • Please log in to reply
144 replies to this topic

#21 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 25 March 2009 - 01:49 PM

yes, that's what I'm saying.

View Post

So, you're saying there are no absolutes?

#22 Richard Townsend

Richard Townsend

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 113 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • London, England

Posted 25 March 2009 - 03:26 PM

The historical sciences works quite well for historical facts that fit with the scientific method. The problem comes in when time is added to help the story stick together.

Evolution doesn’t “explain many facts about the world”, it gives one’s opinion of the evidences. Then cries foul if questioned by other’s opinion…

View Post


Time is necessary, but it's not been 'added' for that reason. There's quite a bit of evidence that the earth is really old.

The whole biological world is consistent with evolution - e.g. the fact that organisms fall naturally into a nested hierarchy, the distribution of organisms around the world, the structure of the genomes of different organisms. I can accept that this is not direct evidence that evolution has occurred, but what's found is in line with what evolution would predict.

I agree that evolutionists are very sensitive to criticism! I think they are aware that the evidence is not direct of the evolution of creature A to creature B but to be honest I think it's fine to admit that.

Rich

#23 Richard Townsend

Richard Townsend

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 113 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • London, England

Posted 25 March 2009 - 03:44 PM

So, you're saying there are no absolutes?

View Post


No, I think there is absolute truth, but I don't think science will ever be able to show that it has definitely reached it.

#24 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 25 March 2009 - 04:03 PM

No, I think there is absolute truth, but I don't think science will ever be able to show that it has definitely reached it.

View Post


So, you're saying that there is absolute truth, but science can’t prove anything, or science doesn’t prove anything?

And you don't see the illogic in that statement?

#25 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 25 March 2009 - 04:20 PM

Time is necessary, but it's not been 'added' for that reason. There's quite a bit of evidence that the earth is really old.

View Post


The speculations behind the time model are what play into the faith factor. And, there is just as much evidence that the Earth is young.


The whole biological world is consistent with evolution - e.g. the fact that organisms fall naturally into a nested hierarchy, the distribution of organisms around the world, the structure of the genomes of different organisms. I can accept that this is not direct evidence that evolution has occurred, but what's found is in line with what evolution would predict.

View Post


The whole biological world is consistent with what we call microevolution (or limited adaption of a species within its environment), but, there is absolutely no evidence for macroevolution. The structure of the genomes of different organisms makes much more sense within a design model than an evolution model, and we have never observed one species evolving into another, but we have seen limited adaptation of organisms to survive outside influences. Evolutionists only add time to speculate what they want to happen.


I agree that evolutionists are very sensitive to criticism! I think they are aware that the evidence is not direct of the evolution of creature A to creature B but to be honest I think it's fine to admit that.

View Post


Rich,

I appreciate your candor and honesty in the above statement. The only criticism I would make of it (and it is not out of malice) is that evolutionist make enormous faith statements to believe such. And, I have no problem with that, but, to get evolutionists to admit such faith statements is relatively non-existent.

#26 the totton linnet

the totton linnet

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 476 posts
  • Location:Winchester
  • Interests:Friends, fellowship, stuff
  • Age: 19
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Winchester, Hampshire

Posted 25 March 2009 - 04:27 PM

yes, that's what I'm saying.

View Post

*
If by absolute truth you mean whether or not God exists, it is my belief contrary to all sight and reason at the present time science WILL one day prove that He does beyond any shadow of a doubt.
This however will not be good news for christians, because knowledge is not faith and discovered knowledge is not revelation knowledge "happy are you Simon bar Jonah for flesh has not revealed this [my Sonship of God] but My Father in heaven.
So these scientists having discovered God [in my opinion only mind] will in their pig-headed way decide just what He is like and just how everyone [including christians] have got to worship Him.

#27 Richard Townsend

Richard Townsend

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 113 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • London, England

Posted 26 March 2009 - 06:53 AM

The speculations behind the time model are what play into the faith factor. And, there is just as much evidence that the Earth is young.
The whole biological world is consistent with what we call microevolution (or limited adaption of a species within its environment), but, there is absolutely no evidence for macroevolution.  The structure of the genomes of different organisms makes much more sense within a design model than an evolution model, and we have never observed one species evolving into another, but we have seen limited adaptation of organisms to survive outside influences. Evolutionists only add time to speculate what they want to happen.
Rich,

I appreciate your candor and honesty in the above statement. The only criticism I would make of it (and it is not out of malice) is that evolutionist make enormous faith statements to believe such. And, I have no problem with that, but, to get evolutionists to admit such faith statements is relatively non-existent.

View Post


There is good indirect evidence for macroevolution, but I agree direct evidence is thin on the ground.

By indirect evidence I mean things that must be true if macroevolution has happened, but would be very unlikely to be true if it hadn't happened.

For example, fossils show a sequence of development from fish to amphibians that shows fish earliest, intermediates next and amphibians most recent. This must be the case if macroevolution from fishes to amphibians is true, but if species are individually created there is no reason for them to show such a sequence of apparent development.

Of course, it's possible for a creator to do things this way, but there are so many examples like this it suggests that if species were created, then the creator wanted to give the impression that they have evolved one to another. There are now thousands of intermediate / transitional fossils and more are being discovered all the time.

Now if you think that all the dating evidence is wrong, and that the consistent sequencing of fossils is what you would expect as a result of the flood, then this evidence is meaningless to you...

Rich

#28 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 26 March 2009 - 08:20 AM

This is all really interesting. Can we safely come to the conclusion that evolutionary thinking has no moral pillars? :(

#29 oliver

oliver

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 148 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Brittany, France

Posted 26 March 2009 - 08:35 AM

This is all really interesting. Can we safely come to the conclusion that evolutionary thinking has no moral pillars? :(

View Post

Of course. Where could it possibly get any morality from?

In the absence of God, the only possible source of morality is the "might is right" attitude of someone powerful enough to impose his will. So morality would change as soon as he/they were deposed.

#30 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 26 March 2009 - 08:42 AM

In the absence of God, the only possible source of morality is the "might is right" attitude of someone powerful enough to impose his will.  So morality would change as soon as he/they were deposed.

View Post

Well said.

I've heard it put this way; without respect for a transcendent truth, and the moral law that follows, all people are left with is manipulation.

The struggle for power or the struggle for pleasure.

Adolf Hitler or Hugh Hefner.

Some would say, "Can't we have both?"

#31 assist24

assist24

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 251 posts
  • Age: 40
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • United States

Posted 26 March 2009 - 09:06 AM

This is all really interesting. Can we safely come to the conclusion that evolutionary thinking has no moral pillars? :(

Why do you think a scientific theory requires moral pillars?

What are the moral pillars of the theory of gravity?

What are the moral pillars of the theory of plate tectonics?

What are the moral pillars of the germ theory of disease?

#32 Richard Townsend

Richard Townsend

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 113 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • London, England

Posted 26 March 2009 - 10:53 AM

Well said.

I've heard it put this way; without respect for a transcendent truth, and the moral law that follows, all people are left with is manipulation.

The struggle for power or the struggle for pleasure.

Adolf Hitler or Hugh Hefner.

Some would say, "Can't we have both?"

View Post


That isn't the case. People do not need a transcendent truth to have morality. Are you saying that Scandinavian societies, which are the most secular in the world, are not moral? That they don't respect human rights? That they don't care for their children? That they don't have a fair justice system?

#33 oliver

oliver

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 148 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Brittany, France

Posted 26 March 2009 - 11:15 AM

That isn't the case. People do not need a transcendent truth to have morality. Are you saying that Scandinavian societies, which are the most secular in the world, are not moral? That they don't respect human rights?  That they don't care for their children? That they don't have a fair justice system?

View Post

The point is, what should keep them that way? What principles are they founded on.

In fact, of course, they are founded on the former Christian belief of those countries. With that belief gone, why should they continue to maintain that morality? Germany became widely infected with unbelief in the nineteenth century; by the early twentieth it was wide open to be taken over by evolutionary ideas, which are what the Nazis held most strongly. Sweden, like the USA, adopted laws for compulsory sterilisation on the basis of evolutionary ideas and consequent belief in eugenics.

#34 Richard Townsend

Richard Townsend

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 113 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • London, England

Posted 26 March 2009 - 11:50 AM

The point is, what should keep them that way?  What principles are they founded on.

In fact, of course, they are founded on the former Christian belief of those countries.  With that belief gone, why should they continue to maintain that morality?  Germany became widely infected with unbelief in the nineteenth century; by the early twentieth it was wide open to be taken over by evolutionary ideas, which are what the Nazis held most strongly.  Sweden, like the USA, adopted laws for compulsory sterilisation on the basis of evolutionary ideas and consequent belief in eugenics.

View Post


You're right to say their moral frameworks are founded on Christiantity. That's a good point.

I believe you are right to say that Germany was motivated by evolutionary ideas in World War One. Hitler, though, was motivated much more by his Catholicism than by evolution - his perception that Jesus was a jew-hater and a role model for Nazis in that respect. (He was completely wrong in that perception, of course). There are many quotes in his autobiography to that effect.

Sweden did adopt compulsory sterlization based on belief in eugenics, which as you say was inspired by evolutionary theory. But they have now stopped. The evidence is that they are maintaining (perhaps even improving) their morality. Their morality is not based on anything external in the sense that I think you mean it.

Rich

#35 assist24

assist24

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 251 posts
  • Age: 40
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • United States

Posted 26 March 2009 - 11:51 AM

The point is, what should keep them that way?  What principles are they founded on.

In fact, of course, they are founded on the former Christian belief of those countries.  With that belief gone, why should they continue to maintain that morality? 


You claim morality can only come from Christianity. I guess that why the ancient Greek civilization which existed for 1000 years before the advent of Christianity had no morals. They had no time to develop the concepts of fairness in law, or democracy. It was all just running around raping, stealing from your neighbor, and eating babies.

Posted Image

Some things are almost too silly to comment on. :(

#36 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 26 March 2009 - 12:01 PM

Why do you think a scientific theory requires moral pillars?

What are the moral pillars of the theory of gravity?

What are the moral pillars of the theory of plate tectonics?

What are the moral pillars of the germ theory of disease?

View Post


Then you agree that it is okay to lie about each theory because no morals should apply? Your dance around the issue is not working.

#37 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 26 March 2009 - 12:10 PM

Time is necessary, but it's not been 'added' for that reason. There's quite a bit of evidence that the earth is really old.

The whole biological world is consistent with evolution - e.g. the fact that organisms fall naturally into a nested hierarchy, the distribution of organisms around the world, the structure of the genomes of different organisms. I can accept that this is not direct evidence that evolution has occurred, but what's found is in line with what evolution would predict.

I agree that evolutionists are very sensitive to criticism! I think they are aware that the evidence is not direct of the evolution of creature A to creature B but to be honest I think it's fine to admit that.

Rich

View Post


Age dating does not prove that the actual time actually passed. This is because it can never be proven that the time process was always one with the aging process. We assume that it was, because it's what we observe. But if everything were eternal at one time until sin. Then aging was a process added after sin. And did not exist before it.

#38 oliver

oliver

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 148 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Brittany, France

Posted 26 March 2009 - 12:19 PM

You claim morality can only come from Christianity.  I guess that why the ancient Greek civilization which existed for 1000 years before the advent of Christianity had no morals.  They had no time to develop the concepts of fairness in law, or democracy.

View Post

Fairness in law? You know how Socrates was condemned?

Athens was a democracy and suffered the general fate of democracies: people vote themselves other people's money until the state collapses. In Athens' case, their greed turned their alliance against them and they eventually lost the Pelopennesian War. (It also wasn't helped by their idiocy in electing generals and admirals.)

In fact God has instilled a basic conscience in everyone. That is the foundation for all general concepts of right and wrong. However a conscience is easily silenced or perverted.

But the philosophical question for an atheist is always, why do you say something is good? Why should I stick by your ideas of it? Indeed that is a very practical question these days when morality in our countries is steadily declining. When you actually dig, you find out that for most people nowadays, what is good is a rather inchoate set of prejudices, partly based on conscience and partly on the newspapers, and ultimately they will say something is good if they approve of it. That isn't a foundation for anything. Indeed the idea of what is moral changes with the generations, which suggests it has no foundation at all.

In contrast, the Christian conception of what is good is clear and easily stated. Goodness is what conforms to the character of God and is expressed in his commands. It doesn't change.

#39 assist24

assist24

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 251 posts
  • Age: 40
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • United States

Posted 26 March 2009 - 12:20 PM

Then you agree that it is okay to lie about each theory because no morals should apply? Your dance around the issue is not working.

View Post

:rolleyes: I'm not following you.

Lying about gravity won't make objects suddenly start falling upward.

Lying about the causes of disease won't stop you from contracting malaria.

Lying about barriers to macroevolution won't stop an isolated segment of a population from undergoing speciation from the main population.

What's the issue?

#40 assist24

assist24

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 251 posts
  • Age: 40
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • United States

Posted 26 March 2009 - 12:23 PM

Age dating does not prove that the actual time actually passed. This is because it can never be proven that the time process was always one with the aging process. We assume that it was, because it's what we observe. But if everything were eternal at one time until sin. Then aging was a process added after sin. And did not exist before it.

:rolleyes:

I have to admit, I've never heard that particular argument before.

There was no passage of time before sin? What does that do to the claimed six literal day creation duration?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users