Does teaching of evolution cause social decay?

Speaking for myself I do not believe that this post should have been approved of as is. It covers too many points while offering no argument beyond ignorant and bigoted assertions. This is not to say that the points may not be discussed, but they should be seperated and supported by reasoned argument so there is some hope of a reasonable discussion. This message has been edited by AdminSylas, 05-05-2004 12:15 PM

If you really believe your first post - and it looks more like an execise in slandering those who disagree with you - can you please actually offer some rational argument ?For a start if we assume that evolution is true why would we want to use it as a basis of moraliy any more than we base morality on gravity or Schroedinger's uncertainty principle ?This message has been edited by PaulK, 05-05-2004 12:06 PM

Evolution doesn't say that there is no basis for morality.Evolution doesn't say that there is no God.So the relevance of evolution to your "point" is zero.As for accpeting God as the final authority on morality who gets to decide what God says ? And who gets to interpret it ? You won't get agreement there. And if your way worked Afghanistan under the Taliban should have been one of the most virtuous countries on Earth. Was it ?

Evolution doesn't say that man is independant of God. Have you even considered the writings of Christians who accept evolution like Kenneth Miller or Howard Van Till ?And even if you could get people to agree that God's word says "don't murder" (and you can't) who gets to decide what constitutes murder ?
If you use the Bible as your guide was Phinehas (Numbers 25:7-8) a murderer ? If not, then why not ?So we have two fundamental problems in your argument.1) The alleged problem has nothing to do with evolution2) The supposed solution won't work because it requires people to agree on what the word of God *is* and when that issue is resolved who gets to interpret it. In short it doesn't solve anything - the same problems remain.

So what you are REALLY saying is that the only way to have morals is for everyone to agree with you.As I said it doesn't come down to the "word of God" at all - it comes down to who gets to decide what is the "word of God"and who gets to produce the authoritative intepretation of that word. And your answer is that you do. So all you are really doing is setting yourself up as the final authority. And you really think that everyone else will agee with that ?

Oh no, you're not claiming to be God. You're just claiming to be his Prophet. If you say something is the word of God it is. If you say that it should be interpreted thus then that is how it must be.But like all your sort you won't REALLY look at the Bible. Was Phinehas a murderer ? If not why not ? It should be a simple question. If, that is, your beleifs really are true.

It was in this thread and only 2 1/2 hours ago. Numbers 25:7-8.Is there any reason why you couldn't just look back at the last few posts ?

It is not the fact that the Bible has "predicted the future hundreds of times over". We've tried discussing prophecy fulfillment more than once on this site and we still have not found a single good example.You want an example of a contradiction in the Bible ? OK, according to Deuteronomy if a prophecy fails to occur the prophecy did not come from God and the prophet should be put to death (18:20-22). According to the book of Jonah a prophecy may fail to occur because God changes his mind. Jeremiah 18:7-10 supports Jonah in this instance.As you yourself have stated the Bible is not a single document. It is a collection of works that need to be evaluated on their own merits. Genesis belongs with the Epic of Gilgamesh or Hesiod's Theogony, rather than the histories of, say, Herodotus let alone Josephus "Jewish War" or Caeasar's "Gallic War" which are often first-hand accounts. And even those are not trusted absolutely.All the claims of "scientific discovery" are vague and hardly based on clear statements. One that occurs particularly frequently is Isaiah's reference to "the circle of the Earth" as proving that the author knew that the earth was spherical - ignoring the fact that the word refers to a circle and not a sphere - and the Flat Earth Society believed in a *circular* Earth.As for archaeology you may as well throw out everything from Genesis to Joshua. None of the events have been confirmed and the archaology is against many of the major events having happened at all.And no, Creation is not science. If you are reduced to demanding that your opinions must be accepted as fact no matter how wrong-headed then you may as well leave.

Assuming that this is a reply ot my message 60, you did indeed claim that it was a fact that the Bible had "hundreds" of fulfilled prophecies.Evolution on the other hand really is a fact.On the other hand a "belief system" is not automatically a religion, nor is evolution any more a belief system than any other major scientific theory. And it has already been pointed out to you that there are Christians who accept evolution.And since the Flood appears rarely early in Genesis - and is one of the major events that archaeology does not confirm - suggesting that the flood destroyed the evidence is just silly and betrays your ignorance of the Bible. How could the flood destroy the evidence that it had happened, let alone the evidence of events that happened later ?

Hold on. Deuteronomy 18:20-22 essentially says that if God sends a prophecy it will happen. Otherwise they would be executing genuine prophets for honestly relaying the word of God.According to Jonah this is not so. Jonah's genuine prophecy was not fulfilled.And what Jeremiah says is clear. God sends his word - a prophecy - that he will reward or punish a nation and then depending on their behaviour God may decide to do other than he said - thus causing a genuine prophecy to fail.So we have a genuine contradiction that you don't call a contradiction and a perfectly good reference that you claim is "out of context" for no apparent reason.So much for the claim that the Bible has no contradictions.But to get back to the topic, what about Phinehas ? Is he a murderer ? This is the third time I've asked.This message has been edited by PaulK, 05-06-2004 10:55 AM

[Note to Nosy - almeyda was the one who asked for contradictions]Well I see why you insist that there is no contradiction. You are taking each of the contradictory statements in isolation and therfore ignoring the fact that they contradict. So you haven't dealt with the contradiction at all. And if you won't even consider a prophecy a failure if the events predicted do not happen then we see why you insist that the Bible has "hundreds" of successful predictions in it.And for the fourth time, is Phinehas a murderer ?

I've explained the contradiction very clearly and you have yet to offer any real answer. I have read and understood the relevant verses *in context* - and that is more than you have done.But still I am glad that you think that Phinehas was a murderer because I quite firmly agree. However the Bible is quite clear that God approved of Phinehas' action and both stopped the plague He had sent (Numbers 25:8) and publically commended Phinehas (Numbers 25:10-13).So you have failed to show any connection between morality and evolution. You have not even shown that there is a breakdown in morality on the very items you address (do you REALLY believe that racism is worse now than it was in 1850 ?)And your proposed solution - relying on the "Word of God" on the grounds that everyone will agree on it has the fatal problems that you will NOT even get agreement on what the "Word of God" is, even if soem agreement were reached on that point there would need to be a human authority interpreting it (and as we see from the example of Phinehas the interpretation is far from obvious) - and you won't get agreement on that either.

If you wnat to start threads to discuss the aspects of your "proof" (which I am afraid is riddled with falsehoods) then I suggest that you do so. Until then I suggest that you refrain from claiming to have proved any such thing. That would be the honest thing to do because all you have done is made a bunch of contentious assertiosn which cannot be adequately discussed in this thread.

Evolution does not teach that differnet races of humans are at "different stages". Any such idea is a product of the racist assumptions that were already endemic in Western society long before Darwin published. Hitler's racism comes from Gobineau who published shortly BEFORE Darwin.On the other hand Bible believers including creationsits have either insisted that some races are a sperate creation (Agassiz) or even used the story of the curse placed on Canaan to claim that "Hamitic" people are natural servants.Evolution says notihng of the meaning of existence or on whether there is or is not an objective standard of morals. Now the truth is certainly more important than my opinions - but that doesn't mean that your opinions have to be unquestioningly accepted as the truth which is what you have been arguing for throughout this thread.And if you really ARE open to considering the contradiction I raised then I really suggest that you read what I say. Carefully. Because it is very, very obvious that you don't understand the simplest thing about it.

I suppose your argument is1) The only acceptable moral standard is that of whichever sect you belong to. You won't accept any other standard so everyone else must be forced to go along with you.2) Evolution contradicts the teachings of your sect. If people knew that your sect was wrong on factual issues they would question their authority on moral issues.3) Therefore the only way to have a moral society is to establish a ruthless religious tyranny which suppresses all dissent.If that's not what you mean then please answer the following questions.A) The Bible needs to be interpreted - who gets to produce the authoritative interpretation ?B) The largest Christian denominations see no contradiction between accepting evolution and using the Bible as a moral guide. If their view is accepted then this issue is irrelevant to the topic of the thread. Why must their views be rejected ?C) Many people do not accept the Bible as a moral guide. How do you suggest that that should be changed ? Your answer must understand that the moral atrocities found in the Old Testament are one of the reasons why the Bible is rejected.D) Many people have other sacred books that they consider to be authoritiative moral guides above the Bible. Why dhould those views be suppressed and how should it be done ?