Creation vs. Evolution

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Status
Not open for further replies.
lamont:
A lot of people make an argument that sex and love must be between a man and a woman in order to procreate, which presupposes that every instance of every organism must procreate, and that's just false. Its too bad that so many people have such an immature 15 year old "peg must fit in hole" approach to sexuality...

Well, sex does have to between a man and a women to procreate. However, there's also the moral beliefe that sex should be between a man and a women. More specifically, between a husband and wife.

I don't see it as an immature view at all. Looking back (and around) I see that God was right all along even though I didn't always understand.
 
H2Andy:
we need to get specific here.

give me a specific example of what you consider right/wrong, and we'll parse it down

(but let me tell you this, at least for a given jurisdiction we can agree what is legal and illegal; not so easy with right/wrong)

Lets stick with murder since you guys have been refering to it. Unfortunately, I can't bring in any actual statutes but I can give a couple of examples. Of course, note, that there is a difference between the letter of the law and how a jurisdiction chooses to apply that law at any given time.

Not long ago, I saw a news story where someone killed another who had forcefully entered their home. It was called murder because the home owner could have left...therefore not self defense.

In another instance, I was in Arkasas when a man came home and found his home had been broken into. The thieves only took part of his stereo equipment so the man got the idea that the crooks would be back. He hid his car, waited for them in the dark and shot them full of holes when they came back, killing one of them. The sheriff, speaking in front of a news camera said that a man has the right to protect his home and there was no arrest.

From what I have seen, in different jurisdictions, with different police officers and/or with different prosecutors these two incidents could easily yield opposite results.

A great brain teaser.... In this country a women has the right to abort her unborn child and it isn't murder. Yet if one kills a pregnant women they can be found guilty of murdering two people. Legally we can see what the right of the mother is but how does the term "murder" apply to the rights of the unborn child. I guess, legally, the child has the right to only be killed by its mother but does not have a right to live. If the only issue is the rights of the mother, then logically I can see the killing of the unborn child being called vandalism or destruction of property, maybe, but I can't see how the term murder applies unless that person has some legal right to live and clearly, the unborn child does not.

Not only is law not required to be logical but it isn't even required to be consistant within it's own logic. I don't see it as possible to apply the terms right and wrong to what's legal or illegal. I don't even see it as possible to apply logic to it.

Lets face it, a lobby group can get a law passed by spreading money around. It doesn't need to be logical or right. It doesn't even need to be advantageous except to those who want it. The only test of right and wrong is it's constitutionality but votes in that department are often devided on party lines...so whether a law is constitutional or not can depend on whether you are a democrat or a republican.

Without a more fixed reference to right/wrong, law could go in absolutely any direction. We not only see examples of that here but all over the world. In fact, if I spent some time in the actual law books, I'll bet I could find enough laws that contradict eachother and logic that I could present a case to a jury that would convince them that the government is demonstrably incompetant to decide matters of law.

An extreme case would be Sadam or Hitler. What makes them wrong? Only that they lost the fight. Had Hitler won the fight (and it almost happened) we would be working with a whole different set of laws. I wonder what this discussion would look like then.

In the world, law is decided by force alone and has absolutely nothing to do with what is right or wrong. It does not have to be what the majority wants or what is beneficial to society.

So, you say that we don't need God for law but I say that we do. Things aren't too bad here yet but we still have a remnant of our original law. While not all the founders were, strictly speaking, "Chiristians" they definately seemed to exhibit "Christian" values. Of course some were not only Christians but clergy. As fewer people believe in God and feel bound by Gods law, I see things getting more and more bizarre and I think we have some truely terrible things coming down the pipe. No, I don't think the wisdom of man is even close to being sufficient and as time goes on that will be demonstrated to a greater and greater degree.
 
As Bertrand Russell observed, if we were truly Christian, there would be no earthly laws at all. Christ says that judgement is for God and that we should turn the other cheek if struck, not press charges.

As to ethics deriving from God, what God? Different religions define different morality. Abuse of women is tolerated in some relgiions, not in others.

The main flaw in monotheistic religions is that all aspects of existence, good and bad, derive from one source. God defines morality, but immorality is also his creation. Christianity tries to obscure this by invoking a quasideity, Satan, but Satan is no god. As a creation of God, satan must answer to him and cannot be all-powerful, so where is the battle between good and evil in Christianity --- between the all powerful God and the finite satan? What sort of battle is this?

Religion poses all sorts of paradoxes --- was the killing of Christ wrong? How could it be if, in Christian dogma, it was mandatory for our salvation? Why is Judas a villain --- he was critical to our salvation, as critical as Christ.

moreover, modern Christians don't realize that for most of Christianity's existence, salvation was not a matter of doing right and not doing wrong, but a matter of being predestined to heaven or hell from birth. Even now, a good person who rejects Christ will go to hell, a bad person who accepts Christ with his last breath goes to heaven. If Hitler had made a deathbed confession, he was Catholic, the church acknowledges that he would go to heaven. A man who thinks of cheating on his wife and has a heart attack goes to hell. Anyone who disagrees with this doesn't understand Catholic dogma. And before protesting and saying you are not Catholic but some other type of Christian, keep in mind that for 16 centuries, catholicism was the keeper of Christian dogma. All modern Christians are either catholics or a gnat's eyelash away from catholicism. The whole mythology of Christ, his death and resurrection, the entire paradigm of Christianity was crafted by the catholic church.

And, come to think of it, what earthly sin merits "eternal torment" --- the whole hell thing is creepy. In the end, Christians do good because they are afraid of eternal torment. With hell hanging over their heads, they hardly have free will.
 
MikeFerrara:
you say that we don't need God for law but I say that we do.

there were laws before God handed down his laws to men (meaning the God of Israel, later the God of the Christians). the Code of Hammurabi predates the Ten Commandments (by the way, "innocent until proven guilty" comes from the Hamurabi Code).

the Egyptians didn't have God, and they had laws. also the Babylonians, Medes, MedoPersians, Hittites.

cultures that never heard of God (the Chinese, Indians, etc.) until last century had laws for milennia. the indians of the new continents never heard of God until 1492, yet they had laws.

our legal system is based on the Roman system. the Romans didn't officially switch over to the Christian God until well after their legal system was in place (about 325 A.D.)

history does not support your claim.
 
MikeFerrara:
Where in 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, 1 Cor or 2 Cor does it say that it's ok to sell your Children?

It doesn't - but it says slavery is OK. Old testament allows you to sell your kids into slavery, new testament allows slavery to continue...

Bryan
 
shakeybrainsurgeon:
To Warthaug

<snip overview of simple genetics>

Thus, if being gay is genetic, it may still be a neutral or detrimental gene yet remain prevalent or even increase in the population if those people that have only one gay gene (assuming gays have two gay genes) have some selective advantage over those with no gay genes at all. For example, a man heterozygous in the gay locus would be heterosexual but somehow resistant to a life threatening illness, like influenza.

It is true that some detrimental genes, in single-copy form, are beneficial. However, homosexuality is determined by multiple genes, and AFAIK homozygosity (i.e. two copies of the "gay" version of genes) is not required for that person to be gay. Instead, it appears to be more like diabetes; a combination of genes (including genes in the mother, not gay child) are part of the equation, and single copies are enough.

Another thing worth pointing out is that homosexuality is far more common then any of the single-loci beneficial (single-copy)/detrimental (multi-copy) traits like you described. The most common of these traits (at the global level) is sickle-cell anemia and cystic fibrosis, and even those don't reach the same level as homosexuality in the relevant populations.

And even if homosexuality is a result of this type of interaction, so what? The genes are still there for a purpose, and their existence speaks towards an evolutionary process in which benefit and risk have been balanced out. Doesn't disprove evolution, or give a biological basis for discrimination.

shakeybrainsurgeon:
A clue to how the gay gene might be advantageous could be gleaned by where and when gay behavior became prevalent.

As far as I've been able to find, it is not localized to any one race, but rather occurs at a similar rate across races:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=15311975&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum

shakeybrainsurgeon:
If homosexuality is found to be increasing in modern male populations, it may be because the gay gene protects males from some ailment more common in modern times, such as flu (modern crowding) or cancer (because people now live long enough to get it).

I couldn't find anything about homosexuality over time, but lets be honest, those stats probably don't exist simply because it wasn't "kosher" to even ask those questions until the 70's. The intervening 30-40 years would not be enough time to see any evolutionary changes.

Any how, it's doubtful that we'd be seeing too much in regards of evolution these days - modern medicine and living have removed a lot of the selective pressures from humans in the developed world. As for beneficial for cancer, etc, its highly doubtful. There is virtually no selective process to select for traits like cancer resistance, simply because most cancers occur after one has children. At that point, evolutionarily speaking, it is too late for selection. This is likely the reason why so many ailments are almost exclusive to old age - autoimmunity, cancer, MD, etc. Simply put, genes that are bad after you have kids are not readily selected against.

Bryan
 
shakeybrainsurgeon:
As Bertrand Russell observed, if we were truly Christian, there would be no earthly laws at all. Christ says that judgement is for God and that we should turn the other cheek if struck, not press charges.

There's more to it. The Bible certainly makes provisions for earthly governments. It also requires us to judge at times, though condemnation is a different matter.
As to ethics deriving from God, what God? Different religions define different morality. Abuse of women is tolerated in some relgiions, not in others.

Yes and it is tolerated by some governments and has even been tolerated by our own.
The main flaw in monotheistic religions is that all aspects of existence, good and bad, derive from one source. God defines morality, but immorality is also his creation. Christianity tries to obscure this by invoking a quasideity, Satan, but Satan is no god. As a creation of God, satan must answer to him and cannot be all-powerful, so where is the battle between good and evil in Christianity --- between the all powerful God and the finite satan? What sort of battle is this?

You're not quit correct here and the answers to these questions are in the Bible. Satan is a created being and the Bible tells us that he certainly will not win in the end. Satan was not created evil, he was created with a choice.

Read Revelation. Satan has no chance and it won't be much of a fight from Gods perspective.
Religion poses all sorts of paradoxes --- was the killing of Christ wrong? How could it be if, in Christian dogma, it was mandatory for our salvation? Why is Judas a villain --- he was critical to our salvation, as critical as Christ.

Interesting questions but not really paradoxes. We're told that God will use all things to His eventual good. What was mandatory for our salvation was for Christ to suffer the penalty for sin on our behalf. God, knowing that the jews would reject him and that Judas would betray Him, simply used those things to impliment His salvation plan.
moreover, modern Christians don't realize that for most of Christianity's existence, salvation was not a matter of doing right and not doing wrong, but a matter of being predestined to heaven or hell from birth.

I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that most Christians don't understand. Even today, the topic is debated. While most christians believe that excepting Christ is required for salvation, what isn't always agreed on is how that happens. If we are spiritually dead in sin, then it stands to reason that we can't make spiritual decisions. Salvation isn't by any work that we do. The disagreement comes in as to how much of the decision is your own. Can you decide to accept Christ or must the Holy Spirit do a regenerative work in you first? I think a close reading of scripture gives the answer. I think it's fairly well sumed up in Romans 10:17 "So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."
Even now, a good person who rejects Christ will go to hell, a bad person who accepts Christ with his last breath goes to heaven. If Hitler had made a deathbed confession, he was Catholic, the church acknowledges that he would go to heaven. A man who thinks of cheating on his wife and has a heart attack goes to hell. Anyone who disagrees with this doesn't understand Catholic dogma.

I do understand the Catholic "dogma" as you term it. To discuss it, we have to look at the role of the sacrements though. If we leave out the sacrement of confession and take a more protestant or strictly Biblical view, what is required to go to heaven is to be reborn in the Spirit. While it may be possible to do it in a moment on a death bed, I see it as unlikely. We could easily show a Biblical case against a decision made by a person in a split second as qualifying as rebirth in the Spirit.

In a Catholic view, a saved man who commits sin without recieving the sacrement of confession and having that sin forgiven would go to pergatory, not Hell. A more protestant view would have the man going to heaven because he was already saved and his sins forgiven him, having been reborn in the Spirit, of course, being what limits the persons desire to sin in the first place.
And before protesting and saying you are not Catholic but some other type of Christian, keep in mind that for 16 centuries, catholicism was the keeper of Christian dogma. All modern Christians are either catholics or a gnat's eyelash away from catholicism.

There may have been esentially one church in the begining, however, to say that all Christianity is a gnats eyelash away from Catholosism is not correct. There are major differences in theology. As major as there could be. Some examples would include, baptismal regeneration (sacrements), the worship of saints and the Virgin Marry, The authority of church tradition and the whoe idea of a pope or preists being necessary for any of it.
The whole mythology of Christ, his death and resurrection, the entire paradigm of Christianity was crafted by the catholic church.

That's your story.
And, come to think of it, what earthly sin merits "eternal torment" --- the whole hell thing is creepy. In the end, Christians do good because they are afraid of eternal torment. With hell hanging over their heads, they hardly have free will.

Of course Hell is creepy but what sin merits it? Any unforgiven sin at all. What does sin do? It seperates us from God. Seperation from God means Hell. Saved people do not do good because of a fear of Hell. They do good because of the work of the Holy Spirit in them bringing about a desire to do good. Fear of hell is probably a fine reason to begin asking Christ to cover you sins with His, already finished, payment though. Christ defeated sin and death. Through Him so can we. It's not the good works that makes one worthy of heaven, it's the rebirth in the Spirit that makes one worthy through Christ and brings about the desire to do good works.

Salvation is rebirth in the Spirit making a new creation of one who was dead in sin but now belongs to Christ. If you belong to Christ, you go to heaven.

Ephesians 2:1 And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, 2 in which you once walked according to the couse of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, 3 among whom also we conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath just as the others.

2 Cor 5:17 "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom