Why Evolution is True (2)

[Loudmouth]

Man has no other way to know right and wrong than God's word. Any other morality is lost in the fog of darkness.

Then how can man know if God's word is right or wrong? You are saying that we are nothing more than amoral robots who are forced to follow instructions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Man has no other way to know right and wrong than God's word. Any other morality is lost in the fog of darkness.

Your so called God's word is a terrible source for morality.

You can legally own slaves. You can beat your slaves to death as long as they linger for a few days. A rapist can avoid being charged if he pays the father of his victim a nominal feel and marries his victim. The penalty for many petty crimes was death. Even a smart mouthed kid was supposed to be stoned to death by his parents.


None of that sounds to moral to me.

 

[createdtoworship]

Your so called God's word is a terrible source for morality.

You can legally own slaves. You can beat your slaves to death as long as they linger for a few days. A rapist can avoid being charged if he pays the father of his victim a nominal feel and marries his victim. The penalty for many petty crimes was death. Even a smart mouthed kid was supposed to be stoned to death by his parents.


None of that sounds to moral to me.

prove it, how is owning slaves wrong, or beating slaves wrong? If you don't have the objective truth of the Bible to say one way or the other? What moral law do you attest to?

 

[Subduction Zone]

prove it, how is owning slaves wrong, or beating slaves wrong? If you don't have the objective truth of the Bible to say one way or the other? What moral law do you attest to?

Actually all morality is relative. There is no absolute right or wrong. What I am claiming is that my morality is better than Biblical morality. For me any system that unnecessarily harms another is immoral. That makes slavery immoral.

The Bible has no rules against slavery and goes out of its way to tell you what you can and can't do to your slaves.

If you think slavery is immoral than you think that my morality is better than Biblical morality.

 

[createdtoworship]

Good grief, anybody who knows anything about evolution as it is currently seen would agree with this statement. Of course random mutation and natural selection alone do not account for the complexity of life. There are other mechanisms involved such as genetic drift which some think is just as powerful as natural selection especially in speciation.

okay then lets start with this: what are three skeptical items regarding natural selection's inability to provide genetic variablity of modern organisms?

I await your response. And note, this should not take too long seeing that "anybody who knows anything about evolution....would agree" with this skepticism.

Well "duh" what do you think biologists and scientists in related fields do? Do you think that in their training scientists are taught not to examine the evidence? You never know, you might indeed think that.

but they don't examine the evidence, they presuppose it exists based on microevolutionary proof, and carry that truth on to macroevolution which has yet to be observed. What they are saying is that the evidence should be reinvestigated. Thats the context IMO.

Neither does any other knowledgeable person.

explain evolution and how it works in your mind, because the typical evolutionist believes from the goo-to you- via the zoo. with natural selection and mutation as the only engines pushing the train.

Because that is what the evidence shows. What on earth is your problem with this?

I adressed this above

One can easily deny that these are the only mechanisms involved in evolution. If fact if someone says that these two mechanisms are adequate to explain evolution then they have a rather serious case of ignorance about the subject.



You will, as usual reject this as you reject anything else that doesn't agree with you but readers can figure out what is going on.

then you reject darwinian evolution, and one what basis? Speculation. Because I doubt as with the other posters that you will not address the facts of the matter but dodge, once again, my request to back up what you say with examples.

Sigh, Grady continues to be often wrong but never in doubt.

addressing the post to me, and then talking to me in the third person is a bit rude, for a christian, that is. So please refrain.

On the other hand, creating a post for the general public and labeling someone in the third person is fine, and I do that all the time. But not like what you did here.

 

[createdtoworship]

Good grief, anybody who knows anything about evolution as it is currently seen would agree with this statement. Of course random mutation and natural selection alone do not account for the complexity of life. There are other mechanisms involved such as genetic drift which some think is just as powerful as natural selection especially in speciation.

Well "duh" what do you think biologists and scientists in related fields do? Do you think that in their training scientists are taught not to examine the evidence? You never know, you might indeed think that.


Neither does any other knowledgeable person.

Because that is what the evidence shows. What on earth is your problem with this?

One can easily deny that these are the only mechanisms involved in evolution. If fact if someone says that these two mechanisms are adequate to explain evolution then they have a rather serious case of ignorance about the subject.

You will, as usual reject this as you reject anything else that doesn't agree with you but readers can figure out what is going on.

Sigh, Grady continues to be often wrong but never in doubt.


Dizredux

hey I had a another quick question. Do you believe Genesis is the word of God, Do you believe it is literal?

if not, then how can people be called sinners if adam was never there to begin the process of "the fall". Without being called sinners, how can someone be forgiven of sin by Christ's sacrifice, and lastly, how can one be saved with no theological roots to the fall. Granted one may in fact come upon the doctrine of original sin, and depravity by other means, but what is the ultimate point if the original sin, did not sin, because He didn't exist?

I await your response.

 

[createdtoworship]

Actually all morality is relative. There is no absolute right or wrong. What I am claiming is that my morality is better than Biblical morality. For me any system that unnecessarily harms another is immoral. That makes slavery immoral.

The Bible has no rules against slavery and goes out of its way to tell you what you can and can't do to your slaves.

If you think slavery is immoral than you think that my morality is better than Biblical morality.

if all morality is relative, you can't say your morality is "better that Biblical Morality."

that is a self defeating argument.

So you are wrong in the first few lines of your post here. (need I go on?)

 

[createdtoworship]

Darwinian history? Now you are inventing new words.

Why don't you show us the part of Darwin's theory where it says that we ought to kill Jews. I am still waiting for you to do that. If you can't, then I can only assume that you are lying about the theory of evolution leading to Social Darwinism.

is social darwinism taught in history class or science class? Lets start there.

 

[createdtoworship]

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
Dissent from Darwin

You don't have to reject evolution in order to sign off on that statement. You can be skeptical of a theory and still accept it. You can also suggest that mechanisms in addition to random mutation and selection (e.g. genetic drift, cladogenesis) are needed in the theory. You can also agree that the theory needs careful examination, and still accept the theory. That is exactly what Loran Moran comments on in his blog:

"Only an IDiot would claim that supporters of this statement are also creationists. Many atheist scientists, including me, would agree with the statement. Nevertheless, if you look at the list of people who signed [Scientific Dissent from Darwin List] you'll not find very many evolutionary biologists because we all know that the IDiots will misuse this list."
Sandwalk: The Purpose of "The Scientific Dissent from Darwin" List

Even funnier are the hosts and hosts of electrical and computer engineers on the list.



Someone who agrees with the the theory of evolution would also agree that random mutations and selection by themselves can not explain the complexity of current organisms. However, they would agree that evolution could.

The lie that you have been sold is that "mutation and selection only" is the same as "evolution" or "Darwinism".







Quote mines don't exist, so you can't have done that.

you can't be skeptical of natural selection and yet accept natural selection 100%.

so you are wrong, the list is for dissenters that don't believe in it 100%. Even I believe in natural selection to a point. It's very normal.

Can one say that other evolutionary mechanisms other than mutation and selection are needed? Yes.

again I will ask the same from you that I did from the other poster. Please cite evidence for these claims. (but I doubt that you will.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

if all morality is relative, you can't say your morality is "better that Biblical Morality."

Sure I can. Why on earth do you think that I can't?

that is a self defeating argument.

How so?

So you are wrong in the first few lines of your post here. (need I go on?)

No, you have just made another foolish statement that you can't defend and will now probably run away from it like you usually do.

And in fact you pretty much proved that my form of morality was superior to Biblical morality. You dodged the question that would have shown which one you thought was better.

So is slavery moral or not?

 

[justlookinla]

I will accept your tacit admission that you can't address the evidence.

Your claim that this is evidence.....

that only a random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless (other than procreation) and directionless process produced this.....

from this.....

would be laughable if it weren't so tragic for one to embrace such a faith-filled atheistic creationist view.

 

[createdtoworship]

I have been busy. .

no, you have been posting numerous, one liners and not doing research into the posts. As can be evidenced by your lack of citation to any official works or papers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

you can't be skeptical of natural selection and yet accept natural selection 100%.

so you are wrong, the list is for dissenters that don't believe in it 100%. Even I believe in natural selection to a point. It's very normal.

Boy either you are being incredibly dishonest or incredibly ignorant.

Natural selection is only part of the evolutionary process and it is either extremely dishonest or extremely ignorant to ignore the roll that random variation plays.

In case you did not know random variation is how new traits enter the genome. Natural selection is the one the keeps the good traits and gets rid of the bad traits.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your claim that this is evidence.....

that only a random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless (other than procreation) and directionless process produced this.....

from this.....

would be laughable if it weren't so tragic for one to embrace such a faith-filled atheistic creationist view.

No, it is evidence and all you have shown is that you are laughably and tragically ignorant of what qualifies as evidence.

By the way evolution is not random. It is not "meaningless", it is not directionless. The fact that you don't understand it is not evidence against the theory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

no, you have been posting numerous, one liners and not doing research into the posts. As can be evidenced by your lack of citation to any official works or papers.

Your request will take some time. I have time for quick response.

Plus you ran away when I offered to work on your one best quote when I had time. Why did you do that?

 

[justlookinla]

No, it is evidence and all you have shown is that you are laughably and tragically ignorant of what qualifies as evidence.

By the way evolution is not random. It is not "meaningless", it is not directionless. The fact that you don't understand it is not evidence against the theory.

Your entire post is full of fail.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your entire post is full of fail.

Please justlook, no lying.

I know that you do not understand evidence. I knew it from when we first met. I have offered to help you to understand evidence so that you could do better than to make foolish denials of matters that you do not understand.

It is not all that difficult to learn what scientific evidence is. Even you could lean it. Why are you so afraid to learn?

 

[justlookinla]

Please justlook, no lying.

I know that you do not understand evidence. I knew it from when we first met. I have offered to help you to understand evidence so that you could do better than to make foolish denials of matters that you do not understand.

It is not all that difficult to learn what scientific evidence is. Even you could lean it. Why are you so afraid to learn?

I'm standing on a tall mound nothing you continually shovel my way.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm standing on a tall mound nothing you continually shovel my way.

I have not shoveled anything your way.

I have offered to help you several times. Why are you so afraid?

 

[justlookinla]

I have not shoveled anything your way.

I have offered to help you several times. Why are you so afraid?

And yet another bucketful.