In a creationist church

[Tomatoman]

Still, according to you, you cannot think.


That is not how science works, The framework is not the conclusion.



just chemical reactions. You might as well kill people for fun, it cant be immorral as there is no such thing.

You are going round in circles. The problem is you are not equipped with the ideas to have this conversation. You are asking questions that your religion isn't answering and repeating the same statements that aren't leading you to any understanding. You are looking in the wrong place for the answers to your questions.

 

[marktheblake]

You are asking questions that your religion isn't answering and repeating the same statements that aren't leading you to any understanding.

I am not asking any questions. I am not telling you what I beleive.

I have pointed out to you that if there is no God, then there is nothing but matter and energy that exists. You agree with this, so what is the problem.

 

[marktheblake]

But you haven't presented any data.

data for what?

How do you go from everything is essentially matter and energy to crazy men raping girls is OK???

I never said it was OK at all. I am suggesting to him that there is no reference point for such an act to be wrong according to his view of the world.

And the conclusion is not supposed to come before the data.

I see no reason why you bring that up.

Where is your data, because I don't see it anywhere

.

data for what?

Why is there no immorality if the basis of the universe is matter and energy?

What is the basis of morality in such a world?

Are you claiming the universe is made up of matter, energy and morality??

Claiming nothing at all, I am letting you know that I understand that you think that all that exists is matter and energy. Am discussing the issue from within your framework here. My beleif is irrelevant in the discussion, and you don't care about that anyway.

 

[Split Rock]

data for what?

You tell me. You were the one claiming that Tomatoman was ignoring data. To quote your earlier post:

"As you believe all that exists is only matter and energy then thats the only conclusion you will arrive at, no matter what data has been presented to you."

I never said it was OK at all. I am suggesting to him that there is no reference point for such an act to be wrong according to his view of the world.

And I am telling you that to draw such a conclusion from his statement that the universe is essentially mass + energy is a non sequiter.

What is the basis of morality in such a world?

This is like asking if a car is essentially make of steel, plastic and copper wiring, what is the basis for it to be able to transport a person anywhere.

Claiming nothing at all, I am letting you know that I understand that you think that all that exists is matter and energy. Am discussing the issue from within your framework here. My beleif is irrelevant in the discussion, and you don't care about that anyway.

Your assertion that accepting that the universe is made of mass + energy and nothing else means there is no morality is what we are discussing. Tell us what you think is missing.

 

[sandwiches]

Your assertion that accepting that the universe is made of mass + energy and nothing else means there is no morality is what we are discussing. Tell us what you think is missing.

Yea, he makes no sense to me. It's like trying to convince me that just because a book is only paper and ink, that there can't be ideas, stories, etc held within it.

 

[nChrist]

Yea, he makes no sense to me. It's like trying to convince me that just because a book is only paper and ink, that there can't be ideas, stories, etc held within it.

It's amazing how that book and its contents come together with no author, no entity obtaining the raw materials, and no entity binding it together. Do you have any estimate for how long it takes for a single book to evolve. This would be a simple example compared to man, so I look forward to your answer.

 

[Split Rock]

Yea, he makes no sense to me. It's like trying to convince me that just because a book is only paper and ink, that there can't be ideas, stories, etc held within it.

Exactly. I suspect the missing part is God, since most fundies believe there can be no morality without their god.

 

[Split Rock]

It's amazing how that book and its contents come together with no author, no entity obtaining the raw materials, and no entity binding it together. Do you have any estimate for how long it takes for a single book to evolve. This would be a simple example compared to man, so I look forward to your answer.

Books don't evolve, but humans do. Anything else?

 

[sandwiches]

It's amazing how that book and its contents come together with no author, no entity obtaining the raw materials, and no entity binding it together. Do you have any estimate for how long it takes for a single book to evolve. This would be a simple example compared to man, so I look forward to your answer.

Not surprisingly, you deliberately avoided the point entirely and decided to erect a ridiculous strawman. So, let me ask you this: Are you claiming that in the process of creating books, humans endow books with some unseen element that holds information beyond the usual materials of paper and ink?

 

[sandwiches]

Books don't evolve, but humans do. Anything else?

It's getting stranger and stranger. First, he argues that it makes no sense to assign morality to matter and energy but when I bring up books to which we assign knowledge, but are nothing more than paper and ink, evolution comes up??

It's bizzare, to say the least.

 

[nChrist]

This is a very bizarre thread, but not nearly as bizarre as the theory of evolution.

Something I'm curious about: where's all the half-baked monkeys? They do mate, so it's convenient that a male and female evolved at the same time. They're fairly prolific, so there should be large troops of half-baked monkeys everywhere. HUM? - None to be found. If there were any, maybe they would found churches that teach evolution.

NAH! - there is no half-baked monkeys - just a series of hoaxes passed off as half-baked monkeys. Mystery? - why do we still have monkeys but no half-baked monkeys?

I've got it - the theory of evolution is false - an embarrassment to science.

 

[laconicstudent]

This is a very bizarre thread, but not nearly as bizarre as the theory of evolution.

Something I'm curious about: where's all the half-baked monkeys? They do mate, so it's convenient that a male and female evolved at the same time. They're fairly prolific, so there should be large troops of half-baked monkeys everywhere. HUM? - None to be found. If there were any, maybe they would found churches that teach evolution.

NAH! - there is no half-baked monkeys - just a series of hoaxes passed off as half-baked monkeys. Mystery? - why do we still have monkeys but no half-baked monkeys?

I've got it - the theory of evolution is false - an embarrassment to science.

I never thought I'd see someone using this argument seriously.

 

[nChrist]

I never thought I'd see someone using this argument seriously.

I'm glad that you liked it. The more you think about it, the more common sense it makes.

 

[laconicstudent]

I'm glad that you liked it. The more you think about it, the more common sense it makes.

It would be if I wasn't in a science program. As it is it is just ridiculous.

 

[Gracchus]

I'm glad that you liked it. The more you think about it, the more common sense it makes.

I'll give you that it is common. After all, 50% of the human species is of below average intelligence.

Hmm! Would you classify them as "half-baked" humans?

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm glad that you liked it. The more you think about it, the more common sense it makes.

It makes sense to me, Mag; but unfortunately their PR department has a way out of this.

They can (and will) invoke a series of gaps to explain how monkeys transitioned into humans, then claim no hanky-panky with their simian forefathers took place.

 

[laconicstudent]

They can (and will) invoke a series of gaps to explain how monkeys transitioned into humans, then claim no hanky-panky with their simian forefathers took place.

Of course, those gaps keep getting filled in, but if you wish to pretend transitional fossils don't exist, we are all used to it, so feel free.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'll give you that it is common. After all, 50% of the human species is of below average intelligence.

Hmm! Would you classify them as "half-baked" humans?

You mean 50% of us are above-average intelligence? or is your glass half-empty?

 

[laconicstudent]

You mean 50% of us is above-average intelligence? or is your glass half-empty?

And now we shall have an introduction to the bell curve.

http://www.psychstat.missouristate.edu/introbook/sbk11m.htm


Beautiful, isn't it?
http://www.netmba.com/statistics/distribution/normal/

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course, those gaps keep getting filled in...

Oh, sure they do --

You have all of what? 10 out of a couple billion?