Evolution Promotes Brutality

[AV1611VET]

Assuming that this is a cryptic way of asserting that evolution is not a well-supported theory, how do you explain that the overwhelming majority of experts in the relevant disciplines all agree that the broad theory of evolution is indeed very well supported by the evidence? Do you think they are engaged in a huge conspiracy to deceive? Or that they are all mistaken?

Both actually.

Satan is a master at consilience.

Also, Jesus said ...

Luke 12:34 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

Educatees, called "highminded" in the Bible, have invested a huge sum of money learning this [form of] witchcraft.

It stands to reason their hearts are in it.

 

[expos4ever]

Both actually.

Well, I think is wildly implausible, but I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I believe that when the church denies well-established findings of science, we only endorse the view from many quarters that we engage in bizarre and irrational thinking. And I suggest that this does not reflect well on the gospel message.

Satan is a master at consilience.

But you could say this about anything. This kind of response could be used to dismiss any of a wide ranges of well-established findings of the scientific community. And, again, this only embarrasses the church more and casts us in the mold of paranoid, uneducated yokels.

Also, Jesus said ...

Luke 12:34 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

Again, you could use this very general statement to dismiss almost anything that would otherwise be accepted by almost all reasonable people. For example, you could use this reasoning to dismiss the finding that antibiotics are effective.

 

[tiglathpileser]

There are many true Christians who have accepted that life on Earth evolved over millions of years. In particular, lifeforms have been around for over 200 million years which have continuously lived by biting and devouring other lifeforms. Has God allowed brutality to be the means for many lifeforms to exist for such a long period of time? I don't think so. How about you?

And just to bring some perspective into the debate, there are millions of christians who do not accept that life on earth evolved over millions of years. For those that accept the Word of God as the Word of God, life on earth started 6,000 years ago, give or take.

 

[tiglathpileser]

Well, I think is wildly implausible, but I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I believe that when the church denies well-established findings of science, we only endorse the view from many quarters that we engage in bizarre and irrational thinking. And I suggest that this does not reflect well on the gospel message.

Your comment about the church denying well established findings of science is wrought with problems as well established findings are not always that. To quote one example, I know there are atheists who swear by the APA for their beliefs about homosexuality (born that way) but what they don't tell you is what a former president of the APA said which was that the APA had been hijacked by homosexual activists and what was presented by them reflected homosexual dogma, not scientific fact. This does not reflect well on the APA but atheists are never bothered by a little problem like that as they seem to operate by the mantra of if you tell a lie enough times it becomes the truth and I illustrate this fact by their claim that God does not exist without any proof and hundreds of homosexuals being asked for proof that you are born that way and not one of them can give any.

 

[tiglathpileser]

Well he is definitely a maniac... He had his own son tortured and killed, in order to forgive humanity. Why didn't he just forgive humanity? He's omnipotent no? I would call people who like to torture their own son, rather vindictive and a manic.

Your comment shows a complete lack of understanding of how God relates to man and man relates to God and a lack of understanding of the meaning of the word which is....Maniac (from Greek μανιακός, maniakos) is a pejorative for an individual who experiences the mood known as mania. Also in common usage it is an insult for someone involved in reckless behavior.

FYI, God did forgive humanity when Jesus said "Father forgive them for they know not what they do." That was universal forgiveness but as we know man decided that he didn't need forgiving and continued to all the horrible and barbaric things that mankind does.

In the realm of psychology, one can forgive someone but that doesn't necessarily mean the person will stop doing what they are doing. The forgiveness is only one part of the process. It is up to that person to accept the forgiveness and change their ways.

Because of the shed blood of Christ, which was necessary as the bible says that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins, we are able to accept the forgiveness we are offered by Christ for our sins. It is an individual thing that requires us to respond and when we do we are cleansed from all sin as the bible says in 1 John 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of His Son Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin.

Bringing God down to your level of finite thinking isn't going to solve anything except justify you rejection of him. Until you acknowledge that you are a sinner needing salvation which can only be given by God, you will be up the creek without a paddle and all the arguments in the world especially those using pejoratives, will not justify your rejection of him.

 

[tiglathpileser]

It is not really brutality. We might perceive it that way, but those animals are just finding food to eat. How else do you suppose animals eat if they cannot 'brutally' kill other animals?

I think it is known as the food chain which we are all part of. It seems that the lower down the food chain you are the more of you there are and the higher up the less of you there are. At the top are humans and compared to the ones at the bottom we are small in number.

One could say we are brutal because we kill animals to eat but the method of killing would not suggest we are brutal about it. It is far less brutal than a bear killing an animal who she feels threatens her cubs. If one has a thing about killing and eating animals, they should be ecstatic about the millennial reign of Christ where the lion will lay down beside the lamb and no animal will be eaten for food by anyone or anything.

 

[Hoghead1]

Heissonear, you remark about evolutionary thinkers promoting brutality impresses me as incredibly prejudicial and inappropriate on your part. Cooperation has also been recognized as a major part of evolution. Even bacteria have been found to evidence altruistic behavior. Furthermore, those of us who see God and evolution as working together definitely are not promoting brutality or the like.

 

[tiglathpileser]

Deleted by tiglathpileser

 

[tiglathpileser]

Again, brutality is a part of nature. Evolution would occur whether that is true or not. If you're concerned about the brutality in nature, why are you not blaming your God for making it this way?

Oh, that one is easy. God did not make it that way as it says in Genesis 1:31 And God saw everything that He had made and behold, it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning the sixth day. In other words there were no mistakes made.

The person behind the rot which set in is spoken of in Genesis 3:1 And the serpent was cunning above every animal of the field which Jehovah God had made. And he said to the woman, Is it true that God has said, You shall not eat from any tree of the garden? The serpent of course being Satan who was one of the trinity of archangels along with Michael and Gabriel and was not satisfied with same so he rebelled against God to try and take over his position.

To cut a long story short they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil and when they did they knew what good and evil was whereas before they did not so they live in a paradise of perfection. Neither good or evil was an issue.

In Genesis 6:13 we read...And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

A clear indication that the violence perpetrated by mankind spurred on by Satan was the cause of the problem.

 

[46AND2]

Oh, that one is easy. God did not make it that way as it says in Genesis 1:31 And God saw everything that He had made and behold, it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning the sixth day. In other words there were no mistakes made.

The person behind the rot which set in is spoken of in Genesis 3:1 And the serpent was cunning above every animal of the field which Jehovah God had made. And he said to the woman, Is it true that God has said, You shall not eat from any tree of the garden? The serpent of course being Satan who was one of the trinity of highest angels and was not satisfied with same so he rebelled against God to try and take over his position.

To cut a long story short they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil and when they did they knew what good and evil was whereas before they did not so they live in a paradise of perfection. Neither good or evil was an issue.

In Genesis 6:13 we read...And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

A clear indication that the violence perpetrated by mankind was the cause of the problem.

If God is the omnipotent creator, then he is necessarily responsible for it all. Including evil, brutality, whatever.

If he created Satan and human, knowing what they WOULD do, then he brought sin into the world, simply by choosing not to create a world in which that doesn't happen.

It has always boggled my mind that the proponents of an omnipotent, omniscient, creator, cannot see this, and insist on asserting that humans are culpable for doing exactly what God intended them to do.

 

[Hoghead1]

Specifcally where in the Bible are you getting this notion that because Adam and Eve sinned, this brought down and corrupted the whole natural order?

 

[AV1611VET]

If God is the omnipotent creator, then he is necessarily responsible for it all. Including evil, brutality, whatever.

No, He isn't.

God is not a firewall.

He gave us freewill.

 

[46AND2]

No, He isn't.

God is not a firewall.

He gave us freewill.

Is he capable of creating an universe where humans and angels always make moral choices?

 

[tiglathpileser]

If God is the omnipotent creator, then he is necessarily responsible for it all. Including evil, brutality, whatever. If he created Satan and human, knowing what they WOULD do, then he brought sin into the world, simply by choosing not to create a world in which that doesn't happen. It has always boggled my mind that the proponents of an omnipotent, omniscient, creator, cannot see this, and insist on asserting that humans are culpable for doing exactly what God intended them to do.

Yes, I do understand that is the standard response of atheists but it falls down on one major point. If God does not exist how can he be responsible for anything? A non being cannot control what happens in society. Only an actual person can do that and as God is not according to atheists, he cannot be responsible for anything.

The same as I cannot blame my grandfather for anything today because he is dead.

Soooooo, until you are prepared to admit that God does exist, your argument is moot.

 

[AV1611VET]

Is he capable of creating an universe where humans and angels always make moral choices?

Yes.

 

[tiglathpileser]

Evolution doesn't promote anything. Evolution is descriptive, not prescriptive. You might as well say that gravity promotes pushing people off of buildings.

Of course evolution promotes as it is the core of a specific world view. With all of us, we live according to our world view. Evolution promotes the "There is no God" dogma and creation by God promotes "There is a God" belief system. From those two, the way we live is determined.

With the "There is no God" dogma, man is the centre of the universe and he is answerable to no one except himself. With the "There is a God" belief system man is not the centre of the universe and he is answerable to a higher being.

A classic example of how that works out in reality is that over the last 50 years as man has slowly made the decision that he is going to be the centre of the universe and will answer to no one he has embarked upon actions that are barbaric and which the government decided to legalise. Prior to that it would have been unthinkable.

 

[46AND2]

Yes, I do understand that is the standard response of atheists but it falls down on one major point. If God does not exist how can he be responsible for anything? A non being cannot control what happens in society. Only an actual person can do that and as God is not according to atheists, he cannot be responsible for anything.

The same as I cannot blame my grandfather for anything today because he is dead.

Soooooo, until you are prepared to admit that God does exist, your argument is moot.

No. It's a hypothetical. IF a god is described with the attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, and the creator of the universe, then such a god is responsible for the outcome of that universe. The good and the bad.

 

[46AND2]

Yes.

But chose not to.

 

[46AND2]

Of course evolution promotes as it is the core of a specific world view. With all of us, we live according to our world view. Evolution promotes the "There is no God" dogma and creation by God promotes "There is a God" belief system. From those two, the way we live is determined.

With the "There is no God" dogma, man is the centre of the universe and he is answerable to no one except himself. With the "There is a God" belief system man is not the centre of the universe and he is answerable to a higher being.

A classic example of how that works out in reality is that over the last 50 years as man has slowly made the decision that he is going to be the centre of the universe and will answer to no one he has embarked upon actions that are barbaric and which the government decided to legalise. Prior to that it would have been unthinkable.

Evolution has nothing to do with whether god exists or not.

 

[tiglathpileser]

Evolution is accepted by faith.

That is 100% true if you care to look at the facts. One who believes in evolution believes that everything came from nothing. Nothing and no one is behind everything. It is all a matter of chance and happenstance. As someone once said it is "from goo to you via the zoo." Now if that doesn't require faith I don't know what does.

It doesn't take much to work out that evolution is not scientific, it is philosophical. Behind most discussion of the topic is a claim that God does not exist which is constantly brought up by those arguing for evolution. As soon as you bring God into it it becomes a philosophical discussion. Keeping it scientific means keeping God out of it but that is fraught with danger as the arguement for evolution seems to revolve around God's existence.

In fact when you enter the discussion of evolution, in most cases the person fighting for it does't know what they are trying to defend. Their scientific knowledge is minimal so they fall back on the "God doesn't exist" argument. You then ask them to prove that God doesn't exist and they admit that they can't because as they say you cannot prove a negative. They then get on their high horse and say where is your evidence that God does exist. Even that question reduces evolution to a philosophical discussion.

Furthermore, without fail when evidence is presented even from a scientific perspective, they start to rubbish what has been presented with innate responses which is their way of saying we cannot prove you wrong so they have to resort to bluster and bullying.

Now I know I am on dangerous ground when I say that because evolutionists don't like to be called out and exposed for what they are so they get in touch with the moderators and complain about me flaming and personally attacking them but that is not the case as I am talking generically so no one can say I had a go at them.