Evolution Promotes Brutality

[Heissonear]

This thread is mistaken in that "evolution" is not an ethical framework, it is what happened in the natural history of life on earth. Ethics requires minds, it postulates rational relations including "intention", "desire" and "reason" in the most basic level. When a spider's web catches a moth no one thinks of it as an ethical dilemma.

Sorry to say, but your reply is humorous.

A bit apathetic to what transpires when a lion runs down a deer, and rips the deer apart. Of course no intension of harm, viciousness, brutality. Only in your eyes, mate. As the blood weeps from the flesh just moment before having photons from the atmosphere transfered by neurological transmissions into the brain for sight of the scenery the deer was surrounded by. And then there was a lion and the biological food chain that Evolution has set up. Evolution has built-in brutality of life forms, daily and hourly.

People who promote Evolution promote brutality in life developing over millions of years on Earth. And you do not think so?

 

[Hieronymus]

Look, Hieronymus, before you tell others what you think they are, at least ask first. With me, you have absolutely no idea whom you are talking about.

So you don't like it either, when people spew assumptions about your ideas?
[edit]
I apologise though, it was over the top.
(forgot to say that.)

 

[Hieronymus]

No, that is not correct. Most fit does not equal toughest.

Often it does though.

Most fit just means the best suited for a particular environment. Clearly, love, morality, teamwork, loyalty can all play a roll in helping organisms survive.

Sure, but it will degrade faster because the mistakes are not purged from the gene pool.

 

[stevevw]

Doesn't the Bible say that animals use to eat vegetation. Then from the fall they would eat meat or each other. I find it interesting that the same people who protest against humans killing animals for food or fur or other gains are the same ones who support evolution and the survival of the fittest.

 

[SkyWriting]

With me, you have absolutely no idea whom you are talking about. I have an earned doctorate in theology from a conjoint program between a major university and a major PCUSA seminary. Now if you think I'm some sort o atheist, that's probably because you haven't got your head tougher with it comes to theology. Prior to going for my doctorate in theology, I earned an M.S. in a major scientific field via a Big Ten university. So, I have seen both he worlds of theology and science from the inside. And that's why I am telling y9o your whole argument about "indoctrination" is way, way off base. It reflects little more than a total lack of education on your part.

The benefit of forums is that we lend no special credibility to scholarly indoctrination.
Just as we do not attack the posters background, we also do not lend any special
honors on those who have honors in academics.

You degree is no benefit unless you have leaned how to teach well.

 

[Hoghead1]

I'm definitely not dealing here with a few minor exceptions, Skywriting. Do you think the Inquisition, which went on for centuries, was some minor exception? How about Augustine arguing that the church was in fact justified in using torture to force conversions? How about the persecution of Galileo and other intellectuals? This was just some minor exception? He was just some minor exception? How about Calvin putting out a death threat on poor old Servetus simply because he disagreed with Calvin's concept of the trinity? He was just some minor exception, when Calvin had him burnt at the stake? How about the fact the Reformers sought to persecute the Anabaptists off the face of the earth? That was just some minor exception? Read Baptist history sometime; Baptist historians sure don't think that was just some sort of minor incident. How about the church coming up here to Alaska and stamping out all native culture? That was just some minor exception, something to be easily forgotten about? Also, many scholars do see a definite connection between Hitler and Luther. You might want to spend a bit more time studying the history of anti-semiticism. Sorry, Skywriting, but I strongly think you need to take a history course.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Then why do scientific methodists say that, even if the fossil record never existed, biological evolution would stand on its own?

What's a "scientific methodist"? Is that a Wesleyan scientist or something?

Biological evolution has evidence from genetics, biology and all manner of things, it does stand even if one doesn't pay attention to the fossil record. This illustrates my point perfectly, when one looks at the fossil record alongside what we know of genetics and biology we find that it synthesises perfectly.

 

[SkyWriting]

Often it does though.
Sure, but it will degrade faster because the mistakes are not purged from the gene pool.

There are few who give a rip about natural selection.
Most of us have taken cold medicine or Pepto-Bismol.

 

[SkyWriting]

I'm definitely not dealing here with a few minor exceptions, Skywriting. Do you think the Inquisition, which went on for centuries, was some minor exception? How about Augustine arguing that the church was in fact justified in using torture to force conversions? How about the persecution of Galileo and other intellectuals? This was just some minor exception? He was just some minor exception? How about Calvin putting out a death threat on poor old Servetus simply because he disagreed with Calvin's concept of the trinity? He was just some minor exception, when Calvin had him burnt at the stake? How about the fact the Reformers sought to persecute the Anabaptists off the face of the earth? That was just some minor exception? Read Baptist history sometime; Baptist historians sure don't think that was just some sort of minor incident. How about the church coming up here to Alaska and stamping out all native culture? That was just some minor exception, something to be easily forgotten about? Also, many scholars do see a definite connection between Hitler and Luther. You might want to spend a bit more time studying the history of anti-semiticism. Sorry, Skywriting, but I strongly think you need to take a history course.

Yes, those same old topics are minor exceptions.
That's what makes them so exceptional.

Do you realize that most Christians are alive, today?
Given that, how are things going?

 

[Heissonear]

One of the strengths of evolution, IMO, is not in what evolutionists find -- but in what they don't find.

Missing links.

The more faith they put in the missing links, the stronger their belief in evolution will be.

What more needs to be concisely said? They have fell on their own face.

I knew the day as an Evolutionist the faith I was walking by, including the support structure - the opinions of men.

I'm glad I gave God "an opportunity". His work within by His Holy Spirit and written Word has been wonderous.

Evolution is a walk of faith.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Sorry to say, but your reply is humorous.

A bit apathetic to what transpires when a lion runs down a deer, and rips the deer apart. Of course no intension of harm, viciousness, brutality. Only in your eyes, mate. As the blood weeps from the flesh just moment before having photons from the atmosphere transfered by neurological transmissions into the brain for sight of the scenery the deer was surrounded by. And then there was a lion and the biological food chain that Evolution has set up. Evolution has built-in brutality of life forms, daily and hourly.

People who promote Evolution promote brutality in life developing over millions of years on Earth. And you do not think so?

My point was that ethics requires minds. Animals don't have minds, at least nothing comparable to human minds, so animals can't act ethically. If for whatever reason a horse dropped a bag of money in front of you you wouldn't thank the horse because you would understand that the horse doesn't have an intentional mind and doesn't comprehend value in the same way that humans do. If your neighbours dog was attacked by another dog you wouldn't think of the attacking dog as immoral, it just wouldn't make sense. "Brutality" may be a term that makes sense in the manner with which we understand the natural world, but it doesn't make sense to think of the brutality as part of the rationality of the natural world because there isn't a rationality outside of minds.

 

[Hieronymus]

Doesn't the Bible say that animals use to eat vegetation. Then from the fall they would eat meat or each other. I find it interesting that the same people who protest against humans killing animals for food or fur or other gains are the same ones who support evolution and the survival of the fittest.

It's just the herd (or sub-herds) following contemporary trends.

 

[Heissonear]

Why do you assume that anything other than greed and desire promotes brutality. This is a human trait and has nothing to do with any theory other that why the #%&&# are we so ^&*^# to our fellow man. Dog eat dog has been the statement of life in the animal community since time memorial. What has not always been the case is that we as humans sometimes act like that for the sake of that which you can't take with you, when you die. There is no redeeming feature on that which is done for the instant gratification of those who don't appreciate anything they get. It is only an addiction to a feeling that can not be sustained.

What you are attempting to do is called "whitewash", color it over to make it look the way you paint it to look by words.

No-worky.

Next time you are in Florida venture into to shallow water everglades teaming with fish to long legged birds and wade around. You will become part of the food chain, I'm afraid. And it will not look pretty.

You could also go to Alaska and walk one of the shoreline rivers. Something big with teeth and claws may want to shake hands with you.

Do you honestly think Evolution does not promote beastly behaviour, even vicious bitting and devouring of anothers body?

And you think God has used Evolution to develop life on Earth over geologic time?

 

[Heissonear]

I think that the real strength of evolution is precisely what it finds and how elegantly it has synthesised various other strands of science.

Deadwood. It drifts.

 

[Heissonear]

I think you mean sin. Death, I think for the animal kingdom has always been around.

Bad assumption. Get to know Him full of wonder and purpose in everything He does.

 

[AV1611VET]

Spiritual or physical? There is a vast distinction...

Well I certainly don't think He created us to die, much less be killed.

But to answer your question, I would say physical death.

 

[Heissonear]

Because DNA and genetics demonstrate that common ancestry is a fact.

Quick to "summarize" before His part of the puzzle comes off the shelf, by grace.

Again, no-worky. That is how naturalistic people learn and boast, I mean state things.

Read Hebrews 6:3. He has set things up where you will not know the basics unless He permits. You are that dependant.

Until then you assume or it appears.

 

[Heissonear]

There are any one of a number of transitional fossils found that serve as missing links. The reason why some of the laity do not accept them as missing links is that they often go on their idea as to what a missing link would look like, rather than on nature.

Who are you kidding. There are zero sequences of transition fossils. Including within paleontology texts.

Why blow smoke to reinforce your belief upon others?

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Deadwood. It drifts.

Yes, it does. And there's a scientific explanation for it.

 

[Armoured]