The problem of Objective Morality. and why even biblical speaking it is subjective

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
What behaviors by the Nazis and the Japanese were not evil? Yes, there is always some evil going on the earth. What are the many evil acts committed by the US during WWII?

ken: My point is; we didn't fight them because they were evil, we fought them because they wanted to take over our country and we weren’t going to just let that happen.

Given the distance it was very unlikely that the Germans or the Japanese could take over our country. We were concerned about them taking over western Europe and Southeast Asia and imposing an evil government upon them.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
So if you locked your wife in the basement and fed
So if you locked your wife in the basement and fed her dog food and raped her every night, you think she would still think you loved her?

ken: Just because you love someone doesn't mean your actions towards that person will convince them that you love them. Again; loving someone does not mean you will treat them fairly

Uhh...that is strange. So what the heck is your definition of love?

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Yes, it does, read Jeremiah 22:13 among others.

ken: Jeremiah 22:13 is not about owning another person (slavery) its about not paying someone who did work for you. Again; the bible doesn’t say slavery is wrong either

Uhh, forcing someone to work for you without pay is definitely part of slavery. While that is not all that it entails. Also, there is Exodus 21:16 and others.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
I didn't say that all Americans have always followed our ideals, but they are Christian principles and we have been striving to follow them ever since.

ken: Those principles have been around long before Christianity. By definition they cannot be Christian principles. Just because people who just so happen to be Christian adhere to certain principles doesn’t make them Christian principles

Some have been but some have not, like no other ancient religion taught that men and women and all races of humans are spiritual equals, ie all are created in the image of the Creator. But since most of the founders of America had only been exposed to Christianity, that is the only source they could obtain those principles from. Also, they are Christian principles because the Christian God is the source of the entire universe and everything good in it, including all the good moral principles.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, the church leadership at the time had started placing the teachings of Aristotle above the Bible, Aristotle taught that the earth is the center of the universe, the Bible does not teach this.

ken: Aristotle didn’t excommunicate Galileo, those of the Church did. It doesn’t matter what the Bible teaches, when powerful people representing Christianity begin sticking their noses in science, science suffered. Today that doesn’t happen; and we are better off because of it.

This occurred during the period when most of the leaders of the RCC were corrupt and not following Biblical teaching, so my point is that they often did not follow the teachings of biblical orthodox Christianity and that was the case here.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
" And no we are not better off, leaving God out of science because without Him we dont have a rational basis for science as I demonstrated earlier in this thread.

ken: You need to speak for yourself on that one. You may not have a rational basis for science without God, but we do.

What is it?

 

[Ken-1122]

Given the distance it was very unlikely that the Germans or the Japanese could take over our country. We were concerned about them taking over western Europe and Southeast Asia and imposing an evil government upon them.

If that distance was not enough to stop the Europeans from taking this land from the Native americans, hundreds of years earlier, what makes you think it would have stopped Germany or Japan during that time?

Uhh...that is strange. So what the heck is your definition of love?

Love is an emotional feeling. Just because someone has that feeling doesn't mean they will behave in a way you and I find reasonable

Uhh, forcing someone to work for you without pay is definitely part of slavery. While that is not all that it entails.

Exodous 21;16 doesn't mention forcing someone to work for you

Also, there is Exodus 21:16 and others.

There is also Ephesians 6:5 also

Some have been but some have not, like no other ancient religion taught that men and women and all races of humans are spiritual equals, ie all are created in the image of the Creator.

I doubt you are qualified to speak on behalf of all the ancient religions that has ever existed . Sounds like you just making stuff up now.

But since most of the founders of America had only been exposed to Christianity, that is the only source they could obtain those principles from. Also, they are Christian principles because the Christian God is the source of the entire universe and everything good in it, including all the good moral principles.

Just because a person behaves morally (or immorally) doesn't mean they got it from their religion. There are lots of reasons people behave the way they do.

This occurred during the period when most of the leaders of the RCC were corrupt and not following Biblical teaching, so my point is that they often did not follow the teachings of biblical orthodox Christianity and that was the case here.

It doesn't matter what the bible says, what matters is what Bible believers believe. And if bible believers in power can cause this type of damage, they need to park their bibles outside the door before entering the science lab. Just as you don't see scientists going to churches telling religious leaders how to do their jobs, religious leaders need to stay out of the science lab telling science how to do theirs

What is it?

The desire to study the natural world through observation and experimentation. Obviously you don't need God for that.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Ok please provide an empirically observed example of bacteria evolving into a multicellular organism.

ken: Ever wonder why the flu vaccine is different every year? Because the germs evolve. If it weren’t for evolution the same flu vaccine would work year after year.
Any farmer will tell you how eventually insecticide will become useless in the battle of pests. This is because the pests evolve in a way rendering the pesticide useless so another type has to be used.
Below are more examples a simple google search will bring up.
https://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/

That is not Evolution, that is adaptation. The "germs", actually viruses, remain viruses. And the pests remain the same pests. I am referring to actual Evolution where one organism turns into another organism. So try again.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Yes it is, I provided an article from Natural History Magazine earlier stating that the majority of cosmologists believe that it was the beginning of everything. The singularity is just the point at which the big bang occurred.

ken: Is there anything published for scrutiny via the peer review process about this? Is this established scientific theory? I think not. There are probably cosmologists who believe in God also; but this isn’t part of scientific research. Individual cosmologists believing this or that does’t mean it is accepted scientific theory.

This is not individuals believing this or that, this is the MAJORITY of cosmologists. I am sure it has been published many times in peer reviewed journals.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
The theory about what gravity IS can be, but not the law of gravity because it is a scientific fact and has been observed empirically in action over and over.

ken: There is no scientific theory of what gravity IS, gravity is a scientific theory, and both gravity and evolution can be falsified. If (for example) there were fossils found in places inconsistent with evolutionary predictions; this would prove the theory false. But this hasn’t been found so the theory has not been proven false, even though it is falsifiable.

No, that would not disprove evolution, they would just say that that particular organism developed earlier than previously thought or that the stratigraphic geological layers were disturbed by an earthquake, or it was placed there by an evil creationist, or etc.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Name one.

ken: Bill Gates, Morgan Freeman, Kathy Griffin.

I was referring to someone who was openly and publicly proclaiming that they are an atheist. Most people including myself didn't know that these people were atheists. They dont go around announcing it like Dr. Dawkins does.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
I have debated with many that agree with him. And he has many fans and followers. But I am not saying that someone cannot believe in both God and evolution.
ken: So what are you saying?

I am saying that most atheists especially scientific atheists, not entertainers, believe that evolution has basically disproven the existence of God.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
An intelligent creator and a big bang.
ken: And how does this creator and big bang create space?

We don't know exactly yet, but it has to do with the balance of dark matter in the universe.

 

[Ken-1122]

That is not Evolution, that is adaptation. The "germs", actually viruses, remain viruses. And the pests remain the same pests. I am referring to actual Evolution where one organism turns into another organism. So try again.

Do you know the difference between Evolution and Adaption? Evolution is defined as “a change in the gene pool over generations”. With adaption, the gene pool doesn’t change, but the organism adapts to local environments sorta like a dog who grows a winter coat during winter time, and sheds during summer. In each of the examples I gave, the gene pool changed.

This is not individuals believing this or that, this is the MAJORITY of cosmologists. I am sure it has been published many times in peer reviewed journals.

The big bang is not defined as the beginning of everything. It just says the laws of physics can be used to calculate the characters of the Universe back to an initial state of extreme temperature and density.

Big Bang - Wikipedia

No, that would not disprove evolution, they would just say that that particular organism developed earlier than previously thought or that the stratigraphic geological layers were disturbed by an earthquake, or it was placed there by an evil creationist, or etc.

Oh so conspiracy theory now huh? Why would “they” lie? If you were such a scientist, and you had information that could dispel evolution (which would make you world famous) would you turn down fame and fortune in order to keep the lie going? Giving someone else the opportunity present the information you had first, allowing them to become world famous instead of you? I think not.

I was referring to someone who was openly and publicly proclaiming that they are an atheist. Most people including myself didn't know that these people were atheists. They dont go around announcing it like Dr. Dawkins does.

Does Dr Dawkins make a lot of money going around proclaiming his atheism? My guess is that he does. Whatever the case, I’m not familiar with his positions so can’t say if I agree with him or disagree with him. So unless YOU agree with what he says, I see no reason to bring his claims into this conversation anymore.

I am saying that most atheists especially scientific atheists, not entertainers, believe that evolution has basically disproven the existence of God.

Only in America is evolution seen as anti-God. Even the Pope believes in Evolution, and he is the #1 Christian in the world!

Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are real and God is not 'a magician with a magic wand'

 

[Ed1wolf]

You quoted Ken in your post #1328 as saying
To which you responded:
This means to me that you think that Dawkins said that evolution means that you cannot believe in God.

Your citation does not say that.

Wanna try again?

No that is not what I said, I said what Dawkins and other atheists say is that evolution by natural selection has for all practical purposes disproven God.

"We explain our existence by a combination of the anthropic principle and Darwin’s principle of natural selection. That combination provides a complete and deeply satisfying explanation for everything that we see and know. Not only is the god hypothesis unnecessary. It is spectacularly unparsimonious. Not only do we need no God to explain the universe and life. God stands out in the universe as the most glaring of all superfluous sore thumbs. We cannot, of course, disprove God, just as we can’t disprove Thor, fairies, leprechauns and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But, like those other fantasies that we can’t disprove, we can say that God is very very improbable." - Dawkins

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Actually we do generally agree what would make the world a better place.

ken: The details of what will make this world a better place has never been agreed upon,

Some of the details have been generally agreed upon, such as dont torture babies, dont murder, dont lie, dont steal, dont abuse your significant other, and etc.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
And we do all recognize perfection in God,

ken: No; many see God as far from perfect

Only after they have consciously rejected Him.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Yes, there is fictional value. Addicted drug users believe that their drugs have real value and will do anything to get more drugs when they run out but many people find out over time that drugs eventually destroy their lives and they learn that actually they have no value.

ken: Just because something will eventually lead to destruction, doesn’t mean it has no immediate value to someone right now. To the drug addict, his drug of choice has immediate value right now even though it will eventually lead to his demise.

No, many drugs start destroying your brain immediately so they have no real value as soon as you use them. Also, monopoly money has fictional value. There are many things with fictional value.

 

[Tinker Grey]

No that is not what I said, I said what Dawkins and other atheists say is that evolution by natural selection has for all practical purposes disproven God.

"We explain our existence by a combination of the anthropic principle and Darwin’s principle of natural selection. That combination provides a complete and deeply satisfying explanation for everything that we see and know. Not only is the god hypothesis unnecessary. It is spectacularly unparsimonious. Not only do we need no God to explain the universe and life. God stands out in the universe as the most glaring of all superfluous sore thumbs. We cannot, of course, disprove God, just as we can’t disprove Thor, fairies, leprechauns and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But, like those other fantasies that we can’t disprove, we can say that God is very very improbable." - Dawkins

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Humans cant create objective value for other humans.

qua: This doesn´t address my post.

Ok, what IS your point?

ed: I have provided strong evidence for the Christian God earlier in this thread.

qua: No, you haven´t.

Ok where did my argument go wrong?

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Not the exact details, but the general ideas have been, most people want less murder, less theft, less hate, more freedom, and more love among other things.

ken: Obviously people want good, they just can’t agree on what is good vs what is bad.

No, see my previous post above, where I provided certain morals that almost all major societies down thru history have agreed on.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, they are repressing the truth that deep down they know is true. Because they dont want such a God to exist. Our sinful nature causes us to be repulsed at a perfect God.

ken: When you look at the actions of God, (like his treatment of Job, Adam and Eve, and many others) it’s obviously God is far from perfect.

He treated them far better than they deserve. They deserved to die the second they sinned, but He let them live many years and have many children and grandchildren.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Yes, most people want to live their lives according to what is right, but not just what some people think is right, what is REALLY right (at least what they think is really right). They want to live according to what is right for all people, ie objectively right. While most people dont think in the philosophical terms of objective and subjective, they do think in terms of what is real and what is not, and that is the same thing.

ken: People do want to live according to what is objectively right,

Well I am glad you finally admitted that.

ken: problem is; nobody can agree on what is objectively right. The reason nobody agrees is because there is no such a things as objective right or wrong, it is all subjective. Nobody wants to admit or even believe it is all subjective, but the fact that nobody can prove an act is objectively right or wrong is an indication that morality is not subjective.

No, I provided several moral principles that almost all societies agree on. And if the Christian God exists and I have shown that He probably does, then objective right does exist.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, these were POWs in a legitimate war against an evil nation. But even so, nowhere does the passage say that they were raped. She can demonstrate to him by her own free will during this month long period that she is not compatible with him and be set free.

ken: Nowhere does it say she is free to leave even if he wants her to stay. If he wants, he can force her to live with him, he can force her to marry him, and he can force her to have sex with him. This is RAPE!!! This is one of the reasons I got away from that religion; because I decided doing what’s right is more important than defending the home team.

No, the text says that if he doesn't find any delight in her, he must let her go. All she has to do is make sure he doesn't like her, like burning his food or etc. Also, he must treat her well because of Leviticus 19:18. A wife is the closest neighbor you have. In addition, you have to remember in ancient times if a woman did not have a husband it was almost a death sentence. They did not have police forces back then, so if a woman lived alone she practically had no security. So there is a much stronger desire to have a husband in ancient times than today. How do you know what is right? You have already admitted that nothing is actually right or wrong.

 

[Ken-1122]

Some of the details have been generally agreed upon, such as dont torture babies, dont murder, dont lie, dont steal, dont abuse your significant other, and etc.

Some things people agree on, some things people don’t. It’s all subjective.

Only after they have consciously rejected Him.

Nobody rejects God, we reject those who claim to speak for God.

No, many drugs start destroying your brain immediately so they have no real value as soon as you use them. Also, monopoly money has fictional value. There are many things with fictional value.

If a sick man desires poison that will eventually kill him, that poison still has value to HIM.

He treated them far better than they deserve. They deserved to die the second they sinned, but He let them live many years and have many children and grandchildren.

Job didn’t sin, remember? God just allowed him to be tortured. And as far as Adam and Eve, would you kill your children the first time they sinned? Perhaps God should be a little more like you, instead of the monster people claim him to be.

 

[Ken-1122]

No, I provided several moral principles that almost all societies agree on.

You mean like stealing, killing and rape? I can provide scenarios where most societies would disagree on the examples you gave. And didn’t you try to justify rape in an earlier post? Besides, popularity is not an indicator of truth

And if the Christian God exists and I have shown that He probably does, then objective right does exist.

If morality is objective and the Christian God does exist, the Christian God would be subject to the same objective moral laws as you and I. When it comes to that which is objective, an exception cannot be made for God.

No, the text says that if he doesn't find any delight in her, he must let her go. All she has to do is make sure he doesn't like her, like burning his food or etc.

Ahh trying to justify rape again huh? And who is going to stop him from beating her for burning his food?

Also, he must treat her well because of Leviticus 19:18.

Who is going to force this rapist to treat her well?

A wife is the closest neighbor you have. In addition, you have to remember in ancient times if a woman did not have a husband it was almost a death sentence. They did not have police forces back then, so if a woman lived alone she practically had no security. So there is a much stronger desire to have a husband in ancient times than today.

Then give her the option to have a husband of her choosing! And shame on you for trying to justify rape again.

How do you know what is right? You have already admitted that nothing is actually right or wrong.

If that is what you believe, you haven’t been listening to anything I’ve said.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Obviously the universe DOES support human life, we exist dont we?

ken: Only within the atmosphere of Earth. Outside of that the Universe does not support human life

Nevertheless, the earth is part of the universe. If a giant mansion had a tiny amount of mold on a bathroom wall, would you say that that mansion was supporting mold?

Ed1wolf said: ↑
I didn't say He necessarily wanted us to colonize other planets, I only said that that may be necessary if we had never discovered birth control. But as I already explained, He gave us intelligent minds to overcome obstacles and the apparent difficulties to colonize other planets would cause our minds to be challenged to overcome them.

ken: Okay; so they weren't "awake" enough to notice they had no clothes on, but they were supposed to some how become so insightful as to learn to colonize other planets? Sorry, but that doesn't make sense.

How could you notice something that never existed before? The reason they later did notice is because their sinful act made them feel shame and guilt and it was an instinctual reaction.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Yes, so they could study all the animals that they had named and classified.

ken:Which scriptures say that?

It says that Adam named the animals in Genesis 2:19-20. If he had more time and not rebelled, it is quite reasonable to believe that he and Eve would have gone on to learn more about them.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
It was better than doing nothing. If someone was raping your wife and I gave you a gun to either threaten the rapist or kill him. Wouldn't that be better than if I just stood there and did nothing?

ken: Oh so you are changing it now. Before you said helping by supplying was equal to fighting directly. Now after being proven wrong, you are changing it to "helping is better than nothing at all."

My point was that in both cases evil is being fought either directly or indirectly.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
I never said that Christians have always lived up to Christ's moral teachings, at least they have that objective moral goal to strive for unlike atheists who have no objective moral goals to strive for.

ken: So what's your point? Yeah Christians have a book that they constantly ignore because it tells them to do good when they choose to do wrong. Atheists have no such book thus nothing to ignore. At the end of the day, your behavior is no better than mine.

Even though Christians sometimes ignore it, some of the greatest goods in history have been accomplished by Christians. As I demonstrated earlier, Christians following the Bible founded modern science, modern hospitals, orphanages, ended slavery in Western societies, founded modern universities, and among other things founding the USA. Also, studies have shown that regular church goers are more law abiding than non churchgoers.

 

[Ken-1122]

Nevertheless, the earth is part of the universe. If a giant mansion had a tiny amount of mold on a bathroom wall, would you say that that mansion was supporting mold?

A more accurate analogy would be of an entire mansion painted with anti-mold paint, where mold is unable to grow. But a tiny area where the paint chipped, a sliver of mold was able to grow.

It says that Adam named the animals in Genesis 2:19-20. If he had more time and not rebelled, it is quite reasonable to believe that he and Eve would have gone on to learn more about them.

Again; Genesis 2:19-20 does not say eventually Adam would have left the Garden on his own.

My point was that in both cases evil is being fought either directly or indirectly.

Yes but only because they were attacking our friends, and they eventually attacked us.

Even though Christians sometimes ignore it, some of the greatest goods in history have been accomplished by Christians. As I demonstrated earlier, Christians following the Bible founded modern science, modern hospitals, orphanages, ended slavery in Western societies, founded modern universities, and among other things founding the USA.

No, all of those things were done by Christian Europeans who but their bibles down and went to work. Your problem is whenever a Christian does something good, you claim they were following the bible. When they do something bad, you claim they were not following the bible. The fact is, you don’t know what their motivation was, you are just speculating again.

Also, studies have shown that regular church goers are more law abiding than non churchgoers.

Gallup Pole says 75% of americans identify with Christianity, but only 33% attend church regularly. That means most Christians are not regular church goers.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Given the distance it was very unlikely that the Germans or the Japanese could take over our country. We were concerned about them taking over western Europe and Southeast Asia and imposing an evil government upon them.

ken: If that distance was not enough to stop the Europeans from taking this land from the Native americans, hundreds of years earlier, what makes you think it would have stopped Germany or Japan during that time?

There was a major difference in military technology between Indians and Europeans, but very little difference between America and the Axis powers. And no military aircraft could make it across the oceans without being carried on ships so if they came to America they would have to fight us with very few aircraft, may be a few from carriers but America would have a huge number to destroy any chance of them making it very far on the American homeland.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Uhh...that is strange. So what the heck is your definition of love?

ken: Love is an emotional feeling. Just because someone has that feeling doesn't mean they will behave in a way you and I find reasonable

Most people believe that love involves certain actions that most people recognize as coming from loving someone, you dont think it does?

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Uhh, forcing someone to work for you without pay is definitely part of slavery. While that is not all that it entails.
ken: Exodous 21;16 doesn't mention forcing someone to work for you

No, I was referring to the other verse I mentioned, Jeremiah 22:13.

 

[Ken-1122]

Most people believe that love involves certain actions that most people recognize as coming from loving someone, you dont think it does?

No. I don't believe love will cause specific actions for everybody; I believe everybody experiences love differently and they behave according to their personality.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Exodus 21;16 doesn't mention forcing someone to work for you

I was referring to the previous verse I mentioned, Jeremiah 22:13.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Also, there is Exodus 21:16 and others.

ken: There is also Ephesians 6:5 also

The ancient jews only allowed a form of indentured servitude. That is what Paul was referring to.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Some have been but some have not, like no other ancient religion taught that men and women and all races of humans are spiritual equals, ie all are created in the image of the Creator.

ken: I doubt you are qualified to speak on behalf of all the ancient religions that has ever existed . Sounds like you just making stuff up now.

I am referring to all that are known. If you can provide another religion that does, I am all ears.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
But since most of the founders of America had only been exposed to Christianity, that is the only source they could obtain those principles from. Also, they are Christian principles because the Christian God is the source of the entire universe and everything good in it, including all the good moral principles.

ken: Just because a person behaves morally (or immorally) doesn't mean they got it from their religion. There are lots of reasons people behave the way they do.

As I explained earlier and you in fact agreed, most people base their lives on what they think is real and if they think that the Christian God is real, then they will generally try live according to His principles.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
This occurred during the period when most of the leaders of the RCC were corrupt and not following Biblical teaching, so my point is that they often did not follow the teachings of biblical orthodox Christianity and that was the case here.

ken: It doesn't matter what the bible says, what matters is what Bible believers believe. And if bible believers in power can cause this type of damage, they need to park their bibles outside the door before entering the science lab. Just as you don't see scientists going to churches telling religious leaders how to do their jobs, religious leaders need to stay out of the science lab telling science how to do theirs

Generally the church guided by the holy spirit gets back to the truth eventually, and that is what has been happening throughout Church history. And if you dont have a rational and objective basis for doing science then there is a good chance you will be led astray, look what happened with Piltdown man and there are other cases that have happened since scientists have abandoned that foundation.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
What is it?

ken: The desire to study the natural world through observation and experimentation. Obviously you don't need God for that.

I said rational basis for science. Just having a feeling or desire does not provide a rational basis or foundation for science. It doesn't explain why there is an objective reality to study or why it behaves in an orderly and intelligible manner.

 

[Ken-1122]

I am referring to all that are known.

Known by YOU. I doubt you know of all religions that have been known by mankind

If you can provide another religion that does, I am all ears.

Zoroastrianism.
As I said before, just because someone behaves morally (or Immorally) doesn’t mean they got it from their religion; there are lots of reasons people behave the way they do.

As I explained earlier and you in fact agreed, most people base their lives on what they think is real and if they think that the Christian God is real, then they will generally try live according to His principles.

No; there are a million different things in life people believe as real; some perhaps even contradicting the teachings of their religious beliefs. Obviously they can’t live according to all of them.

Generally the church guided by the holy spirit gets back to the truth eventually, and that is what has been happening throughout Church history.

No; the Church is often dragged kicking and screaming to the truth when forced by scientific facts. Heck; lots of churches are still in denial over evolution!

And if you dont have a rational and objective basis for doing science then there is a good chance you will be led astray, look what happened with Piltdown man and there are other cases that have happened since scientists have abandoned that foundation.

There are rational basis for scientific discovery. Perhaps not to YOUR satisfaction, but there is to my satisfaction and the satisfaction of countless others; especially those involved in the study.

I said rational basis for science. Just having a feeling or desire does not provide a rational basis or foundation for science. It doesn't explain why there is an objective reality to study or why it behaves in an orderly and intelligible manner.

Says who? YOU? I say having a feeling or desire DOES provide a rational basis for science. If you disagree, prove me wrong.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
That is not Evolution, that is adaptation. The "germs", actually viruses, remain viruses. And the pests remain the same pests. I am referring to actual Evolution where one organism turns into another organism. So try again.

ken: Do you know the difference between Evolution and Adaption? Evolution is defined as “a change in the gene pool over generations”. With adaption, the gene pool doesn’t change, but the organism adapts to local environments sorta like a dog who grows a winter coat during winter time, and sheds during summer. In each of the examples I gave, the gene pool changed.

No adaptations can be far more permanent than that and can be passed on to next generations. Check out "Darwin's" Finches. Their beaks enlarged when a drought came and all the evolutionists said evolution had occurred, but then 10 years later their beaks went back to their original size and they all stayed the same species. This is adaptation, not evolution. Adaptation can make significant changes but it has never produced a new organism or genus.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
This is not individuals believing this or that, this is the MAJORITY of cosmologists. I am sure it has been published many times in peer reviewed journals.

ken: The big bang is not defined as the beginning of everything. It just says the laws of physics can be used to calculate the characters of the Universe back to an initial state of extreme temperature and density.

Big Bang - Wikipedia

That may be your opinion but as I proved with my article from Natural History magazine, most cosmologists believe that it was the beginning of everything.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, that would not disprove evolution, they would just say that that particular organism developed earlier than previously thought or that the stratigraphic geological layers were disturbed by an earthquake, or it was placed there by an evil creationist, or etc.

ken: Oh so conspiracy theory now huh? Why would “they” lie? If you were such a scientist, and you had information that could dispel evolution (which would make you world famous) would you turn down fame and fortune in order to keep the lie going? Giving someone else the opportunity present the information you had first, allowing them to become world famous instead of you? I think not.

There is already a great deal of evidence and information that can dispel evolution, some of it has even been discovered by evolutionists themselves, but your scenario has not happened. Why do you think that is?

Ed1wolf said: ↑
I was referring to someone who was openly and publicly proclaiming that they are an atheist. Most people including myself didn't know that these people were atheists. They dont go around announcing it like Dr. Dawkins does.

ken: Does Dr Dawkins make a lot of money going around proclaiming his atheism? My guess is that he does. Whatever the case, I’m not familiar with his positions so can’t say if I agree with him or disagree with him. So unless YOU agree with what he says, I see no reason to bring his claims into this conversation anymore.

Yes, he does make money from his talks and books. His claim that evolution has disproven God is widely used by atheists throughout the world to combat theists, so that is why I brought it up.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
I am saying that most atheists especially scientific atheists, not entertainers, believe that evolution has basically disproven the existence of God.

ken: Only in America is evolution seen as anti-God. Even the Pope believes in Evolution, and he is the #1 Christian in the world

No, Dawkins is not an American and most atheists dont live in America, most live in Europe and Communist countries. What do you think most of their schools teach their children? They teach that God is not necessary because of the fact of evolution.