Guest shiloh357 Posted December 23, 2013 Share Posted December 23, 2013 Evolution just doesn't entail atheism. That's not the point. Evolution DOES serve as an enabler for atheism and atheists have made that point many times, including Dawkins. There is nothing in evolution alone which determines that someone value a dog over a human, or even atheism for that matter! I would not have answered 'dog' when I was an atheist for instance, I would have unhesitatingly picked the human being as more valuable (and obviously still would). Evolution doesn't entail that were are 'mere animals'. Not even atheism entails materialism, or naturalism You are confused about about what I am saying and not talking about what Evolution or atheism entails. I am talking about what happens to a person's worldview if the notion that human beings are just animals is taken to its logical conclusion and applied moralistically. I am not saying that Evolution entails morality, but it does affect a person's morality. It is part of what shapes the morality of some people. You still didn't answer the question about how God would make man from the dust using Evolution. How does that work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alphaparticle Posted December 23, 2013 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 48 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,363 Content Per Day: 0.35 Reputation: 403 Days Won: 5 Joined: 08/01/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted December 23, 2013 Evolution just doesn't entail atheism. That's not the point. Evolution DOES serve as an enabler for atheism and atheists have made that point many times, including Dawkins. There is nothing in evolution alone which determines that someone value a dog over a human, or even atheism for that matter! I would not have answered 'dog' when I was an atheist for instance, I would have unhesitatingly picked the human being as more valuable (and obviously still would). Evolution doesn't entail that were are 'mere animals'. Not even atheism entails materialism, or naturalism You are confused about about what I am saying and not talking about what Evolution or atheism entails. I am talking about what happens to a person's worldview if the notion that human beings are just animals is taken to its logical conclusion and applied moralistically. I am not saying that Evolution entails morality, but it does affect a person's morality. It is part of what shapes the morality of some people. You still didn't answer the question about how God would make man from the dust using Evolution. How does that work? Alright, I don't think I disagree that some people use evolution as an enabler for atheism. I just don't think that relates to the question that interests me which is, is evolution a good theory? In that sense, we may be addressing different questions. My, admittedly rough idea about your last question is this. Evolution utilizes 'dust' insofar as ultimately it's all chemistry, chemistry uses molecules, 'dust'. In Genesis I see roughly the possibility that our understanding of the evolution of creatures in the order of creation. You have sea creatures, plants, then land creatures, humans are a more recent development. God gets to us, and I wonder if God creating us in His image may relate to giving us a particular sort of soul with capacities that give us an ability, for instance, to ruminate about moral questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted December 23, 2013 Share Posted December 23, 2013 My, admittedly rough idea about your last question is this. Evolution utilizes 'dust' insofar as ultimately it's all chemistry, chemistry uses molecules, 'dust'. That's called a S---T---R---E---T---C---H. In Genesis I see roughly the possibility that our understanding of the evolution of creatures in the order of creation. You have sea creatures, plants, then land creatures, humans are a more recent development. But how could God have created man from the dust as a special creation in His image apart from the rest of the created order as the Bible says and still caused man to develop from the sea creatures, plants and then land creatures?? How is not that internally inconsistent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alphaparticle Posted December 23, 2013 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 48 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,363 Content Per Day: 0.35 Reputation: 403 Days Won: 5 Joined: 08/01/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted December 23, 2013 My, admittedly rough idea about your last question is this. Evolution utilizes 'dust' insofar as ultimately it's all chemistry, chemistry uses molecules, 'dust'. That's called a S---T---R---E---T---C---H. That's not unfair. In Genesis I see roughly the possibility that our understanding of the evolution of creatures in the order of creation. You have sea creatures, plants, then land creatures, humans are a more recent development. But how could God have created man from the dust as a special creation in His image apart from the rest of the created order as the Bible says and still caused man to develop from the sea creatures, plants and then land creatures?? How is not that internally inconsistent? I am thinking perhaps it was a reiteration of events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted December 23, 2013 Share Posted December 23, 2013 My, admittedly rough idea about your last question is this. Evolution utilizes 'dust' insofar as ultimately it's all chemistry, chemistry uses molecules, 'dust'. That's called a S---T---R---E---T---C---H. That's not unfair. Please... "dust of the earth" means exactly what it says. Even Atheists are more honest about this than you are. Honestly, it is a lame approach to the text and impossible for me to take seriously. I am thinking perhaps it was a reiteration of events. How is that an answer to the question??? A reiteration of events? You are trying to have two things that are mutually incompatible with each other. God man from the dust through evolution. It is just too lame to be a serious concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alphaparticle Posted December 23, 2013 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 48 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,363 Content Per Day: 0.35 Reputation: 403 Days Won: 5 Joined: 08/01/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted December 23, 2013 My, admittedly rough idea about your last question is this. Evolution utilizes 'dust' insofar as ultimately it's all chemistry, chemistry uses molecules, 'dust'. That's called a S---T---R---E---T---C---H. That's not unfair. Please... "dust of the earth" means exactly what it says. Even Atheists are more honest about this than you are. Honestly, it is a lame approach to the text and impossible for me to take seriously. I am thinking perhaps it was a reiteration of events. How is that an answer to the question??? A reiteration of events? You are trying to have two things that are mutually incompatible with each other. God man from the dust through evolution. It is just too lame to be a serious concept. It may work, it may not. I have been until lately taking the Genesis account as completely nonhistorical, as I think you know from our past debates about this topic. Now I am looking at taking it as an historical description in light of evolution.The version I have now is ... new, to say the least, so I'm afraid any defense I make of it will be just as rough and naive as what I've already offered. When I have something a bit more fleshed out perhaps I will throw it up on the forum and see what happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted December 23, 2013 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.89 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted December 23, 2013 Evolution alone provides no sense of value, yes. I have said that nearly every time I've commented on this. So yes, if these students are atheists on top of being evolutionists, they aren't going to get a sense of humans having more value than a pig from evolution. Why should that provide such information? As far as my beliefs go about what actually happened, I think at minimum at some point God endowed us with particular spirits. God could create our physical forms 'from dust' using evolution, but it also seems clear me at minimum God has intervened specially with human beings. Hey Alpha, I just replied to you on a another thread (evolution as taught in schools). I'd be interested in your response when you get some time. So we're on the same sheet of music, can you please define the Theory of evolution? It appears there are more than a Baker's Dozen currently. Thanks Praise The LORD!! Sure, by evolution I mean that life on earth originated from some common ancestor. Thanks. I don't understand however....this is Diametrically Opposed to the clear teaching of the WORD of GOD. Also it's unfalsifiable.... Richard Lewontin (evolutionary biologist and leading 20th Century evolutionist) PhD Zoology Alexander Agassiz Research Professor at Harvard University "Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection in particular is hopelessly metaphysical, according to the rules of etiquette laid down in the Logic of Scientific Inquiry and widely believed in by practicing scientists who bother to think about the problem. The first rule for any scientific hypothesis ought to be that it is at least possible to conceive of an observation that would contradict the theory. For what good is a theory that is guaranteed by its internal logical structure to agree with all conceivable observations, irrespective of the real structure of the world? If scientists are going to use logically unbeatable theories about the world, they might as well give up natural science and take up religion. Yet is that not exactly the situation with regard to Darwinism? The theory of evolution by natural selection states that changes in the inherited characters of species occur, giving rise to differentiation in space and time, because different genetical types leave different numbers of offspring in different environments... Such a theory can never be falsified, for it asserts that some environmental difference created the conditions for natural selection of a new character. It is existentially quantified so that the failure to find the environmental factor proves nothing, except that one has not looked hard enough. Can one really imagine observations about nature that would disprove natural selection as a cause of the difference in bill size? The theory of natural selection is then revealed as metaphysical rather than scientific. Natural selection explains nothing because it explains everything." Richard Lewontin “Testing the Theory of Natural Selection” : Nature; March 24, 1972 p.181 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alphaparticle Posted December 23, 2013 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 48 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,363 Content Per Day: 0.35 Reputation: 403 Days Won: 5 Joined: 08/01/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted December 23, 2013 Lewontin is criticizing specifically the notion of 'natural selection' as useful, not whether or not evolution as I just defined it happened or is falsifiable or testable. Those are two different topics altogether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wincam Posted December 23, 2013 Group: Junior Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 24 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 114 Content Per Day: 0.03 Reputation: 61 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/09/2013 Status: Offline Author Share Posted December 23, 2013 youse all ain't heard or seen anything yet - so via google see www.180movie.com and comment - wincam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted December 24, 2013 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.89 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted December 24, 2013 Lewontin is criticizing specifically the notion of 'natural selection' as useful, not whether or not evolution as I just defined it happened or is falsifiable or testable. Those are two different topics altogether. What else is there besides Natural Selection with evolution? And.... "Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection in particular is hopelessly metaphysical......" Richard Lewontin It sure sounds like he's including the whole theory here. No? It also sounds like he's relating it to a Religion, which echoes.... "Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint — and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it — the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today." Michael Ruse; How evolution became a religion; creationists correct? National Post May 13 2000 This is quite Profound....... "Then, sometimes from the same person, you have evolution as secular religion, generally working from an explicitly materialist background and solving all of the world's major problems, from racism to education to conservation. Consider Edward O. Wilson, rightfully regarded as one of the most outstanding professional evolutionary biologists of our time, and the author of major works of straight science. In his On Human Nature, he calmly assures us that evolution is a myth that is now ready to take over Christianity." Michael Ruse: Science, March 7 2003 p. 1524 "Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you’ve experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that’s true of me, and I think it’s true of a good many of you in here." Dr. Colin Patterson (Senior Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London). Keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, 5 November, 1981 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts