-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evolution is illogical and non sense
- Thread starter ttechsan
- Start date
Yes, that is objectively good for the predator.
That would be objectively bad for the predator
That would be objectively good for the potential victims.
Survival is objectively good and non-survival is objectively bad. But a fate worse than death outweighs that it's bad to kill.
Theweirdtophat
Well-Known Member
outhouse: "
Its embarrassing that with no evidence at all for a replacement hypothesis, you refuse the factual evidence already in place.
Evolution is fact, and it is never going anywhere. You will die one day, but this factual theory will only be accepted by more people as we educate the children who can accept facts and knowledge and credible education.
In other words, we don't need to change your mind, we don't care about tour fanaticism. WE will teach your children the knowledge and education you refuse."
It's embarrassing for you to not know that replacing theories is what science has often done and will continue to do. New theories replace older ones. That's what happens when we discover more about life. For one thing, the stuff you and other scientists refuse to believe such as magic, energy work, rituals, also is involved in our studies. Great scientists who you and others like such as Tesla, Da Vinci, Newton, Carver and so forth all practiced or at least had an interest in energy work, magic, telepathy or the occult. Has it occurred to you that maybe that's how they became great scientists? That they were able to study and work with such energy to have a better understanding of our universe? I'm a fanatic for not accepting evolution? You're as bad as the creationists.
What do you mean "we"? Who's we? YOU? Don't EVER say that YOU will teach my children, as if to assume you'd make a better parent. I will teach them to learn and explore as well as experience and research and not be blindly spoon fed information like you and some others have.
Its embarrassing that with no evidence at all for a replacement hypothesis, you refuse the factual evidence already in place.
Evolution is fact, and it is never going anywhere. You will die one day, but this factual theory will only be accepted by more people as we educate the children who can accept facts and knowledge and credible education.
In other words, we don't need to change your mind, we don't care about tour fanaticism. WE will teach your children the knowledge and education you refuse."
It's embarrassing for you to not know that replacing theories is what science has often done and will continue to do. New theories replace older ones. That's what happens when we discover more about life. For one thing, the stuff you and other scientists refuse to believe such as magic, energy work, rituals, also is involved in our studies. Great scientists who you and others like such as Tesla, Da Vinci, Newton, Carver and so forth all practiced or at least had an interest in energy work, magic, telepathy or the occult. Has it occurred to you that maybe that's how they became great scientists? That they were able to study and work with such energy to have a better understanding of our universe? I'm a fanatic for not accepting evolution? You're as bad as the creationists.
What do you mean "we"? Who's we? YOU? Don't EVER say that YOU will teach my children, as if to assume you'd make a better parent. I will teach them to learn and explore as well as experience and research and not be blindly spoon fed information like you and some others have.
Says you who call evolutionists evil.
dust1n
Zindīq
Nope. There is nothing about an "objective" process that automatically makes it ethically good or desirable. Objective, therefore good, doesn't hold up.
outhouse
Atheistically
Theweirdtophat
Well-Known Member
Allow me to accurately describe what I said.
"I'm a fanatic for not accepting evolution? You're as bad as the creationists."
I'm not stupid and you're taking things out of context to make my argument seem invalid. Nice try.
outhouse
Atheistically
Yes you are.
outhouse
Atheistically
Your under the false assumption there is a debate here.
There is factually no debate here. There are only some theist who refuse reality of the current state of evolution as fact.
This for the most part due to fanaticism and fundamentalism
Why you hate education and knowledge in academia is your problem not mine.
There is factually no debate here. There are only some theist who refuse reality of the current state of evolution as fact.
This for the most part due to fanaticism and fundamentalism
Why you hate education and knowledge in academia is your problem not mine.
outhouse
Atheistically
We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:
- In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.
- Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.
- Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.
- Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.
Saying that something is good for one but bad for the other would make it subjective, not objective. That which is objective is true for all parties. If 2+2=4 in all scenarios, then that would be an objective truth. If 2+2=4 for some and 2+2=5 for others, then that would make 2+2=4 only subjectively true. So is a predator killing prey objectively good, objectively bad or amoral?
So how do you determine this from evolutionary logic?
Of course not. Don't confuse objective with universal.
Nonsense. That would be universally true not objectively true.
It would be objectively good for the predator and objectively bad for the prey. Stop confusing what is objectively good for each of them with something that would be universally true for both of them.
Then please explain the difference between universal and objective. It would also be helpful if you give an example of something that is universally true that is not objectively true and vice-versa (outside of morality, of course).
Take out "for the predator" and "for the prey" and try answering again. I'm asking if it is objectively good or objectively bad overall.
Last edited:
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
How many theories have been tossed aside? Do you have an example of a theory that has been tossed aside for another?
Do you know that Newton's theories and classical physics still works, as long as we don't have objects traveling close to the speed of light and it's not sub-atomic scale. The theories in the past that have been replaced aren't wrong. They're just not complete. They're right in a given context, but in a different context they're not.
Evolution is as established as any other theory of science. You won't see a new math that replaces the old math, like 1+1 not equal 2 anymore. Evolution won't be replaced. But it will be improved.
Sure. What is universally true is what is true for all, something that is objectively true is true regardless of whether you think it's true or not. Objective: "Existing independent of or external to the mind; actual or real:" "Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices:" objective - definition of objective by The Free Dictionary
What makes those two definitions different? They look the same to me. If something is true whether or not you accept it as true, then it is also true for all. Can you provide an example of an objective truth that is not also a universal truth?
McBell
Unbound
"Objectively good for them"?Even bad bacteria "want to" survive and multiply so if they do that's objectively good for them.
Thank you for proving my point.
McBell
Unbound
Something universally true for humans would be true for every human at all times. Humans are "white". The statement is objectively true for this human, but it's not universally true for all humans. If every human had hallucinations and saw a pink elephant standing in front of them it would be a subjective universal experience but it wouldn't be objectively true that a pink elephant was standing in front of them. A camera would register nothing.
Last edited: