Are the signs not obvious?

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]I don't agree with your view that the Biblical flood was the wiping out of mankind on the part of God because He couldn't get it right first time. God created man perfect; man commited evil. The flood was God's judgement on mankind for their evil. Which I don't have to remind you is a free will issue.

i am not interested in getting into a r ...[text shortened]... idea of ethical theory for youngsters? bible class and fundie training? Divine Command Theory?[/b]

i am not interested in getting into a rigorous debate about something as patently absurd as The Flood. but, i would like to point out a couple verses and make a quick point:

Genesis 6:6: "And it [b]repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

Genesis 6:7: "And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them."

these verses, especially the phrases in bold, demonstrate that God is demonstrating regret over his own actions (probably in addition to sadness over the rampant evil ways of man). in my interpretation, he acknowledges that his initial creation was lacking in design and application (He made a mistake 😲), he regrets it, and he willfully acts to clean up the mess he has made. i think you are really stretching the interpretation by still asserting that his initial creation was 'perfect', but whatever makes you sleep soundly at night...

also note that God not only wiped out mankind (except Noah's family), but he also wiped out basically every other land animal (except those taken on the ark). are you also going to state that the other doomed animals received just punishment during the flood? did they also perpetrate evil through free will? not bloody likely since they are not rational beings. IMO this also shows that God disapproved of his own initial creation.[/b]

I also don't want to get into a debate on the flood for the time being. Point taken. I can justify it, but that is not my point in this discussion. It will be along the lines of man being perfect, but having a free will, we wrecked the place and God had to clean up. Anyway, moving on...

i think you are confused. you are trying to attack the validity (or the soundness? heck, i don't even know what you are attacking) of evolution because in your estimation, evolutionary theory could lead one to what you perceive to be specious lines of moral argument (of all things!).

You're right, TOE is hardly a ethical theory; I don't give it that much credit.

however, none of your conclusions above are essential to or follow necessarily from evolutionary theory. they involve bringing ethical theory and moral leanings to the table in addition to evolutionary theory.

You are right again. None of this is essential to evolutionary theory, but this hardly means that my conclusions can't be jumped to.

i see your argument as nothing more than a straw man since you are attacking the evolutionist for views that he does not necessarily hold.

I'd agree with you in the perspective that this is a straw man in the sense that these are not views actively promoted by evolution. But is evolution not an explanation of our origins? Do our origins not answer (to a certain degree at least) the philosophical questions of: why are we here? what purpose is there to life? Do you blame someone from developing a hedonistic or utilitarian sense of morality from evolution.

from my recollection of school, the evolution that i was taught was called science and it was based on findings gathered from application of the scientific method. you'll also be happy to know that those classes did not in any way lead me to any of the three conclusions you state above.

Okay. Does this automatically apply to the millions of kids in school today?

out of curiosity, what is your idea of ethical theory for youngsters? bible class and fundie training? Divine Command Theory?

None of the above. I think sound moral values deducted from Biblical principles are great for ethical theory. You don't have to necissarily teach all the religion that goes along with it. Some kiddy examples: Don't steal. Do unto others as you would like them to do unto you. Don't murder. Don't lie. Respect the property of others. Basically, if you break it down, The Golden Rule.

The job of the public schools is to impart knowledge gained from human experience to children. Parents can impart what ethical theories they favor to their children on their own time. The State has no business choosing one set of ethical principles above another and spoon feeding these to children. The State may set up laws and say transgressions of these laws may result in punishment, but whether those laws are just is a personal moral decision of the individual to reach in the privacy of his own skull.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The job of the public schools is to impart knowledge gained from human experience to children. Parents can impart what ethical theories they favor to their children on their own time. The State has no business choosing one set of ethical principles above another and spoon feeding these to children. The State may set up laws and say transgressions of thes ...[text shortened]... re just is a personal moral decision of the individual to reach in the privacy of his own skull.

Do you see "school" in any of the above? I was talking about teaching ethics to my youngsters. My problem lies in teaching evolution without a viable ethical theory to go with it. Why did one of the guys at the Columbine shooting wear a t-shirt with "Natural Selection" on it? I'm not saying that evolution is the single cause for it because I personally think it was the culture of death inspired by their music, video games etc, but when you tell kids they are nothing but apes, don't be surprised if they go ape.

Originally posted by Halitose
Do you see "school" in any of the above? I was talking about teaching ethics to my youngsters. My problem lies in teaching evolution without a viable ethical theory to go with it. Why did one of the guys at the Columbine shooting wear a t-shirt with "Natural Selection" on it? I'm not saying that evolution is the single cause for it because I personally ...[text shortened]... games etc, but when you tell kids they are nothing but apes, don't be surprised if they go ape.

Why did one of the guys at the Columbine shooting wear a t-shirt with "Natural Selection" on it?

I dunno; why did a Christian hand his four year old kid a sign that read "GOD HATES FAGS" at a rally a few miles from where I live? Maybe because they both have a twisted view?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Why did one of the guys at the Columbine shooting wear a t-shirt with "Natural Selection" on it?

I dunno; why did a Christian hand his four year old kid a sign that read "GOD HATES FAGS" at a rally a few miles from where I live? Maybe because they both have a twisted view?

Well that is obviously a confused perspective, because God loves the sinner, but hates the sin. I can prove it to you biblically, but I don't want to bore you with theology. The question is: were those kids really twisted in their view? Didn't they just take what they were being given to an extreme?