musterion
Well-known member
Context. Go back and look what I was replying to.
Did death exist on the earth before Adam and Eve's sin? Yes or no.
New film tackles evidence for evolution
- Thread starter Stripe
- Start date
- Status
Context. Go back and look what I was replying to.
alwight
New member
I don't like them because they don't make sense, there is no actual logic involved.
No more than presuming that since Stalin had a moustache and was a communist, and since atheism is a tenet of communism, therefore all men with moustaches are atheists. :dizzy:
Originally Posted by Selaphiel View Post
Apparently, he thinks evolution was invented by atheistic communist Catholics.
Apparently, he thinks evolution was invented by atheistic communist Catholics.
Selaphiel
Well-known member
I do not read the story of Adam and Eve as a story of the two first historical human beings. So the question is more or less meaningless to me if what you are asking is whether death existed prior, in actual history, to the act of two particular human beings. The very idea of two first particular human beings is a problematic in light of science. I rather see the story as a story about every human, Adam and Eve being an archetype of mankind, the sin of Adam and Eve is a reality in all humans.
So yes, natural death has existed as long as biological life has. Of course, the story about Adam and Eve does not say that they were immortal by nature before eating from the tree, as is evident from Genesis 3:22. A theological reading would be that man can only be and never was anything but immortal by grace, not by nature. Man has to pass through death to receive eternal life.
What you need to understand is that the creation story (or rather stories) are not descriptive accounts of origins, they are myths. Not myths in the sense of being merely false, but stories whose truth are not to be found in a literal reading of them as descriptive accounts.
This was first noticed by Linnaeus, a creationist. Of course, in those days, creationists were rational people, who tried to understand creation by learning more about it.
He was surprised to see that one could form living things into a sort of family tree, just as one can do that with humans who are descended from one another.
This puzzled him, because he had assumed that every species was created separately and did not change.
He was even further puzzled when he found that nothing else in nature could be so arranged in "family trees."
Darwin figured out why, and today, we learn that genetics and molecular biology give us the same results as phenotypic analyses, to a very high precision.
It's called "evidence." The "E" word creationists detest so much.
You're a little confused.
A similarity between Mithra and Christ struck even early observers, such as Justin, Tertullian, and other Fathers, and in recent times has been urged to prove that Christianity is but an adaptation of Mithraism, or at most the outcome of the same religious ideas and aspirations (e.g. Robertson, " Pagan Christs", 1903). Against this erroneous and unscientific procedure, which is not endorsed by the greatest living authority on Mithraism, the following considerations must be brought forward. (1) Our knowledge regarding Mithraism is very imperfect; some 600 brief inscriptions, mostly dedicatory, some 300 often fragmentary, exiguous, almost identical monuments, a few casual references in the Fathers or Acts of the Martyrs, and a brief polemic against Mithraism which the Armenian Eznig about 450 probably copied from Theodore of Mopsuestia (d. 428) who lived when Mithraism was almost a thing of the past -- these are our only sources, unless we include the Avesta in which Mithra is indeed mentioned, but which cannot be an authority for Roman Mithraism with which Christianity is compared. Our knowledge is mostly ingenious guess-work; of the real inner working of Mithraism and the sense in which it was understood by those who professed it at the advent of Christianity, we know nothing. (2) Some apparent similarities exist; but in a number of details it is quite probable that Mithraism was the borrower from Christianity.
http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=8042
musterion
Well-known member
Then your answer is "yes."
Your demands do not trump what the bible plainly teaches. Sorry. :idunno:
Which means you have ruled out the resurrection of Jesus Christ as a historical fact, right?
:chuckle:
Semantics are your friend.
Everything I believe is well-supported by scientific inquiry. :thumb:
That's a testable claim. Show me your evidence that a sudden flood can carve out a kilometer-high vertical wall of mud.
Then we'll go on to some other interesting ones.
easy enough to model it with some mud and a dishpan in your backyard
or a hose and a pile of dirt like I used to play with when i was a kid
it works - you can use water to carve a vertical wall of mud
heck, they used to use hydraulic mining in the california goldfields all the time
or a hose and a pile of dirt like I used to play with when i was a kid
it works - you can use water to carve a vertical wall of mud
heck, they used to use hydraulic mining in the california goldfields all the time
Alate_One
Well-known member
Half this thread is this:
Over and Over.
Evolutionists hate reading.
Translation: Because I said so.
Why should Evolution explain morality? It's a scientific theory that explains the diversification (not the origin) of life. That's it. If you want it to do something else, you're stepping outside the bounds of the theory.
Now, if you happen to be an atheist, you might believe morality springs from human biology. Scientists certainly can study things like a sense of fairness in animals but that's a far cry from what most people consider human morality, law and punishment.
Of course there are plenty of "evolutionists" that do point to religion as the source of human morality (some of these are even atheists).
Bottom line is this, you don't get to ignore the positions of evolutionary creationists because they don't fit your narrative.
musterion
Well-known member
easy enough to model it with some mud and a dishpan in your backyard
or a hose and a pile of dirt like I used to play with when i was a kid
it works - you can use water to carve a vertical wall of mud
heck, they used to use hydraulic mining in the california goldfields all the time
I can see Richard Kiel in that photo.
noguru
Well-known member
Half this thread is this:
Over and Over.
Translation: Because I said so.
Why should Evolution explain morality? It's a scientific theory that explains the diversification (not the origin) of life. That's it. If you want it to do something else, you're stepping outside the bounds of the theory.
Now, if you happen to be an atheist, you might believe morality springs from human biology. Scientists certainly can study things like a sense of fairness in animals but that's a far cry from what most people consider human morality, law and punishment.
Of course there are plenty of "evolutionists" that do point to religion as the source of human morality (some of these are even atheists).
Bottom line is this, you don't get to ignore the positions of evolutionary creationists because they don't fit your narrative.
If they want to act like spoiled little children they do.
It doesn't have to, given certain concessions -- as I've said.
Reading, it is good for you. :thumb:
1. I have done nothing but point out the errors evolutionists make for the past 10 years.
2. It is not my narrative. The bible rules out evolutionism.
reading is too haaaarrrrrrdddddd!
Alate_One
Well-known member
You need to learn to read yourself. Why is this even a worthwhile question? If evolution doesn't explain morality, so what? (I don't think it does anyway). It's not as if our best explanation for the the diversity of life can be undermined by morality.
The question is useless as far as evolution as a scientific theory is concerned.
You're basically trying to make the same old argument for God as the basis for the origin of morality. Said argument has little to nothing to do with evolution anyway.
Let me know when you find one on your own.
Says you, meaning your narrative. Yet again.
Alate_One
Well-known member
It's a non-sequitur. Here's another one:
Because (a) politics exists but (b) it's inexplicable by atomic theory. Therefore atomic theory is wrong.
It makes just as much sense.
Evolution doesn't explain everything that exists. Only that biological organisms change and diversify over time.
musterion
Well-known member
Liar. Evolutionist use evolution to come up with fanciful explanations for the existence of hundreds of animal and human behaviors and traits all the time.
Nope. Just the words that are plainly written and you deny.
Exactly. To the evolutionist, everything is evolution, until a challenge to their religion is unveiled, at which point a whole raft of things become not evolution.
- Status