Creation Guys Episode #001: “National Center for Stupid Excuses”
On April 17, 2008 in In the News, Uncategorized
Creation Guys Episode #001
This is our Pilot Episode of Creation Guys, hosted by Jonathan Sampson.
In our first episode we welcome Eric Hovind of GodQuest to discuss some of the latest controversy surrounding the Expelled (”No Intelligence Allowed”) movie coming out in theaters April 18, 2008.
Among our discussion we cover content found on digg, as well as silly statements made in Time Magazine.
I agree, evolution is a DESCRIPTION, not a PRESCRIPTION.
By making this argument, you’ve essentially said evolution is useless either in science or in real life. Fine.
This makes it free from the guilt trip creationists give that evolution is responsible for the supposed PRESCRIPTIVE morality of might makes right, or there is no God to guide our morals.
By the same coin, what has creationism done as a part of science? Or is it? It was NOT creationism that brought us early scientific discoveries simply because the scientists were creationists. More accurately, creationism was the norm belief, and scientists were simply skeptics, curious and thinking.
Whether or not creation, evolution are valid or true has NOTHING to do with what the believers have achieved. (So please save the “communists were atheists” rant to yourself).
Josh,
I would encourage you to bridle your tongue and not assume that I’m going to go one way or another in our discussions. It’s just a bit annoying - just make your points and let me formulate my responses instead of supposing what I will say, and then damning me for it.
Regarding Evolution. Yes, it’s a “Narrative Gloss” as mentioned in Skell’s words. Does it then justify moral decisions, sure, if it’s true. “Might makes right” is the story of history according to Evolutionists, so it does indeed state what is evolutionarily-acceptable.
Is Evolution responsible for immoral behavior? No. Humans are capable of acting like complete asses without Evolution. Does it does do however is release them from guilt for acting that way. Because it states that what we observe in nature is perfectly natural and necessary.
What has Creation done for science? Easy, a lot. Creationists gave us the start of practically every major scientific discipline. The Creationist Mentality drives a Scientist to look at the World with purpose on the mind. “Why does the Earth rotate? Why do the tides come in, and go out. Why is it I get sick when I get cold.”
Creationists accept the idea that this Earth, Universe, and everything else is all the product of a Creative Intelligent and Rational Being, therefore the laws of Science can be expected to be rational, consistent, and discernible.
Creation propels study and education.
No it DOES NOT
Sorry, accidentally pressed post before I was ready.
No it does NOT justify moral decision if it’s true. This is like saying because it’s true the Holocaust happened, or because it’s true a child was a product of rape, it’s morally justifiable to do the same. NONSENSE. What happened in the past is no justification for you to do it. Just because God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah doesn’t mean it’s right to do it again.
What is evolutionarily acceptable, scientifically true, or physically inevitable is NOT what’s morally acceptable. Second law of thermodynamics doesn’t teach us to give up living, gravity doesn’t tell us we should jump off buildings and the fact we die does not mean we should make it happen sooner.
Evolution, atheism or naturalism does not relieve anybody of any guilt either. Your guilt and your actions are your own responsibility, believing in Christ doesn’t mean you have guilt either. What you do is what you do and what is right is what is right regardless of whether you evolved from apes or believe Christ saved you.
Either way, debating whether evolution creates an immoral society has nothing to do with whether evolution scientifically is true (which I believe should be your topic).
Creationists gave us the start of practically every major scientific discipline. As I just responded, these were the product of scientists and skeptics. They did not believe in Creation just because they didn’t believe in evolution, in fact, evolution was never an available option. They simply were creationists the same way most people were Christians and monogamist. Won’t you make a better argument that our forefathers were sexist slave owners, therefore to be like these heroes we should act like them?
What progress would have been made if one took a creationist style answer “since I can’t fathom otherwise, the Earth rotates because God is holding it with his hand”. Answers only came out from skepticism, study, curiosity and naturalistic questions. It’s dishonest to say this is somewhat a unique property of creationists.
Science can be expected to be rational, consistent, and discernible. Agreed, and this is nothing unique to evolution or creation, certainly not to the notion of intelligent design or creation science. What is science, and the attitude of science has been what propels study, and this goes true whether a person believes in Christianity, Islam, Buddhism or evolution, so long as they are SCIENTIFIC in their philosophy.
I doubt you’d ever admit that belief in salvation releases a person from guilt because it tells a person he’s saved and therefore no longer has to feel sorry for killing, lying and raping. What reason does one have to be responsibile for his actions knowing he’s saved, forgiven and will not be punished?
” Because it states that what we observe in nature is perfectly natural and necessary.”
What we observe in nature may be natural. But what is necessary for nature’s survival does not mean it is necessary for humans. Unless you consider the survival of the human race, or the survival of an individual over another is necessary. Oh wait, it’s wrong to want to survive, right? It’s wrong to help Africans who are about to starve to death, right? It’s right to be pacifist and suicidal, because that doesn’t hurt anybody, does it?
Was the Holocaust, or the destruction of Sodom and Comorrah claimed to be natural effects on animals? No. They were never said to be “just the way this World works.” Evolution on the other hand isn’t the result of somebody’s conscious will (like the Holocaust and the destruction of places). Evolution is supposed to be the natural law of life. So your comparison doesn’t follow.
I agree. Morality and Natural Law are two different things. Do you think heart-attacks or dying are good moral things? They are natural facts of nature, aren’t they? Evolution is clumped in there as a natural law of natural, albeit immoral in the eyes of people. Just because you don’t like a mechanism, doesn’t mean it doesn’t naturally happen.
Actually, according to Dahmer, his belief in evolution (and belief in no God) did free him from his guilt of murdering many young people. He stated this in a televised interview (5:02 - 5:37).
My focus is on both, since they are closely related.
Actually, these were declared Creationists, like Isaac Newton, and Johan Keppler, and Gregor Mendel. They didn’t accept Creation simply because there was no alternative, Evolutionary concepts have been around for thousands of years. The Greek Philosopher Anaximander had been talking about it since the 6th century B.C. Evolution was an available idea - these men were just too smart to buy into it.
What Creationist asks questions like that? This is a straw man. I mean, take a look at Creation Science literature today and you’ll see that your assumption is way off. There are internal scientific debates within the Creationist groups over Catastrophic Plate Tectonic theory, White-Hole Cosmology, and so much more. To claim that no scientific approach is taken is an outright lie, and you’re better than that Josh.
Most early scientists believed that the Universe and Earth were the works of an intelligent and rational supreme being. For this, they concluded that they could deduce knowledge from studying the works of the Creator.
Today, we expect Science to make sense. We expect it to be consistent throughout the Universe. We expect the laws of physics to be deducible, all because we expect the Universe to exhibit rational behavior. This is what drove early theist Scientists to begin digging into the world around it.
Now we’re getting into theology? Salvation could free somebody from guilt, but that doesn’t mean it always will.
What reason does one have to be responsible for his actions knowing there is no God, and he will not be punished?
No, my comparison follows as long as they are facts that happened. Evolution is not supposed to be the natural law of life, it’s only a description of the past.
Does Dahmer represent evolutionists? Do murderers represent atheists? Do abortion clinic bombers represent Christians? Give me a break!
“The Greek Philosopher Anaximander ” Oh I see, so evolution wasn’t invented by Darwin? People just suddenly became dumber? Did those who “declared” creationists actually say something like “I’ve read alternative theories such as Anaximander’s evolution and I still choose Creation”?
“To claim that no scientific approach is taken is an outright lie, and you’re better than that Josh.”
I am not saying no scientific approach is taken, I am asking why should it be taken if God can be the answer to it all. To what point would you consider God an inadequate answer? To what point would you consider God an answer adequate to render any question pointless? I said what I meant, that science grew from skepticism, not belief or faith. People declared creationism simply because they couldn’t find any scientific evidence of any better theory proven. Just like you, you’re either open to the possibility you can be convinced evolution is true by science or you are not (that’s the only test as to whether you use science or faith).
“Salvation could free somebody from guilt”
Ok, so salvation can be as bad as evolution in terms of freeing a person from guilt? Fair enough!
“What reason does one have to be responsible for his actions knowing there is no God, and he will not be punished?”
Easy. You must not have been to prison, people are punished by people. And that’s why people punish people, because we can’t wait for God to do it (that’s what we call responsibility). Aside from that, people think of others like they think of themselves, it’s called caring, compassion and humanity. Do you think only the belief and fear of God motivates one to do good? Is the fact humans punish each other not a good excuse to act right? Or do you not recognize man’s law, only God’s law? If so, would you advocate any breaking of man’s law to obey God’s law (or is it just coincidence that they have no contradiction you can think of?)?
By the way, no atheist doctrine exists that because God doesn’t exist, a person won’t be punished. (Just not punished by God). On the contrary, it’s your religious belief that preaches forgiveness over punishment (or what I call justice). Whether it’s atheism, naturalism, materialism, science or evolution, none of these are doctrines or beliefs in morality, they simply LACK prescriptive morality. So to say because it LACKS prescription, it is therefore prescriptive of the LACKING is dishonest.
Can you answer me whether the desire to survive is moral?
What we observe in nature may be natural. But what is necessary for nature’s survival does not mean it is necessary for humans. Unless you consider the survival of the human race, or the survival of an individual over another is necessary. Oh wait, it’s wrong to want to survive, right? It’s wrong to help Africans who are about to starve to death, right? It’s right to be pacifist and suicidal, because that doesn’t hurt anybody, does it?
Your comparison doesn’t follow. Your example consisted solely of human decisions to do egregious things. You compared this to things that happen naturally in nature. Nature doesn’t consciously decide to kill a million people, like humans do. How you can confuse the two is beyond me.
Evolution IS considered a natural law of life. It DOESN’T only attempt to explain the past, but also the present. How could you, an atheist, confuse this basic tenet of naturalism?
Yes, he does. He stated that his belief that there was no god, and his belief in evolution freed him from any guilt or what he was doing. Unfortunately for you, he does represent evolutionists and atheists. You may not like that - tough.
Abortion clinic bombers do, sadly, represent Christians. The only difference is this, The Bible never says it’s a natural thing for Christians to be violent, and it never says it’s okay or expected of Christians to bomb clinics.
Evolution, on the other hand, says that nature red in tooth and claw is the way things work. One animal kills another, be it for food for a demonstration of dominance, or mating. That is life, deal with it.
Dahmer was consistent, the bombers aren’t.
No, Evolution wasn’t “invented” by Darwin. Read “Origin of Species”, actually, just read the “History” Chapter preceding the first Chapter of the book where he talks about the history of Evolutionary thought.
What Darwin was famous for was keying the term “Natural Selection”, or Spontaneous Varieties. Prior to Darwin there were many many evolutionary ideas on life.
God isn’t the answer to it all. That is why. The Bible tells us to “study”, “Speak to the Earth”, and “Get wisdom”. To declare “God” the answer of everything is in direct defiance of Scripture.
Why would evolutionists do science when they can just say, “Evolution did it”? This is a stupid question.
Prove it. Seeing how the fathers of Science were theists, and many Evangelicals, I’m curious how no belief or faith was involved. Wikipedia says the following of Newton, “He believed in a rationally immanent world… Thus, the ordered and dynamically informed universe could be understood, and must be understood, by an active reason, but this universe, to be perfect and ordained, had to be regular.”
There’s a big difference here, Josh. Scripture shows a man his actions are evil. It then explains that death and suffering are the result of his actions. Salvation then frees the man of the sin, which may remove his guilt, but may not.
Evolution on the other hand brushes the mans actions aside and says, “This is typical of animals.” The man is then excused.
One condemns and forgives, the other doesn’t. To not understand that simple contrast is to demonstrate your extreme lack of understanding in both areas.
Oh, so the belief and fear of God motivates people to do good? I guess you just answered your question from earlier, “What reason does one have to be responsibile for his actions knowing he’s saved, forgiven and will not be punished?”
You’re not going to tell me what I believe, ok, so what IF evolution IS the natural tenet of life, are you still avoiding the question as to whether survival and life is moral or important? Because if you believe evolution and killing another is the way of life, all you need to solve this problem is deny that life is good, therefore making suicide and pacifism the good way to live and let live.
By the way, evolution doesn’t say humans are expected to act like animals either. In fact if you believe Hitler used evolution to justify genocide, it makes evolution teach just the opposite. It teaches that humans are much more advanced than animals that acting like animals is unacceptable because humans are way smarter. Evolution (just like creation) can be used to stress both differences and similarities.
Ok, so since you admit one idiot Dahmer represents atheists and is at least consistent, while many bombers are inconsistent, hurt more people and also represent your side equally, I’ll stop arguing. Whether Dahmer was consistent is your opinion, just as I believe it’s more consistent to kill people to preserve babies IF I actually believed babies are equally or more valuable.
“Prove it.”? Isn’t science by definition quest for knowledge via observation? Isn’t science about asking questions? You can disagree on one’s belief but how does one disagree on the scientific attitude?
To declare “God” the answer of everything is in direct defiance of Scripture.
Ok, that’s your answer and proof. Which brings me to my point, that those who were scientists in early ages were not Creationists by choice, unless you can show they’ve considered evolution in biology even something they’ve heard of.
One condemns and forgives, the other doesn’t. To not understand that simple contrast is to demonstrate your extreme lack of understanding in both areas.
So for practical purposes it’s the same. Whether a person gets away with murder because he doesn’t believe in God, or he did it and was forgiven by God, is the same to his result.
” guess you just answered your question from earlier, “
No, quite the opposite, God forgives, therefore what’s to fear? You say one has nothing to fear if there is no God, while I say that’s why he fears man. You’re also saying one is forgiven, which I don’t believe in. So which one has more fear? So you think only the fear and belief in God motivates people to do good? I don’t agree fear of God is the only motivation, but I don’t agree believing you are saved is fear either.
Let’s cut to the core questions.
1. Is the desire to survive right or wrong? If it’s right, killing another to preserve your own life is right (premature killing out of paranoia to survive is just part of it, not the norm). If it’s wrong, being pacifist or suicidal is the right thing to do.
You are quick to point out that evolution or beliefs contrary to yours is all about murder, when in fact the alternative opposite is apathy, suicidal and pacifist. Both extremes are socially unacceptable, yet you love to push others into one side disregarding the possibility they can be somewhere in the middle close to you.
2. Do you recognize man’s Law? If yes, then you admit one needs not believe in God to act right (therefore, belief in God is not necessary for practical purposes of life on Earth). If not, will you advocate breaking man’s law to uphold God’s law (or is there no conflict you see)? If you advocate breaking man’s law to uphold God’s, how can you judge religious fanatics killing in the name of religion with complete disregard to reason, man’s law, or common sense?
Josh,
I talk to Atheists all day long. All week long. You seem to be one of the few that frustrates me. I’m not sure if you read too fast, and miss points, or if I’m just not clear enough with you about what I am trying to communicate. Some how or another, you manage to completely ignore what I write, and instead build up and demolish straw-men arguments.
None the less, let’s try this again.
I’m not sure what your point here is. If Evolution is true, then it doesn’t matter if life is good or bad. That’s irrelevant. If Evolution is true, animals kill other animals. Animals die. Asking if life is good or bad is a completely non-related issue. There is no “problem” to solve. The legitimacy of evolution is completely unrelated to the goodness of life. Just as the gravitational pull of gravity is unrelated to you enjoying your life or not - it’s irrelevant.
Humans ARE animals according to Evolution. To declare that humans aren’t animals is a declaration of a religious nature. If we all descended from a common ancestor, we’re all in the same phylogenetic tree, ergo, we’re all animals.
Says who? Why would you expect humans to stop with animal behavior just because we’re smarter? A leopard is smarter than a slug, a chimp is smarter than leopard, a human is smarter than a chimp - all of the former display animal behavior, why would you expect anything different from Humans? Evolution doesn’t state that the smarter you become the less animal-like you will be.
You’ve yet to demonstrate this.
I am not sure what you mean by “represent your side equally”. What I said was, “Abortion clinic bombers do, sadly, represent Christians. The only difference is this, The Bible never says it’s a natural thing for Christians to be violent, and it never says it’s okay or expected of Christians to bomb clinics.”
The distinction here is Abortion Clinic Bombers may represent Christianity (By calling themselves Christians, and claiming to do things in the name of God), but they do not represent the teachings of Christianity. Read the Christian Text, and you’ll see that anybody who feels it’s acceptable to destroy a clinic in a violent act is not representing Christ properly.
Evolutionists on the other hand have only one rule, “It is perfectly normal for one animal to kill another. It’s been happening for hundreds of millions of years. And it will continue to happen.” That’s it. If an Evolutionist is violent and kills a few people, big deal, animals have been doing it for millions of years. It’s part of Evolution.
Yes, and yes. But we’re not talking about that. We were talking about Motivation for doing Science (See how you get off topic?) You claimed that it wasn’t religious people who gave us the basis of Science. I demonstrated that it was. So what is your point?
Of course they were. Only an idiot would say, “Well this is the only idea, I guess I’ll defend it vigorously.” A person has the right to believe whatever they want. For this reason, we had agnostics during the same time, atheists at he same time, and evolutionists at the same time. If Newton honestly interpreted the world through as though it was the product of Creation, then he did so by his free will.
This is a great example of what I talked about in the first paragraph. If I just demonstrated how two things are absolutely different, why would you respond with “…it’s the same.”? It’s like you’re not even thinking…
Matthew 10:28 | And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Fear the one who can subject your soul to eternal punishment.
I’m the only one that frustrates you? Maybe I’m the only smart enough not to buy your straw men. I say the same for you when you seem to say a good deal of bad things about a belief you don’t hold.
“You’ve yet to demonstrate this.”
Ok, let’s demonstrate this. As I said, evolution can be used to stress similarities, such as, humans are like apes, therefore we walk on two feet and eat with two hands. However, humans are different than apes in that we are smarter, thus we invented silverware to eat with. Evolution can account for both whether it’s a true theory or not.
Creation can too. If one finds common features between an ape and a human, you can say it’s proof of a common designer. If one finds too many differences between a snail and a leopard, it’s a case for the creativity of a common designer.
Is this demonstrated? You can stress all 4 points to fit your idea.
This is the first time in a while I’ll say it’s getting lengthy to respond to everything you wrote, however, I’d like you to respond to my two core questions in comment #11. I AM, however, more than happy to slowly respond to every point you’ve made, because I have something to say.
“If Evolution is true, then it doesn’t matter if life is good or bad. “
BINGO therefore, any person who believes there is right or wrong in life is not using evolution as their moral guide. Therefore, anybody who respects life (for whatever excuse) is not going to say the absurdities as Dahmer.
“Matthew 10:28″ this fear doesn’t apply any more once one is saved, does it?
Lack of belief in God, or belief in salvation are not absolutely different, or maybe I’m just too stupid to see the difference. They are in practicality the same. Both will make the person who killed somebody feel he is ok.
“, “It is perfectly normal for one animal to kill another. It’s been happening for hundreds of millions of years. And it will continue to happen.” “
I cannot have an honest or serious discussion with somebody who thinks that is the only rule in evolution. And one who confuses description of the past with prescription of the future. One who believes evolution makes humans no better than animals no matter how smart we are. If this is all you know or believe in evolution, you probably are not interested in discourse.
You are quick to tell me that evolutionists can’t judge morality because humans are just like animals, I have not yet read a science book, biology book, or evolution book that actually says things remotely assertive this way. You creationists love to create this straw man yourself.
“We were talking about Motivation for doing Science “ Yes, and I wish to stay on topic. My point was that their belief is not part of their discovery or their scientific attitude, scientific attitude is the same regardless of one’s belief. Their motivation is quite the same as well, it’s skepticism, curiosity, and asking questions. My point is just because people with two arms and two legs were the discoverers of early science, it does not mean it was because they had two arms and two legs. Nor does it mean people today will be better scientists simply because they have two arms and two legs. (which is to say people are not necessarily better scientists by being Creationists).
“Only an idiot would say, “Well this is the only idea, I guess I’ll defend it vigorously.””
Agreed, yet you have not shown they were in any way exposed to the idea of evolution in biological terms, and without the ideas of Darwin, it’d probably have been in a seperate context. This is much like saying they consciously chose to be monogamous, heterosexual, and Christian as if Islam, Buddhism, homosexuality and Mormon polygamy were available to them (even though we know they were around, one has to show they were exposed to them and actually chose otherwise).
When did I say Evolutionists cannot say what is and is not moral? I never did. Again, you create a straw man argument, and now I’ve lost interest talking with you.
When you can be rational, clear, and reasonable, come back and make your points.
Ok, so I must’ve misunderstood you.
So all this you’ve written about Dahmer being consistent, Dahmer represents what evolutionists and atheists believe, evolution has only one rule, “When I did I say people should act the same way animals do? When? All I said is IF somebody does, you cannot complain, because we are all, after all, just animals.” is not saying that evolutionists actually can’t agree with your morals? It’s not saying that evolutionists don’t believe we should act like animals?
So there’s a difference between releasing one from guilt and using the same thing as their moral guide (or lack thereof)?
Ok, if that’s understood, there’s no argument to be made. But this goes back to what I said in the beginning, evolution is DESCRIPTIVE, not PRESCRIPTIVE. It cannot, and should not be used to justify any body’s behavior.
And indeed, I don’t know sometimes what’s there to say when somebody tells me “Why would you expect humans to stop with animal behavior just because we’re smarter?”
I’ll let the audience judge who was rational, who was being rhetorical and who was being around the bushes straw manning the other.
sheesh, I have to respond, because again, you’ve got it wrong - intentionally or accidentally, I don’t know.
What is that supposed to mean? I’m not saying evolutionists accept Dahmer’s behavior. Don’t even think I’m suggesting that, because I’m not. What I am saying though is that Evolution, as a mechanism, doesn’t excuse his behavior as “bad” or “wrong”. What the evolutionists view as “right” and “wrong” is a completely different story.
We’ve had this discussion numerous times in the past. Evolutionists aren’t immoral people just because their theory of history is very cruel (The weak must die so the strong can have progeny). For the same reason, you can find Christians who are complete asses, even though Christianity is a faith of tolerance and peace.
Simple question. Are humans animals, Scientifically speaking? If Yes, does evolution teach that it’s normal for weaker animals to be killed by the stronger animals?
What I am saying though is that Evolution, as a mechanism, doesn’t excuse his behavior as “bad” or “wrong”. What the evolutionists view as “right” and “wrong” is a completely different story.
Agreed. Therefore, it is pointless if not dishonest and misleading to say that he represents evolutionists, or that his behavior is consistent or acceptable according to evolution.
Simple question. Are humans animals, Scientifically speaking? If Yes, does evolution teach that it’s normal for weaker animals to be killed by the stronger animals?
Are humans animals? Yes and no.
In the biological sense, yes, we are composed of cells, we move, we eat, we die. We share several characteristics with animals. However, it does not follow that we will have EVERYTHING similar to animals (just the brain alone sets us far apart).
It’s not normal (PRESCRIPTIVE) for weaker animals to be killed by stronger animals, it’s a (DESCRIPTIVE) fact. What else gets killed? It’s tautology, true by definition (communicates nothing).
Do you know the difference here?
Nothing teaches that a strong person SHOULD kill a weak person (unless you invoke the idea that survival is necessary or good). But history teaches that the strong HAVE killed the weak. Saying it happened, and has always happened does not mean it is teaching it is normal, it is good, or it is right.
But it has come down to the same question. Is it right to desire survival?
Evolutionists aren’t immoral people just because their theory of history is very cruel (The weak must die so the strong can have progeny). For the same reason, you can find Christians who are complete asses, even though Christianity is a faith of tolerance and peace.
Ok, therefore evolution should not be blamed for the decay of society’s morality. Nor should Christianity be taught for the sake of morality. That’s EXACTLY what I argue. That teaching evolution or creation in a science classroom should not be motivated by having a meaning to life, or morality, but simply for the scientific merit. And teaching morality should be universal, not exclusive to the property of Christianity or any religion. Furthermore, teaching morality does not conflict with scientific validity of any biological theory.
I never said this represents evolutionists (in the sense that they feel this is acceptable). Don’t put words in my mouth. On the other hand, this does represent evolution, and what is consistent in nature. It is entirely consistent that animals kill other animals. Ask any evolutionist if animals killing animals has been a constant in evolution.
Actually, to say something has always been true is to say it’s normal. If you jump up, you’re coming back down. That’s gravity. It’s always been this way, and it will always be this way - it’s NORMAL for you to fall back to the ground when you jump.
Likewise, animals have always killed other animals. For food, for dominance, or whatever reason. It is NORMAL in evolution for one creature to kill another. Why would it change just because one group of animals becomes smarter than the others?
“Right” and “Good” here are irrelevant.
What do you mean by this? That’s a philosophical question, not a scientific one. But then you would need to define “survival”.
“Ask any evolutionist if animals killing animals has been a constant in evolution.”
What retard would deny animals killing animals has been a constant? What retard would deny humans have been killing humans? What difference does it make what theory of biological history you believe in?
“Why would it change just because one group of animals becomes smarter than the others?”
Ok, I’ll tell you why. If you were a cheetah, you’d probably kill partner if he had the only piece of meat left in the region and you might starve for tomorrow (and who knows how much longer), in that case, you’re killing because you’re not smarter.
Today, you get creative, you can call people on the phone and not fight, or even argue over a piece of food. BUT, are you denying you’d not kill somebody if it meant your survival?
Ok, if “right” and “good” are irrelevant, you can’t say evolutionists have some sort of organized doctrine for morality (you can certainly say their theory does not involve the Christian moral, nor does any scientific theory, however true or false).
Define survival? Living is survival. As simple as that. Please tell me if you’ve heard of other more complex or meaningful definitions. I never said survival was scientific term, it’s a description of life and activity. But that’s beyond the topic.
So now I’m on the defense to define “survival”? Are you kidding me? Either way, you’ve not refuted my original point, evolution (or any historical theory, factual or hypothetical) is DESCRIPTIVE, NOT PRESCRIPTIVE. Therefore, there’s nothing wrong in believing in false theories or fairy tales no matter no stupid, ridiculous or untrue. Believing Jesus saved you does not make murder ok, believing killing a human being for survival does not make it legal.
Is there any disagreement here? I’m not going to ask “so what are you arguing?” when I’m the one making a point. You manage to dodge my question and ask me another one, GREAT JOB.
TO CONCLUDE since you want me to define “survival”, you must not expect to agree with me (or many others) on the definition of a simple word. THUS I suspect it’s your basis of straw-manning evolution arguments when you can’t even answer a simple question. On the other hand, I think I’ve answered every one of your challenges. Have I not?
Meh.
What, nothing to say?
Christianity would fail miserably at scaring people into submission, since it teaches that you won’t be held accountable for anything you do, and that you will be viewed as perfect no matter what on judgment day if you accept Christ as your replacement.
How on earth would that scare people into acting more moral?
From an older post, you admitted Christianity won’t or can’t scare people into being moral. (which I disagree)
But you then ask ““What reason does one have to be responsible for his actions knowing there is no God, and he will not be punished?”
So which one is it? You say Christianity can’t scare a person (or you) into morality, yet you want to tell us that those who have no faith and belief in God can’t have a reason to be moral.
You’re being worse than a dichotomy, at least a dichotomy would say one side is right the other side is wrong, I’m even giving you an argument that Christianity can serve nicely in humanistic terms yet you reject it, so it’s become useless.
MAYBE I SHOULD ASK YOU What if God said today he’s changed his mind and you’re not going to heaven and you’re going to hell no matter what? Would you still be moral? Would you still care about people being saved?
If yes, then you’re thinking like a moral atheist.
If not, then too bad, please find God and make sure his answer is up to date, or you’d miss out on a lot of fun sinning for nothing.
Add A Comment