Abiogenesis

[renniks]

Your inability to understand does not refute evolution. Just as your inability to understand gravity does not refute gravity. Arguments From Ignorance are logical fallacies.

I am supposed to understand what is impossible. Got it. And you all think theists are illogical?

 

[renniks]

You mean design just "appears" in the system? By magic?

I mean you have it exactly backwards. You are trying to fit design into theories of evolution?
The whole of creation shows design. Man's theories either fit into this reality or they are false.

 

[renniks]

No, that is not how it works. Because it is subjective it can be improved later. That is an advantage. It is too bad that such a simple concept is not understood by you. One of course needs to be able to reason rationally to u understand this.

Translation:
" I'm obviously superior to you because I have a system where morality is optional, which makes me smart."

 

[Ophiolite]

Translation:
" I'm obviously superior to you because I have a system where morality is optional, which makes me smart."

I urge you to re-read his post, reflect on the fact that no reasonable reading of it can lead one to think he says "morality is optional", then - with the integrity I am confident you have - come back and withdraw that remark. (I don't know about the morals of the situation, but it would certainly be the ethical thing to do.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Translation:
" I'm obviously superior to you because I have a system where morality is optional, which makes me smart."

No, your own arguments demonstrate that you lack an understanding. You keep trying to put down secular subjective morality when your own morality is demonstrably subjective. You are not reasoning consistently, that was my lament.

Subjective morality that we can change and improve as we learn more and more is superior to subjective morality that cannot change no matter how much we learn that it is wrong.

 

[HitchSlap]

Translation:
" I'm obviously superior to you because I have a system where morality is optional, which makes me smart."

What do you mean by optional morality?

 

[HitchSlap]

I never saw anything in the text to make me believe the Earth is flat.

Did you see anything in the text to make you think it’s globe?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What do you mean by optional morality?

I am pretty sure that it is based upon a lack of understanding of rational morality. He appears to have conflated "subjective" with "optional". Oddly enough technically his morality may be "optional" though he does not realize it.

 

[Larniavc]

I see no real difference. If I have to create an intricate crystal I would perhaps need more intelligence and a a better understanding of geometry... but either on shows beauty and intentionality, and intelligence.

Salt crystals form on their own. An ordered structure with no guidance.

Will you state the hallmarks of design? What are the criteria for concluding something is designed?

 

[Speedwell]

I mean you have it exactly backwards. You are trying to fit design into theories of evolution?
The whole of creation shows design. Man's theories either fit into this reality or they are false.

No, I'm trying to find out how you think "design" works. You assert that "design" accounts for the evolution of life better than the theory of evolution. Theories are supposed to explain facts. It's a fact that life has evolved over time. The theory of evolution is an attempt to explain that fact and offers a process mechanism. You claim that explanation is inadequate and offer "design" as an alternative explanation. What is the process mechanism?

 

[Paul James]

If it's subjective I can change it at any time... Like when I really want something you have, or decide that atheists taste good.

The application of tomato sauce will improve the taste!

 

[renniks]

No, your own arguments demonstrate that you lack an understanding. You keep trying to put down secular subjective morality when your own morality is demonstrably subjective. You are not reasoning consistently, that was my lament.

Subjective morality that we can change and improve as we learn more and more is superior to subjective morality that cannot change no matter how much we learn that it is wrong.

That makes zero sense in a world where survival of the fittest is the only morality.

 

[renniks]

The application of tomato sauce will improve the taste!

Thanks for the tip!

 

[Subduction Zone]

That makes zero sense in a world where survival of the fittest is the only morality.

"Survival of the fittest" is a phrase that you probably do not understand. Nor is it a "morality". Morals are an emergent trait. Based at least partially on the fact that we are evolved beings. But we have gone above and beyond that..

Perhaps if you avoided strawman arguments and tried to understand the other side. One cannot debunk what one does not understand.

 

[renniks]

It's a fact that life has evolved over time

No, it's just a poor interpretation of the evidence.

 

[HitchSlap]

That makes zero sense in a world where survival of the fittest is the only morality.

You’re right, this makes zero sense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, it's just a poor interpretation of the evidence.

It is the only interpretation of the evidence. Right now evolution is the only idea supported by scientific evidence. Most creationists do not even understand the concept of evidence.

 

[renniks]

"Survival of the fittest" is a phrase that you probably do not understand. Nor is it a "morality". Morals are an emergent trait. Based at least partially on the fact that we are evolved beings. But we have gone above and beyond that..

Perhaps if you avoided strawman arguments and tried to understand the other side. One cannot debunk what one does not understand.

Lol, what's hard to understand about a total naturalistic world? "Morals are an emergent trait." Come on, that is meaningless. Nothing matters but the perpetuation of the species.
Now, you might be the most moral fella on the face of the planet, but it still doesn't change the fact that you have no basis for morality. At least some atheists admit the obvious.

 

[Speedwell]

No, it's just a poor interpretation of the evidence.

So how do you interpret the evidence? As the serial de novo creation and extinction of species over time which just happens to give the appearance of evolutionary development?

 

[Speedwell]

Lol, what's hard to understand about a total naturalistic world? "Morals are an emergent trait." Come on, that is meaningless. Nothing matters but the perpetuation of the species.

And for an intelligent social species like humans, morality plays an important role in that survival.

Now, you might be the most moral fella on the face of the planet, but it still doesn't change the fact that you have no basis for morality. At least some atheists admit the obvious.

What? Are you still on the "evolution = atheism" kick?