Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I’d have done better to make the
question about a literal reading of
noahs ark, and the ethics of using
falsehoods to try to show the flood
really happened.
Same ethics question, simpler topic.
It can still be possible if the flood was regional, and not global, and that's unfalsifiable right now, etc. Same with a literal Garden of Eden, and a literal Adam and Eve. Not that you really care anything at all about that though, etc. But it's not lying or dishonest yet, because it's unfalsifiable, and doesn't contradict all the other knowledge we right now know, or right now currently have right now, etc.I’d have done better to make the
question about a literal reading of
noahs ark, and the ethics of using
falsehoods to try to show the flood
really happened.
Same ethics question, simpler topic.
The Ethics of Arguments in Support of Evolution:Show me an example of arguments consisting of things I make up.
You cannot.
Show me yec argument against evolution thst is not made up.
You cannot.
But my topic is the ethics of using falsehoods.
Dreadfully clever! But no examples so….The Ethics of Arguments in Support of Evolution:
We observe that virtually all such arguments are simplyfalsehoods, either made up by the poster, or, borrowedfrom someone else who made them up.How can this behaviour be consistent withany moral code?
See, I can do it too.
Just returning tit-for-tat. Your OP caught my attention because it offered no evidence in support of your postulate. It only contained accusations against those who hold a different view than yours. When you asked for evidence that your accusations were wrong, I noticed that your original arguments could just as well be made against your POV.Dreadfully clever! But no examples so….
Better informed persons would know the range as 13.5-14.0 Gyr. 15-30 Gyr hasn't been on the table for a couple decades.Estimates are as you know 15-30bn years , but to put that into context requires understanding Hubble-lemaitre which at best is a very long extrapolation based on assumptions. So, it is indicative not definitive .
which is larger than the cosmic horizonconsidering other long extrapolations like gravity over 100s bns light years ,
you seem to be talking of DM w/ the galaxy rotation bit, but DM isn't 10x regular matter.the diameter of galaxies, doesn’t work very well on galax rotation with an error term expressed in mass ten times the visible matter ( the origin of the dark matter question) all extrapolations need taking with a pinch of salt.
I doubt (Stephen) Hawking has much of a view about anything these days.All so called laws are emperiometric not ontological. That is the view of even hawking!
Was it just the IT, or were you also in charge of the maintenance of the telescopes?spot the one time tech director of an astrophysics facility.:me.
“ Tit for Tat” could be called a dodge, but never mind that.Just returning tit-for-tat. Your OP caught my attention because it offered no evidence in support of your postulate. It only contained accusations against those who hold a different view than yours. When you asked for evidence that your accusations were wrong, I noticed that your original arguments could just as well be made against your POV.
Do I care to argue against evolution? Not really. Other people have made it their life's work to do that (it's called apologetics). To me the real issue is not evolution, it is placing one's trust in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins. If evolutionary theory is preventing you from finding God's forgiveness in Christ Jesus, I would recommend putting evolution aside until you have found what you need the most.
I do not know why would you want to accuse Darwin of such dishonesty. If you read his diary, you would know that he went on his journeys as a YEC Christian, looking for the global flood signs. But he could not find any.That the purpose of the theory of evolution is to deny the existence of God. The rest follow from it.
He is stating that is the foundational falsehood that other anti evolution arguments stem from. He is claiming that to be his own understanding.I do not know why would you want to accuse Darwin of such dishonesty. If you read his diary, you would know that he went on his journeys as a YEC Christian, looking for the global flood signs. But he could not find any.
Instead, he noticed that species living on isolated islands developed specific features and even speciation. He had to change his natural science view based on what he discovered. And because he, as todays YEC Christians, did not know how to keep the Christian faith without believing that Genesis is a literal dictation from God, it seems he later became just a theist, though some sources say he remained a Christian.
In other words, Darwin changed his view after his journeys and discoveries, not before.
Yes the effect of the theory of evolution is to deny the existence of God for those who are convinced that a belief in a literal Genesis is required for faith in God. But is that the purpose of the theory? To follow Morris's argument further, have evolutionary biologists intentionally crafted a false theory in order to deny the existence of God?I do not know why would you want to accuse Darwin of such dishonesty. If you read his diary, you would know that he went on his journeys as a YEC Christian, looking for the global flood signs. But he could not find any.
Instead, he noticed that species living on isolated islands developed specific features and even speciation. He had to change his natural science view based on what he discovered. And because he, as todays YEC Christians, did not know how to keep the Christian faith without believing that Genesis is a literal dictation from God, it seems he later became just a theist, though some sources say he remained a Christian.
In other words, Darwin changed his view after his journeys and discoveries, not before.
Would anyone here like to say that it’s ethical toYes the effect of the theory of evolution is to deny the existence of God for those who are convinced that a belief in a literal Genesis is required for faith in God. But is that the purpose of the theory? To follow Morris's argument further, have evolutionary biologists intentionally crafted a false theory in order to deny the existence of God?
IOtheLe stime sono come sapete 15-30 miliardi di anni, ma per mettere questo in contesto è necessario comprendere Hubble-lemaitre che nella migliore delle ipotesi è una lunghissima estrapolazione basata su ipotesi. Quindi, è indicativo, non definitivo.
considerando altre lunghe estrapolazioni come la gravità su centinaia di miliardi di anni luce, il diametro delle galassie, non funziona molto bene sulla rotazione delle galassie con un termine di errore espresso in massa dieci volte la materia visibile (l'origine della questione della materia oscura) tutte le estrapolazioni devono essere prese con le pinze. Tutte le cosiddette leggi sono empiriometriche, non ontologiche. Questa è la visione anche di Hawking!
individua l'ex direttore tecnico di una struttura di astrofisica.:me.
Sto semplicemente dicendo che la vita, presumibilmente un prodotto dell'evoluzione, ha problemi significativi, la cui soluzione spetta agli evoluzionisti e non a me; uno di questi è il quadro morale oggettivo o condiviso che sembra violare la legge della sopravvivenza del più adatto.
Darwin lo menziona e poi lo aggira, non lo affronta, e tanto meno lo risolve. Pochi sembrano aver letto Darwin prima di citarlo qui,
Ce ne sono altri. La mente - l'anima. La coscienza.
se la mente non è un processo del cervello, che è sempre meno sostenibile come paradigma, allora la vita non è spiegata dall'evoluzione chimica. Punto.
E la mancanza di QUALSIASI prova di un percorso evolutivo verso la cellula moderna minima. Quindi la maggior parte del percorso è mancante. Ciò che è scritto sul lavoro dell'RNA è pura congettura non supportata.
Puoi avere le tue convinzioni, ma non dare per scontato che siano supportate dalla scienza.
forse dovresti ascoltare i biologi evoluzionisti premio Nobel come Szostak
che in un recente articolo ha notato che ci sono tre grandi problemi che l'uomo deve risolvere,
1/ origine dell'universo
2/ origine della vita
3/ origine della mente
Afferma che 1/ 3/ sono TROPPO DIFFICILI da risolvere. Ma senza 3 non hai alcuna spiegazione della vita.
Il. nel discutere 2/ dimostra di non avere prove di ciò che ha preceduto le nostre cellule minime orribilmente complesse
Egli ipotizza un mondo a RNA, che è ancora molto complesso. Quindi non ha idea dell'origine delle cellule.
Quindi mi dispero per i post semplicistici e mal informati su forum come questo, dove gli atei fingono che l'origine e l'evoluzione della vita siano un fatto compiuto. Non lo è. Nemmeno lontanamente.
Ancora peggio quando usano paroloni che non capiscono, come chiamare "immorali" i detrattori senza mettere in discussione il significato della moralità, che è uno dei problemi degli evoluzionisti.
La cosiddetta teoria di Darwin non è una teoria nemmeno nella scienza rigorosa.
Why are you talking of origin of cells with origin of life? I have heard that Darwin evolution theory is based on that all life on earth today is a product of millions years of evolutionary process start from a single cell called Luca formed by a chance from abiogensis but still don't know how life originated because all abiogensis experiments were a big flops.Estimates are as you know 15-30bn years , but to put that into context requires understanding Hubble-lemaitre which at best is a very long extrapolation based on assumptions. So, it is indicative not definitive .
considering other long extrapolations like gravity over 100s bns light years , the diameter of galaxies, doesn’t work very well on galax rotation with an error term expressed in mass ten times the visible matter ( the origin of the dark matter question) all extrapolations need taking with a pinch of salt. All so called laws are emperiometric not ontological. That is the view of even hawking!
spot the one time tech director of an astrophysics facility.:me.
I am simoly telling you that life assumed a product of evolution has significant problems , which are for evolutionists not me to solve, one of them is objective or shared moral framework which appear to violate survival of fittest.
Darwin mentions it then skirts around it , he did not address it, far less did he solve it. Few seem to have read Darwin before quote him here,
There are others. The mind - the soul. Consciousness.
if the mind is not a process of the brain, which is increasingly less supportable as a paradigm, then life is not explained by chemical evolution . Period.
And The lack of ANY evidence for an evolutinary pathway to the minimum modern cell. So most of the pathway is missing . what is written about rna workd is pure unsupported conjecture.
You are welcome to your beliefs, but don't assume they are supported by science .
perhaps you should listen to such as Nobel laureate evolutinary biologists szostak
who in a recent article noted there are three major problems For man to solve,
1/ origin of universe
2/ origin of life
3/ origin of mind
He states 1/ 3/ are TOO HARD to solve. but Without 3 you have no explanation of life.
The. in discussing 2/ he proves he has no evidebce of what preceded our hideously complex minimumcells
He conjectures RNA world , which is still very complex . So he has no idea of origin of cells.
So I despair of the simplistic illinformed posting on forums like this where atheists pretend the origin and evolutin of life is a done deal. It Isnt. not even close.
Even worse when they use big words they don’t understand like calling nay sayers “immoral” without questioning the meaning of morality, which is one of the evolutionists problems.
Darwins so called theory is not even a theory in rigorous science.
You heard wrongIOthe
Why are you talking of origin of cells with origin of life? I have heard that Darwin evolution theory is based on that all life on earth today is a product of millions years of evolutionary process start from a single cell called Luca formed by a chance from abiogensis but still don't know how life originated because all abiogensis experiments were a big flops.
Nope, I have heard correctly, this is also written on Wikipedia page of Abiogenesis page.You heard wrong
Nope, I have heard correctly, this is also written on Wikipedia page of Abiogenesis page.
No, ho sentito bene, questo è scritto anche sulla pagina di Wikipedia di Abiogenesis paHai sentito male
Abiogenesis is a process in which life arise from non living matter as organics compoundAh, mi dispiace tanto, ricordavi male.
Taglia e incolla da wiki e contiamo
tutti i modi in cui hai falsificato l'originale.
Yes. However, the ends can never justify evil means.The ends justifies the means I guess.
You'd have a point if evolution was a fact. But TOE is not, so you don'tTo deny a fact knowingly is to lie.
Like gravity, evolution is a term used both for a fact of nature and the scientific theory that best explains it.You'd have a point if evolution was a fact. But TOE is not, so you don't
No known fact proves it.No known fact disproves evolution- which is where earnest
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?