Please see Styx thread on the Registered Shipmates consultation for the main discussion forums - your views are important, continues until April 4th.

OT Difficulties - a Dead Horse diversion

135678

Comments

  • MPaul wrote: »
    The word of God has a far more reasonable explanation. God says he made it and tells us why.
    How is what you've said Scripture says—that God created, and why God created—inconsistent with the possibility of evolution?

    I repeat the question I asked upthread:
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    I'd add, @MPaul, that it seems like you have a real concern, perhaps a fear even, that if any portion of Scripture is not literally true and historically accurate—that if, for example, Adam and Eve were not real people who lived in a real Garden of Eden—then nothing in Scripture is trustworthy. This seems to be coupled with a perception that rejection of the historical accuracy of something like Adam and Eve being real people is automatically a rejection in toto of any possibility of divine revelation in the first chapters of Genesis.

    Is that so? If it is, why do you think that?
    I'm trying not to put words in your mouth (or thoughts in your head) and would be interested to know your perspective on this.

  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    (V
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    The word of God has a far more reasonable explanation. God says he made it and tells us why.
    How is what you've said Scripture says—that God created, and why God created—inconsistent with the possibility of evolution?

    I repeat the question I asked upthread:
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    I'd add, @MPaul, that it seems like you have a real concern, perhaps a fear even, that if any portion of Scripture is not literally true and historically accurate—that if, for example, Adam and Eve were not real people who lived in a real Garden of Eden—then nothing in Scripture is trustworthy. This seems to be coupled with a perception that rejection of the historical accuracy of something like Adam and Eve being real people is automatically a rejection in toto of any possibility of divine revelation in the first chapters of Genesis.

    Is that so? If it is, why do you think that?
    I'm trying not to put words in your mouth (or thoughts in your head) and would be interested to know your perspective on this.
    I am not into confessionals here. Suffice it that evolution is on many levels inconsistent with scripture. Pussyfooting around that is simply stupid. You do not have a ‘both and’ choice here. It is not a hard choice for someone who knows the power of God. The fruit of evolution among other things was Nazi view of higher races and the whole of the arrogant imperialism of the 19th century was predicated on it among other things. It reduces humanity to higher animal status. That s why it was OK to hunt aborigines in Australia.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Admin Emeritus
    And presumably to enslave other people too ... oh, wait.
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    And presumably to enslave other people too ... oh, wait.
    Absolutely. Prove the contrary if you can.

  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    edited October 2018
    MPaul wrote: »
    I am not into confessionals here.
    Sorry. I didn’t realize that seeking to understand your position rather than characterize it, and possibly mischaracterize it, involved confessionals.
    Suffice it that evolution is on many levels inconsistent with scripture.
    Sorry again, but that doesn’t suffice at all, not by a long shot. If you’re going to make that claim, you need to give specifics.
    Pussyfooting around that is simply stupid. You do not have a ‘both and’ choice here. It is not a hard choice for someone who knows the power of God.
    So, just so I have this straight, if I disagree with your interpretation of Scripture, that is evidence in your mind that I don’t know the power of God?
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    MPaul - you want to judge a body of thought based on the worst things some people claiming that body of thought as their inspiration have done?

    You sure you really want to go there? In a world which spawned Tomas de Torquemada, Bloody Mary, Matthew Hopkins, a world which came up with Witch Trials, Ulster Sectarianism and the Crusades?

    Really?
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    MPaul wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    And presumably to enslave other people too ... oh, wait.
    Absolutely. Prove the contrary if you can.

    Well, given that Western oppression of native peoples in their empires predates Darwin by a couple of hundres years or more I think the ball's in your court there. Do you have any idea what Columbus did to the people he found in the Americas?
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Admin Emeritus
    MPaul wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    And presumably to enslave other people too ... oh, wait.
    Absolutely. Prove the contrary if you can.

    You do know the entirety of the Bible predates the theory of evolution? And it has actual rules how to treat slaves? Which kind of suggests that ancient slavery has nothing to evolution at all?

    Anyone? Bueller?
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    I am not into confessionals here.
    Sorry. I didn’t realize that seeking to understand your position rather than characterize it, and possibly mischaracterize it, involved confessionals.
    Suffice it that evolution is on many levels inconsistent with scripture.
    Sorry again, but that doesn’t suffice at all, not by a long shot. If you’re going to make that claim, you need to give specifics.
    Pussyfooting around that is simply stupid. You do not have a ‘both and’ choice here. It is not a hard choice for someone who knows the power of God.
    So, just so I have this straight, if I disagree with your interpretation of Scripture, that is evidence in your mind that I don’t know the power of God?
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    And presumably to enslave other people too ... oh, wait.
    Absolutely. Prove the contrary if you can.

    You do know the entirety of the Bible predates the theory of evolution? And it has actual rules how to treat slaves? Which kind of suggests that ancient slavery has nothing to evolution at all?

    Anyone? Bueller?

    And you know that is a red herring. Slavery linked to 19century imperialism is clearly bolstered by the acceptance of evolution. These Africans were less evolved so it is OK to treat them like animals. It is a logical conclusion of believing in evolution.

  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    [/quote]So, just so I have this straight, if I disagree with your interpretation of Scripture, that is evidence in your mind that I don’t know the power of God?[/quote]
    I do not have an opinion about that. You are a merely a voice on the internet.

  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    MPaul - you want to judge a body of thought based on the worst things some people claiming that body of thought as their inspiration have done?

    You sure you really want to go there? In a world which spawned Tomas de Torquemada, Bloody Mary, Matthew Hopkins, a world which came up with Witch Trials, Ulster Sectarianism and the Crusades?

    Really?

    How is any of that relevant to the point? The logical end of evolutionary thought is: man =animal.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Admin Emeritus
    MPaul wrote: »
    And you know that is a red herring. Slavery linked to 19century imperialism is clearly bolstered by the acceptance of evolution. These Africans were less evolved so it is OK to treat them like animals. It is a logical conclusion of believing in evolution.

    Nice swerve. I deliberately said ancient slavery, and you most definitely (unless you want to deny scripture, of course) have no answer to that.

    People behave like shits given the opportunity. The convenient excuses merely change (or even evolve...) over time.
  • MPaul wrote: »
    So, just so I have this straight, if I disagree with your interpretation of Scripture, that is evidence in your mind that I don’t know the power of God?
    I do not have an opinion about that. You are a merely a voice on the internet.
    How strange to say you don’t have an opinion on the meaning of what you wrote.
    MPaul wrote: »
    And you know that is a red herring. Slavery linked to 19century imperialism is clearly bolstered by the acceptance of evolution. These Africans were less evolved so it is OK to treat them like animals. It is a logical conclusion of believing in evolution.
    Except that what you call slavery of Africans linked to 19th Century imperialism started in the 17th Century, and those Africans were treated as less-than-human from the outset. This is simply not a coherent argument that you’re making.

  • MPaul wrote: »
    Suffice it that evolution is on many levels inconsistent with scripture.
    More accurately, it is inconsistent with YOUR interpretation of scripture. Which is rather a reductio for your interpretation of scripture.
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    Suffice it that evolution is on many levels inconsistent with scripture.
    More accurately, it is inconsistent with YOUR interpretation of scripture. Which is rather a reductio for your interpretation of scripture.
    Which takes us back to the old chestnut:

    All readings are interpretations and one is as good as another.

    You feel that my interpretation of say, Jesus ' words..

    "He who made them from the beginning made them male and Female.."

    suggests that Jesus believed Genesis.. is wrong.

    Your alternative reading then is..what exactly?

    Jesus was a bronze age incarnation of God who lacked modern Darwinian insights?

    Please enlighten.

  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    Nick Tamen:How strange to say you don’t have an opinion on the meaning of what you wrote.
    If you are determined to feel judged and put upon then fill your boots.
    The alternative is to heed that wise commandment..
    'Do not easily take offence'
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    And you know that is a red herring. Slavery linked to 19century imperialism is clearly bolstered by the acceptance of evolution. These Africans were less evolved so it is OK to treat them like animals. It is a logical conclusion of believing in evolution.

    Nice swerve. I deliberately said ancient slavery, and you most definitely (unless you want to deny scripture, of course) have no answer to that.

    People behave like shits given the opportunity. The convenient excuses merely change (or even evolve...) over time.

    No. You deliberately reinterpreted the context of the discussion from 19 century to ancient slavery.
    Do you not think that is dishonest?

    And yes people often are selfish; it is called sin. Darwin gives us quite an excuse for it neh?
  • MPaul wrote: »
    Please enlighten.
    Oh that I were able.
  • MPaul wrote: »
    Nick Tamen:How strange to say you don’t have an opinion on the meaning of what you wrote.
    If you are determined to feel judged and put upon then fill your boots.
    The alternative is to heed that wise commandment..
    'Do not easily take offence'
    I am not determined to feel judged, nor do I easily take offense. For that matter, I’m not particularly concerned about your opinion of my faith, and I wonder why I bother trying to engage with someone who doesn’t seem to want to engage—indeed who regularly avoids it—and who consistently caricatures beliefs that are not his own.

    But I do think it’s worth suggesting that you take responsibility for what you write. You have a pattern of saying things, and then brushing aside any suggestion that you actually meant what you said, preferring to blame others for taking offense at the plain implications of your words.

  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    any suggestion that you actually meant
    Not the case. You persistently imply that personal judgement has occurred. It has not. You somehow feel bad because I said someone who knows God's power has no difficulty believing the Bible? Well fine..feel judged, feel bad and enjoy feeling superior if that is where it leads. I am not responsible for how you want to read what I said.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited October 2018
    MPaul wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    MPaul - you want to judge a body of thought based on the worst things some people claiming that body of thought as their inspiration have done?

    You sure you really want to go there? In a world which spawned Tomas de Torquemada, Bloody Mary, Matthew Hopkins, a world which came up with Witch Trials, Ulster Sectarianism and the Crusades?

    Really?

    How is any of that relevant to the point? The logical end of evolutionary thought is: man =animal.

    Biologically man is an animal. You don't need evolution for that; morphology is sufficient.

    The relevance of this is your attempt to declare evolution false based on the actions of some people claiming it as their inspiration. Applying that logic to Christianity would declare it false because of the terrible deeds of some of its adherents.

    Obvious really, but there's none so blind.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    MPaul wrote: »
    any suggestion that you actually meant
    Not the case. You persistently imply that personal judgement has occurred. It has not. You somehow feel bad because I said someone who knows God's power has no difficulty believing the Bible? Well fine..feel judged, feel bad and enjoy feeling superior if that is where it leads. I am not responsible for how you want to read what I said.

    "Travellers are all thieves"
    "I'm a Traveller. Don't call me a thief"
    "Did I call you a thief? Why are you so determined to take offence? I can't help how you choose to interpret my posts!"
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    MPaul wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    And you know that is a red herring. Slavery linked to 19century imperialism is clearly bolstered by the acceptance of evolution. These Africans were less evolved so it is OK to treat them like animals. It is a logical conclusion of believing in evolution.

    Nice swerve. I deliberately said ancient slavery, and you most definitely (unless you want to deny scripture, of course) have no answer to that.

    People behave like shits given the opportunity. The convenient excuses merely change (or even evolve...) over time.

    No. You deliberately reinterpreted the context of the discussion from 19 century to ancient slavery.
    Do you not think that is dishonest?

    And yes people often are selfish; it is called sin. Darwin gives us quite an excuse for it neh?

    No more than the doctrine of Original Sin does. Both say we're programmed to act in this way because of events in the past.
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    MPaul - you want to judge a body of thought based on the worst things some people claiming that body of thought as their inspiration have done?

    You sure you really want to go there? In a world which spawned Tomas de Torquemada, Bloody Mary, Matthew Hopkins, a world which came up with Witch Trials, Ulster Sectarianism and the Crusades?

    Really?

    How is any of that relevant to the point? The logical end of evolutionary thought is: man =animal.

    Biologically man is an animal. You don't need evolution for that; morphology is sufficient.

    The relevance of this is your attempt to declare evolution false based on the actions of some people claiming it as their inspiration. Applying that logic to Christianity would declare it false because of the terrible deeds of some of its adherents.

    Obvious really, but there's none so blind.
    Indeed. As far as evolution is concerned, biology is all of it.
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    any suggestion that you actually meant
    Not the case. You persistently imply that personal judgement has occurred. It has not. You somehow feel bad because I said someone who knows God's power has no difficulty believing the Bible? Well fine..feel judged, feel bad and enjoy feeling superior if that is where it leads. I am not responsible for how you want to read what I said.

    "Travellers are all thieves"
    "I'm a Traveller. Don't call me a thief"
    "Did I call you a thief? Why are you so determined to take offence? I can't help how you choose to interpret my posts!"

    What defines a traveller? How do you know if you are one? Is the definition up for grabs? And if I am confident I am one why would I care what you think?
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    So, just so I have this straight, if I disagree with your interpretation of Scripture, that is evidence in your mind that I don’t know the power of God?
    I do not have an opinion about that. You are a merely a voice on the internet.
    How strange to say you don’t have an opinion on the meaning of what you wrote.
    MPaul wrote: »
    And you know that is a red herring. Slavery linked to 19century imperialism is clearly bolstered by the acceptance of evolution. These Africans were less evolved so it is OK to treat them like animals. It is a logical conclusion of believing in evolution.
    Except that what you call slavery of Africans linked to 19th Century imperialism started in the 17th Century, and those Africans were treated as less-than-human from the outset. This is simply not a coherent argument that you’re making.
    Does that actually matter? It is undeniable that a match to petrol increases the fire. I remember Christopher Hitchens getting quite disturbed in his urbane way, at the very suggestion by Berlinski, in a debate, that Darwinian thinking was a driver of the Nazi holocaust.

  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited October 2018
    MPaul wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    MPaul - you want to judge a body of thought based on the worst things some people claiming that body of thought as their inspiration have done?

    You sure you really want to go there? In a world which spawned Tomas de Torquemada, Bloody Mary, Matthew Hopkins, a world which came up with Witch Trials, Ulster Sectarianism and the Crusades?

    Really?

    How is any of that relevant to the point? The logical end of evolutionary thought is: man =animal.

    Biologically man is an animal. You don't need evolution for that; morphology is sufficient.

    The relevance of this is your attempt to declare evolution false based on the actions of some people claiming it as their inspiration. Applying that logic to Christianity would declare it false because of the terrible deeds of some of its adherents.

    Obvious really, but there's none so blind.
    Indeed. As far as evolution is concerned, biology is all of it.

    Given that evolution is a subfield of biology, surprise surprise. What did you expect? A recipe for authentic Swiss Fondue? A concerto for dulcimer and orchestra in F#?
  • mr cheesymr cheesy Shipmate
    edited October 2018
    Wait.. evolution was the cause of slavery..?

    What are you on about? Origin of Species came out in 1859, the Transatlantic Slave Trade started collapsing in the 1780s, was outlawed in the British the other Empires in the 1820s and 1830s and came to an almost total halt by the 1860s.

    It's not possible for Evolution to have impacted on this slave trade because the idea hadn't been developed yet.

    People didn't need scientific theories to dehumanise others - they had religious texts for that.
  • MPaul wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    So, just so I have this straight, if I disagree with your interpretation of Scripture, that is evidence in your mind that I don’t know the power of God?
    I do not have an opinion about that. You are a merely a voice on the internet.
    How strange to say you don’t have an opinion on the meaning of what you wrote.
    MPaul wrote: »
    And you know that is a red herring. Slavery linked to 19century imperialism is clearly bolstered by the acceptance of evolution. These Africans were less evolved so it is OK to treat them like animals. It is a logical conclusion of believing in evolution.
    Except that what you call slavery of Africans linked to 19th Century imperialism started in the 17th Century, and those Africans were treated as less-than-human from the outset. This is simply not a coherent argument that you’re making.
    Does that actually matter? It is undeniable that a match to petrol increases the fire. I remember Christopher Hitchens getting quite disturbed in his urbane way, at the very suggestion by Berlinski, in a debate, that Darwinian thinking was a driver of the Nazi holocaust.

    And the Rwandan genocide was caused by a warped reading of Christianity. What's your point here?
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    You know my Three Tier model of creationism above? "Evolution is the cause of racism/slavery/genocide" is a standard bollocks argument from the Originators, passed down the chain.
  • MPaul wrote: »
    any suggestion that you actually meant
    Not the case. You persistently imply that personal judgement has occurred. It has not. You somehow feel bad because I said someone who knows God's power has no difficulty believing the Bible? Well fine..feel judged, feel bad and enjoy feeling superior if that is where it leads. I am not responsible for how you want to read what I said.
    Nor, apparently, are you responsible for what you say.

    Bless your heart.

  • Doc TorDoc Tor Admin Emeritus
    IIRC, "The curse of Ham" was a medieval construct.

    But yes, MPaul has started on a Gish Gallop and won't stop any time soon. Pinning him down and forcing him to admit that slavery was (and possibly even still is) Biblical is a futile task. He'll simply move on to saying feminism, human rights, voting and a free press are the evils that evolution brings us, and we'd be much better off under a patriarchal slaving-owning theocracy.
  • That's a bit unfair. I don't believe that @MPaul supports slavery.

    But apparently this doesn't seem to change his view of the Bible, for reasons I can't begin to understand.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Admin Emeritus
    I'd like MPaul to clarify matters.

    Certainly, acknowledging that slavery predated evolutionary theory, and that the Bible had rules for good slave-keeping, would be a starting point.

    We can move on from there as to whether he thinks those rules are timeless and applicable now.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    I'd like MPaul to clarify matters.
    Good luck with that.

  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    Please enlighten.
    Oh that I were able.
    An abmirably frank piece of rhetoric.
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    I'd like MPaul to clarify matters.

    Certainly, acknowledging that slavery predated evolutionary theory, and that the Bible had rules for good slave-keeping, would be a starting point.

    We can move on from there as to whether he thinks those rules are timeless and applicable now.
    Not denied and irrelevant. No one said evolution caused slavery just that evolutionary thinking helped justify 19 th century imperialism..also the holocaust was certainly enabled by it..survival of the fittest could become domination of the strongest with a bit of sleight of hand. My point is that evolutionary thinking devalues us..leads us into decisions that make us less than imagio dei.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited October 2018
    MPaul wrote: »
    The fruit of evolution among other things was Nazi view of higher races . . .

    Interestingly Hitler never cited Darwin or evolution as inspirations for his political beliefs. He did return to one particular scientific metaphor time and again though, the idea of the Jew (and other untermenschen) as bacteria in the body politic. Hitler compared himself to Louis Pasteur and Robert Koch, but never Charles Darwin. If any scientific theory can be said to have inspired the Nazis it's germ theory.

    Germs are, of course, a non-Biblical idea like descent with modification (a.k.a. evolution).
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    And you know that is a red herring. Slavery linked to 19century imperialism is clearly bolstered by the acceptance of evolution. These Africans were less evolved so it is OK to treat them like animals. It is a logical conclusion of believing in evolution.
    Except that what you call slavery of Africans linked to 19th Century imperialism started in the 17th Century, and those Africans were treated as less-than-human from the outset. This is simply not a coherent argument that you’re making.

    Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in November 1859. The claim that this represents the origin of slavery, or even the trans-Atlantic slave trade, is laughable.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    MPaul - even if there were validity to your association of imperialism with evolution (though Church leaders at the time, many of them Creationist by default if not by conviction, given the novelty of Darwin's theory at the time do not seem to have acted as any kind of brake on it) it would only serve as an illustration of argument by negative consequences.

    That is a bit like saying "this ladder is not at risk of toppling because if it did I would risk serious injury".
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in November 1859. The claim that this represents the origin of slavery, or even the trans-Atlantic slave trade, is laughable.

    So who made that claim pray tell?

    Regarding the other, the idea that some races are purer or cleaner or superior, was a staple for the last 150 years. It certainly is consistent with the influence of Darwinism.

    It is my opinion that if we think of ourselves as higher order primates, then we very easily devalue the very young,the very old and the disabled.

    If we are in God’s image, then our value is independent of such things as race,intelligence or able bodied ness. As a believer in Christ, I am actually an embodied spirit with an eternal hope and destiny.

    As a higher order primate, I am simply lucky to have existence and any further prosperity is a bonus.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Admin Emeritus
    The Gish gallop continues...
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited October 2018
    MPaul wrote: »
    Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in November 1859. The claim that this represents the origin of slavery, or even the trans-Atlantic slave trade, is laughable.

    So who made that claim pray tell?

    This guy.
    MPaul wrote: »
    Slavery linked to 19century imperialism is clearly bolstered by the acceptance of evolution.

    I'd be more inclined to believe that 19th century slavery was much more clearly bolstered by 18th and 17th century slavery rather than a scientific theory first promoted in 1859, but apparently your mileage varies. If anything, the timing would suggest Darwin's theory of descent with modification was detrimental to the institution of slavery, especially if such a theory could be seen as replacing an earlier, Biblically-based theory of a racial caste system. That's further than I'd go, but it's arguable and fits the known historical facts better than your assertions.
    MPaul wrote: »
    If we are in God’s image, then our value is independent of such things as race, intelligence or able bodied ness. As a believer in Christ, I am actually an embodied spirit with an eternal hope and destiny.

    And yet people who believed themselves in God's image seemed not at all averse to enslaving others who they also considered to be in God's image, with the eternal hope that their destiny would involve "wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces", to quote a noted orator on the subject. Noted Christian theologians who claimed to have held beliefs like your were nonetheless tireless advocates for the expansion of African slavery.
  • MPaul wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    Please enlighten.
    Oh that I were able.
    An abmirably frank piece of rhetoric.
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    I'd like MPaul to clarify matters.

    Certainly, acknowledging that slavery predated evolutionary theory, and that the Bible had rules for good slave-keeping, would be a starting point.

    We can move on from there as to whether he thinks those rules are timeless and applicable now.
    Not denied and irrelevant. No one said evolution caused slavery just that evolutionary thinking helped justify 19 th century imperialism..also the holocaust was certainly enabled by it..survival of the fittest could become domination of the strongest with a bit of sleight of hand. My point is that evolutionary thinking devalues us..leads us into decisions that make us less than imagio dei.

    But address this point: you are saying the OT is not authoritative with regard to slavery (dentistry, accountancy etc), but somehow is authoritative with regard to the earth science over and above all other evidence. Why should it be?
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited October 2018
    MPaul wrote: »
    Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in November 1859. The claim that this represents the origin of slavery, or even the trans-Atlantic slave trade, is laughable.

    So who made that claim pray tell?

    Regarding the other, the idea that some races are purer or cleaner or superior, was a staple for the last 150 years. It certainly is consistent with the influence of Darwinism.

    It is my opinion that if we think of ourselves as higher order primates, then we very easily devalue the very young,the very old and the disabled.

    If we are in God’s image, then our value is independent of such things as race,intelligence or able bodied ness. As a believer in Christ, I am actually an embodied spirit with an eternal hope and destiny.

    As a higher order primate, I am simply lucky to have existence and any further prosperity is a bonus.

    This simplistic confusion of a scientific model with sources of values may fly at the front of a fundy church, but it's pretty thin gruel to an audience less inclined to hear what they want to hear.

    Nothing in evolutionary theory speaks to whether humans are made in God's image. It cannot, and does not seek to, answer spiritual, religious or philosphophical questions. It provides a model of allele frequency change over time, and provides a model for the appearance of biodiversity across differing ecosystems separated by and both space and time, as evidenced in the fossil record.

    Why the origin of species by descent with modification threatens the idea of humanity being created in imago Dei in a way which the development of the human foetus through cell division, gene expression and tissue differentiation apparently doesn't threaten the idea of the individual being the creation of God is a bit of a mystery to me.

    All this besides, you have dismally failed to show any correlation between acceptance of evolutionary theory with people treating other groups badly. Indeed, considering the racist history of especially the Southern States, where fundamentalist Christianity is strongest, and the general trends over time, I think both human geography and history are rather against that hypothesis
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    But address this point: you are saying the OT is not authoritative with regard to slavery (dentistry, accountancy etc), but somehow is authoritative with regard to the earth science over and above all other evidence. Why should it be?

    Not to mention the astronomical sciences. The cosmology of Genesis is that the world is under a massive vault (NIV) or firmament (KJV), above which there is a massive amount of water. (There's water underneath, too). The sun, moon, and stars are all hanging on this vault/firmament, so they're more or less all the same distance from the earth. Additionally there are floodgates (NIV) or windows (KJV) in the vault/firmament which God can open whenever he feels a little genocidy, allowing the waters above the firmament to flood the earth.

    This image is consistent with other Middle Eastern cosmologies of the time, which posited a flat earth under a dome, with water both above and below. Modern science thinks it knows better with its stories of deep space and gravitational attraction across vast gulfs of nothing, but those who take the Bible serious know this is all a desperate fake, like the supposed Moon landing. [/sarcasm]
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    The Gish gallop continues...

    Albeit round and round in circles...
  • Stars? Pah. They could be a lot smaller and a lot closer than those evolution-believing godless scientists like to tell you.
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    MPaul wrote: »
    Please enlighten.
    Oh that I were able.
    An abmirably frank piece of rhetoric.
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    I'd like MPaul to clarify matters.

    Certainly, acknowledging that slavery predated evolutionary theory, and that the Bible had rules for good slave-keeping, would be a starting point.

    We can move on from there as to whether he thinks those rules are timeless and applicable now.
    Not denied and irrelevant. No one said evolution caused slavery just that evolutionary thinking helped justify 19 th century imperialism..also the holocaust was certainly enabled by it..survival of the fittest could become domination of the strongest with a bit of sleight of hand. My point is that evolutionary thinking devalues us..leads us into decisions that make us less than imagio dei.

    But address this point: you are saying the OT is not authoritative with regard to slavery (dentistry, accountancy etc), but somehow is authoritative with regard to the earth science over and above all other evidence. Why should it be?
    Just to say this is moving the goalposts and is not relevant to the discussion. If you wish to discuss slavery in the Bible start a separate thread.

  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    Stars? Pah. They could be a lot smaller and a lot closer than those evolution-believing godless scientists like to tell you.

    Nah, speed of light must have slowed down. Or God created the light in transit, which means we've never actually really seen the more distant stars, around 99.99999 keep going with 9s for a bit % of the physical universe.

    I was going to say let's not do MPaul's job for him, but it saves time and we might as well get the comedy items out first. Will we get whales outrunning velociraptors to the tops of mountains so they only appear above them in the fossil record now or later I wonder?
  • MPaulMPaul Shipmate
    confusion of a scientific model with sources of values
    Well what is scientific about it? It is really a speculation, an emperor with no clothes.. completely unobservable.

    But the values discussion IS worth having. A basic test of any belief system is where it leads to in terms of behaviour. My claim is that Darwinism and Neo Darwinism do not have good fruit. I think all the claims and burden of proof is yours if you adhere to it.

    Regarding the fruit of Christianity, while there are abuses, let is not forget that pretty well all of the good discoveries of Science and in western European civilisation are based on a view of man as created in God's image or by men who believed it.

    By the way, there is no Gish gallop here. I am not jumping from point to unrelated point. It is others shifting the focus of the discussion on to things like the origin of slavery..something I did not bring up.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Will we get whales outrunning velociraptors to the tops of mountains so they only appear above them in the fossil record now or later I wonder?

    I'm waiting for the explanation about how trees run faster than ferns and flowering plants run faster than either. :wink:
    MPaul wrote: »
    Regarding the fruit of Christianity, while there are abuses, let is not forget that pretty well all of the good discoveries of Science and in western European civilisation are based on a view of man as created in God's image or by men who believed it.

    Does the discovery that antibiotic resistance in bacteria is caused by evolution at work count as a "good discovery"? Or would it be better to conceal that information lest people think bacteria aren't created by God? Maybe it's all a hoax perpetrated by a conspiracy of godless evolutionists and pharmaceutical companies and there isn't really such a thing as MRSA!!! :scream:
This discussion has been closed.