I am not a creationist. I have read Dawins book (OoS) but i wouldn't recommend it to anybody for the current debate.
It is:
a) outdated
b) as easy to read as it is to swallow a spoon full of zinnamon.
An age old argument and long refuted. Its sad that every now and then it pops up again.
First of all why would all and everything have to come from "something"?
Why do you think the number of sources would have to be reduced to "one"?
There could be paralel chains.
Secondly if (as you say)...
Since someone already answered point by point i would like to provide a different "hook" for your thinking.
If I were you I would ask myself the following question:
"Why don't scientists that are confronted with the supposed proofs, convert?"
Basically you should end up with two possibilities...
Well, what makes you think that "general" principles allow you to know "exactly" what to do in any certain situation while at the same time "general" principles in a nontheistic system could not do that.
As for me i rather think that general principles are exactly that "general". They can be...
I think this is not really true. You see as you state below...
the Torah (as an example) doesnt even give clear and precice rules. Something that is not precice cant really be set and absolute in my view. What sense does it make to state that your morals are absolut when two people have three...
Care to elaborate? I do not really know what you mean or lets say i do not think that the topic of consistency or subjectivity is one where theistic morals would prove to be better.
I dont think this is true if one sees the possible number of situations with the limited rules you have. I could...
An elliptical orbit would bring such a small object to close to the sun, it would melt. Our teapot would also need a power source to keep it in a stable orbit, teapots don't have retro-rockets.
If that is not some kind of hypocrisy.
I asked several times about your definition of an orbit.
In...
As said already. Of course morals are a bit more complicated than what i have written down in one of the last posts.
In your example: Harming John is of course essentially bad, but letting John harm Sue is even worse.
I do not understand why and how?
You asked how people could be consistent...
Learn to quote.
Here is my statement:
Now perhaps i am missing something in "your" English here or you are missing something in mine.
I stated the part after BECAUSE is not the reason why we have the part before the because.
I didn't state (or at least meant to state) that we do not have...
You quoted a post of mine.
After rereading it i think it was not very clear in formulation. I simply wanted to state that it was not initially the distance increase that made us build mirrors on the moon, but the simple attempt to measure the orbit.
As far as I know we didn't know that the distance was increasing.
But I have no problem if I was wrong. Can you give me a link concerning your information?
It is telling that you left something out in your "explanation". Namely the "BECAUSE".
Typical.
You should pay more attention when reading what I write.
Your original statement:
And i again tell you that it is not because of the distance increasing that we have these mirrors. Actually the...