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.
*sigh*
The processes of macroevolution are exactly the same as the process for microevolution.
I believe one peer review I quoted said this"macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution."
that that sufficiently refutes your claim.
Where does morality come from?Dude, fix your quote tags.
I posted it earlier, I guess you didn't read it:And your source for this...?
see my other post, it's above the species level. Meaning a higher taxa.
but you can't provide any? Sorry if I am skeptical
there appears to be no fossil evidence
I can say you don't understand evolution at all either, does that make us even? You seem to belittle when you have no more answers, so I thought I would try it.
speciation from a well known biased site is not evidence, you must provide peer review. Besides I don't disagree with speciation, nor do I disagree with ring species.
Define effective, because it doesn’t really matter if you care about what happens or not, if you break the rule, you still do the time, making it as effective as it needs to be.Rules are only rules because of what happens when you break them. If you don’t care about what happens when you break them, they’re not effective rules.
Well, define objective standard then. This assumption that chaos would rule in the absence of some kind of objective moral standard is completely unfounded. Actions have consequences. People prefer some consequences over others. Thus, people tend to behave in certain ways rather than others. There’s no need for something so abstract as an “objective moral standard” when people have good enough reasons to do what they do.Define effective, because it doesn’t really matter if you care about what happens or not, if you break the rule, you still do the time, making it as effective as it needs to be.
Maybe it’s not the rules that are ineffective, maybe everyone else is deficient of integrity, and self control.
You said previously, rules are put in place to produce a desired outcome. Which is true, we agree on that. But without rules there’s is no standard, and to say that because someone may rebel because they lack conviction is cause to throw out a set of rules is foolish.
In other words, everything goes because people will ultimately do what they want anyways. That’s subjective, and that kind of morality will leave us in ruin.
Like the example where the guy kills someone then kills himself. He has every intention of bypassing the punishment for his crimes. So throw out all laws that say harming other individuals is wrong. Screw the standard bc no one is listening to it? That’s not how things work.
I wish you the best in your search for truth and may God be with you.
I’m not saying that chaos would rule in the absence of a objective moral standard. I am saying, however, that subjectively speaking, you can break any rule that someone implements, meaning that chaos and disorder are not only possible, but inevitable.Well, define objective standard then. This assumption that chaos would rule in the absence of some kind of objective moral standard is completely unfounded. Actions have consequences. People prefer some consequences over others. Thus, people tend to behave in certain ways rather than others. There’s no need for something so abstract as an “objective moral standard” when people have good enough reasons to do what they do.
If that’s the world you want to live in, and reject the absolute standard of morality that God has set forth
As far as I can tell, that’s the state of reality. You really can do whatever you want, as long as you have the physical means and are willing to accept the consequences. Haven’t we seen this borne out historically in mass shootings, terrorism, and wars? We congregate in orderly societies to minimize these risks, but there’s no eliminating them entirely.I’m not saying that chaos would rule in the absence of a objective moral standard. I am saying, however, that subjectively speaking, you can break any rule that someone implements, meaning that chaos and disorder are not only possible, but inevitable.
Right.So you’re arguing that objectivity is irrelevant due to the fact that people generally seem to have motives that preserve themselves and the fabric of the society they live in.
Isn’t that just as arbitrary as any other standard?I’m arguing that morality inherently comes from God, where there is no subjectivity or change. He himself is the standard.
Why? National law doesn’t determine morality, it just reflects the values held by the ones in charge of legislation. I wouldn’t change my values to match theirs, I would either leave that society or work to change those laws.If one day a year it was legal to kill, steal, and commit any crime you wanted, free from consequences, you would then have to change your worldview to adjust to this new subjective standard.
No one has suggested this.I for one am not willing to endorse a system where morality is determined my what is or isn’t legal. If my neighbor can get away with murder, what’s to stop us from just blowing the whole block up?
It’s not about what world we want to live in, it’s about the world we live in. I don’t see any objective moral standard in this world, but I also don’t see any need for one.If that’s the world you want to live in, and reject the absolute standard of morality that God has set forth, don’t be look at the tv in disgust the next time you see someone being arrested for pedophilia or murder, because subjectively they may believe what they did was right, and to encroach on that or to condemn them for it is self refuting.
1. Science never proves anything. All you have done is to demonstrate that evidence suggests that (some) Christians are better able to resist the temptations of alcohol than non-Christians. You have not demonstrated that Christians are also better able to resist arson, burglary, conspiracy, domestic violence, extortion, fraud, etc.you originally said that I didn't have sources for the claim that people rejected christianity because of it's aversion to higher standards, abstinence from alcohol is a higher standard, and I proved that christians are more susceptible to it, via peer review. So is this question answered or not?
It is only fair that I give you a warning. The next time I see a post in which you clearly make a distinction between Christians and Catholics I shall be reporting that post as being against the forum rules. I hope that, as a Christian, you would wish to avoid breaking the rules of the Christian Forum.Well they teach different ways to get to heaven, the catholics as per the catechism have seven sacraments they must perform to be saved, for the protestant christian it is merely faith in christ, so in that manner they are different. Mainly in the gospel message. But a catholic can relate to christianity if they wish, I dont' care.
there are lots of peer reviews about the benefits of religion in the world, forgiveness goes a long way in things such as addictions, and that is why christianity excels at things like victory over addiction, where other religions, even catholicism, will fall behind.
You have explicitly or implicitly spoken as if your position is solid. You have spoken as if your position is proven. That makes it valid to ask you to provide the proof.all I am saying is that you can pick any one of your beliefs you wish, take your pick. You cannot prove a single fact. Nothing is provable, accept maybe 1/10th of one percent of facts. So your contention that I have not proven my position, is somewhat hypocritical.
I gave you a comprehensive statement as to why I participate in these forums. Recruiting atheists was not one of the reasons. I find your remark here offensive, deluded and self-serving.I am not here to persuade you, only the readers, the struggling christians coming to the thread. You are not open to christianity at all and you are just here to recruit to atheism.
Once again, offensive and deluded. In the real world I have often avoided following a particular line of discussion with friends or work colleagues for fear that it might adversely test their faith. Is that the action of someone who finds "joy and fulfilment" when a "Christian falls into atheism".When a christian falls into atheism you find joy and fulfillment in that. As if you have done some honorable thing..
There are plenty of practising Christians who find no conflict between their beliefs and their faith and the use of scepticism and rational thought. And "converts" to the use of scepticism and rational thought are the only converts I would be interested in. But please note, obtaining such "converts" would only be an ancillary, unconscious benefit of being on the forum.But in reality the skeptic has not worth or value in himself, he parasites off of religion for his converts.
Rubbish!see so you admit, you are not here to learn of be a christian, but so that you may find out how you may hold a contrary view. So my analysis of your motive for being here is accurate.
Get over yourself. I've given you my reasons. If you cannot accept them perhaps you should just place all atheists and agnostics on Ignore. To be on the safe side you might wish to include Catholics!I am here to help struggling christians, but sometimes it is needed for a christian to really expose the motives of athiests in these threads. If they are not open to the Bible and God, why are they here at all? They are just here to try to convince people to disbelieve. If they are not honest with the true intention of their heart, then they are self deceived.
The only uncomfortable aspect of it was your intransigent insistence upon assigning me motives that do not exist. Such intransigence is extremely frustrating, for it betrays the very lack of scepticism,open-mindedness and rationality that I admire. It seems I can do very little to correct that in others, so yes, it makes me uncomfortable to think you will continue being deluded as to my motives despite any efforts on my part. You might wish to reflect on the issue of bearing false witness. It may be applicable here.Thank you for responding to a situation that may not always be the most comfortable for you to discuss,
If you choose not to acknowledge Divine law, that doesn’t make the law irrelevant, it makes you rebellious and in need of repentance.As far as I can tell, that’s the state of reality. You really can do whatever you want, as long as you have the physical means and are willing to accept the consequences. Haven’t we seen this borne out historically in mass shootings, terrorism, and wars? We congregate in orderly societies to minimize these risks, but there’s no eliminating them entirely.
Right.
Isn’t that just as arbitrary as any other standard?
Why? National law doesn’t determine morality, it just reflects the values held by the ones in charge of legislation. I wouldn’t change my values to match theirs, I would either leave that society or work to change those laws.
No one has suggested this.
It’s not about what world we want to live in, it’s about the world we live in. I don’t see any objective moral standard in this world, but I also don’t see any need for one.
If Divine law exists it’s only relevant if something happens to me if I break it. What happens?If you choose not to acknowledge Divine law, that doesn’t make the law irrelevant, it makes you rebellious and in need of repentance.
Ultimately all moral systems are motivated by the subjective desire for a specific outcome.
An objective standard is completely irrelevant if no one cares to follow it.
Rules are only rules because of what happens when you break them. If you don’t care about what happens when you break them, they’re not effective rules.
I don't think there's any discrete moral philosophy that cleanly describes all human behavior, but I think the consequentialist angle is most effective against arguments like Kyle's, which insist that objectivity or absoluteness is paramount. I think subjective motivation is paramount, and I think consequentialism is the strongest and most common form of motivation.Yesterday I had a post written out opining that this is a definition of consequentialist moral systems, but not all moral systems (and especially not deontological moral systems). I decided not to enter the fray, but your subsequent replies made me decide to go ahead and point this out.
Consequentialism is a legitimate form of morality that goes a long way in describing human behavior, but it isn't the only option.
In principle, I can agree, although the idea of motivations that aren't consequentialist in nature seems strange to me. That would mean feeling motivated to do something, but not having any particular reason. I guess it happens, but I don't know how common it is.True enough. I would put it this way: subjective motivations are always the link connecting us to objective standards, even if those motivations are not consequentialist in nature.
I really like a lot of what the Bible says about love, and this verse is a great example. If by sharing it you mean to say that love can motivate obedience as well as fear, that's true enough. Ultimately though, whatever emotion is driving you, you're still motivated by the subjective desire for a particular outcome, whether that be the object of your affection being satisfied or you avoiding a punishment."There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and he who fears is not perfected in love" (1 John 4:18).
I don't think there's any discrete moral philosophy that cleanly describes all human behavior, but I think the consequentialist angle is most effective against arguments like Kyle's, which insist that objectivity or absoluteness is paramount. I think subjective motivation is paramount, and I think consequentialism is the strongest and most common form of motivation.
In principle, I can agree, although the idea of motivations that aren't consequentialist in nature seems strange to me. That would mean feeling motivated to do something, but not having any particular reason. I guess it happens, but I don't know how common it is.
I really like a lot of what the Bible says about love, and this verse is a great example. If by sharing it you mean to say that love can motivate obedience as well as fear, that's true enough. Ultimately though, whatever emotion is driving you, you're still motivated by the subjective desire for a particular outcome, whether that be the object of your affection being satisfied or you avoiding a punishment.
I don't know how to make this argument simpler for you to understand so I will try one more time. Speciation is AT THE LEVEL of species. Macro evolution as I provided is defined as "ABOVE THE LEVEL OF SPECIES." so when you fill a pool with water, the water level is at the same height as the water line. Not above the water line, so too speciation is at the level of species not above. I seen all all your attempts at evidence, but I won't do your homework for you. I can post a google scholar link of "problems with evolution." But that would not be fair, because I am making you sift through the evidence because I was too lazy to find it. Don't make the same mistake. Now that you know that macro evolution is above the level of species, please find evidence of macro evolution. And I doubt you can, I have debated biologists, several, and astronomists, and physicists, and none were able to find examples. I could tell you of the most common examples, but I won't do your homework for you, so far this is not even a debate, and evolution is failing very easily at this point.So a change from one species to another is below the species level? Of course it's above the species level.
https://scholar.google.com.au/schol...evolution&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart
https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=fossil+evidence+for+evolution&btnG=
No, it does not make us even. When I say you don't understand evolution, I am not belittling you. I am making an observation based on the statements you have made which do not appear consistent with what I would expect to hear from someone who understands evolution.
https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=evidence+of+speciation&btnG=
Did you actually read the article, or did you stop reading as soon as you got your little soundbite?
He doesn't ever say that macroevolution never happens, he simply proposes that there is more to macroevolution than lots of microevolution.
In any case, his view is not a consensus. Many other scientists in the field disagree with him. But his claim does not support your point.
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?