I was just given two AiG Newletters.

[Hamata k]

    ]sigh......

[Emma]

Hmm, can you include the picture?

Maybe just a crappy snapshot from your phone?

[germanyt]

(15-03-2012 04:14 PM)kineo Wrote:  Hmm, can you include the picture?

Maybe just a crappy snapshot from your phone?

This is the creation theme park they are designing.

[Logica Humano]

(15-03-2012 04:25 PM)germanyt Wrote:  

(15-03-2012 04:14 PM)kineo Wrote:  Hmm, can you include the picture?

Maybe just a crappy snapshot from your phone?

This is the creation theme park they are designing.

Will the park have a flooding feature that will kill all the sinners?

[Emma]

lulz- a theme park too, I should have known! So they're building the entire thing on donations?! How much are they charging for admission and how much are the "investors" going to get back? Haha, just kidding, I know donators don't get their money back.

[Hamata k]

Now I'm not making threats here but.....It WILL burn.
You see? I didn't make a threat.............................I made a promise. That's different.

[Starcrash]

(09-03-2012 10:57 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  Skunks and the Smell Test!
There is no way such design features can be accounted for on a the basis of random, evolutionary processes over millions of years. That evolutionary view requires an incredible amount of faith to accept. It does not pass the smell test!

What a wonderful Creator and Provider we have! And His Word is true from the very first chapter of Genesis!

---

So an Argument from Incredulity, followed by an Argument from Ignorance (the main problem with almost all AiG arguments). Although I'm guessing it isn't real ignorance, as some biologist or another has probably studied why these traits evolved... but AiG simply won't accept the biologist's answer. I have to admit that I don't personally know about the evolution of skunks, but... so much to read, and so little time.

---

(09-03-2012 11:13 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  Evolution and Abortion
If a person believes he is just an animal in an evolutionary struggle for survival, then in that person's mind a developing baby is also an animal. Just as some people get rid of stray animals by killing them, people might also say: why not also get rid of spare children through abortion?

Funny... I almost agree with Ken Ham on this one. Many of us atheists would argue that abortion of babies in the first trimester is okay because we see them as underdeveloped, just cells or clusters of cells --- and it's true, we don't place a high value on those clusters of cells. We don't necessarily define them as "animals", but we do define them as life forms that can't feel pain and don't understand death, so we don't have a big problem with women aborting them.

His argument just doesn't work in practice. For example, I know that Dr. William Lane Craig believes in evolution but he is pro-life. I suspect this is also true of Kingschosen. So Ken Ham is just making an assumption. I could make the argument that a belief in evolution would result in disbelief in the bible, but I'd be wrong for the same exact reason --- which is why I don't make such an argument.

[SixForty]

While the first article sounds like it's just filler, the second article is pretty much spot on. If evolution is true, then ascribing the concept of right or wrong to abortion is absurd. I think the point being made (maybe not so clearly) is that in an evolutionary paradigm, abortion fits perfectly well. It's in no way hypocritical. An evolutionist is likely to say "so what". A creationist is likely to say "look where this leads" - infanticide, eugenics, school shootings, genocide, etc. It's not to say that atheism or evolution is the root cause of those things, it's just to say that in an atheistic, evolutionary perspective, none of those things is really wrong.

[Starcrash]

(17-03-2012 05:31 AM)SixForty Wrote:  While the first article sounds like it's just filler, the second article is pretty much spot on. If evolution is true, then ascribing the concept of right or wrong to abortion is absurd. I think the point being made (maybe not so clearly) is that in an evolutionary paradigm, abortion fits perfectly well. It's in no way hypocritical. An evolutionist is likely to say "so what". A creationist is likely to say "look where this leads" - infanticide, eugenics, school shootings, genocide, etc. It's not to say that atheism or evolution is the root cause of those things, it's just to say that in an atheistic, evolutionary perspective, none of those things is really wrong.

I know, I know... I feel the same way. But it's not that his correlation doesn't demonstrate causation... the correlation isn't even there. A belief in evolution and a belief in the sacredness of fetal life is not mutually exclusive.

[Logica Humano]

(17-03-2012 05:31 AM)SixForty Wrote:  While the first article sounds like it's just filler, the second article is pretty much spot on. If evolution is true, then ascribing the concept of right or wrong to abortion is absurd. I think the point being made (maybe not so clearly) is that in an evolutionary paradigm, abortion fits perfectly well. It's in no way hypocritical. An evolutionist is likely to say "so what". A creationist is likely to say "look where this leads" - infanticide, eugenics, school shootings, genocide, etc. It's not to say that atheism or evolution is the root cause of those things, it's just to say that in an atheistic, evolutionary perspective, none of those things is really wrong.

Darwin was the one who really promoted the "survival of the fittest" (AKA Natural Selection) concept, and the man tried to be the humblest and kindest person he could possibly be. The ridiculous belief, "survival of the fittest, therefore you lack empathy," is as true the argument, "you are related to the ape, therefore you will act like one". There is no correlation. One can believe in the core concept of Evolution, and still maintain morality and empathy, since those feelings are apart of Humanity's psychological evolution (empathy is apart of other animal's as well).