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 would love to focus on genetics, but I didn't want to limit any arguments you wanted to make. I would also hope that you would be arguing for the special creation of humans, or whatever your position will be. You should try and make as strong of an argument for your position as I will make for mine. I would expect that you will do more than try to argue against evolution and actually provide some positive evidence for your case.
I will start a thread with a post outlining the guidelines and "rules" (nothing too strict) for the debate. If you respond with your agreement, then we can proceed.
I don't know of any morality that is not subjective when it is fully investigated. Some may claim to get their morals from the Bible or from some other authoritative source but investigation usually shows that those claims are not based on reality.OK, so basically you are a subjectivist and you ground your morality in your intuition, and you suppose that everyone else does as well. Is that about right?
Thank you for your answer by the way. Well said.
OK, so basically you are a subjectivist and you ground your morality in your intuition, and you suppose that everyone else does as well. Is that about right?
Thank you for your answer by the way. Well said.
Theists come to a different conclusion than naturalists.
Naturalists conclude that evolution is a purely natural process, as Darwin theorized.
Theists typically believe that either evolution is limited to adaptation, or that evolution is guided by an intelligent agent.
It's very exceedingly rare to find a theist who believes that God was completely uninvolved in evolution. Ken Miller seems to be one of them but what he believes seems to shift considerably depending on his audience. Perhaps he is more concerned about expanding his audience than having integrity to his beliefs.
I would not agree with the statement that "most" Christians agree with evolution, but I don't think that was your point so it doesn't matter.
And people who don't believe that the ToE has been substantially proven,
along with the general population at large, run into evolutionists who lie. Lie repeatedly...
That's 10,000,000 possible verses 40,000,000 actual using your figures (which are not correct). And before you got there, the the trillions of negative mutations would have wiped out the population.
I don't know of any morality that is not subjective when it is fully investigated. Some may claim to get their morals from the Bible or from some other authoritative source but investigation usually shows that those claims are not based on reality.
The interesting thing is we have identified a number of these mutations.
SRGAP2C
ARHGAP11B
and possibly MHY16
being just three of them.
Subjectivism is a non-colloquial category of existential ontology.
Hardly. Where do you get the bogus "million to one" claim on deleterious/neutral claim from? Also since there are far more neutral mutations than deleterious ones why did you not list that first?Seriously?
Ha ha!
Okay, my spidey sense is twitching a bit (it's a trick!!) but I will bite.
10,000,000,000,000 mutations at 1,000,000 to 1 deleterious/neutral to beneficial.
That's 10,000,000 possible verses 40,000,000 actual using your figures (which are not correct). And before you got there, the the trillions of negative mutations would have wiped out the population.
Is the debate over?
Seriously?
Ha ha!
Okay, my spidey sense is twitching a bit (it's a trick!!) but I will bite.
10,000,000,000,000 mutations at 1,000,000 to 1 deleterious/neutral to beneficial.
That's 10,000,000 possible verses 40,000,000 actual using your figures (which are not correct). And before you got there, the the trillions of negative mutations would have wiped out the population.
Is the debate over?
And it seems to be the only version of morality out there. Perhaps you could show that there is a different form.
Wow, I didn't think you'd be so candid about your ignorance ha ha!
Just kidding!
I can't do this credit in the time I have right now, but for starters there are moral realists, moral non-realists, objectivist, subjectivist, nihilist, non-cognitivist - more ist and ism than you shake a stick at.
That's what everyone does, even those who subjectively choose a religion and subjectively determine it to be the most moral religion.
Just give some examples and we can see if they are objectivists or not. Simply claiming to be something else is not good enough. We need to see where they get their morality from and how.
Just because someone claims something does not make it true. I am ready to discuss my post and defend it. Are you ready to do the same? by the way, no problem bringing this up later if you want to.
Look up subjectivism.
Hey I looked at your parameters for our debate and I accept as written even though you stacked in your favor ha ha!
So since you stacked in your favor, if I still win the debate you have to bow down in my direction three times and repeat: "Paterfamilia owns the universe"
Deal?
Of course, but I am not sure what I am defending, and maybe we should start a new thread. We have veered so completely away from the fossil record (I will take the blame) it might make sense.
The camps I listed are true by definition. For example, if you believe that there is no such thing as morals and life is meaningless, you would be a nihilist, etc.
Ha ha ha.It perfectly describes faith and how people justify their religious beliefs:
Just for the record, give your approval in the formal debates thread and we will get under way. If you want, you could explain why you think the rules are tipped in my favor.
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?