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.
Do you know the difference between evolution and adaption? In each of the cases I mentioned, there was a change in the genetic structure.
Difference Between Adaptation and Evolution | Difference Between
An example of evolution in medicine
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/evolution-in-medicine/
Examples of evolution in agriculture
Evolution in agriculture: the application of evolutionary approaches to the management of biotic interactions in agro-ecosystems
The links I provided above provides examples of evolution empirically observed, present day.
I think you’re confusing me speaking within a scenario, or hypothetically as agreeing with you.I have already explained this in an earlier post and you basically agreed with me.
That’s not how Evolution works. Evolution happens when a random mutant is born with the ability to survive where others cannot. They don’t compete with anything, they just live when others die. But if nothing dies, you will still have those mutants born.According to the theory the new more highly evolved organisms out compete their predecessors and cause their death and extinction.
How is overpopulation going to prevent the birth of mutants?If they didn't then the planet would become overpopulated and evolution would stop. Have you now changed your mind?
First of all, when you addressed Gene2memE, you said you disagreed with Evolution and have provided evidence that it doesn’t occur, then you contradicted yourself by proclaiming microevolution does occur.See my post above to Gene2memE. Again all your examples and links are cases of microevolution (adaptation, which I dont deny) not macroevolution or the changing of one genus into another.
It is not really relevant to my point but I stand corrected, maybe it would be a sergeant.There was never only a solitary officer. That's why he's an "officer." Officers are only sent with men for them to command. If there is an officer, then there are at least twenty soldiers, otherwise there would be a sergeant.
Well at first he did embrace God but then later rejected Him.Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, I said that the only way we can have true love for God if it comes from our own free choice. So God gave us that.
ken: Then you haven’t addressed my question. My question is; how come he didn’t create us with the desire to embrace him, along with the freewill to reject him?
He does have the ability to overcome evil, He is going thru the process to do that in this universe. The biblical definition of omnipotence is the ability to do anything that is possible to be done. For example, making a square circle is not possible. It does not mean that He can do absolutely anything. Educated Christians have always known this.Ed1wolf said: ↑
The biblical understanding of omnipotence does not mean God can do absolutely anything. For example, He cannot make a square circle, and He cannot do evil. And since He has created us with free will in a universe that primarily operates by natural law He cannot just immediately destroy evil, it has to be destroyed by love for Him and that requires people choosing Him and obeying Him and growing spiritually. Eventually this will destroy evil forever. This is what the bible teaches.
ken: If he doesn’t have the ability to overcome evil, he’s not omnipotent and shouldn’t be described as such
Again, as I demonstrated earlier, free will is the ability to do what you want to do, irrespective if you have a limited number of choices and one of those choices has very bad consequences. Using your example of the robber with a gun to your head. Your money or your life. You still have the ability to choose what you want. Do you want to lose your money or your life. Nothing in that scenario damages your will to do what you want, you just have a limited number of choices but both are negative. But with God's choices one results in a wonderful life on earth and a wonderful life in eternity and the other results in maybe a good life on earth but a horrible existence for eternity.Ed1wolf said: ↑
Ultimately it does come from God because God put that free will within you because you are created in His image and He also has free will.
ken: If he provides punishment for disobedience, he isn’t providing free will, he’s providing force.
I said US not HIM. Care to try again?Well at first he did embrace God but then later rejected Him.
A Square circle is a contradiction in terms; to overcome evil is not. Care to try again?He does have the ability to overcome evil, He is going thru the process to do that in this universe. The biblical definition of omnipotence is the ability to do anything that is possible to be done. For example, making a square circle is not possible.
I never said a gun to your head means you have no free will, I said the free will doesn’t come from the guy putting the gun to your head! Care to try again?Again, as I demonstrated earlier, free will is the ability to do what you want to do, irrespective if you have a limited number of choices and one of those choices has very bad consequences. Using your example of the robber with a gun to your head. Your money or your life. You still have the ability to choose what you want. Do you want to lose your money or your life. Nothing in that scenario damages your will to do what you want, you just have a limited number of choices but both are negative.
It is revenant to your point. The point is, if the Gestapo backed up with 20 soldiers came to your house looking for Jews, for you to try to shoot one of them would only be your suicide and resulting in the death of your family as well as those innocent people you were hiding. to lie to them is the only moral thing to do in that situation. Thus lying is some circumstances could be the right thing to doIt is not really relevant to my point but I stand corrected, maybe it would be a sergeant.
See this link:Ed1wolf said: ↑
Logic IS laws. But in order to come to the right conclusion then your premises have to be true. This is where some people disagree, they dont agree on the premises. If two people dont agree on the premises then they will not be convinced by the logical reasoning. But if the premises ARE true then the conclusion most likely WILL be true. But nothing can be proven with absolute certainty even if the premises are true.
But again if the premises are true then the conclusion most likely is right.
ken: List the laws of logic.
Ed1wolf said: ↑
There is the most logical way to go to point A and point B. It may or may not be a straight line. In order to determine which is the most logical you need to know all the premises. Such as terrain, mode of transportation, and etc.
ken: In other words, extenuating circumstances must be taken into consideration before determining the most logical way to go from point A to B. You are making my point.
Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, I was showing that logic existed prior to humans. Even dinosaurs cannot violate the law of non-contradiction.
ken: Did the dinosaurs discover this law of non-contradiction?
The rules of logic are non-physical, so there is no one location where they exist. They exist throughout the universe and are in operation throughout. Similar to the laws of physics, the laws are non-physical but operate and control physical entities.Ed1wolf said: ↑
Fraid so, logic is on the moon. For example, Can the Moon and the earth exist in the same location at the same time and in the same relationship? No, of course not, that would violate the law of non-contradiction. Logic exists throughout the universe, otherwise we could never have done astrophysics. It is all based on mathematics which is a form of logic.
ken: So where on the Moon does logic exist? Please be specific about the location.
Those are rules of logic, not laws of logicSee this link:
Rules of Logic
Logic is subjective; not objective.Of course, different problems have different logical solutions. How does that make your point?
Just because the law is logical, doesn't mean it is a law of logic.Of course not. But they unconsciously lived according to them, at least the basic ones like that one. Only humans eventually learned and came to realize that logic is how we think and the universe operates.
Logic only exist in the context of human thought. If humans ceased to exist; so would logic.The rules of logic are non-physical, so there is no one location where they exist. They exist throughout the universe and are in operation throughout. Similar to the laws of physics, the laws are non-physical but operate and control physical entities.
Logic only exist in the context of human thought. If humans ceased to exist; so would logic.
Ed1wolf said: ↑
Everything. Darwin believed he had discovered a mechanism that could produce living things in all their diversity without needing God.
st: No he didn't. He was just observing what he found in nature, God didn't factor into it. Darwin didn't lose his faith until quite a while after he published his work, and he lost it due to the death of his daughter more than anything else.
Actually he started losing his Christian faith earlier than that, he said he started having serious doubts about Christianity when he started imagining his father and grandfather in hell. He could not understand why they should go to hell for not believing in the Christian God. But the mechanism he came up with is called NATURAL selection, if he thought the Christian God had a hand in it he would have called it SUPERNATURAL selection since Christians believe that God has His hand in everything. So he was plainly implying that God was/is not needed.
It is not immoral to wear a hijab in public. It is not immoral to not wear a hijab in public. I cannot answer with yes or no because of the way you have worded the questions. But I think you get my point.I'm in agreement with almost everything you've said. Now answer (3) basic questions... A simple yes or no will suffice.
Is it objectively 'moral' or 'immoral' for women not to wear a hijab in public, among men?
It is objectively immoral.cw: Is it objectively 'moral' or 'immoral' for a person to own another human as property?
cw: Is it objectively 'moral' or 'immoral' for women to lead teach in church?
cw: Then ask yourself one more question. Is it 'moral' to merely follow commands from a book without question?
No, you are moral agent if you recognize and follow moral laws especially the moral law specifically designed for this universe by its creator. Who else would know what is best for you? But of course, He gave you free will to disagree and disobey, but you may want consider the possible consequences. Disobeying His moral laws is similar to disobeying His physical laws like trying to fly like a bird by jumping off a cliff and flapping your arms, His law of gravity is probably going to kill you.cw: Or maybe even better, are you actually considered a 'moral agent' at all, if/when you follow commands when you don't agree, or, do not question the command?
Thanks
No, if you believe two different things that contradict each other then your statement and beliefs are meaningless. For example, If you say I hate you and I love you. That statement is meaningless. Or if you say I love guns and I hate guns. That is also a meaningless statement.Ed1wolf said: ↑
Because if it is subjective you can believe in two different opposite behaviors are morally wrong and the difference is just based on feelings thereby making it meaningless.
ken: Do you see the contradiction in your statement? If something is based on feelings, by definition it is not meaningless; it is meaningful to the person whose feelings it is based on. The only possible way something could be meaningless is if it were based on something other than feelings. Something objective could be meaningless.
Ed1wolf said: ↑
It sounds absurd because deep down you know that morality is not subjective. You fail to understand that if it really is subjective then there is no difference between committing genocide and eating ice cream because they are both based on feelings and preference not on anything objective.
ken: It IS absurd to claim since both actions are subjective, they are morally equal.
No, those beliefs are not subjective they can be proven because they are based on objective facts such as the law of gravity. See my post above.Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, it appears you do not understand what objective and subjective mean. If something just exists inside your head then it is subjective and you can believe whatever you want about it and change your mind about it anytime you want and even wish it out of existence.
ken: Can you convince yourself that you could fly like a bird? Could you convince yourself that something bitter taste sweet? Reality doesn’t work that way. You can’t just choose to believe something out of convince; you have to be convinced.
If God exists objectively then so do all of His characteristics including His moral character upon which Christian morality is based. That is why only Christian morality has an objective foundation.Ed1wolf said: ↑
But if it exists outside your head/mind irrespective of what you believe about it then it exists objectively. And so it is with God, He exists outside your head and mind so Him and everything about Him exists objectively irrespective of what you believe and think about Him. Even if you try to wish Him out of existence, you cannot.
ken: We’re not talking about the existence of God; we’re talking about morality.
It is still based on His character but it has been distorted by our sin. It is like looking in a mirror partially covered by condensation. You can see partially what you look like but it is distorted.Then you can’t say our moral conscious is based in God’s objective moral character. The most you can say is that is used to be based in his moral character, but because we constantly ignore, and rationalize our conscious away, it no longer is, and only through Christ taking over our lives can it become based in his objective moral character once again
No, if you believe two different things that contradict each other then your statement and beliefs are meaningless. For example, If you say I hate you and I love you. That statement is meaningless. Or if you say I love guns and I hate guns. That is also a meaningless statement.
Because subjective things cannot be proven, they are equal. How can you prove a subjective belief?
No, those beliefs are not subjective they can be proven because they are based on objective facts such as the law of gravity. See my post above.
If God exists objectively then so do all of His characteristics including His moral character upon which Christian morality is based. That is why only Christian morality has an objective foundation.
Apparently just being based on his moral character wasn’t good enough; he should have made us equal to his moral character; that way we wouldn't have sinned.It is still based on His character but it has been distorted by our sin. It is like looking in a mirror partially covered by condensation. You can see partially what you look like but it is distorted.
Ed1wolf said: ↑
I have already explained this in an earlier post and you basically agreed with me.
ken: I think you’re confusing me speaking within a scenario, or hypothetically as agreeing with you.
Fraid so, they compete for ecological niches. Mutants may be born but if their mutation does not help outcompete the existing organism in the niche, then the mutants will die out. This is evolution 101. Did you ever take a course on evolutionary biology?Ed1wolf said: ↑
According to the theory the new more highly evolved organisms out compete their predecessors and cause their death and extinction.
ken: That’s not how Evolution works. Evolution happens when a random mutant is born with the ability to survive where others cannot. They don’t compete with anything, they just live when others die. But if nothing dies, you will still have those mutants born.
Ed1wolf said: ↑
If they didn't then the planet would become overpopulated and evolution would stop. Have you now changed your mind?
ken: How is overpopulation going to prevent the birth of mutants?
Ed1wolf said: ↑
See my post above to Gene2memE. Again all your examples and links are cases of microevolution (adaptation, which I dont deny) not macroevolution or the changing of one genus into another.
ken: First of all, when you addressed Gene2memE, you said you disagreed with Evolution and have provided evidence that it doesn’t occur, then you contradicted yourself by proclaiming microevolution does occur. You need to make your mind up on which side you wanna take; if you accept micro but deny macro, you are still accepting evolution; just not everything put under the umbrella of evolution.
I am referring to populations of an organism not an individual. Some populations of animals adapt to environmental conditions such as the bacteria you posted about, but they remain the same species of bacteria, this not evolution as Darwin understood it. This is adaptation.ken: Second; there is a big difference between microevolution and adaption. An example of adaption is when a dog grows or sheds his winter coat. The dogs genetic structure does not change from winter to summer time, with evolution the genetic structure does change.
Quote me when I said I agreed with you; otherwise I will assume you just misunderstood me.No, it looked like plain agreement to me unless you are being obtuse.
In the scenario, nothing dies; remember? So in the context of this discussion, nothing outcompetes existing organisms because everything lives!Fraid so, they compete for ecological niches. Mutants may be born but if their mutation does not help outcompete the existing organism in the niche, then the mutants will die out. This is evolution 101. Did you ever take a course on evolutionary biology?
No; in this scenario they won’t die out because NOTHING DIES remember? So if you are going to agree that random mutants will still be born where there is no death, will you admit your claim that evolution requires death was wrong?I never said that it would prevent the birth of mutants but if those mutants dont outcompete the organism in their ecological niche then they will die out.
95% of what Darwin studied was bacteria, virus, and germs. So if you want to refer to the standard darwinian model, perhaps you should spend more time discussing 95% of his studies and less time on the 5% of his studies. Darwin was over 100 years ago! He didn’t discover Evolution; he just published it for peer review. Why don’t you mention what people of today are saying about it?No, generally when I use the term evolution, I am referring to the standard Darwinian model where one genus supposedly morphs into another.
Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else; I didn’t post about bacteria adapting to environments and remaining the sameI am referring to populations of an organism not an individual. Some populations of animals adapt to environmental conditions such as the bacteria you posted about,
When the genetic structure remains the same, NOBODY calls that evolution! As I said before, Evolution is when the genetic structure changes.but they remain the same species of bacteria, this not evolution as Darwin understood it. This is adaptation.
He was our representative so he was acting on our behalf.Ed1wolf said: ↑
Well at first he did embrace God but then later rejected Him.
ken: I said US not HIM. Care to try again?
Ed1wolf said: ↑
He does have the ability to overcome evil, He is going thru the process to do that in this universe. The biblical definition of omnipotence is the ability to do anything that is possible to be done. For example, making a square circle is not possible.
ken: A Square circle is a contradiction in terms; to overcome evil is not. Care to try again?
True and your point is?Ed1wolf said: ↑
Again, as I demonstrated earlier, free will is the ability to do what you want to do, irrespective if you have a limited number of choices and one of those choices has very bad consequences. Using your example of the robber with a gun to your head. Your money or your life. You still have the ability to choose what you want. Do you want to lose your money or your life. Nothing in that scenario damages your will to do what you want, you just have a limited number of choices but both are negative.
ken: I never said a gun to your head means you have no free will, I said the free will doesn’t come from the guy putting the gun to your head! Care to try again?
So God chose Adam and Eve as our representatives knowing they would fail? How fair is that? We should have had the chance to represent ourselves.He was our representative so he was acting on our behalf.
If evil cannot exist in Heaven, it need not exist on Earth either.Yes, but this type of universe and this type of process may be the only way to destroy evil forever.
My point is; if God is the one providing punishment or reward, he cannot be the one to provide freewill. We have freewill, it just doesn't come from God.True and your point is?
No, as I demonstrated earlier there are a multitude things you can do and say besides lying.It is revenant to your point. The point is, if the Gestapo backed up with 20 soldiers came to your house looking for Jews, for you to try to shoot one of them would only be your suicide and resulting in the death of your family as well as those innocent people you were hiding. to lie to them is the only moral thing to do in that situation. Thus lying is some circumstances could be the right thing to do
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?