Prove it or remove it challenge

[Paterfamilia]

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.

Carry on sir!

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

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.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

That's what everyone does, even those who subjectively choose a religion and subjectively determine it to be the most moral religion.

 

[bhsmte]

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.

It was absolutely my point, that the majority of theists, accept the theory of evolution, as it stands.

 

[bhsmte]

I sense the following:

Delusions of grandeur!

Ha ha ha

 

[USincognito]

And people who don't believe that the ToE has been substantially proven,

Nothing in science is ever proven. It's a lot easier to be taken seriously in a scientific discussion if one utilizes proper scientific verbiage.

along with the general population at large, run into evolutionists who lie. Lie repeatedly...

Oh my.

 

[USincognito]

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.

The interesting thing is we have identified a number of these mutations.
SRGAP2C
ARHGAP11B
and possibly MHY16
being just three of them.

 

[Paterfamilia]

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.

Subjectivism is a non-colloquial category of existential ontology.

 

[Paterfamilia]

The interesting thing is we have identified a number of these mutations.
SRGAP2C
ARHGAP11B
and possibly MHY16
being just three of them.

That's great but would you mind explaining your point?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Subjectivism is a non-colloquial category of existential ontology.

And it seems to be the only version of morality out there. Perhaps you could show that there is a different form.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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?

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?

 

[Loudmouth]

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?

Still waiting to hear where you came up with the 1E6:1 ratio between detrimental/neutral and beneficial mutations.

On top of that, the 40E6 mutations that separate humans and chimps include neutral mutations. In fact, the vast majority of those 40E6 differences are going to be neutral mutations.

 

[Paterfamilia]

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.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

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.

 

[Paterfamilia]

That's what everyone does, even those who subjectively choose a religion and subjectively determine it to be the most moral religion.

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?

 

[Paterfamilia]

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.

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.

 

[HitchSlap]

Matt sums up "objective morality," nicely.

 

[Loudmouth]

Look up subjectivism.

It perfectly describes faith and how people justify their religious beliefs:

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?

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.

 

[bhsmte]

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.

How about starting with defending, supporting your own claims.

Ha ha ha

 

[HitchSlap]

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.

Ha ha ha.

I think he means you've chosen the side that enjoys the evidence.