Evolution and morality

Evolution is a tautology, where no matter what you see you claim that it evolved that way.  It had to have done that, because nothingness to molecules to living cells to human evolution is true, right?

It reminds me of when evolutionists try to rationalize why homosexual behavior and abortion are natural and moral in an evolutionary worldview.  They point to exceptions with some animals  and rationalize how it helps perpetutate the species (question begging). It seems to me that these behaviors get in the way of perpetuating the species (the alleged moral good snuck in the back door as the foundation for their morality), so even in an evolutionary worldview they would be immoral.

Even if certain behaviors are observable in some animals, that hardly seems like a good standard for humans to abide by.  Some dogs will attempt to procreate with anything in sight: Opposite sex dogs, same sex dogs, your leg, your coffee table, etc. 

But what is amusing is their certainty.  It is as if the situation were reversed and humans never had abortions or exhibited homosexual behavior that the evolutionists would be asking, “Hey, where are all the gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people?  Why aren’t thousands of human beings destroyed in the womb each day?  We expected it to be here because of A, B and C.  We know those actions aren’t immoral, so why haven’t humans figured it out?

0 thoughts on “Evolution and morality”

  1. Ironically evolution is their belief that allows them to be immoral. Evolution=No God=No Morality.

    Without God they can do whatever they want free of guilt. Which is why they hate Christians: because we tell them that their actions put them in jeopardy of hell fire. They want to do whatever they want and still think, in the event that they might be wrong and there is a God, that they are going to heaven.

    I have always enjoyed the evolution and homosexuality dilemma. I like to point out that when Darwin developed his theory, homosexuality was far from mainstream. Now they are trying to marry a theory from so long ago to modern day society’s immorality. And they struggle with it no matter what they try to say.

    Like

  2. Evolution theory does not look at A, B, C and try to determine what D will be. Anyone doing this is trying to use evolution as a forecasting tool. This is much like trying to determine what the exact temerature will be next year; the chances are very high that your prediction is wrong. Evolution theory looks at D, C, B and A as a way of determining how we got to D.

    There is a big difference. The fact that you don’t understand this simple point says alot about your understanding of general scientific theory. Either that or you’re just throwing up a straw man to trap commenters in your web of illogic.

    I suspect the later…

    But what is amusing is your certainty. It is as if the situation were reversed and religion never existed that the you would be asking, “Hey, where are all the Christians, Jews, Hindus, and Muslims? Why don’t millions of human beings believe in a supernatural being? I expected it to be here because of A, B and C. I know that these beliefs would provide a solid moral foundation for the masses, so why haven’t humans figured it out?

    Yeah, it sounded stupid your way, too.

    Like

  3. In science a law is predictive while a theory is descriptive. So Mark(2), by your response one would have to conclude that you, in fact, agree that evolution is just a theory.

    One of the tests of a theory’s validity is whether or not it can be used to predict future behaviors or outcomes. In this regard, standard Darwinian evolution fails completely to explain the appearance, over time, of creatures of ever increasing complexity.

    Like

  4. Mark, I’m not sure why you are being so petty and inaccurate.

    Many adherents of evolution work very hard to explain why homosexual behavior and abortion help perpetuate the species. This is laughable, on top of the fact that in the nothingness to molecules to man worldview there is nothing to ground perpetuation of the species as a moral good. They beg the question from the beginning.

    Like

  5. Mark (2)

    “Evolution theory looks at D, C, B and A as a way of determining how we got to D.”

    Sounds fine when it is D, C, B, and A. But when D is the human eye, I am still waiting for somebody to give me a C, B, and A that are at least improbable, rather than impossible.

    Like

  6. And evolution theory looks at F (fossil evidence) and gets an F (grade). So they ignore what they don’t like (that pesky Cambrian explosion and more) and use their imaginations on the rest. That’s science!

    Like

  7. 1st. Google miller-urey experiment to explain your uniformed babble about nothingness to living cells.
    2nd. Your entire article is about the “morality” input when studying evolution. There’s a few hundred problems with that, like who morals, what are morals, can you even define morals for me because everyone has different morals and unless your over the age of two you don’t even have morals because a babies brain isn’t developed enough. You honestly think morality is a factor in evolution?
    3rd. How would abortion play into evolution in any way? Your arguing against nothing, the same with homosexuals. Are you under the impression they are evil or something?
    4th. All you with your little Cambrian explosion argument need to look at this. http://asecularhumanist.wordpress.com/2009/04/08/texas-boe-don-mcleroy-attacks-common-descent/
    Explain the pelvis to me without using evolution. You can’t.
    5th. mtDNA, all of you have been saying paternal transmission, it’s just maternal, meaning it is only passed down through the mother. Laz also lacks the education to realize the mtDNA is in the mitochondria which has its own transcription and translation unit which differs from regular mRNA and tRNA. So therefore when you look at that article and read where it says “the mutation was paternal in origin and accounted for 90 percent of the patient’s male mtDNA” they are talking about a mitochondrial disorder. Heres a link with an explanation of them.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_disease
    6th. This brings me to the most ignorant person of all in this post, lonewolfarcher, i’m an atheist and i defenetly abide by the law and know what is right and wrong. How do you explain that? What you posted up above is the most ridiculous ignorance people love to cling to.
    In Conclusion: morality and ethics are dictated by society and are not a source of disproof for evolution in any way shape or form. People that know evolution is true are not evil and have morals, contrary to the previous display of stupid above.
    But hey your not going to listen and say evolutions just a theory; guess what, so is gravity.

    Like

  8. By the way, you only think homosexuality is morally wrong because your bible says so. If you want to be a true christian and completely take yourself away from reason try to bring back slavery and when you marry someone and find out shes not a virgin take her in front of her parents house and beat her. That’s what your bible says is right, morals are subjective and change with people and time. Get over your narrow minded view on issues that shouldn’t be issues but are because of religious ignorance.

    Like

  9. 1st. Google miller-urey experiment to explain your uniformed babble about nothingness to living cells.

    That experiment is a liability for you view. I’m really surprised you’d bring it up. Not only did it not prove what it attempted to, it is a classic example of the propoganda foisted on public school children (along with Haeckel’s embryos and so much more).

    2nd. Your entire article is about the “morality” input when studying evolution. There’s a few hundred problems with that, like who morals, what are morals, can you even define morals for me because everyone has different morals and unless your over the age of two you don’t even have morals because a babies brain isn’t developed enough. You honestly think morality is a factor in evolution?

    I was pointing out the flaws in materialists who claim there is a morality — people like you, who are quick to claim you know right from wrong. Like most evolutionists you contradict yourself in the same comment.

    If there is no God and if there is morality, then it came about by evolution. The standard I’ve seen represented most often by materialists is the “do unto others” (hey, that sounds familiar!) and that it helps society and to perpetuate the species. What I point out is that even if atheistic evolution was true it begs the question to say that perpetuating the species is a moral good.

    And the point of the post was that even if it was a moral good (absent God) then of course abortion and homosexual behavior would be immoral as they would not contribute to perpetuating the species. But then the evolutionists come along to rationalize why they think abortion and homosexuality help perpetuate the species. Sure.

    3rd. How would abortion play into evolution in any way? Your arguing against nothing, the same with homosexuals. Are you under the impression they are evil or something?

    It wouldn’t, but I’ve seen evolutionists rationalize it.

    4th. All you with your little Cambrian explosion argument need to look at this. http://asecularhumanist.wordpress.com/2009/04/08/texas-boe-don-mcleroy-attacks-common-descent/
    Explain the pelvis to me without using evolution. You can’t.

    Creation.

    5th. mtDNA, all of you have been saying paternal transmission, it’s just maternal, meaning it is only passed down through the mother. Laz also lacks the education to realize the mtDNA is in the mitochondria which has its own transcription and translation unit which differs from regular mRNA and tRNA. So therefore when you look at that article and read where it says “the mutation was paternal in origin and accounted for 90 percent of the patient’s male mtDNA” they are talking about a mitochondrial disorder. Heres a link with an explanation of them.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_disease

    Wikipedia?! I’ll get right on it.

    6th. This brings me to the most ignorant person of all in this post, lonewolfarcher, i’m an atheist and i defenetly abide by the law and know what is right and wrong. How do you explain that? What you posted up above is the most ridiculous ignorance people love to cling to.

    Hmmmm . . . but I thought there was no morality? (“can you even define morals for me because everyone has different morals”)

    In Conclusion: morality and ethics are dictated by society and are not a source of disproof for evolution in any way shape or form. People that know evolution is true are not evil and have morals, contrary to the previous display of stupid above.
    But hey your not going to listen and say evolutions just a theory; guess what, so is gravity.

    I never claim that evolutionists don’t have morals. I know they have them, I’m glad they have them and I know where they came from. And note how you claim not to be evil. If people just make up their own morals then words like “evil” have no meaning. You’d always be acting according to your own morality.

    I don’t put words in your mouth, so take care not to put them in mine.

    The video on this post was made for you — http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2009/02/17/not-so-skeptical-skeptics/ . It helps demonstrate why the “morals are dictated by society” bit is illogical and bad news.

    P.S. Remember, if evolution is true then it is the cause of my religious beliefs. It is the reason I see so much evidence for the life, death and resurrection of Jesus and my need for him as a Savior. And religious people are more evolved than non-religious, of course, since it came about later (I know the “brights” think they have “escaped” religion but they just don’t realize they’ve evolved more slowly than the rest of us. Don’t worry, it isn’t your fault.)

    Like

  10. By the way, you only think homosexuality is morally wrong because your bible says so.

    My, you are quite the mind reader. How about if you read what I write or ask what I think instead of telling me what I think and why? It is much more productive and you’ll make less mistakes.

    Yes, the Bible does say homosexual behavior is wrong, but as with most sins there is plenty of evidence outside the Bible. I knew homosexual behavior was wrong long before I became a Christian.

    100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.

    100% of the verses referencing God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.

    100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).

    0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.

    If you want to be a true christian and completely take yourself away from reason try to bring back slavery and when you marry someone and find out shes not a virgin take her in front of her parents house and beat her. That’s what your bible says is right, morals are subjective and change with people and time. Get over your narrow minded view on issues that shouldn’t be issues but are because of religious ignorance.

    Thanks for visiting from stereotype-land. Bible lessons from non-believers are always interesting. Come back someday if you want a real conversation, but you are off to a bad start today. Seriously, dropping in telling someone what they think and why and just ranting with your anti-religious bigotry and sound bites is not productive and won’t happen here again. One more chance.

    P.S. I noticed you had linked to my site and called me a “prick” when analyzing my post. I’m not offended, just amused. I suppose that is just part of what you consider good morals. I don’t call people names like that. There are two reasons why: I think it is immoral and it indicates a lack of confidence in one’s views.

    Like

  11. 1. Any proof that miller-urey is a liability at all? No you didn’t post any, i mean it only recreated conditions on early Earth which resulted in the formation of a self replicating oraganism…hmm maybe that’s a liability for you. Haeckel’s embryo’s were immediately rejected by everyone, why did you even use this because you just created a pathway to the fact that all animals have four characteristics in embryonic development. A dorsal hollow nerve chord, pharyngeal gill slits, postanal tail, and a notochord. You think that is coincidence?

    2. I never said I was telling you right from wrong at all. I Simply said your basing your arguement around morality. Morals didn’t “evolve” their dictated by society, you aren’t born with them. There is no evolutionary basis for morals except the fact that you cna;t even have morals until 2-3ish because your brain isn’t developed enough.

    3. Ya some rationalize that they can’t support them and aborting them would allow them to produce more for the species in the long run…it’s a lame argument, abortion isn’t morally right, but it’s also not correct to ban it completely.

    4. So your saying whales and snakes were created with a pelvis for leg attachment, and legs. Then somehow they lost them, but still retain very small hips and a pelvis for leg attachment…hm.

    5. Again no proof or substantiating argument just a backlash against Wikipedia. So here is a copy of the New England Journal of Medicine, a source that is already cited on your page and the explanation from above.
    mtDNA, all of you have been saying paternal transmission, it’s just maternal, meaning it is only passed down through the mother. Laz also lacks the education to realize the mtDNA is in the mitochondria which has its own transcription and translation unit which differs from regular mRNA and tRNA. So therefore when you look at that article and read where it says “the mutation was paternal in origin and accounted for 90 percent of the patient’s male mtDNA” they are talking about a mitochondrial disorder. Heres a link with an explanation of them.
    http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/333/10/638?ck=nck

    6. Don’t tell me there are no morals in a post when in a previous post you describe the evolution of morals, which is wrong in itself.
    Conclusion Response: The moral bit was meant more for the lonewolfarcher than you, but ok. You seem to contradict yourself a few times here. You post about universal morality, then talk about how if I do not consider myself evil it is because of my own morals. If you think universal morality is correct then you would have roughly the same morals as I would. So how does that work out with your argument? Also you took a quote from a commenter on that same video that talks about worker bees and ants and how they disprove selfish gene. I hope you know what coefficient of correlation of relatedness is, worker bees actually have a higher coefficient of correlation to the queen than they do to themselves because they are haploid and mainly have the queens genes. because of the fertilization process. Therefore by them dying for the hive they are actually dying for something that advances them, because they are actually related to queen as much as themselves.

    As for being more evolved because religion came after the evolution of man. No, you learned that religious belief, you weren’t born with it. By your reasoning Lamarck’s principle of acquired characteristics would be true and the babies of bodybuilders would be birthed and would immediately be able to lift 200 pounds. Which we know is not true. s.

    So I took a trip to stereotype land when I pointed out a 2,000 year old book stereotypes humans? I’m very sure that book is 100% correct and everyone should just listen to it when they want to know what is right and wrong because it is obviously god’s word. So god is going to denounce homosexuals even though he created humans and the tree that gave all knowledge? So by that knowledge you just trapped yourself in a triangular argument. If god is all good and he created everything, then he could not of created the tree and fruit because it contained evil.

    Like

  12. 1. Any proof that miller-urey is a liability at all? No you didn’t post any, i mean it only recreated conditions on early Earth which resulted in the formation of a self replicating oraganism…hmm maybe that’s a liability for you. Haeckel’s embryo’s were immediately rejected by everyone, why did you even use this because you just created a pathway to the fact that all animals have four characteristics in embryonic development. A dorsal hollow nerve chord, pharyngeal gill slits, postanal tail, and a notochord. You think that is coincidence?

    Sorry, I don’t take homework assignments from drive-by’s who can’t go three sentences without a logical fallacy. Do your homework on Miller-Urey. You’re only a few decades behind.

    Re. Haeckel’s embryos: Your response was made out of ignorance or disingenuousness. Immediately rejected? Heh. Why did they stay in textbooks for nearly 100 years? If they were immediately rejected by anyone that makes their inclusion in textbooks that much worse. It is more evidence of the immorality and lies perpetrated by those advancing the Darwinian agenda.

    2. I never said I was telling you right from wrong at all. I Simply said your basing your arguement around morality. Morals didn’t “evolve” their dictated by society, you aren’t born with them. There is no evolutionary basis for morals except the fact that you cna;t even have morals until 2-3ish because your brain isn’t developed enough.

    You disagree with nearly all the materialists I’ve come across. They typically go to great lengths to defend the evolutionary basis for morality. And you are still being inconsistent. If there is really no evolutionary basis for morals then why do you keep imposing yours upon me? You rationalized that it was ok for you to call me a “prick” because I held a different view than you on homosexual behavior. You think it is a really, really bad thing for me to say homosexual behavior is wrong (I think any sex outside of marriage is wrong, btw). But in your worldview you have zero reasons to offer as to why I or anyone else should care what you think.

    3. Ya some rationalize that they can’t support them and aborting them would allow them to produce more for the species in the long run…it’s a lame argument, abortion isn’t morally right, but it’s also not correct to ban it completely.

    Well, we agree that abortion isn’t morally right. But why not ban it? It kills an innocent human being (scientific fact). If that isn’t worth banning, what is?

    4. So your saying whales and snakes were created with a pelvis for leg attachment, and legs. Then somehow they lost them, but still retain very small hips and a pelvis for leg attachment…hm.

    No, I didn’t say that at all. Just you and your straw man arguments again.

    5. Again no proof or substantiating argument just a backlash against Wikipedia. So here is a copy of the New England Journal of Medicine, a source that is already cited on your page and the explanation from above.
    mtDNA, all of you have been saying paternal transmission, it’s just maternal, meaning it is only passed down through the mother. Laz also lacks the education to realize the mtDNA is in the mitochondria which has its own transcription and translation unit which differs from regular mRNA and tRNA. So therefore when you look at that article and read where it says “the mutation was paternal in origin and accounted for 90 percent of the patient’s male mtDNA” they are talking about a mitochondrial disorder. Heres a link with an explanation of them.
    http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/333/10/638?ck=nck

    You and Laz can discuss mtDNA all you like.

    6. Don’t tell me there are no morals in a post when in a previous post you describe the evolution of morals, which is wrong in itself.
    Conclusion Response: The moral bit was meant more for the lonewolfarcher than you, but ok. You seem to contradict yourself a few times here. You post about universal morality, then talk about how if I do not consider myself evil it is because of my own morals. If you think universal morality is correct then you would have roughly the same morals as I would. So how does that work out with your argument? Also you took a quote from a commenter on that same video that talks about worker bees and ants and how they disprove selfish gene. I hope you know what coefficient of correlation of relatedness is, worker bees actually have a higher coefficient of correlation to the queen than they do to themselves because they are haploid and mainly have the queens genes. because of the fertilization process. Therefore by them dying for the hive they are actually dying for something that advances them, because they are actually related to queen as much as themselves.

    Let me clarify what I mean by universal morality. That doesn’t imply that everyone holds the same views, just that there are some things that are always wrong. Just because universal morality exists doesn’t mean people don’t rationalize it away or break the rules. Everyone knows you shouldn’t kill innocent people. But in their sinful natures some rationalize that certain people aren’t innocent or human (Jews in the Holocaust, abortion, etc.).

    As for being more evolved because religion came after the evolution of man. No, you learned that religious belief, you weren’t born with it. By your reasoning Lamarck’s principle of acquired characteristics would be true and the babies of bodybuilders would be birthed and would immediately be able to lift 200 pounds. Which we know is not true. s.

    I know I learned my religioius beliefs. But if your worldview is true then evolution is responsible for whatever evidence I see and for the reasons I hold those beliefs.

    So I took a trip to stereotype land when I pointed out a 2,000 year old book stereotypes humans? I’m very sure that book is 100% correct and everyone should just listen to it when they want to know what is right and wrong because it is obviously god’s word. So god is going to denounce homosexuals even though he created humans and the tree that gave all knowledge? So by that knowledge you just trapped yourself in a triangular argument. If god is all good and he created everything, then he could not of created the tree and fruit because it contained evil.

    You should learn more about what you are trying to criticize. And lay off the straw men. They waste time.

    Like

  13. No secular, it is you who is mistaken about a great many things. I’m just curious, did you read the entire post?

    As for my education, I earned a Bachelor’s of Science in Microbiology at the Univ. of Texas. The coursework might have covered mtDNA, but thanks for the ‘refresher course’, LOL!

    I also find it interesting that when I brought this up at work, you see I work in a research lab, it was dismissed as rubbish (“there is no paternal mtDNA leakage!”). When I offered them copies of the 3 papers cited in my post, no one wanted to look at them. Free inquiry indeed…

    I also find it fascinating that in my post I cited 3 papers from 3 separate respected scientific publications (Science, New Scientist, New England Journal of Medicine), and you cite Wikipedia.

    To quote Seinfeld, “ladies and gentlemen, I implore you…”

    Like

  14. The Miller experiment was not reliably repeatable, if repeatable at all, and may well have been the result of contaminated glassware.

    Furthermore, modern cosmologists do not believe that the atmosphere of the early earth was like that used in the experiment.

    Like

  15. I have read about the mtDNA more and I was mistaken, I am sorry. I have always heard that mtDNA is only through the mother even in my college classes. But even with some being able to be passed from the father, what is the probability of that occurring and exactly how many base pairs would be the fathers and not the mothers. I think it has implications on the genetic testing of living beings but when talking about mitochondrial eve the amount that changes throughout time would be minimal and the chance that a majority of the amount would have been from the father in the fossilized remains of an ancient human would be very small.
    1. So I guess your referring to how two people have claimed miller was a fraud, it doesn’t really matter if he was or not but there was just a new experiment done in 2008 that had the same results as the Miller-Urey only they found more molecules, 22 amino acids actually.
    Sciencmag did an article about it
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/322/5900/404

    2. I am not trying to impose my morals on you, I just find that the religious basis for the rejection of homosexuality to be closed minded. If you have logical reasons against homosexuality that are not religious based then I would genuinely like to here them, but all I’ve ever heard from the religious is that homosexuality is wrong because by gods word they should not be married. The belief that sexual relations should be within marriage plays a large part into it also because homosexuals cannot marry by gods dictation so the act of them having sexual relations is a sin. You can believe what you want, i just think religion and government should be separated.

    3. Banning for most cases is fine with me, people just need to learn to be responsible. In cases like rape and things like that I think it should be an option for that person because there is no reason a 12 year old girl that is raped by her dad should have that child unless she wants to. Even then, is she mature enough to make that decision?

    4. Sorry you cannot deny the fact that snakes and whales have recessed hips and a pelvis for leg attachment. I’m not trying to make a straw man argument out of it, but there isn’t that much proof for the opposite.

    5. I was wrong, I’ve just never heard of any paternal DNA being passed in any of my courses.

    6. See Above, I am genuinely sorry, I was just always told differently.

    I would still argue that universal morality is dictated by society. There have been cultures that were fine with cannibalism and murder and ritual sacrifice. Morals are too subjective to be considered evolutionarily based but I think we can assume that the morals that deal with murder, theft, and rape that we know are wrong are always going to be with us just because of how our parents raise us and how society works.

    Like

  16. Sec,
    No troubles man, I didn’t hear it in my courses either. The reason for that is that Maynard Smith’s paper in Science didn’t come out until 1999, the year of my graduation.

    In fact, when I ran across his paper then the NEJM paper I was floored by the possible implications.

    Why a scientist of the caliber of John Maynard Smith, a secular humanist, was “frustrated but not surprised that the establishment chooses to ignore these findings.” (from the New Scientist piece), well draw your own conclusions…

    Like

  17. Hi Neil,

    Sorry, but I just can’t let this one slip by:

    “Thanks for visiting from stereotype-land. Bible lessons from non-believers are always interesting. Come back someday if you want a real conversation, but you are off to a bad start today. Seriously, dropping in telling someone what they think and why and just ranting with your anti-religious bigotry and sound bites is not productive and won’t happen here again. One more chance.”

    I refer you to your comment on PZ Myers “Pharyngula” blog, December 26, 2008:

    >>>>>>>>>>>>> I saw a link coming to my blog from this site and came to check it out. You guys are like a self parody. I can’t imagine anyone reading over 300 comments of back-slapping and mindless recitation of quotes from your Big Book O’ Atheist Soundbites.

    Remember, if If the universe really came into being from nothing and life came from non-life and “evolved” to what we see today, then those processes led to the Bible and our religious beliefs.

    So your beloved materialistic Darwinism is responsible for my faith! What irony. It also led to virtually all historians agreeing that Jesus really lived and died on a Roman cross, that his followers believed He rose from the dead and that the Apostle Paul really lived and went from persecuting Christianianity to spreading it, and that he wrote most of the books attributed to him (and lots more).

    The process of materialistic Darwinism also resulted in me “imagining” the cosmological, teleological, moral, historical, archeological, etc. evidence for Christianity. What an amazing coincidence!

    We are just bags of chemicals who don’t have any real free will. People like you have no reason for pride and they are being illogical in thinking they are being logical, because there would be no such thing. Your “reason” and “morality” would not be grounded in anything. (Such is the thinking of those in rebellion to God.)

    But of course, you can’t go two sentences without making moral claims, even though your worldview requires that morality is relative. You guys are the preachiest and most judgmental people I know.

    Please try to live a little more consistently with your worldview. As it is you are just a kicking, screaming poster kids for Romans 1:

    Romans 1:18-20 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

    The Good News for you is that there is still hope.

    There’s some red meat for you! Have fun. Talk amongst yourselves. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Ummm, telling someone “what they believe and why” ? No, you’d never do that, would you Neil ?

    I suppose an appropriate response might be: Thanks for visiting from stereotype-land. Lessons in evolutionary theory from believers are always interesting. Come back someday if you want a real conversation, but you are off to a bad start today. Seriously, dropping in telling someone what they think and why and just ranting with your pro-biblical bigotry and sound bites is not productive and won’t happen here again. One more chance.”

    Cheers,

    Michael

    Like

  18. Btw I have no truck with his (asecularhumanist) argument, which I’m probably too dumb to follow anyway, I’m just pointing out the irony.
    Peace,
    M.

    Like

  19. Hi Michael,

    I appreciate a good touche’ but can’t see the parallel as clearly as you seem to be able to. I didn’t put words in their mouths, I described what I saw on their site — after they linked to me first. Big difference. Is it possible that I mischaracterized what they wrote? Perhaps, but I doubt it. Thanks for the reminder, as I really enjoyed that comment and stick by it 100%. And I don’t think I gave a hint that I was interested in conversing with them 😉 .

    Seriously, someone linked to my site from Dawkin’s place once and I had thousands of hits. I spent a lot of time understanding their arguments rather precisely. So while atheists aren’t 100% like minded I feel pretty confident in summarizing their views. If the other commenter wants to insist that he listened carefully to that many orthodox believers to arrive at his views of the Bible then that would be an interesting conversation!

    Cheers,
    Neil

    Like

Leave a Reply to Neil Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s