Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part 4.0

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Inventing issues. Demanding the unreasonable. More laws and more laws. Followed by more inventions and more laws. When people believe “no one made us” then this life is all there is. Having lots of sex - for free - is a must. Drugs and booze. Material things. Buying stuff. Doing whatever crosses your mind. That’s the end result of all this. Nothing came from nothing, you are accountable to no one, so have lots and lots of pleasure before you die - to nothing.
 
Last edited:
Not for the first time, I don’t follow your point. Mine was that both the ‘Scientific Community’ and the Catholic Church enjoy an authority derived from consensus, while anybody who ploughs a lone furrow has no basis on which to be believed except logic. ReadTheBible’s polemic is, sadly, no more than a personal opinion (and no less - he has a perfect right to it), not an argument with any credibility.
 
buffalo said:
Compare the two creation stories

Everything came from no thing. (god of BUC)

Everything came from something, (God)

So many youth have been indoctrinated into the first and believe it even though it is so irrational. Simply amazing. (and a good job by the indoctrinators)
Click to expand...
Not for the first time, you have completely misrepresented evolution, and that in spite of its theological basis being explained in some detail. I think you must be doing it deliberately, like a naughty child with its fingers in its ears shouting “bla-bla-bla” rather than listening to reason. What I fear you do not realise is that it is exactly this kind of statement that drives youth towards atheism, and away from Christianity. It is not the strength of arguments for evolution that draws them towards it (they don’t really know what they are), but the weakness of the arguments for creation, typically as expressed exactly as you have expressed them above.

As I have said before, I think Aloysium’s approach is philosophically sound, and not out of register with Pope Francis’s words, or for that matter the words of the previous two Popes on the supreme rationality of God. They are much more likely to spread the world of God than fundamentalist declarations of the literal truth of the bible, which, after further inquiry, have no basis for credibility.
 
Hello
I’m not interested in non-scientific discussions regarding evolution.
I’m really genuinely interested in the scientific basis for it so I’m not a die hard creationist. As I said before I’m prepared to believe in evolution if it has good scientific facts.
Can you point me towards websites articles that explain the following
Roughly how many enzyme differences are there between the primordial primate and Homo sapiens? What is the speed of such mutations?
 
Last edited:
A little research on the internet will reveal a number of nasty murders, committed by thoroughly committed Christians convinced that their personal study of the Bible and their communication with God not only justified their actions, but were instrumental in getting them to carry them out.

I say that this demonstrates that mere personal conviction about biblical truth is not a reliable basis upon which to ground one’s beliefs and actions…

You say that you don’t understand why.

Does that make it clearer?
 
My reply was very clear on that point. Let me say it again: You will never see an article titled “Atheist Robs Liquor Store, Kills Owner.” Why? I have a background in newspapers, and atheists are blameless. Only religious people can be motivated to do wrong and only they get all the blame. Nasty murders by atheists? No mention of that.
 
The behaviour of atheists, and the behaviour of reporters, are utterly irrelevant to what I have just explained. Are you trying to divert attention from the situation I have set before you? Do you in fact believe in the moral supremacy of individual conscience? And do you excuse those who, acting honestly on individual conscience, commit atrocities? Yes or no?

If yes, then both ReadTheBible and various criminals are similarly justified.
If no, then both ReadTheBible and various criminals are similarly unjustified.
 
Nice dodge.

“I say that this demonstrates that mere personal conviction about biblical truth is not a reliable basis upon which to ground one’s beliefs and actions…”

So, what is a reliable basis upon which to ground one’s beliefs and actions?
 
I thought you’d never ask. The celebrated Catholic “Informed Conscience”. I dare say other religions have a version of it. Without it, there would be little justification for the punishment of anti-social behaviour.
 
Fruit fly evolution is a tiny little piece of the big picture of grand scale evolution. Compare it to art. On a Rembrandt self portrait you look at the eye of the master and don’t care much if there is a little spot at the end of a mustache hair.

 
“Informed Conscience” does not apply in the current Dictatorship of Relativism. My knowledge of the media, psychological warfare strategy, secular humanism and other isms shows all are being very heavily promoted. Having no ‘informed conscience’ is a requirement for people to promote this by words and actions. I have watched decades of corrosion. There is no “anti-social” behavior because laws have been created to protect a lot of behaviors that harm individuals and persons in general. In fact, ‘social’ no longer has a meaning.
 
Last edited:
Fine. If you think mass murderers can be morally justified by their consciences, that’s entirely logical.
 
edwest211 said:
My reply was very clear on that point. Let me say it again: You will never see an article titled “Atheist Robs Liquor Store, Kills Owner.” Why? I have a background in newspapers, and atheists are blameless. Only religious people can be motivated to do wrong and only they get all the blame. Nasty murders by atheists? No mention of that.
Click to expand...
That’s because a persons beliefs is usually not relevant until they make it relevant. Very few people commit crimes on the grounds that they don’t believe in God. But some people are motivated by religious concepts to justify tyranny.

Now, what is unfortunate is that people use this to argue against the existence of religion. That’s why its important to distance oneself from fundamentalists and their ideological way of approaching scripture because it is usually those kinds of people who end up using violence.

Who is more likely to kill an evolutionary biologist, an atheist or a YEC?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top