Advertisement
All animals, all fish and reptiles have the ability to reproduce of their own kind
because they have females within the species. No male can reproduce and keep its
kind alive without a female of the same species. Dogs, cats, horses, cattle, elephants,
humans, giraffes, lions, tigers, birds, fish, and reptiles all came into being having both
male and female. If any species came into existence without a mature female present
(with complimentary female components), that one male would have remained alone
and in time died. The species could not have survived without a female. Why did
hundreds of thousands of animals, fish, reptiles and birds (over millions of years)
evolve a female partner (that coincidentally matured at just the right time) with each
species?
In contrast, the Bible maintains that God instantaneously created man (in His own
image) and woman, giving them the ability to reproduce after their kind. So the Bible
and the theory of Darwinian evolution are not only opposed to one another, they are
incompatible. The only commonality is that they are both miraculous, and they both
require faith to believe them.
Those who believe in the theory of evolution are passionate, and for a good reason. If
Darwin was right, man is simply an animal with no moral accountability, and his
desires therefore to procreate are merely natural survival instincts.
However, if the Bible is true, it throws a huge, cold, and heavy wet blanket over man's
desire to follow his sexual instincts. It not only says that he is accountable, but that
there will be severe retribution for his adultery, fornication, and even for lust (see
Matthew 5:27-28).
www.pulltheplugonatheism.com/art02.shtml
because they have females within the species. No male can reproduce and keep its
kind alive without a female of the same species. Dogs, cats, horses, cattle, elephants,
humans, giraffes, lions, tigers, birds, fish, and reptiles all came into being having both
male and female. If any species came into existence without a mature female present
(with complimentary female components), that one male would have remained alone
and in time died. The species could not have survived without a female. Why did
hundreds of thousands of animals, fish, reptiles and birds (over millions of years)
evolve a female partner (that coincidentally matured at just the right time) with each
species?
In contrast, the Bible maintains that God instantaneously created man (in His own
image) and woman, giving them the ability to reproduce after their kind. So the Bible
and the theory of Darwinian evolution are not only opposed to one another, they are
incompatible. The only commonality is that they are both miraculous, and they both
require faith to believe them.
Those who believe in the theory of evolution are passionate, and for a good reason. If
Darwin was right, man is simply an animal with no moral accountability, and his
desires therefore to procreate are merely natural survival instincts.
However, if the Bible is true, it throws a huge, cold, and heavy wet blanket over man's
desire to follow his sexual instincts. It not only says that he is accountable, but that
there will be severe retribution for his adultery, fornication, and even for lust (see
Matthew 5:27-28).
www.pulltheplugonatheism.com/art02.shtml
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: The Atheist Problem with Females
Tue, February 10, 2009 - 8:13 AMAnd the circle of Dan's logic goes round and round........................... -
-
Re: The Atheist Problem with Females
Tue, February 10, 2009 - 8:52 AMI don't think you understand logic at all or at least you do not honestly apply it to all circumstances. Logic itself is based upon assumptions which must be embraced, but cannot be proven. The same is true for science. An appeal to an ultimate authority is not illogical, while it may be circular. You hold to world views which are axiomatic, just as I do. You avoid stating openly what those view are, but many can be seen by your comments here and elsewhere. -
-
Re: The Atheist Problem with Females
Sat, February 14, 2009 - 2:54 AMHey Dan, I'm going to be totally off subject here. I was doing research on carbon dating and ran into a debate you were having in Dec on the subject. I will preface this question with the statement that I too am Christian. However, whether carbon dating is accurate or not doesn't really affect my world view. Genesis doesn't specify how much time elapses between "...upon the face of the deep" and "And the Spirit of God moved..." Anyway, I always have had a misgiving pertaining to carbon dating because knowing the amounts of carbon 14 in the atmosphere at a time in the past seems a bit difficult. I have read some on the calibration curves and so forth, but it stills seems a bit of a guess to me. I personally have no problems with guesses in science, many times we have figured out how to make something work without knowing the full reason why. I think the thing that has always bothered me is the complete certainty with which it is accepted. Anyway I am doing a post in a statistics class on statistics that we doubt, and have chosen this subject. Upon researching it I discovered this heated debate everywhere, which I was unfamiliar with. I personally assume that most people in the scientific community allow for uncertainty with most theories. Also, for the argumentative people out there, I don't doubt the science involved in carbon dating, assuming we have a controled experiment with limited variables, which in practice we do not. Back to my question. I know your bias but I also see that you have done some research on the subject and most likely have planned for different argument senarios. How does the side opposite yours argue that the intial C14 levels can be known throughout the past and if the assume they are always the same, why do they assume this. Thanks for the input as I don't want to start a massive argument for a class post. Lou -
-
Re: The Atheist Problem with Females
Sat, February 14, 2009 - 9:31 PMHi Louis,
thanks for the post. I have a couple of comments. Carbon 14 is not a problem for Creationists, it is a problem for evolutionist and old age creationists. The real reason is because C14 if found almost everywhere, and it should not be. It is found in coal and diamonds, all believed to be millions or billions of years old respectively. You raise an import issue here, how does anyone know the original concentrations of C14 (or any element used in dating). They answer is quite simple, they do not know. Thus, these "clocks" are more or less, a crock.
I like the analogy of the bathtub. You come on it and discover that it is nearly filled and a notice that the faucet is dripping one drop every minute. You use the rate of flow and extrapolate back to determine when the tub was empty and determine it is several months. But do you really know that it took this long to fill? Of course not. You do not know 1) if the tube was empty to begin with 2) that the rate of flow was constant.
Radiometric dating as a "scientific sound" to it. And who can argue with science, especially since most people really don't understand this stuff very well. But like the bath tub analogy, scientists are making some major assumptions with radiometric dating, and creationists have shown time and again, these assumptions are completely wrong.
Here is an article I think you might enjoy on the subject of Carbon Dating:
www.answersingenesis.org/artic...-bible -
-
Re: The Atheist Problem with Females
Sun, February 15, 2009 - 5:33 AMDan: The real reason is because C14 if found almost everywhere, and it should not be.
Really? Why? Carbon 14 is simply an isotope of carbon. Even the shift in ratios caused by the chemistry in cells isn't total. -
-
Re: The Atheist Problem with Females
Sun, February 15, 2009 - 4:11 PMGrim, because carbon-14 decays relatively rapidly it only provides “ages” in the range of tens of thousands of years. In fact, if every atom making up the earth was carbon-14, even after just 1 million years there would be absolutely no atoms of carbon-14 left, because they would have all decayed away, based on today’s measured half-life! That’s why radiocarbon dating isn’t used to date rocks at millions of years.
C14 should not be found in detectable levels in such things as diamonds and coal. In fact, anything over 80,000 years old should not contain measurable amounts of C14. Yet 40-120 million year old coal beds have been carbon dated to ages of 48,000 - 50,000 years.
Diamonds are among the oldest rocks on earth. The earth is estimated to be hundreds of millions of years old. There should be no C14 present, but there is. This fact is not noted only by creationists, but is also noted in conventional literature:
R.E. Taylor and J. Southon, “Use of Natural Diamonds to Monitor 14C AMS Instrument Backgrounds,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 259 (2007): 282–287.
R.E. Taylor of the Department of Anthropology at the University of California–Riverside and of the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology at the University of California–Los Angeles teamed with J. Southon at the Keck Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Laboratory of the Department of Earth System Science at the University of California–Irvine to analyze nine natural diamonds from Brazil. All nine diamonds are conventionally regarded as being at least of early Paleozoic age, that is, at least several hundred million years old. So, if they really are that old they should not have any intrinsic carbon-14 in them. Eight of the diamonds yielded radiocarbon “ages” of 64,900 years to 80,000 years. The ninth diamond was cut into six equal fragments, which were each analyzed. They yield essentially identical radiocarbon “ages” ranging from 69,400 years to 70,600 years. This suggests the carbon-14 was evenly distributed through this diamond, which is consistent with it being intrinsic carbon-14, and not contamination. Interestingly, samples of Ceylon graphite from Precambrian metamorphic rock (conventionally around 1 billion years old) were analyzed at the same time and yielded radiocarbon “ages” of from 58,400 years to 70,100 years.
Grim, the gig is up, no dating methods prove the vast evolutionary ages needed for evolution to be true. The story is pure fiction. The fossil record is mostly a record of the world wide Noahic Flood, which occured only about 4000 years ago. The chronology of the bible indicates that the creation took place approximately 6000 years ago, around 4000 bc.. We can trace the 16 grandsons of Noah to places they settled around the world, by their names.
-
-
Re: The Atheist Problem with Females
Sun, February 15, 2009 - 4:43 PMExcept for the fact that radioactivity can produce the C14 isotope. Where have your diamonds been? Have they been in the ground? were they contaminated?
Contamination throws of readings, especially for things outside the effective range of C14 dating. -
-
Re: The Atheist Problem with Females
Mon, February 16, 2009 - 2:40 PMGrim, you yourself state that C14 readings can be contaminated, your whole argument here is about all the variables affecting Dan's diamonds. This is exactlly the point of the issue. Science is a powerfull tool that we have. A "tool", not an ideology. Ideologies are based on faith and the knowledge that we may not understand everything about our supreme God. Science is based on logical thought. We can never make a scientifc theory or law into into an unquestionable fact. If we assumed Newtonian physics were unquestionable we would never accepted Quantum physics. Both are usefull. We must always realize that science is only based on our limited understanding at the present time. If it works for something fine, when I say works I refer to a observable, replicatable result. Even with this we might be getting a repeatable, observable result without having full understanding why. My point is not that radioactive dating is a myth, in a controlled setting I have full confidence in it (atomic clocks, using it as a mocecular marker, etc.) The problem arises in that unknown objects are being tested and the observers are basically throwing out all the myriad varibables as non-consequential. This seems a bit irresponsible. I honestly don't understand the hang-up with carbon daing. I think a bigger flaw in the theory of evolution is the fact that there is not a unbroken chain of fossil evidence proving evolution. Furthermore, from a moral perspective the only Darwinist that were truly honest were the Nazis. The "survival of the fittest" is the equivalent of "love God and love your neighbor" for Christians. If I were a Darwinist and I wanted a man's "mate" it would be most moral of me to kill the weaker male and take his mate by strength to insure my stronger genes. I would also be compelled to kill any weaker offspring he might have had with the female. LOL -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: The Atheist Problem with Females
Tue, February 17, 2009 - 8:46 AMLouis: If I were a Darwinist and I wanted a man's "mate" it would be most moral of me to kill the weaker male and take his mate by strength to insure my stronger genes. I would also be compelled to kill any weaker offspring he might have had with the female. LOL
I simply don't understand this claim. It's like saying that the "fittest" financial investor is a bank robber. This makes no sense when you look at the entire scenario.
Darwinism simply says that animals tend to reproduce more than can survive. (without regard for their environment or future) It further notes that, while offspring closely resemble their parents, there is some variation. It concludes that in a competitive environment, some variants may do better than others. There is no need to conclude that aggression is the fittest answer. (though sometimes it is) When you take into account the entire scenario, there are times when other tactics are superior. For example, many social insects have found cooperation to be a more "fit" answer than aggression. The same could be said of the social order of a wolf pack, though not of it's feeding habits. (they are aggressive towards prey)
Humans too are social animals. Killing, and stealing to a degree that harms the success of "the group" is an unfit action, and as such is cause for reprisal making it a less "fit" action than it might seem under a cursory consideration.
Further, Nazis were not Darwinist, (subscribing to allowing nature to select the fittest) they were eugenicists. (believing that the best course was to subvert nature by purposeful, not natural selection) Their tactics are more like a dog or pigeon breeder's, but applied to humans. Dog, pigeon, or human breeding programs are artificial selection, the exact opposite of Darwinism. (natural selection) Where the Nazis did get inspiration was twofold: Firstly they evinced the prejudice that was rampant in their time. Secondly, they embraced a specific religious notion, reviling specifically believers of a different faith that were implicated in the death of their chosen savior.
Clearly, Nazism is more closely allied with Christianity than with Darwinism. Similarly, Artificial selection is not natural selection. -
-
Re: The Atheist Problem with Females
Wed, February 18, 2009 - 8:57 PMGrim, First, If you look into nazism you will see it had ties with the occult, the swastika is an ancient pagan symbol throughout history. "Christianity" or the pretense thereof was used as a propagandist vessel and to gather support form the "political aspect" of the chatolic church. As far as your point about individual aggression being not as valuable as group cooperation. I agree that an organized group can defeat an one aggressive individual. I am very interested in military history and thought. Many classics of eastern military though explain that war is the same at the micro level as the macro. I have done martial arts all my life and know that it is very hard to defeat a trained opponent with one blow. In individual fighting you must both try to break each others will first. The same is true on larger scale warfare. Sorry, very tangental but a personal pet pieve I have on current affairs. Anyway, a organized violent group would have an edge over an organized passive group. And a organized immoral group would have an edge over a moral aggressive group. Discounting a just God of course. My point then and now is that a honest Darwinist would understand that passivity and morals were incovienient. I said that the nazis were honest darwinists (I am not saying that they would have called themselves by that word persay), in that they realized that by organized aggression without moral constraints they could achieve their desires. The fact that they didn't, a just barely at that, was divine providence. We can see throughout history and presentlt that governments that are aggressive and immoral have had much greater power bases in their immediate spheres of influence. What has held back the encroaching despots has been Judeo-Christian countries. And sadly as they fade from our earth the despots will gather strength and all the many masses who have clamored to rid their world of the incovienient truth of Christianity will get their reward of unchecked secular Darwinism. I beleive a time much worse than the time in the 30's and 40's will be coming. We are at a time where technology can be used to control and monitor us at a level no dictator in history could have hoped for. I assure you that a group of organized and aggressive people will see this and the easy pacifist prey that surrounds them. God doesn't need humanity, we need him. If enough regect him he will leave us to our devices, and then true Darwinsm will rule. I am sure Atheists will be thrilled when hell on earth with no hope of heaven is upon them. Oh, and as a side note if the bank robber was a very good bank robber and not caught then he was the superior "financial investor" he got a much higher return on a smaller investment. This is what propels crime. -
-
Re: The Atheist Problem with Females
Thu, February 19, 2009 - 6:22 AMLouis: First, If you look into nazism you will see it had ties with the occult, the swastika is an ancient pagan symbol throughout history. "Christianity" or the pretense thereof was used as a propagandist vessel and to gather support form the "political aspect" of the chatolic church
Got Mit Uns. In Mien Kampf and other personal writings, Hitler remarked numerous times that he felt he was doing the will of God. The pagans didn't hate the Jews, the Christians did. (ask Mel for details if you're unclear)
Louis: Anyway, a organized violent group would have an edge over an organized passive group. And a organized immoral group would have an edge over a moral aggressive group
(was your last group supposed to be "organized moral" group?) The problem is that aggression and immorality are corrosive to organization. In the short term, a cult-of-personality may hold sway, but in evolutionary time scales, this is not consistent enough.
Louis: . I said that the nazis were honest darwinists ---, in that they realized that by organized aggression without moral constraints they could achieve their desires.
Darwinism is natural selection, what the Nazis planned is selective breeding. These are opposites. Is this so hard to understand? Their aggression was not without moral constraints if they felt that they were doing God's will. Got Mit Uns. Their acts were moral in their eyes.
Louis: What has held back the encroaching despots has been Judeo-Christian countries.
Except when Judeo-Christian countries have been the encroaching despots. Ask the native peoples of 3 or 4 continents about encroaching despots...
Louis: . I beleive a time much worse than the time in the 30's and 40's will be coming
I agree, but I believe it's source will be overpopulation, and it's solution will be the eradication of, or a drastic shift in religion. At some point, be fruitful and multiply will be tempered by sanity or tragedy. I for one hope it's the former, but realize that it probably will not be.
Louis: Oh, and as a side note if the bank robber was a very good bank robber and not caught then he was the superior "financial investor" he got a much higher return on a smaller investment.
It would seem so, and is on a tiny scale, but this is not so on a large scale. If a group of animals works hard to get food, they maximize the groups ratio of caloric intake versus expenditure. If, however, half the animals choose to steal from others of their kind, then caloric expenditure is reduced, but still above half, while intake is reduced to half. On the whole, this makes this kind of animal less efficient by whatever amount is expended stealing. If this "kind" of animal is competing with other kinds for similar resources, it will be less effective. A small amount of food theft may slip through, but wholesale theft will be weeded out. (note that stealing from other "kinds" of animals is competition, as it doesn't reduce the intake of the thieving animal's group)
The big question here is: What constitutes your kind? Where do you draw the line? This is where Evolutionary recognition of genetic similarity is helpful. Hair color, eye color, nose shape; these are transient traits. Religion, political affiliation, these are memes, and even more transient. Is the line drawn between essentially matching genetics based upon transient traits? This seems impractical. Perhaps sentience is the dividing line, but to what degree? What about creatures that are 80% of what we consider arbitrarily sentient, who possess the potential to become 100% sentient given time? How much time is a legitimate consideration? Perhaps we draw the line at creatures capable of love, empathy, altruism, or a rudimentary morality with the potential to become more moral given time?
Recognizing my kind's genetic heritage in evolutionary terms seems quite applicable to morality.
-
-
-
-
Re: The Atheist Problem with Females
Mon, February 16, 2009 - 5:17 PMIf you read the study offered you would no that contamination was taken into consideration. They even broke open the diamonds and tested the individual particles. No contaminated. Beyond this, the same is true for coal. Talk origins, the evolutionary apologetic blog admits that meaurable amounts of carbon 14 exist in coal. They conclude by stating that "more studies need to be done". Agreed, but at present, it is an indication that something is amiss with radiometic dating. Too many assumptions, to much picking and choosing which dates suit the scientist. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: The Atheist Problem with Females
Tue, February 17, 2009 - 8:57 AMRadiometric dating is not perfect. New problems crop up occasionally, and need to be dealt with. This is why it should be backed up with other dating methods, whether different radioactive methods or other methods altogether. Contamination can be a big problem.
C14 can be produced by proximity to radioactive materials. Thus, I could produce C14 within a diamond simply by leaving it near an appropriate source or radioactivity for a time. Not so hard to explain at all.
What may seem like picking and choosing might also seem like correcting for anomalies. The key issue is: Does the method, on the whole, function? Taking into account contamination, human error, and a few unknown factors, radiometric dating works well enough to accept it with some reservations, in much the same way that all science is accepted with some reservations. This is not a flaw, it is an acknowledgment of limitations. -
-
Re: The Atheist Problem with Females
Tue, February 17, 2009 - 1:57 PMGrim, did you even look at the article? These guys are scientists and this was peer reviewed work. Unless you are going to argue that they are purposefully lied about their findings, you have no argument:
"In all cases, careful precautions were taken to eliminate any possibility of contamination from other sources. Samples in all three “time periods” displayed significant amounts of 14C. This is a significant discovery. Since the half-life of 14C is relatively short (5,730 years), there should be no detectable 14C left after about 100,000 years. The average 14C estimated age for all the layers from these three time periods was approximately 50,000 years. However, using a more realistic pre-Flood 14C/12C ratio reduces that age to about 5,000 years." -
-
Re: The Atheist Problem with Females
Tue, February 17, 2009 - 3:14 PMI read the article. It contains some absolutely non-scientific presumptions. I couldn't find a reference indicating a peer review process in a scientific journal.
C14 is regularly produced by cosmic rays in the atmosphere. It is also produced by exposure to radioactivity. Diamonds exposed to radioactivity Can reform C14. I didn't see where they tested the diamonds for exposure to radioactivity.
I haven't had time to check out C14 in coal. -
-
Re: The Atheist Problem with Females
Wed, February 18, 2009 - 3:19 AMYou are dodging. I have offered the research of scientists published in peer reviewed work. Here is another article published with references to many more. You are not a scientist, so your conclusion that "non-scientific presumptions" are at work or that contamination was involved are not credible. the contamination issue was dealt with in the article. Here is another, which references numerous studies:
www.answersingenesis.org/artic...s-wood -
-
Re: The Atheist Problem with Females
Wed, February 18, 2009 - 11:05 AMI'll not bother with this new article until the first is resolved.
When you mention this peer reviewed article, is this the one you were speaking of?: "Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, Vol. 2, Institute for Creation Research, Santee, California, 2005" This is publication, but so is New Scientist magazine. But neither is one of the standard peer reviewed scientific journals.
I still can't find where radioactive contamination was eliminated as a possible explanation. Could you quote the part that I'm missing? -
-
Re: The Atheist Problem with Females
Wed, February 18, 2009 - 11:47 AMIt is a journal and yes, it is peer reviewed by qualified scientists:
"Answers Research Journal (ARJ) is a professional, peer-reviewed technical journal for the publication of interdisciplinary scientific and other relevant research from the perspective of the recent Creation and the global Flood within a biblical framework." -
-
Re: The Atheist Problem with Females
Thu, February 19, 2009 - 5:09 AMDan: It is a journal and yes, it is peer reviewed by qualified scientists:
That doesn't make it a standard peer reviewed journal, like Nature for example, used by the scientific community at large. There are numerous smaller publications that are not "the standard" where articles may be published and reviewed, but their obscurity prevents wholesale peer review. Great as an introductory medium, but not as effective as the widely read journals.
Still the contamination problem. It's not A, therefore it must be B is logically flawed when possibility C exists. Like cosmic rays, radioactivity can create C14. -
-
Re: The Atheist Problem with Females
Fri, February 27, 2009 - 3:25 AMyou cannot exclude peer reviewed journals on some subjective basis that they are not "standard". It is well known that creationists are by in large exluded from publishing in "standard" journals. Even evolutionists who have allowed articles to be published have been subject to ridicule, loss of jobs, loss of tenure etc..
All studies must consider all possibilities before making conclusions. The peer review process is there to determine how well they did their job. Each article cited dealt with the contamination issue head on and was peer reviewed. You simply embrace contamination because you are married to the notion of old ages and are unwilling to consider the fact that you might be wrong. To date, the only rebuttals to the Rate research have appeared on the internet, not in scientific journals, standard, or otherwise. -
-
Re: The Atheist Problem with Females
Fri, February 27, 2009 - 5:05 AMDan: you cannot exclude peer reviewed journals on some subjective basis that they are not "standard".
No, but I can exclude based upon objective reasoning. If I create a journal, and call it peer reviewed, that would not make it a standard peer reviewed journal. The difference is that the accepted venues are reviewed by many scientists regularly. My journal might be scientifically correct, but it will not be appropriately reviewed due to a lack of widespread readers. The "standard" peer review journals are widely read and reviewed.
Dan: It is well known that creationists are by in large exluded from publishing in "standard" journals.
No arbitrary category of people are excluded for their ideologies. Scientists submit an article. It is sent to a few peers who advise the journal with their opinion of it's contents. If it seems legitimate, it goes into the publishing queue. Then all scientists are free to write in and debate the topic. Note that this is imperfect: Some "bad" science slips through until it is ferreted out in the debate, and some "good" science is held back because it is too far ahead of the current consensus. If "good" science is held back, the answer is patience and further proof.
Dan: Each article cited dealt with the contamination issue head on
They dealt with physical or chemical contamination. I saw no mention of radiological contamination. Perhaps I missed the reference, and you would be kind enough to quote it, and/or reference a paragraph number.
Dan: you are married to the notion of old ages and are unwilling to consider the fact that you might be wrong.
I'm quite willing to accept the fact that, at least in some areas, I am most certainly wrong, or misunderstand. I will change my position when the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that I should. There is no shame in being wrong, only in refusing to accept this.
Dan: To date, the only rebuttals to the Rate research have appeared on the internet, not in scientific journals, standard, or otherwise.
Then the Rate group's peers don't consider the journal they published in to be a legitimate venue for discussion either. They should have published in a standard journal.
-
-
-
-
Re: The Atheist Problem with Females
Wed, February 18, 2009 - 11:53 AMthe article you are refering to is a semi technical article which references the peer review study I linked to in my post. Use the link I provided which deals with contamination issues.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: The Atheist Problem with Females
Tue, February 10, 2009 - 10:02 AMDan: All animals, all fish and reptiles have the ability to reproduce of their own kind
because they have females within the species.
Wrong: Many animals are also capable of asexual reproduction. This may take place through parthenogenesis, where fertile eggs are produced without mating, or in some cases through fragmentation. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal
Dan: So the Bible and the theory of Darwinian evolution are not only opposed to one another, they are incompatible.
Right. Many believe that since parts of either position can be compatible that this is enough, but when taken as a whole and including their implications, they are incompatible.
Dan: The only commonality is that they are both miraculous, and they both require faith to believe them.
Wrong. Miraculous implies something supernatural. Faith implies without evidence. Evidence of evolution without need of supernatural causation is plentiful, though we would always like more. The Bible, however, does require faith in the miraculous. They are not equivalent.
Dan: If Darwin was right, man is simply an animal with no moral accountability, and his desires therefore to procreate are merely natural survival instincts.
The beauty of this is that morality is functional for survival, and can therefore be explained in evolutionary terms. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evol...f_morality
Dan: However, if the Bible is true, it throws a huge, cold, and heavy wet blanket over man's desire to follow his sexual instincts.
Certainly this is true. It also throws a huge cold and heavy pile of stones at a variety of sins that few of us believe to be deserving of the death penalty:
All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)
Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)
everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)
Anyone who blasphemes the LORD's name must be stoned to death by the whole community of Israel. Any Israelite or foreigner among you who blasphemes the LORD's name will surely die. (Leviticus 24:10-16 NLT)
I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.' (Exodus 31:12-15 NLT)
Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and posses the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants. (Isaiah 14:21 NAB)
These are all examples of "The Lord's" moral suggestions, all of which we should find repugnant. It seems to me that evolutionary morality is not only a better explanation, it is superior in every way. -
-
Re: The Atheist Problem with Females
Tue, February 10, 2009 - 12:25 PMYou are correct Grim, some animals do reproduce asexually. I figured you are someone else would offer this obvious minor flaw in this article. But Comforts basic point is no less valid, we still have no adequate explanation for sexual reproduction other than stories. So your point, though true, adds very little to the discussion...
We agree on the incompatibility issue. The only way to harmonize the two is to compromise with one or the other. Evolution offers a completely naturalistic explanation for the devolpment of living things. Some even refer to the evolution of the solar system, the universe etc.. Obviously, it is atheistic. Adding "god" to this pile of crap is foolish.
G: Wrong. Miraculous implies something supernatural. Faith implies without evidence. Evidence of evolution without need of supernatural causation is plentiful, though we would always like more. The Bible, however, does require faith in the miraculous. They are not equivalent."
call it what you want, we are still talking metaphysical. Evolution cannot be proven scientifically, it must be accepted by faith. Faith doesn't mean without evidence, it means without absolute certainty. I note that you like to call people who believe in God "faithheads". This disparaging term applies equally to yourself, as it does to the theist (I would argue more so since atheism is completely irrational), we are all faith heads.
"The beauty of this is that morality is functional for survival, and can therefore be explained in evolutionary terms. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evol...f_morality"
Even if this were true, biblical morality sets a standard which is above us (don't covet, don't lust). When a person comes to believe as you do, that the bible is essentially irrelevent to their lives, it is remarkable how quickly the morality therein is abandoned. I see it all the time on this forum. I don't consider the argument for the evolution of morality convincing or "beautiful".
G: "It also throws a huge cold and heavy pile of stones"
You need a course in theology. You don't have to be a believer to understand that what you are quoting here is the civil law of the nation of Israel.
"These are all examples of "The Lord's" moral suggestions, all of which we should find repugnant. It seems to me that evolutionary morality is not only a better explanation, it is superior in every way."
Not at all. Creating a story about how morality may have evolved in cultures does not in any way provide the atheist with an objective morality. Your morality is nothing but chasing the wind. If society evolves to think that those with red hair are to be killed, your morality must shift with prevailing notions, unlike the morality of the New Testament of the bible. True objective morality comes from the Creator, whom you have chosen to rebel against long ago.
-
