Human evolution vs Genesis

[Anonymous]

I need some help, I was arguing with someone over human evolution and three issues came up: morals, Genesis, and the human evolution chart that shows picture of a monkey transitioning to human. First off he claimed that morals were a result of intelligence. Then he claimed that Genesis was faulty based on the fact that God created man in the same amount of time as the other animals. Finally he used the human evolution chart with the pictures of transitional stages from monkey to human and skulls found to prove human evolution.

I had some trouble countering his arguments effectively and I need some help! Thanks

[Mastermind]

I need some help, I was arguing with someone over human evolution and three issues came up: morals, Genesis, and the human evolution chart that shows picture of a monkey transitioning to human. First off he claimed that morals were a result of intelligence. Then he claimed that Genesis was faulty based on the fact that God created man in the same amount of time as the other animals. Finally he used the human evolution chart with the pictures of transitional stages from monkey to human and skulls found to prove human evolution.

I had some trouble countering his arguments effectively and I need some help! Thanks

While I am supportive of theistic evolution, I do not believe Man evolved from monkey. And if he showed you a chart of that, he is lying. No evolutionist will claim humans came from apes. Most believe we came from a common ancestor. And from an atheist point of view, there are no morals. Ask him why his morals are any better than a mass murderer's, and why his morals should be considered above the murderer's.

[Deborah]

How about life starts from life, it does not come from nothing.
While microevolution is proven full evolution or macroevolution is not.
The law of Biogenisis holds the full evolution theory up.

Biogenesis -- 1. the theory that living things can be produced only by other living things. 2. the genesis or production of living things from other living things. 3. the history of the evolution of living organisms. [(coined in 1870 by Thomas Huxley) < bio (life) + genesis]

The theory of Abiogenesis is just that a theory.

Abiogenesis -- the supposed transformation of inanimate matter into living matter; spontaneous generation. [(coined in 1870 by Thomas Huxley) < a (without) + bio (life) + genesis]

(from The World Book Dictionary)

Most of my research was on the Universe, but some covered evolution too
Evolution, science or religion http://www.ninetyandnine.com/Archives/2 ... /cover.htm
http://www.doesgodexist.org/

Bankrupsy of elolution
http://www.torringtonchurch.org/bankrup ... lution.htm

[Kurieuo]

I need some help, I was arguing with someone over human evolution and three issues came up: morals, Genesis, and the human evolution chart that shows picture of a monkey transitioning to human. First off he claimed that morals were a result of intelligence. Then he claimed that Genesis was faulty based on the fact that God created man in the same amount of time as the other animals. Finally he used the human evolution chart with the pictures of transitional stages from monkey to human and skulls found to prove human evolution.

I had some trouble countering his arguments effectively and I need some help! Thanks

1) What is logical about self-sacrifice? If asked, he'll likely state something about survivial of the fittest, and that one person's sacrificing themselves could be an adaptation that allows the majority of the species to live on. Then you can point out that rape at the same token would also then be moral, if morality is logically based upon "survival of the fittest."

For example, one page on this site writes:

• In a recent book, A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion,10 authors Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer claim that rape is "a natural, biological phenomenon that is a product of the human evolutionary heritage," just like "the leopard's spots and the giraffe's elongated neck." In other words, rape is a biological "adaptation" that allows undesirable males the opportunity to pass on their genes. According to Randy Thornhill, "Every feature of every living thing, including human beings, has an underlying evolutionary background. That's not a debatable matter." According to the anthropology department at the University of California Santa Barbara, "That rape might be an adaptation is a reasonable hypothesis to pursue, and the proper framework is intersexual conflict."11 If rape is just an evolutionary adaptation, then how can it be immoral?
  
  —http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/ ... tions.html—

2) If we follow the 24-hour Creationist interpretation, that God created in six 24-hour days, than such is incompatible with what we know from science and the fossil record. He is right that animals and man being created at about the same time (only day or so apart) is incompatible with dating techniques and what we find in the fossil record. On the other hand science tells us that humanity was the last to be created, and this aligns well with Genesis. Perhaps you could introduce him to the Day-Age interpretation on this site? However, I am fairly certain that he will try to defend the 24-hour interpretation.

3) I can draw pictures too . Get him to name names of species and put together his own lineage tree. This way, you can challenge the species he names as being apart of the hominid tree. Many biologists disagree on how the tree looks, but all who advocate macroevolution are certain one exists nonetheless.

Kurieuo.

[August]

Hi Deborah, cool sites. Welcome!

VVart, let's talk morals.

You should ask this person what makes life meaningful for him. The likely replies will range from making money, to helping others. Also ask him if he believes in evil. If he answers no, then ask about Hitler etc, whether that was evil or not. From this it follows that since he knows that he has to help people, and that Hitler was evil, this "feeling" or knowledge had to come from somewhere. His answer is likely to say that the majority decides, but that is not good enough, as we saw with Hitler's Germany. The fact that the majority of Germans agreed with Hitler does not make it any less evil. Once you reach this point, his argument gets weaker, since it was not his own intelligence that compells him to help others, or to say that Hitler was evil, it was something else, since a lot of people used their intelligence and still followed Hitler. The question then remains what that influence is? There is a moral law, or nature's law, as described by the USA's founding fathers, that shows the difference between right and wrong. This is present throughout the world. Murder is not right, and everyone knows it. Some might argue against that, but point a gun to anyone's head, and they will quickly try to convince you that murder is wrong. Some manage to override this conviction, like suicide bombers, and since humans are fallible, it may happen. The fact that they can override their morals still does not make it right. People can be overcome by evil, if they ignore the morals deep in their inner being.

Morals, as described by Professor J Budzoszewski of UT @ Austin, is that which we can't not know. It is a basic knowledge of right and wrong. You can't not know that it's wrong to kill innocent people.

We know that absolute truth and absolute moral law exists. Your friend may debate that, and say there is no absolute truths or absolute morals. His mere statement denies that, how does he know that that is the truth? He may argue that he is absolutely sure there are no absolutes. As for the existence of values or morals, try to insult him by telling him that his opinion is worth nothing and if he gets upset, that proves your point about absolute morals existing, the very thing he was trying to deny, since you are trying to deny him the right to express his point of view. His complaint will be that he has the right to his opinion, an absolute value! Without these absolutes, we can't detect evil, or have the right to prosecute criminals.

You have thus far established that he has absolute morals, and that his intelligence does not account for that.

As for the evoltution part of it, ask him to show from historic (paleo, anthropology, fossil record etc) evidence when man got moral. There should be adequate proof of that, if it evolved. Also, since man came from nothing but pondscum, or is made out of carbon etc, ask him where the morals reside in those elements? How would he measure that? Evolutionists claim only material exist, so ask him weigh out some hate for you. The physical cannot be responsible for morals, otherwise PolPott just had some bad molecules. It can't be instinct, since our instincts often compete, and something tells us to ignore the stronger instinct. Back to helping people, our strongest instinct is to not help people, but the weaker instinct is to get involved. Something judges between those instincts and compells us to follow the weaker one. Witnessing a mugging is an example. You want to run, but you end calling the cops, ie getting involved. That something that compells you to help cannot also be instinct, it has to be an implanted moral law. Social morals don't fly either, since evolution has no purpose, and morals at the granular level is what helps us survive, thus indicating purpose. That purpose cannot come from a non-intelligent process, such as evolution.

Your friend may also confuse the fact of how we know morals with the existence of morals. Where did morals come from in the first place? Our capacity to know morals does not explain where/how/when they were 'invented'. Also, why should any biologically derived sentiments be obeyed? Why don't the strongest just kill the weakest? If morals were biological in nature, we would act like the animal kingdom, and there would be no right or wrong.

The conclusion is this:
1. Every law has a law giver.
2. There is moral law.
3. Therefore, there is a moral law giver, ie God.

Hopefully this gives you some ammunition to fight back.

[August]

VVart, this paper by William Dembski completely destroys the ape to humans story.

http://www.iscid.org/papers/Dembski_Hum ... 062204.pdf

[Anonymous]

during the moral discussion he asked me that morals are just based on the individual, and that if a poor man steals from a rich one, he's not committing an immoral act. Can you guys help me answer this?

P.S.
Kurieuo could i get a link to the day-age theory?

[Mastermind]

There is nothing to argue with a man who believes morals are relative, as your fundamental beliefs are too different. Just call it a draw.

[Deborah]

There is nothing to argue with a man who believes morals are relative, as your fundamental beliefs are too different. Just call it a draw.

The problem is, the other side rarely wants to call it a draw.
We can show them how the laws of science support God and they still say we are wrong. One even went as far as to say laws of science can never be proven to look like he was winning his argument. Funny thing was he then topped it with a theory to prove his point

[Mastermind]

A theory on morals? I've got to hear it.

[Anonymous]

Yeah no use arguing morals, but I need to show that genesis is solid.

Kurieuo
-nevermind about the link. Do you know how the Day-Age interpretation would apply to the 7nth day or the Sabbath. If i can answer that then, I will have proven to him that Genesis is perfectly in synch with science.

[Kurieuo]

Kurieuo
-nevermind about the link. Do you know how the Day-Age interpretation would apply to the 7nth day or the Sabbath. If i can answer that then, I will have proven to him that Genesis is perfectly in synch with science.

Some pages anyway if still interested are:
- http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis1.html
- http://www.swordandspirit.com/LIBRARY/t ... inning.php

And if you haven't seen it, then I'd really recommend the following slideshow: http://www.swordandspirit.com/LIBRARY/P ... e/Gen1.ppt

As for God's seventh day of rest, we believe it is never closed. Psalm 95:11 tells us God declared some will not enter into His rest. In Hebrews 4 we also have: "For He has thus said somewhere concerning the seventh day, "And God rested on the seventh day from all His works"... Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall through following the same example of disobedience."

He may change up slightly and point out that God needed to rest... but what this rest is, is not a rest from tiredness, but simply rest from creating. And true enough, this appears to be the case - no new species have arisen since humanity.

Kurieuo.

[Anonymous]

So Kurieuo will the 8th day be the New Creation?
when God starts creating again?

[Kurieuo]

Some certainly see it that way. Rich takes this approach when he defines what he believes heaven will be like at http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/heaven.html:

On the eighth day God will create again - this time an entirely new universe. The new universe will have entirely different physical laws. Here are some of the differences that stand out:

- The new earth will have no sea
- There will be no Sun or moon
- Gravity will be absent or greatly reduced
- No more death, suffering, pain
- Believers will receive a new body

Kurieuo.

[Mastermind]

Some also think Jesus's coming marked the end of the seventh day and the beginning of the eight day.