Evolution versus Creationism
- Thread starter Rubble10
- Start date
The same way a beaver knows how to build a dam.How could he understand the concept of obedience at that time?
Simple Simon
Simpleton
Am I the only one who finds it laughable that an evolution skeptic invokes a behavioral model to explain something in his creation myth?? Really???
hahaha, that likely is from being taught by parent beavers, but Adam had no predecessor except god so...
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
And like that ... he's gone[/usual suspects]
I glad you got a laugh so it was more of light hearted response compared to the post before.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
And what would be the serious response? 
Like I said before, the entire concept of original sin and the possibility of some people "not knowing evil" is simply nonsensical. It makes no sense no matter how you look at it. I was describing it as "being wrong" basically as a thought exercise.
Eating magic apples which gives people knowledge of good and evil is completely crazy and it's simply a myth story. And how a person doesn't know what evil is is truly crazy (hint: evil and good don't truly exist).
The whole idea that it is fair and just to damn the son for the father's crime is the problem. By the way, is Phlegmak Lord Vlodemort out of that film, by any chance?
MagisterCultuum
Great Sage
That conception of original sin is only one of many. I think a more common and reasonable version is that Adam's sin introduced the tendency to sin (sometimes called Concupiscence) which would make it inevitable that his descendants would sin at some point, but be punished only for their own sins. (Some also view the fall as a corruption of the entire universe that made sin inevitable and at the same time changed the laws of physics to make death inevitable.)
Given that elsewhere the bible clearly says that god will not punish a son who repents and does not follow in father's wicked ways for his father's sin, so that view seems more reasonable. (The bible does say something like "the sins of the father will be punished in the sons even to the 3rd generation," but elsewhere God clearly condemns a prophet (Ezekiel maybe? I can't quire remember) for teaching that this would apply to sons who did not continue their fathers' sinful lifestyles (he used more figurative language, involving grapes). The former is thus taken to apply when sins continue through several generations of a family, as is often the case since we learn many of our habits from our parents. The prophet seems to consider not punishing children for the father's crimes unjust, and the view that children were punished for their parents' sins remained very popular in Jesus's day, although I believe it is strongly condemned by most Jews today.)
There is no reason to think the forbidden fruit was an apple, or that there was any power in the fruit itself beyond the effect of disobeying God and realizing it. It may well be that man always had the capacity to discern good from evil, but that this would never be realized until there was some evil to discern and regret. Knowledge may indicate experiential rather than theoretical knowledge.
Given that elsewhere the bible clearly says that god will not punish a son who repents and does not follow in father's wicked ways for his father's sin, so that view seems more reasonable. (The bible does say something like "the sins of the father will be punished in the sons even to the 3rd generation," but elsewhere God clearly condemns a prophet (Ezekiel maybe? I can't quire remember) for teaching that this would apply to sons who did not continue their fathers' sinful lifestyles (he used more figurative language, involving grapes). The former is thus taken to apply when sins continue through several generations of a family, as is often the case since we learn many of our habits from our parents. The prophet seems to consider not punishing children for the father's crimes unjust, and the view that children were punished for their parents' sins remained very popular in Jesus's day, although I believe it is strongly condemned by most Jews today.)
There is no reason to think the forbidden fruit was an apple, or that there was any power in the fruit itself beyond the effect of disobeying God and realizing it. It may well be that man always had the capacity to discern good from evil, but that this would never be realized until there was some evil to discern and regret. Knowledge may indicate experiential rather than theoretical knowledge.
It was a banana - QI says that apples weren't around in 4000BC.
Ghpstage
Deity
That is so awesome...
That can't be real... they can't honestly think that, right?? 
Ghpstage
Deity
That can't be real... they can't honestly think that, right??
Some people do.... but I think its less of an argument against evolution as it is a statement about his erm... personal preferences
Of course people believe that! When it's necessary to make a lot of mental gymnastics to believe your religion, you're willing to believe every little thing that supports your religious belief.That can't be real... they can't honestly think that, right??
That can't be real... they can't honestly think that, right??
The only place I ever heard this argument uses is in this one video which seems atheist loves to link to.
I saw a evolution documentary once claimed that man began walking up-right so he could see over the grass which made me wonder if the person who came up with that one was smoking some grass. To be fair I haven't seen other evolutionist using that crazy line no more than Christians use the banana example.
I've never liked that 'seeing over the grass' explanation either. If that were the case, why don't we also see that sort of behavoir in baboons, for example?
But that's what's useful and powerful about evolutionary investigations: there are answers out there to be found, and ideas to be tested. Evolutionary theory is the tool used to find the solutions.
But that's what's useful and powerful about evolutionary investigations: there are answers out there to be found, and ideas to be tested. Evolutionary theory is the tool used to find the solutions.
Ghpstage
Deity
While I can honestly say I've never seen the banana 'argument' (for lack of a better term!) used (I only linked to it for humour value!) it is almost identical in scientific merit to 95%+ of other YECs claims.
i.e. The Second law of Thermodynamics argument... this argument simply proves that creationists can't read...
Tornado in a junkyard straw man... yes the extremely poor straw man analogy!
How many creationist claims actually have scientific merit? I can only think of one, irreducible complexity, however it has been disproved to the same level that 'missing link' arguments have collapsed.....
Just abou every argument from 'creation science' is aimed solely at the public in the knowledge the majority will not be able to understand how pseudoscientific it really is!
Similar threads
- Poll
