Challeng for anti-Evolutionists

[no1tovote4]

Thing (n.) - 1. An entity, an idea, or a quality perceived, known, or thought to have its own existence. Dictionary.com - Thing

Fair enough. How about, it isn't a substance. I was basically agreeing with you that evil is a noun and not a verb. I am still laughing about the infinitive form of the verb 'evil' which would be 'to evil', does anybody know how to conjugate the verb 'to evil'?

I evil.
We evil.
They evil.
He/she/it evils.

past tense, I evilled.

Past passive participle. Was evilling. "I was evilling yesterday when I came upon a wallet in the street."

Does anybody know if the verb is transitive?

On whom did you evil yesterday?

The idea I wanted to get across would be that an idea is not a substance, you cannot hold a cup of evil. Most people think of something that you can hold when saying 'a thing'.

I only insult when I am insulted first, please leave the self-righteousness out. Thanks.

Self-righteousness? It was advise, you can take it or leave it. You chose to leave it. I was basically saying that what you are saying isn't unreasonable, and that most of your opposition would be from the way you state it rather than the idea you are getting across. So, do what you will.

"They did it first!" - the reason of my children when they do bad things....

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Fair enough. How about, it isn't a substance. I was basically agreeing with you that evil is a noun and not a verb. I am still laughing about the infinitive form of the verb 'evil' which would be 'to evil', does anybody know how to conjugate the verb 'to evil'?

I evil.
We evil.
They evil.
He/she/it evils.

past tense, I evilled.

Past passive participle. Was evilling. "I was evilling yesterday when I came upon a wallet in the street."

Does anybody know if the verb is transitive?

On whom did you evil yesterday?

The idea I wanted to get across would be that an idea is not a substance, you cannot hold a cup of evil. Most people think of something that you can hold when saying 'a thing'.


Self-righteousness? It was advise, you can take it or leave it. You chose to leave it.

"They did it first!" - the reason of my children when they do bad things....

hahahaha! Good post...

 

[Harmageddon]

Ok, if everyone is done with dissecting the grammatical status of "evil",
I would like to raise your attention to the following.
After all the posts trying to shred the scientific basis for the evolution theory, or more accurately the evolution hypothesis, there should be enough of phylosophical backing to be up to the challenge raised below.

Note it does not refute the claim that there might be a God, but it does challenge the phylosophy behind the creation described in Genesis.

So here it is, once again:

I’ve never understood that people cannot see the contradictians in the Bible version of creation described in Genesis. Now I realize the Catholic church has recently issued a statement, in which it imprints on it’s followers that the Bible story should not be taken literally as the word of God. Instead, it is man’s interpretation of the word of God.

That makes quite a lot of difference, so maybe that alone explains the contradictions in the story that describes our creation: the people’s version of God’s word is just not as complete, or accurate, as is the word of God.

To leave you with the first question:
From the book of Genesis (taken from the King James’ version):

1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

God creates the light, the earth and the heaven and the seas.
But just before God starts with his creation, and states: “Let there be light”, his spirit has already moved over the face of the waters, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. This has mystified me for a while.
What kind of waters are these, the dark deep?
It is not the universe, for God is about to create it.
Apparently God does not create these waters, they are already there. But this cannot be.
My question would be: what’s your view on this apparent contradiction?

The answer so far:

Originally posed by Avatar4321:
There is no contradiction if you understand that the Hebrew word used in Genesis that is translated to mean create could be more accurately translated to say organized.

God organized the heavens and the earth. Which of course implies that matter already existed at the time.

Originally posted by Avatar4321:
God is Eternal too

This is the one approach, which phylosophically makes sense.
However, that would imply that the Bible states that all eternal matter coexisting with God was in the state of dark, deep waters.

Originally posted by gop_jeff:
I will disagree with this point. The idea of eternal matter and a non-eternal God is LDS (Mormon) theology, not Christian theology.

Harm, I will have to respond later to your post. It's a good question.

As both answers clearly take a different approach to the Genesis version of creation, the challenge remains open:

There is still the matter of the (eternal) dark deep water to resolve.
I'm curious to the phylosophical approach by anyone, so feel free to shine your light upon this.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Ok, english was not my favorite subject, I dont care about how its labeled. Noun, verb, adjective, and to spend time on it is like deciding the color of your car will decide if it will get you to work or not.

THE POINT is that evil is not a substance, not something created. OK????

AN IDEA, is not something, the results of the idea can be something. If I have an idea that maybe if I work then I will make money, did God create that IDEA? NO.

SO, simple, now if evil is not something created, then how does the anti God gang justify claiming God created evil?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Now, lets assume the evolutionists are correct, there is no God.

Animals dont commit evil,

Humans commit evil.

Humans are on the top of the evolutionary ladder

Evolution is suppose to be "improvements" in species

how is evil an improvement?

Why did the ability to make moral judgements become an adapted trait that survived? Wouldnt it make "evolutionary" sense that those humans without morality would be able to survive better? If you believe evolution is the advancement of species, then evil is the top of the rung on your theory.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Ok, if everyone is done with dissecting the grammatical status of "evil",
I would like to raise your attention to the following.
After all the posts trying to shred the scientific basis for the evolution theory, or more accurately the evolution hypothesis, there should be enough of phylosophical backing to be up to the challenge raised below.

Note it does not refute the claim that there might be a God, but it does challenge the phylosophy behind the creation described in Genesis.

So here it is, once again:

I’ve never understood that people cannot see the contradictians in the Bible version of creation described in Genesis. Now I realize the Catholic church has recently issued a statement, in which it imprints on it’s followers that the Bible story should not be taken literally as the word of God. Instead, it is man’s interpretation of the word of God.

That makes quite a lot of difference, so maybe that alone explains the contradictions in the story that describes our creation: the people’s version of God’s word is just not as complete, or accurate, as is the word of God.

To leave you with the first question:
From the book of Genesis (taken from the King James’ version):

1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

God creates the light, the earth and the heaven and the seas.
But just before God starts with his creation, and states: “Let there be light”, his spirit has already moved over the face of the waters, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. This has mystified me for a while.
What kind of waters are these, the dark deep?
It is not the universe, for God is about to create it.
Apparently God does not create these waters, they are already there. But this cannot be.
My question would be: what’s your view on this apparent contradiction?

The answer so far:


This is the one approach, which phylosophically makes sense.
However, that would imply that the Bible states that all eternal matter coexisting with God was in the state of dark, deep waters.



As both answers clearly take a different approach to the Genesis version of creation, the challenge remains open:

There is still the matter of the (eternal) dark deep water to resolve.
I'm curious to the phylosophical approach by anyone, so feel free to shine your light upon this.

You are asking the wrong question. Many words used in those passages can be interpeted so many ways, waters, firmament, deep waters, dark, light, day, unless you know the original language and CULTURE it was written in, its impossible to understand THOSE details. My wife is filipina, Tagalog doesnt recohgnize genders in language like english does. She often says things like "his husband", mind you, she is extremely intelligent and her english is excellent, she often corrects my spelling, kicks ass in scrabble, and is a medical transcriber IN ENGLISH. It has to do with her culture and concepts of some words.

Now, the real question is :

How could the author(S) of Genisis have possibly gotten the order of creation right?

Land
plants
sea creatures
birds
land animals
mammals
man

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Now, lets assume the evolutionists are correct, there is no God.

Animals dont commit evil,

Humans commit evil.

Humans are on the top of the evolutionary ladder

Evolution is suppose to be "improvements" in species

how is evil an improvement?

Why did the ability to make moral judgements become an adapted trait that survived? Wouldnt it make "evolutionary" sense that those humans without morality would be able to survive better? If you believe evolution is the advancement of species, then evil is the top of the rung on your theory.

Evil or not, humans are the most dominant specie on the planet. We have evolved into something that no other organism, except probably ourselves, can eradicate. That's the basis of evolution, that species continue to improve to try and be the most dominant.

How do you know that animals don't commit evil? If "evil" is just a label that humans have come up with through their own cognitive ability that is based on reasoning for action, animals could also very well do things due to "evil."

But you don't know, because you don't know the reasons an animal does what it does. You just see the actions.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Now, lets assume the evolutionists are correct, there is no God.

Animals dont commit evil,

Humans commit evil.

Humans are on the top of the evolutionary ladder

Evolution is suppose to be "improvements" in species

how is evil an improvement?

Why did the ability to make moral judgements become an adapted trait that survived? Wouldnt it make "evolutionary" sense that those humans without morality would be able to survive better? If you believe evolution is the advancement of species, then evil is the top of the rung on your theory.

That's not necessarily true. You have the wrong idea about evolution. Evolution can result in improvements, but being a random process, it isn't working toward any kind of end result like perfection. It's just the process by which stronger organisms beat out weaker ones in competition for resources. I'm surprised Harmaggedon didn't catch this.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

That's not necessarily true. You have the wrong idea about evolution. Evolution can result in improvements, but being a random process, it isn't working toward any kind of end result like perfection. It's just the process by which stronger organisms beat out weaker ones in competition for resources. I'm surprised Harmaggedon didn't catch this.

stronger = better.

What you are saying is that the presence of evil makes us stronger then.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Evil or not, humans are the most dominant specie on the planet. We have evolved into something that no other organism, except probably ourselves, can eradicate. That's the basis of evolution, that species continue to improve to try and be the most dominant.

How do you know that animals don't commit evil? If "evil" is just a label that humans have come up with through their own cognitive ability that is based on reasoning for action, animals could also very well do things due to "evil."

But you don't know, because you don't know the reasons an animal does what it does. You just see the actions.

until proof that animals do commit evil is presented, it would have to be presumed they dont.

I do not recall anyone ever presenting any behavior by animals on any regular or even any specific incident where it was described as evil. WE do have the ability to see and distinguish when an evil act has been commited, but none in the animal kingdom that Im aware of.

 

[MissileMan]

until proof that animals do commit evil is presented, it would have to be presumed they dont.

I do not recall anyone ever presenting any behavior by animals on any regular or even any specific incident where it was described as evil. WE do have the ability to see and distinguish when an evil act has been commited, but none in the animal kingdom that Im aware of.

Would you consider it evil for a prince to kill his sister's children so that his children will be heirs to the kingdom? This kind of activity routinely takes place in the animal kingdom.

The problem is that the term evil is subjective. And despite the groaning that accompanies the term moral relativism, when trying to equate human and animal behavior it will play a part in the argument.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

stronger = better.

What you are saying is that the presence of evil makes us stronger then.

No, I didn't say anything about evil. "See Dick evil Jane."

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Would you consider it evil for a prince to kill his sister's children so that his children will be heirs to the kingdom? This kind of activity routinely takes place in the animal kingdom.

Actually, chimps, our closest cousins, are the only mammals other than us who kill their own kind.

 

[Hobbit]

Actually, chimps, our closest cousins, are the only mammals other than us who kill their own kind.

Myth. Many mammals fight over territory and mates (same things humans fight over), and while these fights are not usually lethal, they can be. The Artic Fox is also known to kill and eat its own kind when the lemming population is low. This is a commonly quoted "unfact" that somebody pretended was true to show how inherantly evil humans are compared to cute, innocent animals.

http://www.hww.ca/hww2p.asp?id=81&cid=0

 

[MissileMan]

Actually, chimps, our closest cousins, are the only mammals other than us who kill their own kind.

Actually, the question wasn't limited to other mammals. Lions and alligators are 2 species I know for a fact that practice the killing of genetic rivals. I'm sure there are more.

 

[Harmageddon]

Originally posted by LuvRPgrl:
You are asking the wrong question. Many words used in those passages can be interpeted so many ways, waters, firmament, deep waters, dark, light, day, unless you know the original language and CULTURE it was written in, its impossible to understand THOSE details. My wife is filipina, Tagalog doesnt recohgnize genders in language like english does. She often says things like "his husband", mind you, she is extremely intelligent and her english is excellent, she often corrects my spelling, kicks ass in scrabble, and is a medical transcriber IN ENGLISH. It has to do with her culture and concepts of some words.

Now, the real question is :

How could the author(S) of Genisis have possibly gotten the order of creation right?

Land
plants
sea creatures
birds
land animals
mammals
man

So when I distill your answer, you basically say that you wish to avoid the question.
Actually, when you take a look at the CULTURE it was written in, it makes perfect sense as to why the dark deep waters precede God’s creation.

As to your REAL question, I’ll give you the REAL answer:
The CULTURE that these people were from as they were writing Genesis, would come naturally pretty close to getting the correct order in which things were “created” or “evolved”: take a look at the status of sophistication of the different organisms in nature, and you will understand why this is so. However, for you to assume that the order corresponds with that in the evolution hypothesis, is a mistake.

It is commonly understood that sea creatures – as life first started in the oceans – were the first to come into existence. This was followed by the conquering of the land, by simple plants and insects. Actually, land animals, from insects to amphibians to reptiles, were then followed by birds, then only did the plants with flowering capacity arrive on the scene, and finally mammals and amongst them, man.

GENESIS----vs-----EVOLUTION
Land---------------Land
Plants-------------Sea creatures
Sea creatures------Plants
Birds---------------Land animals
Land animals-------Birds
Mammals-----------Mammals
Man----------------Man

In short the answer is thus: They didn’t. Next question.

 

[Harmageddon]

Originally posted by LuvRPgrl:
Why did the ability to make moral judgements become an adapted trait that survived? Wouldnt it make "evolutionary" sense that those humans without morality would be able to survive better? If you believe evolution is the advancement of species, then evil is the top of the rung on your theory.

Originally posted by Hagbard Celine:That's not necessarily true. You have the wrong idea about evolution. Evolution can result in improvements, but being a random process, it isn't working toward any kind of end result like perfection. It's just the process by which stronger organisms beat out weaker ones in competition for resources. I'm surprised Harmaggedon didn't catch this.

Step aside butch

Originally posted by LuvRPgrl:
stronger = better.

What you are saying is that the presence of evil makes us stronger then.

All this talk about evil being the top of the bill in an evolutionary context is just senseless babble.

What makes our species so succesful is not the capability to do evil, it is because our language is the most sophisticated in the entire animal kingdom; now THAT is evolution. It has made us capable of discussing actions that we would yet have to take with others, and thus we get involved in dialogue and thought over whether we would be doing the right thing or not.

As for the animals that have been dragged in to the discussion:
Animals cannot be evil, because they do not think their actions through on such a high level as we humans do: they mostly react by instinct. And what they have learned from previous experience, they use in the same simple context: was it succesful, means we can do it again. Was it unsusccesful, we should not do it again.

An animal does not sit down with others to discuss the tactics by which they can raid the neighbouring colony; they just go there and do it. They do not discuss ways to crush the morale of the other colony, they just go there and raid the place, and if that's bad for the other colony's morale, so be it. They do not care, because they have no capability to do so.

Because of our highly developed brain and our language, humans can actually think their actions through: we are the only species so far discovered that actually gets stressed out over some action due to take place next week.

And we are the only species thus far discovered that has come up with the concept of good and evil, to be able to measure the thought process that precedes our actions. Thus people can choose to do evil or good.

That evil would be the stronger of the two is utter nonsense.

In the short term, yes, evil get's you way further than good: for when you are "evil" you do not refrain from certain actions that your "good" opponent would refrain from - you thus give yourself the edge.

But humans not only have the ability to philosophize about the future, humans can also remember the past. And as you are judged by your actions, and you choose the path of "evil" for the short term advantage it brings you, in the long run your past will catch up with you - people will remember you by your actions, and since we are a social mammal, that depends on a social structure of family and friends, you will tend to lose that as more and more people turn away from you. . . thus evil eventually spirals into itself like a viscious circle, enstranging the individual from society to the point that he will get into actions that will get him/her into jail. Tough luck.

As you can see from our society, evil and good are both common strategies.

From an evolutionary perspective, this makes sense, to have multiple strategies of engagement in a population. That way, the population will always contain certain individuals that may have an advantageous trait over the other, ensuring a certain amount of pressure or natural selection to be working on the populace - in a way, the battle between the concepts of evil and good has furthered the evolution of our thinking.

Seriously, evil is nothing but a label that we humans stick on actions that we condemn. Therefore it is a thing, be it an abstract one.

I think you've got the grammar covered so far, so I won't go there.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Now, lets assume the evolutionists are correct, there is no God.

That's funny, what version of evolution are you reading? The one I'm reading doesn't say anything about there not being a God.

 

[manu1959]

That's funny, what version of evolution are you reading? The one I'm reading doesn't say anything about there not being a God.

the atheist version

 

[SpidermanTuba]

WE do have the ability to see and distinguish when an evil act has been commited, but none in the animal kingdom that Im aware of.

Then you haven't met my cat or my dog.

I suppose next you'll tell us animals don't use tools and don't have emotions.