Posted by
Message
Kentucker
Kentucky Fan
Cincinnati, KY
Member since Apr 2013
14213 posts

re: Dr who was once an evolutionist explains why mankind is no accident
quote:

he laid out a compelling case for why it all cannot possibly be the result of an accident.


No he didn’t.


FooManChoo
Georgia Fan
Member since Dec 2012
24934 posts
 Online 

re: Dr who was once an evolutionist explains why mankind is no accident
quote:

so it goes
You say that but you don’t actually live that way. If the law of non-contradiction were merely a convention, you would have to be fine with logical contradictions.


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
11
Roger Klarvin
Texas A&M Fan
Central Texas
Member since Nov 2012
40978 posts

re: Dr who was once an evolutionist explains why mankind is no accident
quote:


Even so, evolutionary ethics could be used to justify eugenics, genocide, rape, and theft among other “immoral” behavior because there is no objective standard of ethics in that worldview, so if you make propagation of the species the goal of societal life, anything goes to further that end.

So like I said, in that worldview, there is no “good” and “evil”. There is only what happens inside our brains and the effects of that on society, which can be manipulated in any way to reach a desired goal.


You say this as if the implications of such a reality render it untrue simply on the basis of being too horrifying to accept.

I agree 100% with you and accept that this is the reality we live in. Our collective morality is guided only by the norms and goals of a given society.
This post was edited on 7/5 at 11:10 am


FooManChoo
Georgia Fan
Member since Dec 2012
24934 posts
 Online 

re: Dr who was once an evolutionist explains why mankind is no accident
quote:

You say this as if the implications of such a reality render it untrue simply on the basis of being too horrifying to accept.

I agree 100% with you and accept that this is the reality we live in. Our collective morality is guided only by the norms and goals of a given society
I’m not saying it’s untrue because it is terrifying. I see at least two major problems with this moral outlook:

First, it contradicts what people instinctively know to be true. We recoil at thought of rape and murder of ourselves or our loved ones even if we have less pity for those who experience those things who we don’t know or care about personally. We “know” it’s wrong regardless of what society says about it.

Secondly, this ethical view removes all justification for us to condemn anything we see as immoral. From an objective sense, no actions are moral or immoral, so philosophically speaking it is nonsensical to make any moral judgments at all.

But even on a subjective level, the best we can do is judge members of our current society according to our own particular society’s standard at that time. We can’t judge theocratic Islamic countries for their treatment of gays or women. We can’t even condemn our own society’s previous view of slavery because it was societally acceptable at that time.

To summarize: this view doesn’t provide a philosophically consistent basis for making any moral judgments at all and it conflicts with our own experience of morality.


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
21
Geauxboy
LSU Fan
NW Arkansas
Member since Oct 2006
2158 posts

re: Dr who was once an evolutionist explains why mankind is no accident
quote:

Why did dinosaurs live for millions of years before humans?


They didn't. The earth is only 6,000 years old.


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
11
bfniii
LSU Fan
Member since Nov 2005
12830 posts

re: Dr who was once an evolutionist explains why mankind is no accident
quote:

what do you think the likelihood is that Christianity is the one truth among all these other myths?
100%? is that wrong?


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
00
bfniii
LSU Fan
Member since Nov 2005
12830 posts

re: Dr who was once an evolutionist explains why mankind is no accident
quote:

If death and suffering predate sin, the fall and redemption of Man makes no sense
again, plenty of christian thinkers maintain that the bible is referring to spiritual death, not physical death

quote:

Christians will twist Scripture into a pretzel to try to validate their beliefs because they can’t get through the day without it
link? let me guess, you're going to refer to the idiotic skeptic's annotated bible.

quote:

that’s far from the case
prove it

i swear people will say anything, the most ignorant things, and act like it's just rock solid truth


zeebo
LSU Fan
Member since Jan 2008
3936 posts

re: Dr who was once an evolutionist explains why mankind is no accident
The twisting is done by the so called scientists. Every piece of evidence for evolution comes w a huge assumption buried inside it. These stack up. Carbon dating assumes the rate of decay for the last 100 years is the same rate over the last 12 billion years. Geological layers occurred over millions of years instead of very abruptly. Similarity of structure assumes evolutionary change vs creation using similar properties. It is unknowable because it is not capable of observation and experimentation. I am okay not knowing but the scientists say they know when they don’t.


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
20
bfniii
LSU Fan
Member since Nov 2005
12830 posts

re: Dr who was once an evolutionist explains why mankind is no accident
quote:

Saying so doesn’t make it so
this hardly qualifies as a academically, logically sound rebuttal to theistic evolution. i'm not advocating the position but i do know the particulars.

quote:

If “God” merely wound up the world like a clock
no, you're describing deism. that's not their position.

quote:

We simply evolved like monkeys and fish. We certainly aren’t made in God’s image with any dignity and inherent worth as the Bible claims
see billy graham's statement on the matter.

quote:

“Theistic evolution” contradicts the Bible
again, no it doesn't. many of the top christian thinkers and theologians are in this camp. you might not prefer the position but, it is biblically justifiable, as is oec, day age creationism, gap creationism.

quote:

Either the “languages” would have to exist outside of mankind, meaning that the immaterial and conceptual extend beyond our brains, contradicting their materialistic position
no they are human realization of the world around them. just a way to describe certain features and attributes of the world. they don't have to be metaphysical. again, they're just tautologous. such as wittgenstein's language games or derrida's referent - sign and signified.

quote:

or they are derived from our brains, making them merely conventions that could possibly be different from individual to individual or from society to society, which would render them useless if the law of non-contradiction didn’t exist or if 2+2=5
it's not so much that math is "derived from our brains" as it is just a realization of physical attributes of the world. therefore, no need to state that it is culturally relative.

quote:

Evolutionary ethics aren’t objective standards of ethics
i'm not disagreeing with you. i'm just restating their position.

quote:

They are behaviors that help a species survive and propagate, which isn’t an objective standard at all. From an evolutionary perspective, it’s not even a standard of right and wrong. It’s not even a goal. It’s just what nature does or tries to do. Even so, evolutionary ethics could be used to justify eugenics, genocide, rape, and theft among other “immoral” behavior because there is no objective standard of ethics in that worldview, so if you make propagation of the species the goal of societal life, anything goes to further that end.
of course they have responses to all this

you rejected the spiritual death assertion by referring to evolutionary ethics but theistic evolutionists don't have a problem with this feature of their position. iow, they maintain that biblical morals are still applicable because theistic evolution recognizes a transcendent moral anchor. having humans go through a process of evolution does not change that.


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
00
FooManChoo
Georgia Fan
Member since Dec 2012
24934 posts
 Online 

re: Dr who was once an evolutionist explains why mankind is no accident
Bfnii- You keep appealing to a small minority of “Christian thinkers” to justify your position that physical death was not intended. The past 2,000 years is littered with “Christian thinkers” who agree that death mentioned is both spiritual and physical.

You seem to be taking the minority position because it better aligns with evolutionary theory. Why are you trying to interpret the Bible based on non-biblical principles rather than use the Bible to interpret the Bible as Christian theologians have done since the beginning?


TD SponsorTD Fan
USA
Member since 2001
Thank you for supporting our sponsors
Advertisement
jrodLSUke
LSU Fan
Tigerdroppings Premium
Member since Jan 2011
14435 posts

re: Dr who was once an evolutionist explains why mankind is no accident
What does believing that complex life comes from an intelligent designer have to do with young Earth belief? You don’t have to be one to be the other.


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
10
bfniii
LSU Fan
Member since Nov 2005
12830 posts

re: Dr who was once an evolutionist explains why mankind is no accident
quote:

small minority
this is ad populum. the majority is not always right. at one time, the majority thought the kjv was the only legitimate translation. besides, we don't know what the demographics are. for all i know, theistic evolution could be the majority position

quote:

The past 2,000 years is littered with “Christian thinkers” who agree that death mentioned is both spiritual and physical.
this is a misleading position. prior to the advent of the theory of evolution, thinkers had no reason to postulate on the matter. once evolution came along, it's possible that prior thinkers could have refined their biblical interpretation. there are plenty of conservative, orthodox, evangelical thinkers who do not have a problem with theistic evolution. at this time, genesis allows for multiple interpretations regarding creation. it's not a hill anyone should be dying on.

quote:

You seem to be taking the minority position because it better aligns with evolutionary theory
i'm just telling you what their thinking is

quote:

Why are you trying to interpret the Bible based on non-biblical principles
this has not happened. again, genesis allows for multiple interpretations. since that is the case, theistic evolutionists feel that there is no reason to artificially choose an interpretation that does not align with what we know from our observations.

quote:

Christian theologians have done since the beginning?
traditional does not equal right, simplicatur.


FooManChoo
Georgia Fan
Member since Dec 2012
24934 posts
 Online 

re: Dr who was once an evolutionist explains why mankind is no accident
quote:

this is ad populum. the majority is not always right. at one time, the majority thought the kjv was the only legitimate translation. besides, we don't know what the demographics are. for all i know, theistic evolution could be the majority position
You're right that consensus doesn't determine truth, but when the plain and clear reading of scripture is supported by the early church fathers, several of them were only one or two generations removed from the Apostles, and the councils and creeds all agree with that plain reading, you have to have some compelling evidence to the contrary if you disagree. So far, this minority position hasn't provided anything that would challenge what the Bible provides, nor the devout theologians for a few thousand years.

quote:

this is a misleading position. prior to the advent of the theory of evolution, thinkers had no reason to postulate on the matter.
Not exactly. Democritus was a Greek philosopher that lived about 400 years before Christ who believed the universe was comprised of atoms, much like we do today, and that the universe came about by atoms colliding together and that mankind came about more animal-like and had to learn to be as we are. He had a lot of very similar theories to what many believe today from an evolutionary standpoint.

I mention this because that sort of mindset and philosophy existed hundreds of years before Christ became a man on this earth, and that context existed for early theologians to consider. Even so, Old Testament scribes and scholars and New Testament and general Bible scholars and theologians have been preoccupied with understanding the truth of God based on what they believed was God's revelation as recorded in the Bible. Many heresies have cropped up over time that required church councils to convene to discuss and compare to the Bible and to address them. The underlying presupposition is that God's word is the fundamental basis for interpreting truth and reality, not that truth and reality as we perceive it interpret God's word. It's a paradigm difference that we're ultimately discussing.

quote:

once evolution came along, it's possible that prior thinkers could have refined their biblical interpretation.
Sure, it's possible that others may have been dissuaded from Biblical interpretation as many have since. The 1800s saw a lot of this as Darwin's theories started spreading around the civilized Christian world. This led to a lot of skepticism, especially within the context of the German Enlightenment.

quote:

there are plenty of conservative, orthodox, evangelical thinkers who do not have a problem with theistic evolution. at this time, genesis allows for multiple interpretations regarding creation. it's not a hill anyone should be dying on.
Considering the implications are that Christ's death was potentially unnecessary or ineffective, I would say it is a hill that we should die on. Just because otherwise good scholars are being inconsistent or do not realize the implications on this matter doesn't mean this is a legitimate.

It boils down to this: is God's word our authority or is human experience our authority? Theistic evolution seeks to interpret the Bible by our experience rather than by itself. Theistic evolution doesn't even fit within the Bible unless you turn historical narrative into poetry or some sort of parable.


narddogg81
Alabama Fan
Vancouver
Member since Jan 2012
13297 posts
 Online 

re: Dr who was once an evolutionist explains why mankind is no accident
It's pretty easy to look at cellular machinery that is built from proteins that are needed to build dna and rna, and yet also rely on rna themselves to construct the proteins that make of the machinery that is required to replicate that rna and dna that to figure out that scientists have absolutely no clue how to explain the original of even the most simple forms of life, which are wonderfully complex and have massive interdependencies within themselves or they don't work. Some in desperation will say life was seeded here by aliens or meteor strikes, which of course just kicks the can back down the road. It's also funny how low of a bar they set for themselves in trying to explain the origins of life on which evolution would then act. A single cell is a marvel of interwoven cellular machinery, chemical reactions, etc, and as soon as someone, in a lab and with an intelligence driving an experiment, manages to get some nucleotides to form, they go 'see, we were right'. That's like filling a swimming pool with random letters to explain how war and peace was written. Even if you contrive to get the components in place, there is little problem of the actual information contained therein
This post was edited on 7/10 at 12:12 pm


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
20
bfniii
LSU Fan
Member since Nov 2005
12830 posts

re: Dr who was once an evolutionist explains why mankind is no accident
quote:

the plain and clear reading of scripture
come on now. you know there are plenty of biblical scholars who fall in the theistic evolution camp. including billy graham. i'm pretty sure he's not misreading scripture

quote:

supported by the early church fathers
not applicable. they weren't aware of darwinism. scripture allows for more than one position on the matter

quote:

you have to have some compelling evidence to the contrary if you disagree
this has occurred. in spades.

quote:

this minority position hasn't provided anything that would challenge what the Bible provides
the bible doesn't only "provide" one position on this matter

quote:

Democritus
did not have any evidence of darwinism. not applicable.

quote:

that sort of mindset and philosophy existed hundreds of years before Christ
again, not relevant. there's a huge gap between postulating about the heliocentric model and actually observing it, a la galileo. ditto evolution and darwinism.

quote:

heresies
please tell me you're not calling billy graham a heretic.

quote:

Many heresies have cropped up over time that required church councils to convene
i am aware of all of them and this situation is not the same

quote:

not that truth and reality as we perceive it interpret God's word
that's not what is happening. genesis allows for more than one interpretation on anthropogenic origins. one of those options matches what we know from physical history. it's a reasonable position to maintain.

quote:

Considering the implications are that Christ's death was potentially unnecessary or ineffective
this is not at all an implication of theistic evolution.

quote:

being inconsistent
also not happening

quote:

is God's word our authority or is human experience our authority?
this is a false dilemma regarding theistic evolution

quote:

Theistic evolution seeks to interpret the Bible by our experience rather than by itself
false. it harmonizes and there is nothing theologically or hermeneutically unsound about that

quote:

Theistic evolution doesn't even fit within the Bible unless you turn historical narrative into poetry or some sort of parable.
also false. again, billy graham explained this.


Dawgirl
Georgia Fan
Member since Oct 2015
2868 posts

re: Dr who was once an evolutionist explains why mankind is no accident
quote:

Basically comes down to whether or not Christ was actually raised from the dead. If that actually happened, it would be pretty strong evidence, no?


There is strong evidence. Read what the witnesses saw and told others. Their testimony is pretty damn strong.


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
00
Dawgirl
Georgia Fan
Member since Oct 2015
2868 posts

re: Dr who was once an evolutionist explains why mankind is no accident
quote:

Why did dinosaurs live for millions of years before humans?


I try to understand why people continue to believe that the earth is billions of years old and dinosaurs are millions of years old. Not one person has provided solid proof of this. Its all theories. We've been lied to for a very long time about evolution and its time that people wake up and realize it.


SammyTiger
LSU Fan
New Orleans, LA
Member since Feb 2009
34578 posts

re: Dr who was once an evolutionist explains why mankind is no accident
Yeah:

“It’s really complicated to it couldn’t be an accident”

Isn’t a compelling case.


Aubie Spr96
Auburn Fan
lolwut?
Member since Dec 2009
25116 posts

re: Dr who was once an evolutionist explains why mankind is no accident



Imagine my disappointment.....


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
00
genuineLSUtiger
LSU Fan
Murfreesboro
Member since Sep 2005
54206 posts

re: Dr who was once an evolutionist explains why mankind is no accident
quote:

This is OT, but it bothers me how much intellectual authority people give medical doctors.

Most i know aren’t any smarter than the people on this board - many are dumber.


I could say the same thing about preachers and priests.


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
00
first pageprev pagePage 5 of 7next pagelast page

Back to top

logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram