Evolution Promotes Brutality

[JacksBratt]

Two-dimensional, actually.

duly noted.

 

[tiglathpileser]

Funny thing is that my hypothetical showed you what IS (an existing paradox based on the attributes you assign your god), and all you want to talk about is what might be (a god who exists with those attributes DESPITE the paradoxes).

No it didn't. All it did was to expose what your mind conjures up to try and get an advantage over someone.

 

[tiglathpileser]

Sorry, but this is such an utterly ridiculous response, I can only assume it is an evasion tactic. More evasion. Weren't expecting me to say yes, huh?

1. No, it is the truth which you obviously cannot handle.

2. No, it is the truth which you obviously cannot handle.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can you name these supposedly "uneducated" goat herders?
Moses was trained by the Egyptian elite.
David was a King, Great warrior and musician.
Solomon was the wisest man that will ever live.
Mathew was a Tax collector.
Luke was a doctor.
Saul who became Paul was well educated in school of Gamaliel and studied classical literature, philosophy and ethics.

see below from : http://www.iloveatheists.com/top_100/challenge_category/The Bible - General/challenge_answer/285

How one could be illiterate and write is beyond me, but one can hardly say that writers of the Bible were unintelligent men even if they weren't all highly educated. We have Moses who would have received the finest Egyptian education. He wrote down 5 of the Bibles 66 books. David indeed started as a Shepherd, but by the time he was writing much of the Psalms, he was the King of Israel. Solomon had wisdom that surpassed any who came before or after him (with the exception of Jesus), with his contributions to the Bible being Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Songs of Solomon. Luke, the writer of Luke and Acts was a doctor. Peter was a fisherman. Paul was a tent maker. Yet these men managed to turn the world upside down and silence the greatest minds of their time. Add to this that it is likely they spoke at least 2 if not 3 languages, something the UK government would die for when it comes to today's students!

You seem to be forgetting something, Moses was fictional. We really have no clue as to how great or wise Solomon or David were. Luke was hardly a "doctor" and it does not matter, nor does it matter that Matthew was a tax collector. Neither are thought to have written books of the Bible. Saul/Paul may have had what passed for an education at that time, but he would still be totally ignorant in the matters of science.

 

[tiglathpileser]

Evolution does not say everything came from nothing. Your understanding of evolution is flawed.

I am only quoting atheists and evolutionists so don't blame me. Must mean their understanding of evolution is flawed in that case.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am only quoting atheists and evolutionists so don't blame me. Must mean their understanding of evolution is flawed in that case.

Nope, you clearly misunderstood what you heard at best. Instead of being rude and wrong you should seriously consider approaching this topic politely.

 

[tiglathpileser]

It is sad that the perspective you present is not taught in public schools anymore. The resultant decay in society is apparent. So much "self centered" rather than "God centered" people being raised in society.

Evolution has been one of the foundational tenets for "why". A mental snare utilized by satan.

Yes I would agree that it is very sad as it is a case of the blind leading the blind and no hope of them being brought to the light without intervention from God who will only tolerate so much.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes I would agree that it is very sad as it is a case of the blind leading the blind and no hope of them being brought to the light without intervention from God who will only tolerate so much.

Sorry, but you have only described creationists there. You are demonstrably wrong about evolution. It seems that you can't debate against the concept. Why not try to learn more? It could not hurt your debating skills, in fact it would probably improve them.

 

[46AND2]

No it didn't. All it did was to expose what your mind conjures up to try and get an advantage over someone.

Sure it did. The only argument you could offer in response is to provide a trivially true statement for a position I don't even hold, and was completely irrelevant to the point of the hypothetical.

At least you recognize the advantage of my position.

 

[46AND2]

1. No, it is the truth which you obviously cannot handle.

2. No, it is the truth which you obviously cannot handle.

More evasion, eh?

 

[Heissonear]

In other words: not evolution. This thread is discussing evolution, which is what I was responding to.

Read the entire reply. I copied a portion from Wikipedia on Abiogenesis on how life started without a Creator, which directly leads to the Evolution of life on Earth. No Creator needed.

There is an entire science domain which explains the physical realm and life in Earth without the need for a God to explain why things hallen of a need for God to make things happen. Natural processes have caused all things arpund us to come about. This is a Naturalist point of view of existence.

That is who I was growing up and in college. To a Naturalist the things within the Bible are mythical and a person who would believe in the multitude of supernatural myths promoted in the Bible were mentally off are pretty ignorant to the times. People making the sun stand still and walking through rivers that part are mythical fabrications of cultures of the past, to Naturalists. In our day and age Naturalism is prevailing.

Evolution is viewed as a fact to Naturalists, but may I state the main evidence to prove Evolution is entirely missing.

If one stays open and honest in heart, in who they are, God can change anybody.

 

[Heissonear]

Sure it did. The only argument you could offer in response is to provide a trivially true statement for a position I don't even hold, and was completely irrelevant to the point of the hypothetical.

At least you recognize the advantage of my position.

You rationalize, but are you open to know which side is true?

For example, is there a Creator or not. Big issue. You have one life to live. Do you seek the answer. And are you truely open?

 

[Heissonear]

Well, if you disagreed with Calvin, you definitely risked being burnt. Michael Servet disagreed with Calvin on the Trinity. Calvin issued a death threat on him, saying if he ever tried to go through Geneva (Calvin's city), Calvin would have him executed. Poor Servet tried to sneak through, as all roads went through Geneva. Calvin's police caught him and Calvin had him burnt. Back to omnipotence. The latter means that God has complete and total monopolistic control over everything that happens. Hence, yes, it does mean that God is a cosmic dictator that that he is responsible for all evil events. If we have some real degree of freedom, then God cannot be omnipotent, as we have some real degree of power in our own right.

You need to know Him, learn the basics of walking with Him, before knowing His ways, Mate.

Why have you proposed to know and understand God's ways without knowing Him? On glimps of His Being and Holiness would forever change you, and you would never be able to shake that experience from your innermost.

 

[46AND2]

You rationalize, but are you open to know which side is true?

For example, is there a Creator or not. Big issue. You have one life to live. Do you seek the answer. And are you truely open?

I was a Christian for most of my life. It was a happier time in my life, and my acceptance of atheism was the most painful process I have ever been through, and took more than a decade. So, yeah, I'm open. Are you?

 

[46AND2]

Read the entire reply. I copied a portion from Wikipedia on Abiogenesis on how life started without a Creator, which directly leads to the Evolution of life on Earth. No Creator needed.

There is an entire science domain which explains the physical realm and life in Earth without the need for a God to explain why things hallen of a need for God to make things happen. Natural processes have caused all things arpund us to come about. This is a Naturalist point of view of existence.

That is who I was growing up and in college. To a Naturalist the things within the Bible are mythical and a person who would believe in the multitude of supernatural myths promoted in the Bible were mentally off are pretty ignorant to the times. People making the sun stand still and walking through rivers that part are mythical fabrications of cultures of the past, to Naturalists. In our day and age Naturalism is prevailing.

Evolution is viewed as a fact to Naturalists, but may I state the main evidence to prove Evolution is entirely missing.

If one stays open and honest in heart, in who they are, God can change anybody.

Why do you insist on attaching abiogenesis to evolution? You KNOW that we separate those two, and so you are force feeding a strawman argument into the mix. Why do you insist on arguing a stance you know we don't hold? It's rather disingenuous. It doesn't matter, with respect to evolution, how life started. It could have been god, aliens, nature, whatever. It has ZERO effect on evolution.

 

[Hoghead1]

Omnipotent, AV1611, basically means can do anything. Although teh church fathers did describe God this way, they also did place some definite limitations on God. In Aquinas, God could not experience any negative emotion, violate the laws of geometry, or change. I consider omnipotence is major theological mistake. If God has any kind of character, then certain things are off limits for God to do, for example. An interesting question to think about here is this: If God is omnipotent, can God make a stone so heavy he can't lift it when he wants to? I raise that question because reflecting on it shows the absurdity of omnipotence.

 

[Hoghead1]

A major issue here is whether or not highly complex forms of order could arise without an ordering mind behind them, just accidentally, by chance. I, for o ne, do not think so. I think the chance of that happening is on a par with the chance of a hurricane blowing through a railway scrap yard and turning everything into 747 jet planes. So I see God as essential in teh evolutionary process.

 

[Hoghead1]

The all-powerful car would have to be able to drive itself. Otherwise, there is something it cannot do and so it isn't all-powerful.

 

[Hoghead1]

The Problem, 46and2, is that the classical model or picture of God as he is in his own nature was flat and one-dimensional. God was described as void of body, parts, passions, compassion, immutable. Compared with the universe, with it vast profusion of complex structures and dynamic interrelationships, this classical model of God seems too tame, stale, and flat to be of any real aesthetic interest. Saying God was outside of time actually meant that time is a big illusion on our parts; for if we could see reality form a truly transcendent perspective, have a God's-eye view of it, then there is no time. But time is too real for me to assume that. The traditional logic of perfection, largely incorporated from Hellenic philosophy, was that creaturely attributes and perfections must be excluded from God. What creatures have, God does not. But how is that a truly superior God? If I have emotion, can feel, and God can't, can't even enjoy the warmth of a human handshake, how then is God truly superior to us? If God cannot suffer and experience time, how can God ever understands us creatures who do? To me, only a suffering, temporal God can help.

 

[Hoghead1]

Fellowship, Jacksbratt, is definitely part of beauty. Beauty means great depth and breadth of experience, feeling more what is in ourselves and feeling more what is in others and then doing something novel with these feelings. Too often, Christianity has thought of God as the Ruthless Moralist, Ruling Caesar, and Unmoved Mover. I take a new direction. God, I submit, is the great Cosmic Artist luring us to higher and higher forms of beauty. Sin isn't flesh, it is insensitivity.