The Moral Argument (revamped)

[cvanwey]

you are asking basic questions that logic itself answers. That is why I worry about your logic. You make questions that are so easy to answer that you should have already done so. This is what I mean by weak. In answering the question for you, it makes you look foolish. So again, I say. Just reread your posts and use logic, and answer for yourself those questions.

I continue to find your responses fascinating. My last post didn't ask any questions. My last post to you reiterated the following:

'morals are really no more 'absolute' than economics or politics. We are humans, with cognitive faculties, and have to get by regardless; if we wish to co-exist...'

My point being... Humans are stuck in the 'reality' that we do not operate in 'absolutes', in regards to 'right/wrong'. Even if there was a demonstrated all mighty God in the mix.

I've also already conceded your OP (partially), but with HUGE CAVEATS. See below...

When you quoted in your OP:

"1. There must be a universal moral law, or else: (a) Moral disagreements would make no
sense, as we all assume they do. (b) All moral criticisms would be meaningless (e.g.,
“The Nazis were wrong.”). (c) It is unnecessary to keep promises or treaties, as we all
assume that it is. (d) We would not make excuses for breaking the moral law, as we all
do."

I agree only to a certain extent. Only in the sense that there seems to exist no actual 'standard', as one human's opinion is merely no better than any others.

HOWEVER, and this is a huge however... There exists (2) problems here, as I see it:

1. There does not necessary have to be a 'MUST'. The concept of a moral absolute is embedded in the idea of this 'necessary must.' But in reality, the fact that humans have the ability to assume a necessary must, does not mean this 'must', must exist We would again be begging the question.

2. Even IF this must, (i.e) God, did exist, why are morals then automatically 'absolute'? Because again, as I stated prior, this existing agent would have an opinion on right/wrong. And if I did not agree, and cited points supporting my opposing position with evidence, what makes this God's moral opinion still any better than mine? As I stated prior, it would seem that if this agent did exist, it would not matter if my opposing position was or was not justified. This moral agent would simply have the power to punish me for not agreeing with Him. Hence, possibly making Him a 'moral thug'.

So I now ask ONLY one question again. Feel free to respond and openly present my 'logic' as 'foolish.'

**** A female wishes to become a church leader. A male member of this same church tells her that God told him that she cannot lead. Should she believe him? ****

Hint: This is the crux of my entire stance... Humans wrote stuff in a book (the Bible), and appear to impose their own opinions about morality, and use the 'God card.' In regards to the question above, when 'Sal' wrote 1 Timothy 2:11-12, was it more likely he wrote of his own opinion, or did God actually intervene? (rhetorical question here)... You already know my position

 

[createdtoworship]

I continue to find your responses fascinating. My last post didn't ask any questions. My last post to you reiterated the following:

'morals are really no more 'absolute' than economics or politics. We are humans, with cognitive faculties, and have to get by regardless; if we wish to co-exist...'

My point being... Humans are stuck in the 'reality' that we do not operate in 'absolutes', in regards to 'right/wrong'. Even if there was a demonstrated all mighty God in the mix.

I've also already conceded your OP (partially), but with HUGE CAVEATS. See below...

When you quoted in your OP:

"1. There must be a universal moral law, or else: (a) Moral disagreements would make no
sense, as we all assume they do. (b) All moral criticisms would be meaningless (e.g.,
“The Nazis were wrong.”). (c) It is unnecessary to keep promises or treaties, as we all
assume that it is. (d) We would not make excuses for breaking the moral law, as we all
do."

I agree only to a certain extent. Only in the sense that there seems to exist no actual 'standard', as one human's opinion is merely no better than any others.

HOWEVER, and this is a huge however... There exists (2) problems here, as I see it:

1. There does not necessary have to be a 'MUST'. The concept of a moral absolute is embedded in the idea of this 'necessary must.' But in reality, the fact that humans have the ability to assume a necessary must, does not mean this 'must', must exist We would again be begging the question.

2. Even IF this must, (i.e) God, did exist, why are morals then automatically 'absolute'? Because again, as I stated prior, this existing agent would have an opinion on right/wrong. And if I did not agree, and cited points supporting my opposing position with evidence, what makes this God's moral opinion still any better than mine? As I stated prior, it would seem that if this agent did exist, it would not matter if my opposing position was or was not justified. This moral agent would simply have the power to punish me for not agreeing with Him. Hence, possibly making Him a 'moral thug'.

So I now ask ONLY one question again. Feel free to respond and openly present my 'logic' as 'foolish.'

**** A female wishes to become a church leader. A male member of this same church tells her that God told him that she cannot lead. Should she believe him? ****

Hint: This is the crux of my entire stance... Humans wrote stuff in a book (the Bible), and appear to impose their own opinions about morality, and use the 'God card.' In regards to the question above, when 'Sal' wrote 1 Timothy 2:11-12, was it more likely he wrote of his own opinion, or did God actually intervene? (rhetorical question here)... You already know my position

ok lets get back to topic. Do you have evidence for sacrificial love in the animal kingdom? My question is in relation to finding some evidence that morality has indeed evolved in nature, i.e. instinct. Sacrificial love in the animal kingdom is usually only from parents to children, and is for the purpose of survival. You won't see for example animals loving their enemies. But you see that in humans. So why is this the case? Intelligence is not a factor because those with higher IQ are not necessarily more loving than those of lower IQ. So why are humans more loving than animals? Again, it's not based on brain size or intelligence, it must be something else. Do you know the answer?

 

[cvanwey]

ok lets get back to topic. Do you have evidence for sacrificial love in the animal kingdom? My question is in relation to finding some evidence that morality has indeed evolved in nature, i.e. instinct. Sacrificial love in the animal kingdom is usually only from parents to children, and is for the purpose of survival.

What about house pets whom help/protect their human owner's, for starters? I would assume these pets know that the humans are not 'related'.

You won't see for example animals loving their enemies.

This appears to be kind of a 'loaded question.' I've seen many households, where dogs and cats co-exist, and appear to 'love' each other.

Intelligence is not a factor because those with higher IQ are not necessarily more loving than those of lower IQ. So why are humans more loving than animals? Again, it's not based on brain size or intelligence, it must be something else. Do you know the answer?

You're right, it would not appear to be due to mere level of 'intelligence'. Nor, would I have said it was, had you asked me prior to now...

So I again ask....

Was verse 1 Timothy 2:11-12 asserted by your claimed God, or not? Yes/no? Addressing this question alone, boils down to the entire premise of my position.

 

[createdtoworship]

What about house pets whom help/protect their human owner's, for starters? I would assume these pets know that the humans are not 'related'.



This appears to be kind of a 'loaded question.' I've seen many households, where dogs and cats co-exist, and appear to 'love' each other.



You're right, it would not appear to be due to mere level of 'intelligence'. Nor, would I have said it was, had you asked me prior to now...

So I again ask....

Was verse 1 Timothy 2:11-12 asserted by your claimed God, or not? Yes/no? Addressing this question alone, boils down to the entire premise of my position.

if you interview most owners of animals, and they will tell you it is a member of their family. Wither or not they actually are, matters not. Domestic animals typically look at their owner as the alpha or leader and I would go even further to say that they view them as family. You see dogs within a household fighting over food, but you won't see them very often fighting with the owner. That is because the owner usually provides free food and lodging and cleans up after them in the same way a parent would do. So this is an exception, but only because it simulates a family unit. So I repeat the question, do you have any evidence of sacrificial love in the animal kingdom that is not relating to family units? Humans have the ability, and if your theory is correct, animals also have the ability. So now all we need is evidence. And I think you will soon find out that your theory is lacking in evidence.

 

[cvanwey]

if you interview most owners of animals, and they will tell you it is a member of their family. Wither or not they actually are, matters not.

We've already agreed that humans have capacity for love, across species.

Domestic animals typically look at their owner as the alpha or leader and I would go even further to say that they view them as family. You see dogs within a household fighting over food, but you won't see them very often fighting with the owner. That is because the owner usually provides free food and lodging and cleans up after them in the same way a parent would do. So this is an exception, but only because it simulates a family unit.

Your last response stated (post #782) 'My question is in relation to finding some evidence that morality has indeed evolved in nature, i.e. instinct. Sacrificial love in the animal kingdom is usually only from parents to children, and is for the purpose of survival.'

With my one example, you have now quickly conceded that animals have the ability to also 'love' more than just their own offspring for survival.' You are now moving the goal posts.

What say you about other additional instances, where one species takes care of other species, likely knowing it is not their child. Because again, you have already conceded that 'intelligence' is not a factor.

Furthermore, what about many species seeming to 'love' other species elsewhere?

(i.e.) 18 Kind Animals That Adopted Other Species

So I repeat the question, do you have any evidence of sacrificial love in the animal kingdom that is not relating to family units? Humans have the ability, and if your theory is correct, animals also have the ability. So now all we need is evidence. And I think you will soon find out that your theory is lacking in evidence.

Yes, my best friend has both cats and dogs --> ('natural enemies'). They started off not liking each other, when first introduced, and now sleep next to one another.

Also... Dolphins Rescuing Humans - Dolphin Facts and Information

I'm addressing your OP, and you are now avoiding it (i.e. post #781)!

And as I've shown, without much effort, evidence demonstrates the capability of animals to help others, (besides their known offspring, and 'family unit').

I ask, yet again....

Was 1 Timothy 2:11-12 God inspired, yes or no?

 

[createdtoworship]

We've already agreed that humans have capacity for love, across species.



Your last response stated (post #782) 'My question is in relation to finding some evidence that morality has indeed evolved in nature, i.e. instinct. Sacrificial love in the animal kingdom is usually only from parents to children, and is for the purpose of survival.'

With my one example, you have now quickly conceded that animals have the ability to also 'love' more than just their own offspring for survival.' You are now moving the goal posts.

What say you about other additional instances, where one species takes care of other species, likely knowing it is not their child. Because again, you have already conceded that 'intelligence' is not a factor.

Furthermore, what about many species seeming to 'love' other species elsewhere?

(i.e.) 18 Kind Animals That Adopted Other Species



Yes, my best friend has both cats and dogs --> ('natural enemies'). They started off not liking each other, when first introduced, and now sleep next to one another.

Also... Dolphins Rescuing Humans - Dolphin Facts and Information

I'm addressing your OP, and you are now avoiding it (i.e. post #781)!

And as I've shown, without much effort, evidence demonstrates the capability of animals to help others, (besides their known offspring, and 'family unit').

I ask, yet again....

Was 1 Timothy 2:11-12 God inspired, yes or no?

pets simulate families, so you will have to find another example. And the fact that you use domesticated animals is skeptical anyway because that is not really nature anyway. Dynamics of domestication is different than living in the wild where said evolution took place. So I repeat the question, do you have any evidence of sacrificial love in the animal kingdom that is not relating to family units? Humans have the ability, and if your theory is correct, animals also have the ability. So now all we need is evidence. And I think you will soon find out that your theory is lacking in evidence.

 

[cvanwey]

pets simulate families, so you will have to find another example.

You mean provide, (yet another) example? My first one has already provided refutation to your original assertion of: ''Sacrificial love in the animal kingdom is usually only from parents to children, and is for the purpose of survival.''

And now that I have, you are not only moving the goal posts, but now asking for more. Okay, no problem, stay tuned...

And the fact that you use domesticated animals is skeptical anyway because that is not really nature anyway. Dynamics of domestication is different than living in the wild where said evolution took place.

If you wish to 'hand-wave' away the fact that I refuted your prior assertion, that's on you. But let's just go along with your 'rule changing'. Stay tuned...

So I repeat the question, do you have any evidence of sacrificial love in the animal kingdom that is not relating to family units? Humans have the ability, and if your theory is correct, animals also have the ability. So now all we need is evidence. And I think you will soon find out that your theory is lacking in evidence.

Yes, I already provided one above. You ignored it. Here it is (again):

Dolphins Rescuing Humans - Dolphin Facts and Information

******************************

Can you please stop continuing to dodge my simple yes/no question, which will directly expose the crux of your OP now?

Was 1 Timothy 2:11-12 provided by God, yes or no?

 

[createdtoworship]

You mean provide, (yet another) example? My first one has already provided refutation to your original assertion of: ''Sacrificial love in the animal kingdom is usually only from parents to children, and is for the purpose of survival.''

And now that I have, you are not only moving the goal posts, but now asking for more. Okay, no problem, stay tuned...



If you wish to 'hand-wave' away the fact that I refuted your prior assertion, that's on you. But let's just go along with your 'rule changing'. Stay tuned...



Yes, I already provided one above. You ignored it. Here it is (again):

Dolphins Rescuing Humans - Dolphin Facts and Information

******************************

Can you please stop continuing to dodge my simple yes/no question, which will directly expose the crux of your OP now?

Was 1 Timothy 2:11-12 provided by God, yes or no?

I apologize but I am putting you on block. It's not you it's me. I don't have the patience I should have debating with people who have such a disdain for typical logic, I guess it's one of my pet peaves. I guess if someone cannot unit on logic, there is nothing that we can talk about. So if you can't use typical logical analysis, and don't listen to other users, but I sufficiently refuted the pet example as that is domesticated animals not wild animals and you didn't even attempt or think twice that I may be correct. This to me, shows that you are not open to debate and simply wish to push forth an agenda. I will reply to one other post of yours, then you will be on permanent block. I am sorry for having to do this. Again, I wish I had more time to debate each and every person, even if they didn't want to use logic in their analysis, and be able to teach basic logic to everyone, but I simply don't have that luxury. You can look at this as a win for your side. I assume you will and I am perfectly ok with that. But I will not be debating you further. Again, sorry. I hope you find what you are looking for here.

 

[cvanwey]

I apologize but I am putting you on block. It's not you it's me. I don't have the patience I should have debating with people who have such a disdain for typical logic, I guess it's one of my pet peaves. I guess if someone cannot unit on logic, there is nothing that we can talk about. So if you can't use typical logical analysis, and don't listen to other users, but I sufficiently refuted the pet example as that is domesticated animals not wild animals and you didn't even attempt or think twice that I may be correct. This to me, shows that you are not open to debate and simply wish to push forth an agenda. I will reply to one other post of yours, then you will be on permanent block. I am sorry for having to do this. Again, I wish I had more time to debate each and every person, even if they didn't want to use logic in their analysis, and be able to teach basic logic to everyone, but I simply don't have that luxury. You can look at this as a win for your side. I assume you will and I am perfectly ok with that. But I will not be debating you further. Again, sorry. I hope you find what you are looking for here.

This is an Apologetics forum ('A forum for non-Christians to challenge the Christian faith, and for Christians to defend their faith'.)

This looks to be the trend, when you get backed into a corner.

The simple use of Dolphins refuted your assertion. You know it, I know it.

And you will not address the verse I provided, many times now. Seems telling....

 

[holo]

ok lets get back to topic. Do you have evidence for sacrificial love in the animal kingdom? My question is in relation to finding some evidence that morality has indeed evolved in nature, i.e. instinct.

Why would it matter whether or not that can be found in other species? Music for example can only be found in humans as far as I know, I don't see how that somehow disproves evolution.

Sacrificial love in the animal kingdom is usually only from parents to children, and is for the purpose of survival. You won't see for example animals loving their enemies. But you see that in humans.

It's natural to give your life for the sake of your family. The question is, who is your family? Your children, obviously. But I think most parents would also give their life for an adopted child. Some would die for their brother or cousin. In war, soldiers will sometimes die for each other. Because they see each other as brothers, family. And because there's something greater than their own life at stake, like the survival of their tribe or their nation. Of course animals don't have the mental capacity to think something like that, which is why we don't see cows drowning themselves to save the planet from methane emissions. It comes with knowledge, which again depends on intellect and intelligence.

So why is this the case? Intelligence is not a factor because those with higher IQ are not necessarily more loving than those of lower IQ.

Of course not, just like smart people aren't necessarily scientists. But just because not every smart person can be expected to excel in some scientific field doesn't mean you don't have to be smart to be a scientist.

 

[createdtoworship]

Why would it matter whether or not that can be found in other species? Music for example can only be found in humans as far as I know, I don't see how that somehow disproves evolution.

It's natural to give your life for the sake of your family. The question is, who is your family? Your children, obviously. But I think most parents would also give their life for an adopted child. Some would die for their brother or cousin. In war, soldiers will sometimes die for each other. Because they see each other as brothers, family. And because there's something greater than their own life at stake, like the survival of their tribe or their nation. Of course animals don't have the mental capacity to think something like that, which is why we don't see cows drowning themselves to save the planet from methane emissions. It comes with knowledge, which again depends on intellect and intelligence.

Of course not, just like smart people aren't necessarily scientists. But just because not every smart person can be expected to excel in some scientific field doesn't mean you don't have to be smart to be a scientist.

so I see a conflation with what is family. And I would simply reply with those who are biologically related as immediate family. That is normally the case. However parent child relationships can exist apart from biological relations. For example when you adopt a child. Or if you have a pet. So outside of the above, there is no existing apparent evidence of natural evolution of sacrificial love. At least none has been given. I have been debating this topic for years, and no one has given an example to me.

 

[holo]

so I see a conflation with what is family. And I would simply reply with those who are biologically related as immediate family. That is normally the case. However parent child relationships can exist apart from biological relations. For example when you adopt a child. Or if you have a pet. So outside of the above, there is no existing apparent evidence of natural evolution of sacrificial love. At least none has been given. I have been debating this topic for years, and no one has given an example to me.

OK, but what does it matter? There are tons of things that only humans do. Philosophy, politics, art, pineapple on pizzas. Those things demand an extremely sophisticated brain that animals simply don't have.

If someone could give an example of a rat giving its life for a cat, what would that prove anyway?

 

[createdtoworship]

OK, but what does it matter? There are tons of things that only humans do. Philosophy, politics, art, pineapple on pizzas. Those things demand an extremely sophisticated brain that animals simply don't have.

If someone could give an example of a rat giving its life for a cat, what would that prove anyway?

yes it is true, however what is the reason for why they do more things, is it because of increased intelligence? In the case of most of it yes. But this is not the case with love, as people with higher IQ do not love more than people with lower IQ. So the analogy fails. Love is unique among all those listed. And we have no natural source for sacrificial love, at least apparently.

 

[cvanwey]

Love is unique among all those listed. And we have no natural source for sacrificial love, at least apparently.

(I know you may or may not have me on 'permanent block', which will remain to be seen, but this response is for everyone else whom is reading....)

Actually, yes we do. But you may continue to ignore it:

Dolphins Rescuing Humans - Dolphin Facts and Information

But like @holo indicated, the fact that it can be demonstrated that other species can demonstrate altruistic behavior to other species, (outside their 'own family unit' and 'offspring in a domestic environment'), which you provided ad hoc style after my initial response, still does not seem to 'justify' morality regardless...

The original position still stands however, addressing your OP:

Did God author 1 Timothy 2:11-12? Yes or no?

If He did, then this means God's opinion is that woman are not allowed to be leaders in a specific category; and really furnishes no 'good' reason. Keep reading below..

Thus, my original position stands unattested...

Which is... If God does exist, it does not matter what our human opinion is.... Whatever God says, may be enforced by God. If we do not agree, it would not matter; in the sense that humans have no recourse regardless. Meaning, we live under 'moral dictates' alone. God is the rule maker and also the enforcer. Whatever He says, goes. Period. No explanation necessary. And in the case above, the 'reason' furnished is that the 'woman sinned first'.

I guess a follow up question would be, the fact that it is now widely accepted for women leaders... Is this wrong to God?

If you say 'no', then you are merely making up your own 'post hoc' answers, as the Bible seems pretty clear.

If you say 'yes', then you are adhering to a supreme entity, which punishes all future women simply because a human, with a specific set of genitalia, committed the 'first sin'.

But regardless, like I stated, it would not matter. If the above scenario is true, our opinion does not matter. Again, it boils down not to reason, but to a dictate.

 

[createdtoworship]

(I know you may or may not have me on 'permanent block', which will remain to be seen, but this response is for everyone else whom is reading....)

Actually, yes we do. But you may continue to ignore it:

Dolphins Rescuing Humans - Dolphin Facts and Information

But like @holo indicated, the fact that it can be demonstrated that other species can demonstrate altruistic behavior to other species, (outside their 'own family unit' and 'offspring in a domestic environment'), which you provided ad hoc style after my initial response, still does not seem to 'justify' morality regardless...

The original position still stands however, addressing your OP:

Did God author 1 Timothy 2:11-12? Yes or no?

If He did, then this means God's opinion is that woman are not allowed to be leaders in a specific category; and really furnishes no 'good' reason. Keep reading below..

Thus, my original position stands unattested...

Which is... If God does exist, it does not matter what our human opinion is.... Whatever God says, may be enforced by God. If we do not agree, it would not matter; in the sense that humans have no recourse regardless. Meaning, we live under 'moral dictates' alone. God is the rule maker and also the enforcer. Whatever He says, goes. Period. No explanation necessary. And in the case above, the 'reason' furnished is that the 'woman sinned first'.

I guess a follow up question would be, the fact that it is now widely accepted for women leaders... Is this wrong to God?

If you say 'no', then you are merely making up your own 'ad hoc' answers, as the Bible seems pretty clear.

If you say 'yes', then you are adhering to a supreme entity, which punishes all future women simply because a human, with a specific set of genitalia, committed the 'first sin'.

But regardless, like I stated, it would not matter. If the above scenario is true, our opinion does not matter. Again, it boils down not to reason, but to a dictate.

I am not reading your posts any more for the most part, but I can still provide some information. If you desire peer reviews of intelligent design, or peer reviews disproving most of modern evolutionary theory, let me know. I presume you won't want it, because it will challenge much of what you stand for, and you will be lost without your precious evolution. But for now, there is this:

Geophysicist Dr John Baumgardner, part of the RATE research group,6 investigated 14C in a number of diamonds.7There should be no 14C at all if they really were over a billion years old, yet the radiocarbon lab reported that there was over 10 times the detection limit. Thus they had a radiocarbon ‘age’ far less than a million years! Dr Baumgardner repeated this with six more alluvial diamonds from Namibia, and these had even more radiocarbon.
Diamonds: a creationists best friend - creation.com

 

[cvanwey]

I am not reading your posts any more for the most part, but I can still provide some information.

Wow, this did not take long. You responded quite fast

You are doing the exact same thing you have always been doing.... Ignoring responses when they refute your assertions....

You stated: 'Sacrificial love in the animal kingdom is usually only from parents to children, and is for the purpose of survival. You won't see for example animals loving their enemies. But you see that in humans.'

The link below refutes your assertion:

Dolphins Rescuing Humans - Dolphin Facts and Information

You then move to 'other points.'

I also demonstrated how if God exists, we would merely be living under a moral dictatorship. No response....

If you desire peer reviews of intelligent design, or peer reviews disproving most of modern evolutionary theory, let me know. I presume you won't want it, because it will challenge much of what you stand for, and you will be lost without your precious evolution. But for now, there is this:

Geophysicist Dr John Baumgardner, part of the RATE research group,6 investigated 14C in a number of diamonds.7There should be no 14C at all if they really were over a billion years old, yet the radiocarbon lab reported that there was over 10 times the detection limit. Thus they had a radiocarbon ‘age’ far less than a million years! Dr Baumgardner repeated this with six more alluvial diamonds from Namibia, and these had even more radiocarbon.
Diamonds: a creationists best friend - creation.com

You are providing a response for the wrong thread. Furthermore, like I stated prior, I am indifferent to if macroevolution is true or not. 'Disproving' evolution does not further your argument for Christianity in any way. The truth of Christianity lives or dies by it's own merits. However.... I reckon to state that IF evolution IS true, then Christianity is not true, as you eluded to prior

And again, I already provided a 4 minute video demonstrating probable truth for macroevolution, in which you have ignored. But again, nothing new...

Ta ta, for now

 

[createdtoworship]

Wow, this did not take long. You responded quite fast

You are doing the exact same thing you have always been doing.... Ignoring responses when they refute your assertions....

You stated: 'Sacrificial love in the animal kingdom is usually only from parents to children, and is for the purpose of survival. You won't see for example animals loving their enemies. But you see that in humans.'

The link below refutes your assertion:

Dolphins Rescuing Humans - Dolphin Facts and Information

You then move to 'other points.'

I also demonstrated how if God exists, we would merely be living under a moral dictatorship. No response....



You are providing a response for the wrong thread. Furthermore, like I stated prior, I am indifferent to if macroevolution is true or not. 'Disproving' evolution does not further your argument for Christianity in any way. The truth of Christianity lives or dies by it's own merits. However.... I reckon to state that IF evolution IS true, then Christianity is not true, as you eluded to prior

And again, I already provided a 4 minute video demonstrating probable truth for macroevolution, in which you have ignored. But again, nothing new...

Ta ta, for now

You can say that you have refuted my posts, that is fine. I have proven otherwise time and time again. Because you repeat them over and over, posting long excerpts of text walls does not add to the authority of your posts. You seem to have an issue with macro evolution. So I figured you had an issue with an old earth, so I see that you cannot answer the evidence of the carbon in diamonds, I figured so. Here is another one for you. Since I am ignoring your posts I can use this as an opportunity to further intelligent design theory to others who may not know...

I don't understand how the Big Bang created comets. As comets are ice, and billions of years ago means they would have melted. Astronomers attest to two sources for these comets the unobserved oort cloud, and the kuiper belt, but this is unsatisfactory because the size of the comets coming from the kuiper belt don't line up. So this is probably the best argument for a young universe that I have seen. As there is no source for long term comets. That means if we have a comet, there had to be a source for it. Ice is frozen water. So that is significant too. As water is hard to find in space.

 

[cvanwey]

You can say that you have refuted my posts, that is fine. I have proven otherwise time and time again. Because you repeat them over and over, posting long excerpts of text walls does not add to the authority of your posts. You seem to have an issue with macro evolution. So I figured you had an issue with an old earth, so I see that you cannot answer the evidence of the carbon in diamonds, I figured so. Here is another one for you. Since I am ignoring your posts I can use this as an opportunity to further intelligent design theory to others who may not know...

I don't understand how the Big Bang created comets. As comets are ice, and billions of years ago means they would have melted. Astronomers attest to two sources for these comets the unobserved oort cloud, and the kuiper belt, but this is unsatisfactory because the size of the comets coming from the kuiper belt don't line up. So this is probably the best argument for a young universe that I have seen. As there is no source for long term comets. That means if we have a comet, there had to be a source for it. Ice is frozen water. So that is significant too. As water is hard to find in space.

Mistake number 1. Don't state you are going to block me, then continue responding. This reveals your dishonesty.

Mistake number 2. At least respond in the correct thread.

Mistake number 3. You moved the goal posts, by applying post hocs to your original assertions, only after I refuted them.

Mistake number 4. You keep introducing new topics, to divert from the reality that you have no response to (my) response of your 'moral argument.'

So again, please address the following, or do yourself a favor, and adhere to your previous assertion that you are 'blocking me indefinitely'; which is...

Please actually address/account for Dolphins Rescuing Humans - Dolphin Facts and Information

Please respond appropriately to (my) response, which directly addressed your OP. Which is, if God truly exists, it does not matter what humans think. (i.e.) 1 Timothy 2:11-12

And to drive the point home...

If humans are flawed in their reasoning, when evaluating what God commands, then how are humans able to assess that God's commands are actually 'good'?

Thanks

 

[holo]

yes it is true, however what is the reason for why they do more things, is it because of increased intelligence? In the case of most of it yes. But this is not the case with love, as people with higher IQ do not love more than people with lower IQ.

II'm not saying that smarter people always have more love (though I don't know of studies that have investigated this). But intelligence is obviously an important factor. If you don't have the intelligence to think of such concepts as "all humans are family" you're obviously not capable of loving everybody the same.

You're making a faulty assumption. I know lots of really smart people who aren't scientists. But that doesn't mean that being a scientist doesn't depend on being smart.

Love is unique among all those listed. And we have no natural source for sacrificial love, at least apparently.

Actually, apparently we have. Like you said, an animal may very well sacrifice itself for the sake of its offspring. We see the same instinctive behaviour in humans, so in all likelihood it's the same thing, only the scope is different.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

You are doing the exact same thing you have always been doing.... Ignoring responses when they refute your assertions....

And yet people keep responding to someone who’s never going to admit when they’re wrong, and moreover, who’s never going to convince any atheist that read his posts that what he’s presenting is actual evidence.