Christian vs. Humanist Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-12-2016, 11:19 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(16-12-2016 10:51 AM)Bzltyr Wrote:  This is what really pisses me off. You said "who can so easily dismiss what science..." It has nothing to do with dismissing science. I do not dismiss science.
Darwinism is a theory that lacks scientific evidence. The science disproves Darwinism.
Microbiologist do not dismiss science and believe that Darwinism cannot explain life's diversity.

You also said, "without actually learning about it or you learned about it and didn't understand it." I have learned about it and I do understand the theory. I don't accept it logically.
One geneticists sad that there would have to be 50,000 structural changes to a cow for it to go into the ocean and become a whale. Cow to whale is stated as a proof of evolution. 50,000 structural changes would require so many genetic changes through beneficial mutations and randomly selected changes that it is not possible.

Well, I had some things to do this morning, but I'm back on my computer finishing up some work. In the meantime, I'll take a look at your claims.

You're in deeper water than you realize. Not only am I a former evangelical Christian who gave up the religion, but I also became an evolutionary biologist.

You have outright lied, above. Cow to whale is not "stated as proof of evolution". (The nearest land relative of whales, today, is the hippo, but they're both descended from something that would more-closely resemble modern wolves.)

For your statement to be true (even if it was an accurate description of the claims of science), one would have to think that cows existed millions of years before whales. Rather, the species alive today descend from an ancestral group that is neither of the modern groups, in almost all cases (there are a few species that stay relatively intact over time, being well-adapted to their environments and thus under little Natural Selection pressure). Whales, adapting to an increasingly-aquatic lifestyle, would have been under enormous NS pressure.

You have made it clear that you do not even understand how evolution works, let alone your claim that you have studied the theory and found it wanting.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
16-12-2016, 11:19 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(16-12-2016 11:02 AM)Bzltyr Wrote:  
(16-12-2016 10:58 AM)adey67 Wrote:  All microbiologists feel that is so ? Or perhaps just one with religious cognitive dissonance?

Of course not all. What you are implying that his research is tainted due to his religion. That is not a valid argument.

All the biologist that believe in evolution believe it because they do not want to accept that God did it. Is my argument valid???????


“The reason we leaped at The Origin of Species was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores.” Julien Huxley

So one microbiologist speaks and you take him and make a blanket statement about microbiology proving evolution is wrong without confirming if its the general consensus of microbiologists I'm no scientist or scholar but I'm not a total moron please do not insult me, perhaps you see me as a soft touch because I am honest enough to admit my lack of knowledge in certain areas but your confabulation wont work on me mister.... Largely very disappointed right now.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2016, 11:20 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(16-12-2016 10:30 AM)Bzltyr Wrote:  It is beyond the scope of this thread.

You're the one who brought up evolution. You're derailing to avoid answering questions.

(16-12-2016 10:30 AM)Bzltyr Wrote:  I have been trying to get people on point for a while now.

Fine. Third time's the charm I suppose...

The Doctrine of Hell

The concept of an Omni- god who created you knowing in advance that you would sin

The Doctrine of Original Sin

Vicarious Redemption


DID YA SEE 'EM THAT TIME???
IS THAT ON POINT ENOUGH FOR YOU???

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
16-12-2016, 11:20 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(16-12-2016 10:28 AM)Bzltyr Wrote:  ...
James 4:17New International Version (NIV)
17 If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn’t do it, it is sin for them.

I'm given to believe that a large number of christians voted for Trump. So not only did they not do good but they went further and did bad.

Are they therefore christians who lack christian morality or are they unchristian?

Unsure

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2016, 11:21 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(16-12-2016 11:09 AM)Bzltyr Wrote:  Remember, it is not part of a Christian's moral code to lie. It is ingrained in the atheist to lie because there are no repercussions. For the atheist whatever is advantageous to the cause it is allowed.

What cause? [R]Evolution? Following into the footsteps of Great Comrade Lenin? Destroying christianity? Praising the Dark Lord?

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2016, 11:24 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
There is no way this guy is not a Liar For Jesus™.

If he had actually read Kitzmiller, he would know that Behe got beaten on the stand on the exact points our LFJ here is bringing up-- namely that certain types of things could not evolve naturally. When he made those claims on the stand, he was shown published papers that demonstrated the exact things he claimed could not happen, and he was forced to admit he had not read them. Behe was trounced on every conceivable point, and anyone who honestly read the transcripts would know that. They certainly wouldn't be citing Behe as authoritative over Collins!

And they certainly would not be claiming, quote, "All the biologist that believe in evolution believe it because they do not want to accept that God did it", endquote.

Had he read The Language of God, as he claims, then he would know that one of the top evolutionary biologists on the planet is an evangelical Christian. As are literally hundreds of thousands of evolutionary biologists across the world. They all accept evolution because they don't want to accept that God did it, is that it?

Lying for Jesus is still lying.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
16-12-2016, 11:25 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(16-12-2016 11:19 AM)adey67 Wrote:  So one microbiologist speaks and you take him and make a blanket statement about microbiology proving evolution is wrong without confirming if its the general consensus of microbiologists I'm no scientist or scholar but I'm not a total moron please do not insult me, perhaps you see me as a soft touch because I am honest enough to admit my lack of knowledge in certain areas but your confabulation wont work on me mister.... Largely very disappointed right now.

Michael Behe accepts evolution as much as anyone else in the field. He simply thinks that there's some point of complexity where it requires magical intervention to overcome some natural barrier he can't quite define (though Dembski, a Creationist, has tried, poorly, to do so). They like to leave out Behe's overwhelming belief in evolution and common descent, when they cite his references to the point of irreducible complexity.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2016, 11:27 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
Michael Behe:

wikipedia

Quote:"Professor Behe's concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur. Although Professor Behe is adamant in his definition of irreducible complexity when he says a precursor 'missing a part is by definition nonfunctional,' what he obviously means is that it will not function in the same way the system functions when all the parts are present. For example in the case of the bacterial flagellum, removal of a part may prevent it from acting as a rotary motor. However, Professor Behe excludes, by definition, the possibility that a precursor to the bacterial flagellum functioned not as a rotary motor, but in some other way, for example as a secretory system."

"Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe's assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not in fact irreducibly complex."

"In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not "good enough."

This is not a reputable source. This is a person lying for personal belief.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
16-12-2016, 11:29 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(16-12-2016 11:10 AM)Bzltyr Wrote:  
(16-12-2016 11:03 AM)adey67 Wrote:  Tbh Bz I've been waiting to see you spank us and all I've seen so far is you getting slapped about all over the place and I'm interested in hearing if you believe the earth is only 6000 years old and the whole of geology and the fossil record is wrong or is that an inconvenient question for you ?


Ask the question in the right thread.

Get lost its a valid question to gauge your religious mindset and stop acting like you're some forum hotshot you've been here about five minutes. I've lost all respect for you I'm afraid.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes adey67's post
16-12-2016, 11:32 AM (This post was last modified: 16-12-2016 11:36 AM by Deesse23.)
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
Guys,
he claimed that he refuses to discuss the existence of his god, because it is (according to him) not relevant to the thread, yet he keeps on trying to distract to the topic of evolution, as if evolution was more relevant to the thread.

Thats how dishonest he is.

Anyone noticed how we arent talking about slavery anymore and his lies/ignorance? Anyone noticed how we arent talking anymore about why the existence of a god (that created everything) is very relevant to the beliefs of worshipper of said deity? Anyone noticed how we arent talking anymore about him contradicting himself? Anyone noticed how he doesnt explain how he gets rid of parts of the OT and keeps other parts of it to his likings? Anyone noticed how we are talking about evolution (which is completely irrelevant to the topic) now instead of morals? Anyone noticed how he dishonestly suggests Adey askes him about paleontology in another thread, while still not having any problems with evolution being discussed here?

Quote:Remember, it is not part of a Christian's moral code to lie
Why? How? Why are you doing it nonetheless?

Quote: It is ingrained in the atheist to lie because there are no repercussions
Repercussions? What repercussions are there for a christian?

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Deesse23's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: