New film tackles evidence for evolution

[noguru]

Dude, seriously. How can you post something like that and claim to believe God's Word at all? What exactly DOES the term "Christian" even mean to you?

So since you say God's word means "poofing" we are just suppose to accept your word over the empirical evidence. :rotfl:

Boy I tell you, you sleazy creationists just love to puff of your chest and label your personal arrogance as "faith in God". I am pretty sure God is disgusted as well.

 

[resurrected]

Nah, that would be you.

 

[noguru]

That's all you got, a vague reference to Obama?

You are an idiot. :rotfl:

 

[resurrected]

and it's racist because he's a black man :banana:


kind of :noid:

 

[Skybringr]

If morality is not based on an objective standard, it is just an opinion.

Where is it written that morality is it's own entity?

 

[noguru]

and it's racist because he's a black man :banana:


kind of :noid:

Well I certainly would not have even gone there, but if you think it is then perhaps you are right.

 

[noguru]

Where is it written that morality is it's own entity?

These folks are not the sharpest tools in the shed. Their creationist overlords like them that way.

 

[Stripe]

Where is it written that morality is it's own entity?

Other than here, I don't know. I assert that morality is a nonphysical part of reality.

 

[noguru]

It's not. Morality is not an entity -- it is a nonphysical part of reality.

Morality is based on physical reality. How do you think morality would work without a physical reality?

 

[glorydaz]

So since you say God's word means "poofing" we are just suppose to accept your word over the empirical evidence. :rotfl:

Boy I tell you, you sleazy creationists just love to puff of your chest and label your personal arrogance as "faith in God". I am pretty sure God is disgusted as well.

Psst. You may not have noticed, but you have Christian listed as your belief. Just saying.....

 

[Skybringr]

The argument that evolution fails if there are absolute morals collapses on itself.

It is saying that nature has always been bad, and that man had to be created separately to be good in God's eyes.
But God saw that all was good when He created.

 

[glorydaz]

Nope, the component processes have been verified through empirical testing. What evidence is there that your claimed "supernatural processes" are responsible?

The lengths you people will go to in order to deny your Creator exists is beyond me. Look outside your window....it's clearly seen and understood by all men. The reason you deny it is you would have to bow to someone besides yourself were you to do so.

 

[Stripe]

The argument that evolution fails if there are absolute morals collapses on itself. It is saying that nature has always been bad, and that man had to be created separately to be good in God's eyes.

No, it's not. God created everything to be very good. However, He has standards that pre-existed the fall, which is why the fall was bad.

It seems you have not grasped the challenge to evolution from morality. Evolution claims to be the sole means by which life has diversified, but it cannot account for morality. Therefore, it fails.

 

[resurrected]

can we get back to barbie's scheme to evolve flying pigs and give us lots of bacon?

 

[Skybringr]

No, it's not.god created everything to be very good. However, He has standards that pre-existed the fall, which is why the fall was bad.

It seems you have not grasped the challenge to evolution from morality. Evolution claims to be the sole means by which life has diversified, but it cannot account for morality. Therefore, it fails.

Having the capacity to know right from wrong is exactly what makes us separate from the animals.

Many don't take in the reality that the Fall was on account of humans, learning good from evil.
We became like the angels, which made us respectively gods of the Earth.

This knowledge made us unnatural, in a sense, because natural beings weren't meant to know good and evil.
It was a disruption of God's natural law, and therefore is not problematic to evolution since God's law was one of nature as we see it.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Maybe so, but God poofing animals into existence from nothing (in spite of His word to the contrary) also seems reasonable to you. So that's really not much to go on, is it?

Dude, seriously.

Far out, man. Another SeaSigh here?

How can you post something like that and claim to believe God's Word at all?

Maybe you should read it and see.

What exactly DOES the term "Christian" even mean to you?

Follower of Christ. BTW, you know I didn't say you weren't saved. Shame on you for saying otherwise.

 

[Alate_One]

Exactly. The problem is that evolutionists are singularly determined to reject God, so they cannot even entertain the possibility of a nonphysical reality, even to take part in a rational debate.

Gee except all the evolutionary creationists, theistic evolutionists and whatnot.

Your problem is you want evolution to do things it has no business doing:

Creating a source of morality

Creating life

God can do those things and the theory of evolution is no different than what it is now. Apparently what this movie will do is knock down yet another straw man.

Noted "evolutionist" Steven J Gould said this on the subject:

To say it for all my colleagues and for the umpteenth million time (from college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can't comment on it as scientists. If some of our crowd have made untoward statements claiming that Darwinism disproves God, then I will find Mrs. McInerney and have their knuckles rapped for it (as long as she can equally treat those members of our crowd who have argued that Darwinism must be God's method of action). Science can work only with naturalistic explanations; it can neither affirm nor deny other types of actors (like God) in other spheres (the moral realm, for example). Forget philosophy for a moment; the simple empirics of the past hundred years should suffice: Darwin himself was agnostic (having lost his religious beliefs upon the tragic death of his daughter). The great American botanist Asa Gray, who favored natural selection and wrote a book entitled Darwiniana, was a devout Christian. Charles D. Walcott, discoverer of the Burgess Shale fossils, was a convinced Darwinian and an equally firm Christian, who believed that God had ordained natural selection to construct a history of life according to His plans and purposes. Two greatest evolutionists of our generation: G. G. Simpson was a humanist agnostic. Theodosius Dobzhansky a believing Russian Orthodox. Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs--and equally compatible with atheism, thus proving that the two great realms of nature's factuality and the source of human morality do not strongly overlap.

Emphasis added for Stripe's reading.

 

[resurrected]

i want it to create flying pigs

 

[Stripe]

Having the capacity to know right from wrong is exactly what makes us separate from the animals.

Well, not entirely. However, I fail to see the relevance of this statement.

Many don't take in the reality that the Fall was on account of humans, learning good from evil. We became like the angels, which made us respectively gods of the Earth.

:AMR:

This knowledge made us unnatural, in a sense, because natural beings weren't meant to know good and evil. It was a disruption of God's natural law, and therefore is not problematic to evolution since God's law was one of nature as we see it.

I think you are still on some vastly different wavelength.

Gee except all the evolutionary creationists, theistic evolutionists and whatnot.

You mean all the people who reject the plain teaching of scripture? That is God's word, you know?

Your problem is you want evolution to do things it has no business doing:

No, I don't. I simply take evolutionists at their word. They think it accounts for all of life's diversity.

God can do those things and the theory of evolution is no different than what it is now.

You can invent a god who you say could have done all those things. Unfortunately for your cult, the bible trumps men's ideas.

To say it for all my colleagues and for the umpteenth million time (from college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can't comment on it as scientists. If some of our crowd have made untoward statements claiming that Darwinism disproves God, then I will find Mrs. McInerney and have their knuckles rapped for it (as long as she can equally treat those members of our crowd who have argued that Darwinism must be God's method of action). Science can work only with naturalistic explanations; it can neither affirm nor deny other types of actors (like God) in other spheres (the moral realm, for example).

Are practicing for the irrelevancy Olympics?

That evolutionists find it necessary to compartmentalize their beliefs is no defense against the challenge.

Forget philosophy for a moment; the simple empirics of the past hundred years should suffice: Darwin himself was agnostic (having lost his religious beliefs upon the tragic death of his favorite daughter). The great American botanist Asa Gray, who favored natural selection and wrote a book entitled Darwiniana, was a devout Christian. Charles D. Walcott, discoverer of the Burgess Shale fossils, was a convinced Darwinian and an equally firm Christian, who believed that God had ordained natural selection to construct a history of life according to His plans and purposes. Two greatest evolutionists of our generation: G. G. Simpson was a humanist agnostic. Theodosius Dobzhansky a believing Russian Orthodox. Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs--and equally compatible with atheism, thus proving that the two great realms of nature's factuality and the source of human morality do not strongly overlap.

Another evolutionist with an argument from popularity and authority.

What people believe is not evidence, let alone proof.

Yes, people can believe in a god and evolution. However, that does not answer the challenge. If evolution is responsible for all of the diversity of life, how does it account for morality?

The challenge is that morality is a nonphysical part of reality and thus cannot be explained by evolution, which removes evolution as a complete explanation of what we see.

 

[glorydaz]

No, it's not. God created everything to be very good. However, He has standards that pre-existed the fall, which is why the fall was bad.

It seems you have not grasped the challenge to evolution from morality. Evolution claims to be the sole means by which life has diversified, but it cannot account for morality. Therefore, it fails.

It's odd, Stripe. Out of all living things, man is the only one with choice. All the rest of living things do instinctively what is required to exist. They do exactly what God created them to do....multiply according to their own kind....according to the seed that is in them. Man, alone, chooses.