Where does morality come from?

[Jimmy D]

Sir I fully answered your question microevolution is variations within kinds.

You didn't answer it all, the post's right here on this page, you said "how does that apply to what I was saying...."

But it seems that you do accept the three principles of evolution I mentioned (variation, inheritance and selection), even though you claim that they are only responsible for "micro evolution".

Macro evolution would be one kind os animal evolving into a different kind. The engine of variation is there, but not the evolution of one kind of animal.into another, scientifically speaking this would be evolution between two separate genra of animals.

What does this mean? One kind into another? It sounds like you are arguing a strawman but you are being sufficiently vague enough for me to be uncertain. Can you give an example? As Kylie says, when small scale variance goes on over a long period of time those incremental changes add up.

There is no observed evidence of an intermediary that satisfies macro evolution.

What? Of course there is. In the fossil record we can observe the remains of Tiktaalik, Ambulocetus, Mesohippus, A Afarensis, Archaeopteryx to name but a few.

Yes the engine is there, the variance is there, but no so much variance that two distinct animals are related via evolutionary history.

All the evidence from molecular biology, comparative anatomy, biogeography, paleontology etc etc would disagree.

 

[createdtoworship]

And what do you think happens when small scale variance goes on for a very long time?

evolution does not need to take a long time, I just heard an example of fast evolution. There are some fish species that live in caves and within one generation there can be siblings born without eyes. So time is not really the greatest factor. But if something isn't happening, adding time to the equation won't work. Variation happens, but not to the point of making a new type of animal. At least that thesis again has not been observed with science. You are free to believe in it, but at that point it would be on the level of faith. In my last post the poster was having faith in man to make his arguments for him. Your faith in this would be very similar.

 

[Ken-1122]

people dispute small scare variance because logically you guys say the engine of evolution works on a micro and a macro level. So because they disagree with monkey to man ideology, they reject all evolution. It's just being naive. They haven't debated this topic long enough. And or, are not open minded. Small scale evolution happens all the time, when you get over a cold there is micro evolution happening. The circles I run in, don't ever debate the validity of getting over a cold, or of other variance. It's the macro evolution, monkey to man ideology that is a little different than simple variance. Let me illustrate, a fruit fly developing spots, is still a fruit fly but a spotty fruitfly. It is the same with all variance, it never changes the animal into some other animal, it could hypothetically speaking, it's just that part has never been observed. And I have debated biologists, astronomers, you name it. They don't have any more evidence than you do. They may throw out a few common, "missing links." But nothing that can be explained as a transition between to genra of animals, or two different mating groups. That is how I define an animal, a group that can mate with each other and produce fertile offspring. Sometimes animals can mate with animals of a different genus, but the offspring are infertile. That is not a true animal group, only those which have successful mating should be considered the same animal group. That is what the biblical group "kind" means. Creationists, use the word kind a lot. Basically they are meaning, within the same genus. I replied to your argument, as if it was valid. But that was giving you the benefit of the doubt, even if nothing I said was correct in this post, your argument is still what is called "the band wagon fallacy." That basically means " my view is correct not because of the evidence but because someone I view as authoritative believes it, in this case a scientist."

I can tell you thousands of christian scientists that believe evolution is unproven, but that is not what makes is unproven, it's the lack of evidence that makes in unproven.

My disagreement with you had nothing to do with the Micro vs Macro debate, it was about your claim of how a creature that hasn't been around for millions of years treated it's enemies. It seems you've moved the "goal posts" since then.

 

[createdtoworship]

My disagreement with you had nothing to do with the Micro vs Macro debate, it was about your claim of how a creature that hasn't been around for millions of years treated it's enemies. It seems you've moved the "goal posts" since then.

well we don't know if it's not been around for millions of years for one. Secondly the latest development of the ape would be the closest ancestor to a human, if I am not mistaken. Does that answer your question. I didn't really understand what you were saying? or why you would ask that question, but since i understand now that you wish to talk about that and nothing else. I hope that settles it for yoj.

 

[Ken-1122]

well we don't know if it's not been around for millions of years for one.

What do you base this on? Why don’t they know?

Secondly the latest development of the ape would be the closest ancestor to a human, if I am not mistaken.

No, the original primate/ape evolved into other primates; (modern apes, gorilla’s, monkey’s etc.) to include humans. How could it evolve into something else and still stick around?

Does that answer your question. I didn't really understand what you were saying? or why you would ask that question.

I was just pointing out that you have no way of knowing how the original primate treated it’s enemies.

 

[Kylie]

evolution does not need to take a long time, I just heard an example of fast evolution. There are some fish species that live in caves and within one generation there can be siblings born without eyes. So time is not really the greatest factor. But if something isn't happening, adding time to the equation won't work. Variation happens, but not to the point of making a new type of animal. At least that thesis again has not been observed with science. You are free to believe in it, but at that point it would be on the level of faith. In my last post the poster was having faith in man to make his arguments for him. Your faith in this would be very similar.

First, can you provide a citation for this fish with no eyes born in one generation. Please make sure it shows that this is not some anomaly, like snakes being born with two heads.

Second, you seem to be shooting yourself in the foot. You claim that evolution can happen very fast, then you say that it doesn't happen, even if we give it a lot of time. Also, no citations for this claim either.

Third, you make the claim that there is no evidence that evolution can turn one creature into another. Again, no citation. We have a great deal of evidence for this kind of evolution. Like I said, it takes TIME.

 

[createdtoworship]

What do you base this on? Why don’t they know?

No, the original primate/ape evolved into other primates; (modern apes, gorilla’s, monkey’s etc.) to include humans. How could it evolve into something else and still stick around?

millions of years theory of the age of the earth, universe is a theory that has not been concluded. There is evidence for an older earth, but there is also evidence of a younger earth (less than 10,000 years). A young earth theory answers both the young and older evidence, while the old earth theory only accounts for the old earth evidence. See a young earth, can be created by the creator with fully formed trees and rocks, in which if you carbon dated them, they would be thousands of years old. So this theory addresses that God could create, starlight in the night sky even while the star has been exploded, or not there. This is called, created the universe with age dating factors. And it addresses both the young earth evidence as well as the old earth evidence.

I was just pointing out that you have no way of knowing how the original primate treated it’s enemies.

I never needed to know the specifics of an original primate, only the latest and greatest in the evolutionary chain, the modern ape. But if you wish to say that perfect love evolved in the animal kingdom, you must prove that it slowly grew into existence through time, which is harder to do. As it lacks observable data.

 

[Ken-1122]

millions of years theory of the age of the earth, universe is a theory that has not been concluded. There is evidence for an older earth, but there is also evidence of a younger earth (less than 10,000 years).

10,000 years? There are trees older than that! Do you have any non-religious sources that indicate the earth is less than 10,000 years old?

A young earth theory answers both the young and older evidence, while the old earth theory only accounts for the old earth evidence. See a young earth, can be created by the creator with fully formed trees and rocks, in which if you carbon dated them, they would be thousands of years old. So this theory addresses that God could create, starlight in the night sky even while the star has been exploded, or not there. This is called, created the universe with age dating factors. And it addresses both the young earth evidence as well as the old earth evidence.

Ahh so God created the Earth with rocks and trees that have the appearance of being around for a long time? Why would he do this? So when mankind figures out a way to date stuff, they can be tricked into believing the Earth is older than it is? As a Christian I can understand you believing that line of thinking, but to a skeptic like myself, it just sounds like another example of your religion making sure the answers fit the predetermined agenda.

I never needed to know the specifics of an original primate, only the latest and greatest in the evolutionary chain, the modern ape. But if you wish to say that perfect love evolved in the animal kingdom, you must prove that it slowly grew into existence through time, which is harder to do. As it lacks observable data.

I’m not the one claiming there is such a thing as perfect love; that would be YOU, and you are claiming who has it and who does not. You are the only one in this conversation that needs to bring evidence concerning a claim. Thus far I haven’t seen any.

 

[createdtoworship]

10,000 years? There are trees older than that! Do you have any non-religious sources that indicate the earth is less than 10,000 years old?

Ahh so God created the Earth with rocks and trees that have the appearance of being around for a long time? Why would he do this? So when mankind figures out a way to date stuff, they can be tricked into believing the Earth is older than it is? As a Christian I can understand you believing that line of thinking, but to a skeptic like myself, it just sounds like another example of your religion making sure the answers fit the predetermined agenda.

There is lots of evidence for a young universe.

Why are there still comets in space?

If it's billions of years old.

Oh I forgot,

It comes from the never observed "Oort cloud"

and "kuiper belt"

but the kuiper belt average sizes for comets are no where near close to the sizes of comets in our solar system, so how can they be supplying them?

And as far as age dating factors, adam and eve were not babies when they were created, nor were the animals or trees in the garden, all of these things were created in a matured state, it's not in order to decieve scientists, but in order to be practical. Why wait for baby adam and eve to grow up, when he can just create them full grown?

I’m not the one claiming there is such a thing as perfect love; that would be YOU, and you are claiming who has it and who does not. You are the only one in this conversation that needs to bring evidence concerning a claim. Thus far I haven’t seen any.

loving an enemy is an example of perfect love, loving someone because they give you things, is an imperfect love. So yes, perfect love exists.

 

[Ken-1122]

There is lots of evidence for a young universe.

Why are there still comets in space?

If it's billions of years old.

Oh I forgot,

It comes from the never observed "Oort cloud"

and "kuiper belt"

but the kuiper belt average sizes for comets are no where near close to the sizes of comets in our solar system, so how can they be supplying them?

And as far as age dating factors, adam and eve were not babies when they were created, nor were the animals or trees in the garden, all of these things were created in a matured state, it's not in order to decieve scientists, but in order to be practical. Why wait for baby adam and eve to grow up, when he can just create them full grown?

Do you know of any cosmologists who do not have a religious agenda, who supports the idea that planet Earth is less than 10,000 years old?

loving an enemy is an example of perfect love,

By definition; your enemy is someone you feel hatred towards. So if you love them, they aren't your enemy; you might be THEIR enemy, but they aren't yours.
Definition of enemy | Dictionary.com

loving someone because they give you things, is an imperfect love. So yes, perfect love exists.

Though humans may occasionally be kind towards someone who dislike them, they do not always do this; so how do you know animals aren t the same way? Because YOU haven't seen it? That doesn't mean it doesn't exist!

 

[createdtoworship]

Do you know of any cosmologists who do not have a religious agenda, who supports the idea that planet Earth is less than 10,000 years old?

so you agree, short term comets have no explanation and support a young universe. And yes I know of dozens of astronomers who believe the universe is less than 10,000 years old. On this page are 24 scientists with degrees in astronomy that are creationists. Creation scientists - creation.com. But that does not make it true. The evidence does.

By definition; your enemy is someone you feel hatred towards. So if you love them, they aren't your enemy; you might be THEIR enemy, but they aren't yours.
Definition of enemy | Dictionary.com

so you agree with me. That humans can love their enemies. In loving their enemies, one of the ways to deal with unforgiveness is to see the positives in them, not the negatives.

Though humans may occasionally be kind towards someone who dislike them, they do not always do this; so how do you know animals aren t the same way? Because YOU haven't seen it? That doesn't mean it doesn't exist!

No humans do not, but the morality exists. And religious people have been proven by peer review studies to have more forgiveness than others, including enemies (see quotation at end). So if you can find a giraffe that is willing to forgive a lion for chowing down on him, by all means provide an example in the animal world. Yet christians in sudan are killed by muslim extremists every day, and yet they live their lives in loving christian witness forgiving their enemies. Elizabeth elliot, wife of jim elliot, was a missionary to a violent tribe in africa, after they killed her husband for the same thing. She went years later, forgiving them, and being a missionary again, and many were saved. So again, show an animal that has forgiveness toward a predator and I will believe that animals have perfect love. Perfect love is sacrificial love, and does not necessarily have to be forgiveness of enemies, but that is a good example of perfect love. Note I do believe animals can love, especially for their children, but for an animal to love a member of the pack not their child, or for an animal to forgive a predator after it eats a child, or mate, is unseen in the animal world.

sources:

"With regard to forgiveness, 40 studies have examined correlations with Religion and spirituality, and 34 (85%) reported significant positive relationships and no studies found negative associations. Among the 10 highest quality studies, seven (70%) reported greater forgiveness among the more Religious and spiritual [116–119], a finding that recent research has supported [120]. "
peer review found here:

Religion, Spirituality, and Health: The Research and Clinical Implications

 

[createdtoworship]

10,000 years? There are trees older than that! Do you have any non-religious sources that indicate the earth is less than 10,000 years old?

Ahh so God created the Earth with rocks and trees that have the appearance of being around for a long time? Why would he do this? So when mankind figures out a way to date stuff, they can be tricked into believing the Earth is older than it is? As a Christian I can understand you believing that line of thinking, but to a skeptic like myself, it just sounds like another example of your religion making sure the answers fit the predetermined agenda.


I’m not the one claiming there is such a thing as perfect love; that would be YOU, and you are claiming who has it and who does not. You are the only one in this conversation that needs to bring evidence concerning a claim. Thus far I haven’t seen any.

here is more on the problem of comets for a universe billions of years old:

let me put a clip on them for now:

"
Short-Lived Comets

A comet spends most of its time far from the sun in the deep freeze of space. But, once each orbit, a

comet comes very close to the sun, allowing the sun’s heat to evaporate much of the comet’s ice and

dislodge dust to form a beautiful tail. Comets have little mass, so each close pass to the sun greatly

reduces a comet’s size, and eventually comets fade away. They can’t survive billions of years.

Two other mechanisms can destroy comets — ejections from the solar system and collisions with

planets. Ejections happen as comets pass too close to the large planets, particularly Jupiter, and the

planets’ gravity kicks them out of the solar system. While ejections have been observed many times, the

first observed collision was in 1994, when Comet Shoemaker-Levi IX slammed into Jupiter.

Given the loss rates, it’s easy to compute a maximum age of comets. That maximum age is only a few

million years. Obviously, their prevalence makes sense if the entire solar system was created just a few

thousand years ago, but not if it arose billions of years ago.

Rescuing Devices

Evolutionary astronomers have answered this problem by claiming that comets must come from two

sources. They propose that a Kuiper belt beyond the orbit of Neptune hosts short-period comets

(comets with orbits under 200 years), and a much larger, distant Oort cloud hosts long-period comets

(comets with orbits over 200 years).

Yet there is no evidence for the supposed Oort cloud, and there likely never will be. In the past 20 years,

astronomers have found thousands of asteroids orbiting beyond Neptune, and they are assumed to be

the Kuiper belt. However, the large size of these asteroids (Pluto is one of the larger ones) and the

difference in composition between these asteroids and comets argue against this conclusion.

-Ken Ham, The New Answer Book #4, copy write 2013, master’s books

Yet another Creationist book expands on this problem:

The Facts Are .....

(1) The problem for evolution is that if short period comets only last about 10,000 years, and the solar

system is 5 billion years old, then there should not be any of these comets left in existence. As

short-period comets have been visible this century (eg Halley's comet), the solar system must be

considerably younger than the date assigned to it by evolutionary theory. [based on logic]

(2) The belief in a 5 billion year old solar system has led to a hypothesis that these comets must be

resupplied from outside the solar system - an example of a preconceived idea determining scientific

belief. A vast shell of 100 billion comets, called the 'Oort Cloud' is theorized to exist at the outer edge

of the solar system. Passing stars are supposed to disturb the cloud enough to knock a comet into an

inner orbit. This is a theory that is not based on any observed facts. Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol.

31, 1974

p:385-401

(3) The facts about the Oort cloud are:- (1) It has never been observed, and should be regarded as an

evolutionary prediction; (2) The calculated motions of comets do not match well with any predictions

based on the Oort Cloud; and (3) Cometary evidence does not support the existence of an Oort cloud.

Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol. 31, 1974 p:385-401

(4) Some researchers believe that if the Oort theory is true, then some comets from our solar system

should have escaped. Likewise, we should have seen about six comets over the past 150 years from

other star systems. Science Frontiers, May-June, 1990 p:1; Sky & Telescope, Vol. 79, 1990 p:254

(5) As the Oort Cloud has not been discovered yet, new theories are rising to explain the existence of

short-life comets. The latest theory is that "Halley's comet comes from a second much closer belt of

millions of comets just outside the solar system left over as debris and junk when the outer planets

formed 5 billion years ago". This theory is spoken of in a factual manner, yet is not based on fact. The

Advertiser (Adelaide), May 14, 1988 p:20

(6) A theory put forward for the origins of short-period comets states that they are belched out of

volcanoes, most probably on Jupiter. But, (1) the theory is not supported by observation; (2) there is

no planetary mechanism that would impart the force needed to expel the comets; (3) the physical

makeup of comets does not match this origin; and (4) the comet would need to be travelling at over

700 Km/sec to escape a large planet, a speed which would cause it to vaporize in the process. Harold S.

Slusher, "Age of the Cosmos: ICR technical Monograph #9", Institute for Creation Research: San Diego,

1980 p:49

(7) The evidence of life on comets is based on infra-red analysis of Haley's Comet which indicated that

organic matter was pouring out of its head and tail. A study of the data, however, suggests that these

organic molecules are not the kind associated with living organisms. The Sydney Morning Herald, April 3,

1986 p:2”

Unmasking Evolution – Laurence D Smart, copy write 2000.

In conclusion:

The Oort cloud is unobserved. And the Kuiper belt has huge comets, nothing the size of what we see in

the universe as considered short term. That is the only thing observed! You literally have no other

answer for short term comets other than the kuiper belt, secondly you have no other answer for long

term comets! As the Oort cloud was something completely fabricated in order to explain for the

existence of flying comets in an "old" universe- (that’s cold) but also in a universe that is constantly

tearing the ice from the comet! As you can tell the tails on the comets are ice trails! Meaning every

comet is literally falling apart at the seams! (generally speaking). Basically flying ice should not last

billions of years. Maybe a few million at best, maaaayyybbee. And short term comets most likely tens of

thousands of years maaaayyybbeee.

 

[Ken-1122]

so you agree, short term comets have no explanation and support a young universe.

I never said I agreed with you, I know nothing about comets so I can't comment on the issue you are presenting; you need to talk to someone who studies in the field. That's why I asked if you knew of any cosmologists who do not have a religious agenda, who claim the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.

And yes I know of dozens of astronomers who believe the universe is less than 10,000 years old. On this page are 24 scientists with degrees in astronomy that are creationists. Creation scientists - creation.com. But that does not make it true. The evidence does.

Those are all Creation scientists who have a religious agenda! I said WITHOUT a religious agenda. Like I said before, I can understand YOU as a Christian believing the stuff, but I am very skeptical of Religious scientists who disagree with non religious scientists because of the agenda they hold.

so you agree with me. That humans can love their enemies. In loving their enemies, one of the ways to deal with unforgiveness is to see the positives in them, not the negatives.

I never said humans can't love those who hate them, I'm saying you have no way of knowing animals aren't capable of doing the same.

No humans do not, but the morality exists. And religious people have been proven by peer review studies to have more forgiveness than others, including enemies (see quotation at end). So if you can find a giraffe that is willing to forgive a lion for chowing down on him, by all means provide an example in the animal world.

So that's what you mean by loving enemies? Expressing love towards the predator animal while it is killing you? And you have data that shows Christians forgiving a lion, a tiger, or shark while being attacked and killed by the animal? By all means, let's see this data that you have!

Yet christians in sudan are killed by muslim extremists every day, and yet they live their lives in loving christian witness forgiving their enemies.

No; that doesn't count! Christians and Muslims are both human. You need to provide an example of a human being killed by a predator animal, and expressing love for that predator animal. Care to try again?

Elizabeth elliot, wife of jim elliot, was a missionary to a violent tribe in africa, after they killed her husband for the same thing. She went years later, forgiving them, and being a missionary again, and many were saved.

Again; both Elizabeth Elloit and those in the violent tribe were both HUMAN! The attacker has to be non human. Let's try again.

So again, show an animal that has forgiveness toward a predator and I will believe that animals have perfect love. Perfect love is sacrificial love, and does not necessarily have to be forgiveness of enemies, but that is a good example of perfect love. Note I do believe animals can love, especially for their children, but for an animal to love a member of the pack not their child, or for an animal to forgive a predator after it eats a child, or mate, is unseen in the animal world.

It is also unseen in the Human world as well. Yeah humans can love their children or mates, but for humans to love a predator animal after this animal killed their child or mate, it is unseen in the human world also.
Your argument failed!

 

[Ken-1122]

here is more on the problem of comets for a universe billions of years old:

let me put a clip on them for now:

"
Short-Lived Comets

A comet spends most of its time far from the sun in the deep freeze of space. But, once each orbit, a

comet comes very close to the sun, allowing the sun’s heat to evaporate much of the comet’s ice and

dislodge dust to form a beautiful tail. Comets have little mass, so each close pass to the sun greatly

reduces a comet’s size, and eventually comets fade away. They can’t survive billions of years.

Two other mechanisms can destroy comets — ejections from the solar system and collisions with

planets. Ejections happen as comets pass too close to the large planets, particularly Jupiter, and the

planets’ gravity kicks them out of the solar system. While ejections have been observed many times, the

first observed collision was in 1994, when Comet Shoemaker-Levi IX slammed into Jupiter.

Given the loss rates, it’s easy to compute a maximum age of comets. That maximum age is only a few

million years. Obviously, their prevalence makes sense if the entire solar system was created just a few

thousand years ago, but not if it arose billions of years ago.

Rescuing Devices

Evolutionary astronomers have answered this problem by claiming that comets must come from two

sources. They propose that a Kuiper belt beyond the orbit of Neptune hosts short-period comets

(comets with orbits under 200 years), and a much larger, distant Oort cloud hosts long-period comets

(comets with orbits over 200 years).

Yet there is no evidence for the supposed Oort cloud, and there likely never will be. In the past 20 years,

astronomers have found thousands of asteroids orbiting beyond Neptune, and they are assumed to be

the Kuiper belt. However, the large size of these asteroids (Pluto is one of the larger ones) and the

difference in composition between these asteroids and comets argue against this conclusion.

-Ken Ham, The New Answer Book #4, copy write 2013, master’s books

Yet another Creationist book expands on this problem:

The Facts Are .....

(1) The problem for evolution is that if short period comets only last about 10,000 years, and the solar

system is 5 billion years old, then there should not be any of these comets left in existence. As

short-period comets have been visible this century (eg Halley's comet), the solar system must be

considerably younger than the date assigned to it by evolutionary theory. [based on logic]

(2) The belief in a 5 billion year old solar system has led to a hypothesis that these comets must be

resupplied from outside the solar system - an example of a preconceived idea determining scientific

belief. A vast shell of 100 billion comets, called the 'Oort Cloud' is theorized to exist at the outer edge

of the solar system. Passing stars are supposed to disturb the cloud enough to knock a comet into an

inner orbit. This is a theory that is not based on any observed facts. Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol.

31, 1974

p:385-401

(3) The facts about the Oort cloud are:- (1) It has never been observed, and should be regarded as an

evolutionary prediction; (2) The calculated motions of comets do not match well with any predictions

based on the Oort Cloud; and (3) Cometary evidence does not support the existence of an Oort cloud.

Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol. 31, 1974 p:385-401

(4) Some researchers believe that if the Oort theory is true, then some comets from our solar system

should have escaped. Likewise, we should have seen about six comets over the past 150 years from

other star systems. Science Frontiers, May-June, 1990 p:1; Sky & Telescope, Vol. 79, 1990 p:254

(5) As the Oort Cloud has not been discovered yet, new theories are rising to explain the existence of

short-life comets. The latest theory is that "Halley's comet comes from a second much closer belt of

millions of comets just outside the solar system left over as debris and junk when the outer planets

formed 5 billion years ago". This theory is spoken of in a factual manner, yet is not based on fact. The

Advertiser (Adelaide), May 14, 1988 p:20

(6) A theory put forward for the origins of short-period comets states that they are belched out of

volcanoes, most probably on Jupiter. But, (1) the theory is not supported by observation; (2) there is

no planetary mechanism that would impart the force needed to expel the comets; (3) the physical

makeup of comets does not match this origin; and (4) the comet would need to be travelling at over

700 Km/sec to escape a large planet, a speed which would cause it to vaporize in the process. Harold S.

Slusher, "Age of the Cosmos: ICR technical Monograph #9", Institute for Creation Research: San Diego,

1980 p:49

(7) The evidence of life on comets is based on infra-red analysis of Haley's Comet which indicated that

organic matter was pouring out of its head and tail. A study of the data, however, suggests that these

organic molecules are not the kind associated with living organisms. The Sydney Morning Herald, April 3,

1986 p:2”

Unmasking Evolution – Laurence D Smart, copy write 2000.

In conclusion:

The Oort cloud is unobserved. And the Kuiper belt has huge comets, nothing the size of what we see in

the universe as considered short term. That is the only thing observed! You literally have no other

answer for short term comets other than the kuiper belt, secondly you have no other answer for long

term comets! As the Oort cloud was something completely fabricated in order to explain for the

existence of flying comets in an "old" universe- (that’s cold) but also in a universe that is constantly

tearing the ice from the comet! As you can tell the tails on the comets are ice trails! Meaning every

comet is literally falling apart at the seams! (generally speaking). Basically flying ice should not last

billions of years. Maybe a few million at best, maaaayyybbee. And short term comets most likely tens of

thousands of years maaaayyybbeee.

So you copied a few pages from Ken Ham, & Lawrence D smart? They are both Creationist with a religious agenda. As I said before, I can understand YOU believing their claims because you are a Christian and all, but I am very skeptical when those in the religious community disagree with main stream scientists outside the religious community because of their agenda.

 

[createdtoworship]

I never said I agreed with you, I know nothing about comets so I can't comment on the issue you are presenting; you need to talk to someone who studies in the field. That's why I asked if you knew of any cosmologists who do not have a religious agenda, who claim the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.


Those are all Creation scientists who have a religious agenda! I said WITHOUT a religious agenda. Like I said before, I can understand YOU as a Christian believing the stuff, but I am very skeptical of Religious scientists who disagree with non religious scientists because of the agenda they hold.

sir everyone has an agenda. you take exception with the majority of the known world who accepts God. I take exception with the minority of the world who rejects God. So if you can find an evolutionist who is unbiased, then I will provide a creationist who is unbiased. And we can compare.
but you originally did not say unbiased, you only moved the goal posts after I provided 24 scientists.

I never said humans can't love those who hate them, I'm saying you have no way of knowing animals aren't capable of doing the same.

I never said they aren't capable, I am saying their is no evidence of it.

So that's what you mean by loving enemies? Expressing love towards the predator animal while it is killing you? And you have data that shows Christians forgiving a lion, a tiger, or shark while being attacked and killed by the animal? By all means, let's see this data that you have!

I provided examples of people forgiving those who murder them and their loved ones. Remember elizebeth elliot?

No; that doesn't count! Christians and Muslims are both human. You need to provide an example of a human being killed by a predator animal, and expressing love for that predator animal. Care to try again?

We know that animals don't need forgiveness because they hunt out of instinct. However if you claim love evolved from animals then you must show that animals too can forgive, and you cannot provide that. So your argument fails.

Again; both Elizabeth Elloit and those in the violent tribe were both HUMAN! The attacker has to be non human. Let's try again.

See above, this is answered

It is also unseen in the Human world as well. Yeah humans can love their children or mates, but for humans to love a predator animal after this animal killed their child or mate, it is unseen in the human world also.
Your argument failed!

humans have no predator animals, they are the top of the food chain.

hence why tigers, lions, and grizzlies are becoming rare.

I have successfully refuted all your points in this post, I will not repeat them. If you bring them up again, I will simply move on and not address them. Not because I am being mean, but because people like to repeat refuted arguments over and over and over.

 

[Kylie]

you take exception with the majority of the known world who accepts God.

Let's be clear about one thing. The majority of the world rejects the Christian God. You won't win playing the numbers game.

 

[createdtoworship]

Let's be clear about one thing. The majority of the world rejects the Christian God. You won't win playing the numbers game.

most of the world is religious, and when you look for percentage of atheist in the world, or non religious it's very minimal.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...t-religious-countries/?utm_term=.ba25b02d70a2

so, yes the majority of the world believes in god. And a supermajority of americans believe in god. I say god lower case, because it's probably not the God of the Bible being believed in, but theism.

Americans' beliefs about the nature of God

now granted the numbers are becoming more atheistic at a younger age, so in the future these numbers will go down as the older people are replaced with atheism.

 

[Kylie]

most of the world is religious, and when you look for percentage of atheist in the world, or non religious it's very minimal.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...t-religious-countries/?utm_term=.ba25b02d70a2

so, yes the majority of the world believes in god. And a supermajority of americans believe in god. I say god lower case, because it's probably not the God of the Bible being believed in, but theism.

Americans' beliefs about the nature of God

now granted the numbers are becoming more atheistic at a younger age, so in the future these numbers will go down as the older people are replaced with atheism.

You missed my point.

If we take all the people in the world who believe in the Christian God, then they are far outnumbered by the people in the world who think the Christian God is wrong.

 

[createdtoworship]

You missed my point.

If we take all the people in the world who believe in the Christian God, then they are far outnumbered by the people in the world who think the Christian God is wrong.

I got your point perfectly, but then you moved the goal posts. That's a fallacy. I can only reply to what you said, and you at first did not say that until proven wrong, you adjusted your position at that point, which is moving the goal posts.

 

[Kylie]

I got your point perfectly, but then you moved the goal posts. That's a fallacy. I can only reply to what you said, and you at first did not say that until proven wrong, you adjusted your position at that point, which is moving the goal posts.

In what way did I move the goalposts?

You said to Ken that the majority of the known world accepts God.

I said that while the majority of the world accepts God, the majority also rejects the Christian God. That is all my position regarding this topic has ever been.

So please explain how I moved the goalposts.