Evolution falsifies God/s?

The crimes, "rape" and "murder" both contradict the Gospel message and NT, which says such things as, "walk in the spirit and you won't fulfill the lusts of the flesh". And, "he who hates his brother is a murderer". And, "do no murder".A person can, "profess" to be anything, but if their actions contradict that which their professions are defined by, then they are not what they claim. For example, if I claimed to be an atheist, and prayed to God every night in sincere belief, this would mean that my professions contradicted my actions.You should also note that there are a lot of Christian prison-programs where prisoners are told the gospel, and will LATER, profess Christianity, after hearing. Whether this is a true repentance, depends on their fruit later on.So your definition of "Christianity" has to be a blanket definition, with no meaning. You haven't stated one of the premises of your argument, which is, "if it is accepted that my interpretations of the bible are correct and we all agree on them."- I hold it to be inerrant.
- I don't hold that rape and murder are endorsedBut in an atheist, evolutionist, world, "rape and murder" are the same as, "eating ice-cream", because materialistically speaking, both are just an interaction of particles. So why didn't you accuse Christians of eating ice cream, if your world is true?You APPEAL to morality, but again, what is morality except a set of preferences between your ears, and those who agree with you? Premise 1. "your God instructs such things." (an atheist interpretation)
Premise 2. God is held as universally acceptable.
ERGO Christians accept rape an murder.Premise one is incorrect, we don't accept that God, "instructs rape and murder." There are many theological reasons that pertain to what Christians accept.If I were to say, "God condones rape and murder" since I define myself as an accepter of an inerrant bible, because it says, "do not murder" I would break the definition of what it means to believe in inerrancy, if I were to conclude that He condones it. Therefore I would not really accept an inerrant bible. Therefore someone that accepts an inerrant bible, CAN'T do what you say WITHOUT NOT being an inerrantist. Thus your argument is a contradiction in terms because I have to be both an inerrantist, and a none-inerrantist for your argument to hold water.It's like saying, "as an eater of only genuine food, you accept that none-genuine food is food, therefore you eat none-genuine food."But to accept none-genuine food would mean I don't "only accept genuine food." So I would be both X and NOT X, which breaks the law of non-contradiction.As inerrantists, you forget that we hold the bible inerrant, which means when it says God doesn't condone sin, or sin, we have to accept it, or NOT BE inerrantist, BY DEFINITION. So if He kills or recommends an ugly action, as He does at times in the OT, then He can only be doing it for an ultimately righteous reason.

So a real Christian, we deduce, will never sin. In which case, are there any? Having one thing in common doesn't make things just the same. I might as well say "But in a theist, creationist, world, "rape and murder" are the same as, "eating ice-cream", because immaterialistically speaking, both are just inclinations of immortal souls created by God." Or, if it comes to that, "But in a Christian world, the Bible is the same as bullshit, because they both begin with the letter B." But in fact to recognize this one similarity of the two things is not to think them identical.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You are of course, correct.Absolute morality comes from God and He gave us the Bible to be a writen record of the morals that good Christians should abide by.2nd Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"
Deuteronomy 4:2 "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you."
Revelation 22:18-19 "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."
Psalm 12:6-7 "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."Otherwise we are just making things up to make ourselves feel better.

IF? IF? Is there some doubt?Whew. I feel like the ghost of jar: Have you actually read the Bible?Did you miss the parts where God tells his people to kill them--then, later, dammit, I said kill them all, die die die? Or the part where he says kill them all, but keep the women for yourselves?See, when you kill a man in battle, that's war. When you kill a prisoner, that's murder. The Satanic League of Atheistic Moralists believes that is wrong, and we don't even care much for war. I suppose some Christians may hold a different view.When you take the women against their will, that's rape. The Official..., etc. Ah. Raping for God, murdering for Jesus.If you will do anything the voice of Sam, er, God tells you to do, if you think an "ultimately righteous" end justifies rape and murder, you...you... I'm gobsmacked by the sanctimonious banality of evil in your argument. Words for you to live by, I guess.You've broken something in your head, mike.

Also 'bring my enemies before me and slay them'.

For this question it doesn't matter if atheism is valid or not. So I will agree with you -> absolutely, atheism cannot be true in any form!
Following the rest of your idea, you still fall into either point 1 or 2. Here they are again:

quote:

---

1. You blindly, unthinkingly accept that God's Image is valuable.
   -Here, you take God's word as greater than your own thoughts, but you're a blind, unthinking robot.
   ​
2. You consciously weight the value of God's Image and agree with God that it is valuable.
   -Here, you use the greatest gift God gave to humans in order to differentiate themselves from the animals, your brain, but you raise your own conscious thoughts above those of God's in order to judge His Image as valuable.

---

So, again, now that atheism cannot be true, which is it? Are you a robot that discards God's greatest gift? Or are your thoughts greater than God's?

But not all interactions between particles are equal. That's the whole crux^* of the evolutionary world. The "good" interactions are selected in and the "bad" interactions are selected out. Rape and murder are "bad", not because some voodoo alien arbitrarily declared them as bad but because they interfere with the continuing interaction of particles.

---

^*the joke being that "crux" = "cross"

Particles would still interact, they'd just do so differently. The point is that "differently" is not the same as "the same".

The point is that the "good" interactions are the ones that allow our existence to continue.

Consider how important information is to life. You might call it intrinsic to life. Likewise, as the image bearers of God, we have much value because we intrinsically (via His image) reflect the mind and will of God.If a man were simply made of stardust, then his intrinsic value would not be much higher than that of a pen, because ultimately the pen would be made of stardust too. Stardust vs. stardust, the ultimate showdown.

Yes and evolutionists (ToE) have been doing that for some time, but the "reality" they're trying to match is their presupposed theory. They lead the data, rather than follow it. You can call it whatever you want, I'm easy in that regard. Just tell me where the new information comes from? What mechanism is responsible for creating new information?

No it may not always cause someone to doubt, but where would you be if evolution were proven false? Could you still cling to atheism? The flavor of religion wouldn't matter, it's the adoption of theism that I was getting at.

Perhaps you should make your answers at least tangentially relevant to the thing you're ostensibly answering, instead of just reciting random gibberish. Mutation. Is there anything else blindingly obvious you need explaining to you?Really, you don't need us, you need a book called something like Genetics For Beginners.

I do. Also, because of long experience on these forums, I sometimes call it "that subject creationists like to talk meaningless crap about". If you are considering talking fatuous nonsense on the subject of "information", I urge you to first spend a few minutes finding out why it is, in fact, fatuous nonsense. We already have threads on this topic, and the idiocy creationists have managed to dribble out on this subject should make you feel deeply ashamed to be a creationist and indeed slightly ashamed to be a human being. Just a hint. That would be extrinsic value. You do not make it into intrinsic value by using the word "intrinsic" frequently, because that is not what "intrinsic" means. No, because the value of a thing does not depend entirely on what it's made of. You, or a pen, or the computer I'm typing on, or the Mona Lisa, or pretty much anything else, would be significantly reduced in value by being put through a blender --- although none of the atoms would be removed by this process --- because the value of a thing does not depend on its bulk composition.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

That was a nice dinner theater you put on. (golf clap)And yes, that is how that debate sometimes goes. The part you're missing though, is that if there isn't a God, you wouldn't be wasting your breath (or keystrokes) discussing whether something is right or wrong in the first place. There would simply be no concept of right or wrong. The fact that you are role playing it, is more evidence for God. You should join an apologetics team! Haha! Sounds like a Tarantino film title.