What Evolutionists Deny

[USincognito]

Sir you have one interest
Frustration and anger towards me

Ah, another Creationist who thinks they're a mind reader.

You want me to get involved in a civil personal dispute with you

No, I want you to simply answer a question instead of dancing around and projecting onto me your own faults. If you're really interested in honest discussion and debate here it is one more time.

You wrote:

>> Can you give an example of 5 where a catastrophic event created uniformitarianism (in humans) immediately and instantly <<

Would you care to clarify what you meant by this or are you going to continue to talk about me?

 

[AV1611VET]

>> Can you give an example of 5 where a catastrophic event created uniformitarianism (in humans) immediately and instantly <<

The Fall.

 

[Strivax]

I agree that 'the common good' has a lot to do with what is ultimately moral.

Best wishes, Strivax.

That sounds vaguely utilitarian - 'the common good' needs very careful definition if it's not to run into potentially unpleasant consequences (e.g. the good of the many depending on the suffering of a few); making it conditional on rights-based ethics can help with that.

In that utilitarianism concerns itself with the outcome of our actions, and in this way determines their ethical content, I agree. I too would be concerned about an individual's ethical system if he concerned himself solely with outcomes. As you suggest, rules are also necessary (deontology and/or divine command ethics), as is the character and 'flourishing nature' (virtue ethics) of any moral agent who wishes to consider himself 'ethical'. For my part, when considering any particularly knotty moral conundrum, I like to take each of these perspectives (as best I understand them) in turn, and try to reconcile them all into a single workable position.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[quatona]

Here is a list of what evolutionists deny, from my perspective:

1. A literal interpretation of Genesis 1.

2. The universe has only been in existence for some 6000 years.

3. We are all born with a sin nature, thanks to Adam.

4. We are not animals.

5. Catastrophism opposes uniformitarianism.

6. Adam & Eve did not have navels.

7. Jesus did not come to earth as an animal.

I may add more as the thread progresses.

8. The stork brings the babies.

 

[Strivax]

I still think therefore, there is a qualitative, not merely quantitative, difference between human consciousness and that of any other animal.

What if there wasn't?

Then I would be truly humbled, and would need to reevaluate much of my world-view. However, I cannot see such an unfortunate event as an incontrovertible proof occurring. The cultural evidence of difference is so massive, I wonder that anyone could mistake us for 'just another animal'.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[Ophiolite]

This is a meaningless post

It is refreshing to see such honesty.

 

[Speedwell]

Then I would be truly humbled, and would need to reevaluate much of my world-view. However, I cannot see such an unfortunate event as an incontrovertible proof occurring. The cultural evidence of difference is so massive, I wonder that anyone could mistake us for 'just another animal'.

Best wishes, Strivax.

Then it might be an interesting thing for you to do contemplate the possibility seriously. It sounds like you are according a personal value judgement the status of objective reality. There is nothing "just" about an animal. We are all God's creatures.

 

[miknik5]

Im still waiting for the UNIVERSAL standard of measurement to base our "good actions" by

We're not measuring our "goodness" against animal's goodness are we?

Because they'll come out doing what they were naturally created to do

So they don't have to excuse their behavior

They're just doing what they're supposed to be doing

 

[bhsmte]

Ah, another Creationist who thinks they're a mind reader.



No, I want you to simply answer a question instead of dancing around and projecting onto me your own faults. If you're really interested in honest discussion and debate here it is one more time.

You wrote:

>> Can you give an example of 5 where a catastrophic event created uniformitarianism (in humans) immediately and instantly <<

Would you care to clarify what you meant by this or are you going to continue to talk about me?

I always wonder where these creationists go to mind reading school.

 

[miknik5]

I always wonder where these creationists go to mind reading school.

GOD

But I'm not a creationist
However since the post was directed at me I felt that I should respond

What made one think I was a creationist?
Where did he get that idea from?

Because I believe in GOD and HIS WORD?

That doesn't make me a creationist
It makes me a CHRISTIAN

 

[bhsmte]

GOD

But I'm not a creationist
However since the post was directed at me I felt that I should respond

What made one think I was a creationist?
Where did he get that idea from?

Because I believe in GOD and HIS WORD?

That doesn't make me a creationist
It makes me a CHRISTIAN

God has taught you how to read minds? Is your mind reading ability infallible?

IMO, if someone wants to know what another person's position is, ask them.

 

[Strivax]

Im still waiting for the UNIVERSAL standard of measurement to base our "good actions" by

We're not measuring our "goodness" against animal's goodness are we?

Because they'll come out doing what they were naturally created to do

So they don't have to excuse their behavior

They're just doing what they're supposed to be doing

I actually think this is a fundamental question. Just what is 'the gold standard' of goodness? It is certainly true that most animals act instinctively, most, if not all, the time. And so do many humans. And in many cases, our gut reaction to man's inhumanity to man, and the rest of the animal kingdom, is a reasonable guide.

Nevertheless, I do not think it enough. We clever creatures are all too ready to rationalise activities that serve our self-interest, swallow our sensitivities, and pursue selfish ends regardless of their impact all the while explaining to ourselves that we are being moral, really, because, say, life is actually all about the survival of the fittest and the satisfaction of our sensual desires.

I have searched for, and never found, a foundation for morality, in the sense that there is some moral axiom, or set of axioms, on which a systematic account and definitive structure of morality can be built, step by rational step.

The best I can offer is two, related, thoughts:

Firstly, that morality is best pursued by a search for excellence, for moral perfection, however we conceive that perfection to be. Rather than basing morality on a foundation, I tend to see it as depending on an ultimate goal. Christian believers will associate this goal with the imitation of Christ, and approaching God. Non-believers can associate it simply with a quest for the ideal solution in all circumstances.

Secondly, that morality is best pursued collectively, in respectful discussion with each other. We all have different ideas and perspectives, and we can all be informed by all of them, greatly to our benefit. Even if we disagree with some protagonist, it forces us to think through our own beliefs, justify them to ourselves and others, and so helps keep our arguments relevant and fresh in our minds.

So, thus speaks Strivax, for the benefit of all humanity!

Best wishes to all. Strivax.

 

[miknik5]

God has taught you how to read minds? Is your mind reading ability infallible?

IMO, if someone wants to know what another person's position is, ask them.

Tell me what I said that implied to the poster that I had read his mind

 

[miknik5]

I actually think this is a fundamental question. Just what is 'the gold standard' of goodness? It is certainly true that most animals act instinctively, most, if not all, the time. And so do many humans. And in many cases, our gut reaction to man's inhumanity to man, and the rest of the animal kingdom, is a reasonable guide.

Nevertheless, I do not think it enough. We clever creatures are all too ready to rationalise activities that serve our self-interest, swallow our sensitivities, and pursue selfish ends all the while explaining to ourselves that we are being moral, really, because, say, life is really all about the survival of the fittest and the satisfaction of our sensual desires.

I have searched for, and never found, a foundation for morality, in the sense that there is some moral axiom, or set of axioms, on which a systematic account and definitive structure of morality can be built, step by rational step.

The best I can offer is two, related, thoughts:

Firstly, that morality is best pursued by a search for excellence, for moral perfection, however we conceive that perfection to be. Rather than basing morality on a foundation, I tend to see it as depending on an ultimate goal. Believers will associate this goal with the imitation of Christ, and approaching God. Non-believers can associate it simply with a quest for the ideal solution in all circumstances.

Secondly, that morality is best pursued collectively, in respectful discussion with each other. We all have different ideas and perspectives, and we can all be informed by them, greatly to our benefit. Even if we disagree with some protagonist, it forces us to think through our own beliefs, justify them to ourselves and others, and so helps keep our arguments relevant and fresh in our minds.

So, thus speaks Strivax, for the benefit of all humanity!

Best wishes to all. Strivax.

I guess GOD 's WORD plainly spoken would have no authority over all who speak?

 

[bhsmte]

Tell me what I said that implied to the poster that I had read his mind

"Sir you have one interest
Frustration and anger towards me"

If you really want to know someone's intent, you should ask them.

 

[bhsmte]

I guess GOD 's WORD plainly spoken would have no authority over all who speak?

Which interpretation of God's word are you referring to?

 

[miknik5]

Which interpretation of God's word are you referring to?

Is your agenda a true agenda sir? Or is your agenda similar to @USincognito

 

[miknik5]

You know THE VERDICT don't you?

And you know the interpretation of THAT VERDICT

Correct?

 

[bhsmte]

Is your agenda a true agenda sir? Or is your agenda similar to @USincognito

My agenda was to ask you a question. Can you answer it?

 

[Strivax]

I guess GOD 's WORD plainly spoken would have no authority over all who speak?

The problem is, not everyone accepts all the scriptures are purely God's word. And rightly so, in my opinion. So we need look elsewhere to achieve consensus.

Best wishes, Strivax.