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.
How do you know evolution requires death to progress any more than it requires life to progress? What are you basing this on?My whole point all along is that since evolution requires death to continue to progress,
Are you under the impression that atheist evolutionist are the only ones who think death is a bad thing? Or are you aware that there are many Christian creationist who also think death is a bad thing.then atheistic evolutionists should not think that death is a bad thing. But you and other atheists seem to think death is a bad thing.
I didn't say it did. I was making a point that all the supposed steps that led directly to man died out. Such as we no longer see any Australopithecus around anymore. That is why death is necessary for evolution to occur.Not knowing all the steps between amoeba and man does not disprove evolution
They dont know for certain, because Orcas cant speak. They are just making educated guesses.Ed1wolf said: ↑
We dont really know for certain what these animals were doing. The articles seem to be anthropomorphizing their behavior. I doubt they knew that their young were dead at first, they were just engaging in their mothering instinct. They were just doing what they thought would help revive the young."
ken: Actually they do know what these Orcas were doing.
If they cant speak and dont grieve in a way that we can understand, then how do they know that they are grieving. Sometimes even humans dont understand if other humans are actually grieving. Much less an animal that is very different from us. Human biologists often have a tendency to project their own feelings and reactions on to animals. It is called anthropomorphizing. Even chimps which are supposedly our closest relatives have facial expressions that are the exact opposite of human expressions. When chimps do what we recognize as smiling which means to us that they are happy, in fact for a chimp a "smile" means it is extremely afraid and sometimes it means it is very angry.ken: These were resident Orcas in the area and were being observed by Biologists. They were even given names. The Biologists that were studying them said they were grieving. Just because they can’t speak English or grieve in a way that you can understand doesn’t mean they don’t grieve.
Ed1wolf said: ↑
Even if they are grieving, that does not mean that they are moral beings or have a moral conscience. If those young animals had been killed by another orca or dolphin, the killer would not be ostracized or punished, thereby showing no evidence of a moral sense.
ken: How do you know this? Have you studied Orcas?
I said they don't grieve in a way that YOU can understand. Those biologists who spend their lives studying the behavior of those animals DO understand, and they say they are grieving.You are the only one who is trying to make theIf they cant speak and dont grieve in a way that we can understand, then how do they know that they are grieving.
You study it's behavior and determine if it can determine what it considers good vs bad; right vs wrong.Explain how you would determine whether an animal has a moral sense.
I am a biologist, I believe that field is pretty relevant.Ed1wolf said: ↑
There are many scientists that believe in creation. Though we are definitely in the minority.
efm: Don't flatter yourself. You are a fringe, at best, especially in fields that are relevant to the subject.
efm: As a point of illustration for those who might be reading along, there are more scientists just named Steve on this list than there are scientists of any name on this list. It also has many more scientists in relevant fields than any list of 'Darwin doubters', which include people in utterly irrelevant fields like surgery.
Recently genetic evidence has also confirmed creation, for many years it was thought that there was so-called "junk DNA" because over time some DNA loses its function but gets carried on generation to generation, but recent research has shown that almost of all the DNA that was once thought to be junk actually DOES have functions.Ed1wolf said: ↑
the theory of evolution is based on interpreting ancient fossils, and extrapolating into the past which is a very risky proposition and is not empirically based data.
efm: Most of the evidence for evolution, especially in the last fifty years or so, comes from genetics. Not fossils. Though, the fossil evidence also confirms it.
It is a law of Logic.Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, the law of causality is "every effect requires a cause."
efm: What 'law of causality' are you referring to? There is no such law in physics. Causality is a fundamental principle of physics, but it isn't a law like say, Boyle's Law or the Laws of Thermodynamics.
efm: I suspect you're referring to causality in the classic philosophical sense. Specifically, the type of cause you're talking about in reference to creation is an efficient cause. You are proposing that a willful act of creation by Yahweh is the efficient cause of the universe, in the same sense that a sculptor and their ceramics skills are the efficient cause of a vase.
So tell me then - how can something non-physical (Yahweh) possibly be an efficient cause for something physical (the universe)? How does the non-physical causally integrate with the physical?
I see no reason to suspect that it can, or does.
I am a biologist, I believe that field is pretty relevant.
At one time scientists who believed that the earth circled the sun were a tiny minority too. There are many examples in the history of science where there were small minorities that years later turned out to be correct.
Recently genetic evidence has also confirmed creation
It is a law of Logic.
We dont know how yet.
But we see it every day when the mind which is non-physical interacts with the physical body
and the laws of physics which are non-physical interact with matter.
Ed1wolf said: ↑
As a scientist myself, I trust most of my colleagues. Some of them just interpret the biological data wrong regarding the origin and diversity of life. There are many scientists that believe in creation. Though we are definitely in the minority. In the case of the origin of the universe, they have interpreted most of the data correct. The origin of the universe is based on actual empirical real time observations (due to the time it takes for light to reach the earth we can see into the past in real time), the theory of evolution is based on interpreting ancient fossils and extrapolating into the past which is a very risky proposition and is not empirically based data.
ken: Science doesn't claim to know the origin of the singularity that expanded in what we know as the Universe, they just claim it existed; it's origin nobody knows.
No, it does have the characteristics of an effect. ALL scientists agree that if something has a beginning and is changing, then it is an effect. This is scientific thinking 101. See above about the cause of the universe. I am pointing to a cause. God is the most logical cause for this type of universe.Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, the law of causality is "every effect requires a cause." God is not an effect, so therefore does not need a cause. The universe has all the characteristics of an effect and therefore needs a cause.
ken:Just because you think it has the characteristics of an effect doesn't mean that it does. Unless you can point to a cause, you can't claim an effect.
You mean "leap" using causality.You act like science is a person! All you need to do is make the one logical step, using the law of causality.
The cause is the singularity that expanded in what is known as the Big Bang. As far as the singularity having characteristics of an effect, or what was before that; nobody knows.The universe has all the characteristics of an effect, therefore it needs a Cause that has all the characteristics of the Christian God.
the scientists who have made that step acknowledge that step is based on faith not science.And some scientists HAVE made this logical step.
But science doesn't claim a beginning of the singularityNo, it does have the characteristics of an effect. ALL scientists agree that if something has a beginning and is changing, then it is an effect. This is scientific thinking 101.
No, because nuclear bombs are not necessary for nuclear physics to occur, death IS necessary for evolution to occur.Isn't that like saying that anyone who believes in the accuracy of nuclear physics has to think that nuclear bombs are a good thing?
No, because nuclear bombs are not necessary for nuclear physics to occur, death IS necessary for evolution to occur.
The universe has all the characteristics of an effect, therefore it needs a Cause that has all the characteristics of the Christian God.
It does of course also require life to progress. I have explained this many times, how long does it take for you to understand?Ed1wolf said: ↑
My whole point all along is that since evolution requires death to continue to progress,
ken: How do you know evolution requires death to progress any more than it requires life to progress? What are you basing this on?
Of course Christians think it is a bad thing. But if evolution is true then death brings about more evolution so it should be a good thing. My point is that atheistic evolutionists have contradictory beliefs.Ed1wolf said: ↑
then atheistic evolutionists should not think that death is a bad thing. But you and other atheists seem to think death is a bad thing.
ken: Are you under the impression that atheist evolutionist are the only ones who think death is a bad thing? Or are you aware that there are many Christian creationist who also think death is a bad thing.
No; this is the first time you admitted evolution requires life. I have been making the case that evolution requires life and you have been fighting me on it claiming it only requires death. Now you are trying to change the goal posts and claim it was your original positionIt does of course also require life to progress. I have explained this many times, how long does it take for you to understand?
To recognize Evolution happens does not mean you think more evolution is a good thing.I Of course Christians think it is a bad thing. But if evolution is true then death brings about more evolution so it should be a good thing.
Now that I've shown you the error of your way of thinking, care to change your mind on the issue?I My point is that atheistic evolutionists have contradictory beliefs.
I said they don't grieve in a way that YOU can understand. Those biologists who spend their lives studying the behavior of those animals DO understand, and they say they are grieving.You are the only one who is trying to make the
How can you determine what an animal considers good or bad? Morality also includes justice, and no animal punishes another one for killing a member of its group in order to enforce justice. Morality is doing something because you OUGHT To do it, there is no evidence animals do things because they ought to do them. They do things because their instinct just makes them do it according to the behavior for their particular species.ken: You study it's behavior and determine if it can determine what it considers good vs bad; right vs wrong.
The article doesn't claim they weren't grieving, it just says there is no way of knowing for certain.Many zoologists and biologists disagree with them besides me. Read this: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/14/grieving-orca-mother-emotions-animals-mistake
The same way you determine what a person who speaks a foreign language you don't understand considers good or bad.How can you determine what an animal considers good or bad?
Morality doesn’t have to include justice; you can be 100% forgiving and merciful yet still be moralMorality also includes justice, and no animal punishes another one for killing a member of its group in order to enforce justice.
No; morality is doing things you BELIEVE you ought to do. Now show me a study that shows animals do not do what they believe they ought to do.Morality is doing something because you OUGHT To do it, there is no evidence animals do things because they ought to do them.
Provide a study that shows the actions of all animals are limited to their instincts.They do things because their instinct just makes them do it according to the behavior for their particular species.
They also tend to be the most arrogant and least open to new ideas.Ed1wolf said: ↑
I am a biologist, I believe that field is pretty relevant.
efm: It is the most relevant field, which is why it has the least amount of creationists of any field.
Ed1wolf said: ↑
At one time scientists who believed that the earth circled the sun were a tiny minority too. There are many examples in the history of science where there were small minorities that years later turned out to be correct.
efm: I look forward to your Nobel prize speech.
Ed1wolf said: ↑
Recently genetic evidence has also confirmed creation
efm: No, nothing 'confirms' creation. You can infer creation, if you imagine hard enough, but you will never get to anything like a confirmation until you can outline an actual, workable model of 'creation', complete with mechanisms, means of gleaning replicable information, and so forth.
Ed1wolf said: ↑
It is a law of Logic.
efm: So I take it then that you are speaking of the classical Aristotelian take on causality.
There have been many scientific discoveries where we knew what was causing something but didn't know how. Read a good book on the history of science. For example, Galileo knew that the earth was revolving around the sun, but he didn't know why or how.Ed1wolf said: ↑
We dont know how yet.
efm: Then you have no business proposing a 'god' as the efficient cause of the universe.
Ed1wolf said: ↑
But we see it every day when the mind which is non-physical interacts with the physical body
efm: Stop right there. You don't get to just nakedly assert mind/body dualism. You have to demonstrate it.
No, they are far more than that. What do you think causes the behavior? Many physicists disagree with you. Without the laws of physics acting on matter science would be impossible and we would know nothing about the universe.Ed1wolf said: ↑
and the laws of physics which are non-physical interact with matter.
efm: The laws of physics do not 'interact' with matter. They describe the behavior of matter.
No, you have not explained how that would be possible. I nothing died then there would never be survival of the fittest which is the basic foundation of evolution.
Actually, it's the survival of the best fit--the organisms that best fit the environment are the ones most successful at surviving in it.
Ed1wolf said: ↑
You act like science is a person! All you need to do is make the one logical step, using the law of causality.
ken: You mean "leap" using causality.
Ed1wolf said: ↑
The universe has all the characteristics of an effect, therefore it needs a Cause that has all the characteristics of the Christian God.
ken: The cause is the singularity that expanded in what is known as the Big Bang. As far as the singularity having characteristics of an effect, or what was before that; nobody knows.
Evidence? Name one that said that.Ed1wolf said: ↑
And some scientists HAVE made this logical step.
ken: the scientists who have made that step acknowledge that step is based on faith not science.
Yes it does. The overwhelming majority of astrophysics believe that it is the beginning of everything. Read Dr. Donald Goldschmidt's article in the November 2007 issue of Natural History where he states this fact.Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, it does have the characteristics of an effect. ALL scientists agree that if something has a beginning and is changing, then it is an effect. This is scientific thinking 101.
ken: But science doesn't claim a beginning of the singularity
Your problem is you keep making these steps that appear logical to you, but your steps don't seem logical to me. I repeat; science does not claim to know the origin of the singularity that lead to what is known as the big bang. If you disagree, provide the scientific data that supports your claim and quit talking about logical steps.No, it is just one more simple little step in logic. Without logic all the other steps in astrophysics could not have occurred.
I’ve never heard an atheist make such an absurd claim. However; if one did, I would dismiss his claim as quick as I dismiss yoursNo big leap at all. Unlike atheists that make the huge leap in faith that the universe just popped into existence from nothing, which is logically impossible.
So how do you know the singularity has a cause? Lemme guess….. another one of those little steps in logic you keep referring back to huh?No, the singularity is the single event of the beginning of the BB and therefore is just the beginning of the effect. You can know just by taking one more single simple step in logic as I stated above.
Are you saying the scientists who make this (so called) logical step claim this step is based on science?Evidence? Name one that said that.
You’ve obviously misunderstood what I said. There is a difference between claiming “X” has a beginning vs “X” is the beginning of everything.Yes it does. The overwhelming majority of astrophysics believe that it is the beginning of everything.
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?