The battle of evolution vs creationism

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Its a sure sign you've debated yourself into a corner if you have to stoop to calling another poster ignorant

Wait a minute, I've been called ignorant regarding the subject of evolution. Where were you then? Double standard.

 

[outhouse]

This is viewed a truth for most of the educated world, and contains substantiated facts to back their position.

IAP - IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution

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.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Your liking or disliking it makes no difference.
It is what it is.

Thats the problem, it isn't.

I am not the one revealing my ignorance with every post...

I beg to differ.

Because there aren't any.

Right, so if I kill your whole family and rape all of the women in your family, I am not objectively wrong. To easy.

I am merely pointing out that you are the one holding that position.

If by source you mean that God is the one that gave man with free will, and with that free will man commits evil acts, then I guess God is the source of evil in that regard.

YOU are the one claiming objective this and that, not me.

Then if I killed your family and raped the women, that is not objectively wrong. So after I commited this act, and you get upset, then we would just be in disagreement..it would be no different than getting in a disagreement over whether Phil Jackson is a better coach than Pat Riley.

Like I said, you need to pay better attention.

You need better objections.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Precisely. Which is why I would prefer to continue discussing it here.

Well regardless of where it is discussed, the results will be the same; intellectual spankings, with me being the spanker, and you being the spankEE

 

[ArtieE]

That is subjective reasoning though. Suppose I don't want to co-exist harmoniously with my neighbors, am I objectively wrong for wiping them out? How is your view any better than mines? We both have our reasons...

We evolved. Those who helped each other survived, those who murdered each other didn't. (Obviously.) The purely objective neutral natural process called evolution selected for people who helped each other. Hence helping moral murdering immoral. Therefore only a few hundred thousand out of 7 billion in the world are murderers and they often have some brain disorder. Therefore murder is objectively wrong. Some immoral people don't understand this so we make up a religion where the god commands the immoral people to behave morally.

 

[adi2d]

Wait a minute, I've been called ignorant regarding the subject of evolution. Where were you then? Double standard.

I didn't see the post you are referring. Could you give me the post #?

"He started it" is not a valid reason outside of the playground

 

[outhouse]

Well regardless of where it is discussed, the results will be the same; intellectual spankings, with me being the spanker, and you being the spankEE

This is viewed a truth for most of the educated world, and contains substantiated facts to back their position.

IAP - IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution

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.

 

[McBell]

Thats the problem, it isn't.

Jumping up and down screaming "no it's not" is not an argument.
nor is it evidence.
Nor does it help your argument.

I beg to differ.

beg all you want.
it won't change the facts.

Right, so if I kill your whole family and rape all of the women in your family, I am not objectively wrong. To easy.

I have no idea what point you think this comment makes.

If by source you mean that God is the one that gave man with free will, and with that free will man commits evil acts, then I guess God is the source of evil in that regard.

See.
We do agree on something.

Then if I killed your family and raped the women, that is not objectively wrong. So after I commited this act, and you get upset, then we would just be in disagreement..it would be no different than getting in a disagreement over whether Phil Jackson is a better coach than Pat Riley.

Again, you are showing that you do not know what "objective" is.

You need better objections.

No, you need to understand the "objections" before replying to them.

 

[McBell]

Well regardless of where it is discussed, the results will be the same; intellectual spankings, with me being the spanker, and you being the spankEE

Only in your mind...

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

We evolved. Those who helped each other survived, those who murdered each other didn't. (Obviously.) The purely objective neutral natural process called evolution selected for people who helped each other. Hence helping moral murdering immoral. Therefore only a few hundred thousand out of 7 billion in the world are murderers and they often have some brain disorder. Therefore murder is objectively wrong. Some immoral people don't understand this so we make up a religion where the god commands the immoral people to behave morally.

I am interested less about your opinion regarding moral values, and interested more about that whole infinity discussion that you wanted to flex your muscles in...well?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I didn't see the post you are referring. Could you give me the post #?

"He started it" is not a valid reason outside of the playground

There isn't one specific post...there is quite a few, actually. Now you can dig through all of my interactions with people to find out where the keyword "ignorant" was used on me, or you can just take my word for it, since there is no reason for me to lie about such a thing.

 

[McBell]

There isn't one specific post...there is quite a few, actually. Now you can dig through all of my interactions with people to find out where the keyword "ignorant" was used on me, or you can just take my word for it, since there is no reason for me to lie about such a thing.

Nope.
No need for you to lie about it.
You flaunt your ignorance of evolution around as though you think people are falling for it.

 

[cottage]

That is subjective reasoning though. Suppose I don't want to co-exist harmoniously with my neighbors, am I objectively wrong for wiping them out? How is your view any better than mines? We both have our reasons...

Of course it is subjective! And my view is better (and accurate) because that is what happens in experience, whilst yours is just a faith-based belief. If there were a God-given Moral Law then it would be an objective standard, a set of principles that are demonstrably true. But in practice the moral standard varies with the needs of the individual (the self), governments, religions, sects and nations etc. There is no absolute moral law that cannot be overturned, ignored, modified or adapted to suit what is agreeable or useful to the party or parties involved. A belief that something is done for the ‘right reasons’ is therefore subjective, and demonstrates at once that moral ‘law’ isn’t objective. We do what we do because it works, and if it doesn’t work we don’t do it. Undeniably there is always the element of self-interest involved.

If there is no objective standard, then murder isn't objectively wrong.

That’s right. But it is universally subjectively abhorrent.

But when I say an omnibenvoelent exists, I am presupposing a standard of morality, an objective standard which means that some things are right and some things are wrong regardless of what man thinks. Now, I do have corroborating reasons for believing this, but that is the jest of it.

God's commandments reflect his holy character, so any act that is contrary to the ultimate standard of goodness would be considered wrong.

Then tell us what is this ‘ultimate standard of goodness’, because God certainly doesn’t lead by example?

I am talking about objective morality...people can think what they want.

What ‘objective morality’?

We are all sinful beings, and any suffering that we may go through may very well be as an act of judgment by God, or even to draw us closer to him, as many people can personally testify too.

You’re saying God causes/permits suffering to ‘draw people closer to him’, which is to admit that God has emotional needs and is not complete and self-sufficient in all things. And he granted free will with the caveat that evil and suffering would be possible and then punishes humans for the mistakes he knew they would make, which he himself made possible and actual.

Evil is the opposite of righteousness, and one can only be righteous if one chooses to be righteous...that is called FREE WILL, cot. Evil exist because there are people that chooses to do the wrong thing. Suffering exists because of sin, and we've all committed a sin or two in our lives.

And the new born infant, dying from Leukemia, what dreadful ‘sin or two’ has that child committed in its all too brief life?

I am trying to figure out what part of "FREE WILL" are you not understanding? God cannot make someone "freely" do something, cot. Ominbenvolent or not.

Well, you don’t have to patronize me, and the Free Will Defence makes not a jot of difference; Craig’s apology fails because suffering exists because an omnipotent God made it possible and he knew in his omniscience that it would be an actual choice. And evil and suffering are not a necessary element of free will. If God is the omnipotent being then the concept of free will need not have included the necessity for suffering. The inhabitants of a possible world where there is only good, that is to say no evil or suffering, can still strive and aspire to bring about an even greater good. Such a world would have been perfectly consistent with a loving God (and entirely conducive to the teachings of Christianity incidentally). Evil and suffering is the Achilles' Heel of Classical Theism and apologists who try to argue the need for suffering undermine and weaken the very God they are supposed to be defending, when all that needs to be done is to drop the absurd and contradictory notion of an all loving and merciful God. There is no logical reason why a Supreme Being should be all loving and the notion certainly doesn’t correspond with the biblical God or reality itself.

 

[Parsimony]

Well regardless of where it is discussed, the results will be the same; intellectual spankings, with me being the spanker, and you being the spankEE

Mkay then.

Give me an example of an infinity that is observably verifiable beyond abstract concepts alone.

 

[johnhanks]

Wait a minute, I've been called ignorant regarding the subject of evolution. Where were you then? Double standard.

I didn't see the post you are referring. Could you give me the post #?

Among others, I have referred to Call_of_the_Wild's ignorance of evolution, and I'll stand by what I wrote.

To be called ignorant about a subject isn't in itself an insult; if someone accused me of being ignorant about Chinese calligraphy I'd happily agree with them. If, on the other hand, I took to posting on a website devoted to Chinese calligraphy, insisting that those who'd studied the subject had it all wrong and my views should trump theirs, I'd deserve all the opprobrium that came my way.

Call_of_the_Wild's posts on the subject of evolution must now run into many hundreds. Not once has he shown the faintest glimmer of understanding what evolution is really about, and attempts to outline the subject's basics to him are routinely dismissed as "bio-babble".

There's honest ignorance and there's willful, cultivated ignorance. We should be aware what kind we're talking about in this case.

 

[Thief]

It seems like you're not following the argument.

1. Two people having an argument/debate
2. One of them start calling the other one names (viper, ignorant, etc)
3. The one calling names automatically loses the debate

1. Jesus and the Pharisees had a debate
2. Jesus called them vipers
3. Jesus lost the debate

And you weren't looking at the overall effect.
In death He proved greater than the argument.

oh, but....you might not be thinking that far ahead?

 

[McBell]

And you weren't looking at the overall effect.
In death He proved greater than the argument.

oh, but....you might not be thinking that far ahead?

sounds more like back peddling to me...

 

[Ouroboros]

And you weren't looking at the overall effect.
In death He proved greater than the argument.

Has nothing to do with the debate.

Jesus could have won other debates, but the debate where he called the pharisees names, he lost.

oh, but....you might not be thinking that far ahead?

Or you might not be thinking specific enough. I think you even missed the point that I responded to another poster when I said it, so you have to read it in context. You're moving the goalpost and then insult me by insinuating that I wasn't smart enough. By doing so, you lost.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Among others, I have referred to Call_of_the_Wild's ignorance of evolution, and I'll stand by what I wrote.

To be called ignorant about a subject isn't in itself an insult; if someone accused me of being ignorant about Chinese calligraphy I'd happily agree with them. If, on the other hand, I took to posting on a website devoted to Chinese calligraphy, insisting that those who'd studied the subject had it all wrong and my views should trump theirs, I'd deserve all the opprobrium that came my way.

Call_of_the_Wild's posts on the subject of evolution must now run into many hundreds. Not once has he shown the faintest glimmer of understanding what evolution is really about, and attempts to outline the subject's basics to him are routinely dismissed as "bio-babble".

There's honest ignorance and there's willful, cultivated ignorance. We should be aware what kind we're talking about in this case.

Exactly. I'm one of the people who called him ignorant as well. Because he has admitted to me, that on the topic of evolution he stops reading information when he becomes uncomfortable with it. So we're actually talking about willful ignorance here, which is the worst kind, if you ask me.

 

[ArtieE]

I am interested less about your opinion regarding moral values, and interested more about that whole infinity discussion that you wanted to flex your muscles in...well?

I just explained to you how moral values evolved in a thread called "The battle of evolution vs creationism" if you're not interested why are you here?