Why Do Evolutionists Always Battle the Theist and Not the Discussion?

[HitchSlap]

When a man is shown the ruling kingdoms of the world for the next 4 empires and describes them with even the very name they would be called, then that is Bible prophesy... or when it can predict three one of a kind weather events all to take place within the span of a few decades in the exact order 1700 years in advance, that is Bible prophesy... I got lots more, there's dozen about the coming of Jesus with such accuracy that it is statistically impossible for even a few of the dozens of prophesies of Christ's birth and life to happen, let alone all of them.

How about you pick your favorite prophecy, and we can discuss.

 

[HitchSlap]

Why would it be wrong for me to do so is what I'm asking... but I suspect you don't want to broach that issue of evolution, do you?

It’s wrong because we decided it’s wrong.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Firstly, there is very, very strong evidence that empathy and altruism has pronounced benefits when it comes to social species, humans included.

Secondly, survival of the fittest doesn't mean killing someone or something that threatening. It means being the best suited to your environment in order to reproduce. Fitness has a very specific meaning when it comes to evolutionary biology.



It depends on the context and the cognitive abilities of the animals in question. I may not judge a lizard for eating a beetle, but I would judge a chimpanzee for beating an infant chimp to death with a stick.



Those behaviors we associate as "moral" typically have very strong benefits for group survival and/or biological fitness. Similarly those behaviors we associate as "immoral" typically have negative impacts.

Remember that evolution is about populations, rather than individuals, so generally speaking it rewards behaviours that are beneficial to the ingroup, and punishes behaviours that are negative to the ingroup.

This is hardly a new or original idea, and much has been published on this subject in the last 50-60 years. Your personal inability to figure this out doesn't discount the evidence.

So you're saying animals have consciences and not instinct?

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

It’s wrong because we decided it’s wrong.

Probably right after God told us it was... ever notice the wisdom that is contained in the last six Commandments for us to function as a society?

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Probably right after God told us it was... ever notice the wisdom that is contained in the last six Commandments for us to function as a society?

Who told us slavery was wrong?

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Who told us slavery was wrong?

Which form... God instituted a form of servitude of 7 years in which the servant was to be treated with dignity and respect. Kind of like an apprenticeship. Actually if you really try and understand the societal safeguards God put in place for taking care of widows and orphans, prohibition of usury, concept of jubilee's where a person would have their familial property returned to them if they needed to surrender it for debt, etc.... quite a fair and just society He designed for us after we sinned. Before sin, God had a completely different plan for us but we chose our lot.

 

[HitchSlap]

Probably right after God told us it was... ever notice the wisdom that is contained in the last six Commandments for us to function as a society?

6/10 ain’t bad.

 

[HitchSlap]

Which form... God instituted a form of servitude of 7 years in which the servant was to be treated with dignity and respect. Kind of like an apprenticeship. Actually if you really try and understand the societal safeguards God put in place for taking care of widows and orphans, prohibition of usury, concept of jubilee's where a person would have their familial property returned to them if they needed to surrender it for debt, etc.... quite a fair and just society He designed for us after we sinned. Before sin, God had a completely different plan for us but we chose our lot.

I’m not aware of being able to sell or beat your apprentice within an inch of his life.

 

[Kenny'sID]

That wasn't the point.

I know, I'm just a stinker like that.

 

[Gene2memE]

So

So's Law: Beginning a question with the word "So" increases the chance that the following statement is a strawman.

Let's see if its right in this case:

you're saying animals have consciences and not instinct?

Ding, ding, ding. Winner. Thanks you for playing! Here's your prize:

No, that's not what I'm saying at all.

I'm saying that the development of morality in social animals is not a puzzle for evolutionary biology, and that social mammals exhibit behaviours that include empathy and altruism. It has been demonstrated that animals such as dogs, rats, parrots, dolphin and various primates have the underpinnings for morality, in the context of their intellectual capacity. This includes elements such as a sense of fairness, sympathy, empathy, compassion and reciprocity.

The more intelligent the animal, the more finely graded this generally is.

For examples, if you reward dogs for collective good behaviour, they only care that all dogs in the group get some reward. It doesn't matter about the quality or quantity of this reward, as long as a reward is provided. If you look at some primates (chimps, bonobos, capuchin monkey for example) however, they care about the quality of the reward as well. So they object to unequal pay for equal work, and they will even share their reward with others if they see that they are getting a lesser/no reward.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Only the Creator is able to not only give life but to take it... as far as Abraham goes, you will remember that God stopped him from the killing of his son. It was an object lesson of the Son that was to be sacrificed for mankind.

The fact that God thought to ask it of him in the first place is hideous enough - that Abraham listened to the voices in his head and was fully prepared to gut his kid makes him as big a monster as his God. You agree though that Jeptha sacrificed his daughter and your God was good with that?

I've asked this before, but here's a hypothetical: if you and I were to hear voices from God telling us to kill our respective eldest child, I'm completely going to go get help from a professional psychologist, because I'd question the voices that have no empirical foundation, especially one that wants me to kill my first born. What would you do if you heard your God asking you to kill your child? We already know what Abraham did, would you be the same?

God didn't change the ten Commandments, man did.

So, the Bible is wrong then?

Can you name just a couple of other reliable ways that fossils get aged then?

Radiometric dating is among the primary go-to on this, and there are a variety of ways this can be done - you can use carbon dating, potassium-argon, uranium-lead, uranium-thorium and even rubidium-strontium dating - then you have a variety of other non-radiometric forms, such as dendrochronology, ice-core dating, lake-varve dating, all depends on where and how you found your fossil. Some other forms of relative dating might include thermoluminesence dating, typology and stratigraphy layer dating too if you're working an archaeological site - your mileage may vary but you'll easily find 3 to 7 ways a fossil will be dated before an age is settled on.

 

[Speedwell]

As an Anglican, I am surprised by you lack of faith or belief in the Bible... I mean, whats the point of being a Christian if one doesn't believe the very handbook of the club?

What makes you think I lack faith or belief in the Bible? Because I am challenging your lame argument for literal inerrancy?

 

[Speedwell]

Why would it be wrong for me to do so is what I'm asking... but I suspect you don't want to broach that issue of evolution, do you?

The theory of evolution may shed light on how our capacity for moral reflection arose, but it is not itself the source of the content of our morality. But it doesn't matter; it is obvious that you are not asking the question sincerely. You would not have made that snotty crack about my lack of faith in the Bible if you were sincere about any of this.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

6/10 ain’t bad.

The first 4 are even more important than the last 6... The Lawgiver must be respected as the Laws given.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

I’m not aware of being able to sell or beat your apprentice within an inch of his life.

That would be man's idea of servitude/slavery.... you are confusing God's wisdom with man's.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Every time I've ever seen a debate going on about creation versus evolution. The evolutionists always battle the creationist directly rather than the concepts at hand. If we are discussing the idea that animals all came from the same thing why can't we stick with that idea until the end? But rather instead of making progress towards understanding, the evolutionists break down into bickering with the person himself about how well he argues his point and whether there is validity through that. If we all stick to the concepts and just the concepts, then there should be no reason why we couldn't make progress towards a common understanding.

In fact on this forum the exact opposite is generally the rule. There are several posters here who answer creationists objection with intelligently.

 

[Clint Edwards]

. All you’ve demonstrated as that you have no idea what you’re talking about . Ok so define either word - macroevolution and Abiogenesis . I’ll bet you’ll get them wrong

I see, so you are the teacher and I am the student, and you get to grade my test, huh ? It doesn';t work that way, this isn';t an online university, and I REALLY doubt you are qualified to grade anything on the issue.

I know exactly what I am talking about, if you think not, then PROVE it, don't play silly games, commit drive by ad hominems, and run your mouth.

A typical response, attack the poster, not what is posted. The angry new evolutionist's have been using this tactic for years now, Hitchens, Dawkins, et. al.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

What makes you think I lack faith or belief in the Bible? Because I am challenging your lame argument for literal inerrancy?

Is he serious?

 

[HitchSlap]

That would be man's idea of servitude/slavery.... you are confusing God's wisdom with man's.

No, actually it’s god’s idea. You should read Exodus 20 when you get a chance.

 

[Brightmoon]

I see, so you are the teacher and I am the student, and you get to grade my test, huh ? It doesn';t work that way, this isn';t an online university, and I REALLY doubt you are qualified to grade anything on the issue.

I know exactly what I am talking about, if you think not, then PROVE it, don't play silly games, commit drive by ad hominems, and run your mouth.

A typical response, attack the poster, not what is posted. The angry new evolutionist's have been using this tactic for years now, Hitchens, Dawkins, et. al.

I notice you didn’t define either word