• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Where does morality come from?

Discussion in 'Ethics & Morality' started by Searching_for_God, Apr 28, 2019.

  1. gradyll

    gradyll In the grip of grace

    +1,025
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    I provided evidence that christians are more moral in things that are addictive such as alcohol, I can provide more peer reviews on the importance of religion in getting over other chemical addictions if you want.

    yes by all means. I have reported numerous posts, so it all depends on if I am trying to flame catholics or not. Simply mentioning their exact soteriology in this forum is allowed.

    I apologize I lost your original post, and what you were quoting. If you could provide context for this i would apreciate it.

    Just so you know there are some facts that can be proven but 99.9 percent of scientific facts are not truly proven, the only thing that i can prove is textual explainations of other posts, or mathmatics, or for example the existence of God. If God could condemn to hell for not believing in him, yet made it not provable one could condemn God for injustice. But I prove in my other thread that God's existence is provable objectively.

    again I an not sure what you are referring to, I have probably 10-20 posts like this a day to respond to, I am sorry I lost the reference material.

    do you find self worth in encouraging a christian to come to athiesm? Be honest and truthful. Do you feel you are doing a great service to force your views on a thread that is different than your own, just so you feel self worth when you catch a fish? If it is affirmative for any of those questions then your motive is unpure.

    athiest, means "non theist" which means they deny the existence of God, but with uncertainty, like the agnostic. So in reality the athiest doesn't know the answer. so what point is it, in debating it?


    again, i am not saying that you are here recruiting, at least by your own knowledge, I feel you may be doing it, and not knowing your doing it.
    well that is unusual for an athiest. Normally when someone they disagree with starts to agree with them through the normal discourse of conversation, they are happy. They find worth in that they have converted someone to their viewpoint. And that is fine in it's context. It's just that this is not the forum for that. This is a christian forum.

    you may like hugh ross then. He is probably the biggest champion of theistic evolution. But I have proven over and over that God didn't make a mistake. He didn't create man as a bacteria, and allow him to evolve into something else, that implies God made an error, when he said "it is good."
    after creation.

    Um I would disagree with this. I feel christians live by faith mostly, not by rational thought.

    accept I use rational thought, and yet you despise my viewpoints. so I can use that as synonomous with you simply trying to recruit.


    you say you haven't admitted to not being here to learn to be christian, and yet in the other sentence you said "I have never...in any ...posts....at any time....stated or implied anything that suggested I was here to learn to be a christian." So you admit it right there, now i presume that was a typo. And so I will treat this differently, if this is the case, I apologize. But even if you don't think you are here doing so. I have other questions, do you believe the Bible could possibly be true? Do you believe in Jesus? Do you think He was divine? Or do you loathe the concept of it. and think that it is illogical to believe that. Athiests typically feel athiesm is the more logical choice, and evolution, even when neither have solid proof of their tenets.
    I apologize if you feel I have called you a liar. I believe athiests are on a christian forum to recruit and not to be open to christianity because everyone one dozens of athiests I have talked to mock christianity and hate the idea of it. If you are somehow different than i apologize for grouping you in. But also realize you are different than the majority.

    fair enough, but I question why you said originally that you are here to "find out how I might hold a contrary view." That was a quote from your post, was it not?

    I only do that if they are rude

    perhaps, but please answer the hypothetical questions I ask in the above posts, before coming to any conclusions.
     
  2. Kylie

    Kylie Atheist and Proud

    +3,023
    Australia
    Atheist
    Married
    And I'm trying to figure out what you thinks counts as these.

    Do you think that a change from one species to another is NOT above the species level?

    When you talk of change from one genus to another, do you think that there's an individual of one genus giving birth to an individual of a different genus?

    But a change from one species to another involves a change in the water line, in your analogy. So the water line is going to rise, and therefore it will be above what it is originally. So it doesn't stay at the same height.

    Huh?

    You won't do my homework for me? You mean, supporting YOUR position? Dude, that's your work, not mine. If I'm obliged to support your position, your obliged to support mine. You want me to see evidence from your position, you better post it, otherwise you got nothing.

    And you're warning me not to make the same mistake? What mistake is that? Not providing evidence? I've provided plenty of evidence to support my position.

    You mean an example of a cat giving birth to a puppy or something?

    Give me a clear and specific example of what you would count as evidence for macroevolution.

    Yeah, all those biologists who rely on knowing how evolution works, they were stumped by a guy on the internet.

    But if you think you can show how evolution fails, by all means, publish your research. When you are awarded your Nobel Prize, I'll be there in the audience to applaud you.
     
  3. Kylie

    Kylie Atheist and Proud

    +3,023
    Australia
    Atheist
    Married
    So the scientists you cite as support for your position says that macroevolution still happens, even though your position is that macro evolution does NOT happen?

    I'm sorry, I can't for the life of me figure out how you think this helps your position at all.
     
  4. Ophiolite

    Ophiolite Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

    +4,985
    United Kingdom
    Agnostic
    Private
    In my ongoing discussion with gradyll regarding atheist/agnostic motivation there are multiple instances of eccentric lexical usage. (I shall be dealing with those in a later post.) Once you realise that gradyll is assigning meanings to words that fail to match common, or even uncommon, usage then his posts become clearer, though his argument then evaporates.

    I think that is what is happening here. Gradyll has decided to redefine macroevolution in a way that contradicts the accepted meaning within scientific circles. With this new definition his comments on the matter become correct, but correct in the same way as the following example:

    Gradyll's posts are scrumptious.

    Where scrumptious means arrogant, oblivious to reality, rude and misguided. I acknowledge that is an extreme example, but you get the general drift. (That's not drift as in a sedimentary deposit of clastic sediments, generally poorly sorted and ranging across the entire Wentworth scale, left behind by retreating glaciers. :))
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • List
  5. gradyll

    gradyll In the grip of grace

    +1,025
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    yes and thank you for the posts, I provided several peer reviews on the word macro evolution as being evolution above the level of species. That is the only purpose for quoting those peer reviews. To find a common definition for macro evolution, if you disagree with the definition you may want to do as I have, and find peer reviews that support your viewpoint, simply saying my definitions are in error is only an opinion, and that is not good enough. Some have the opinion that unicorns exist. But there is no evidence of it. I can see the tendency to attack my definitions, and that is fine. I just want you to see what I and other creationists here look at as evidence. Opinions are not evidence. But the fact that you are attacking my definitions reveals that you can't find evidence of macro evolution. Which actually further supports my premise. That there appears to be no evidence of macro evolution, and thus it should not be considered science, because it doesn't appear to be observed. None of those peer reviews I quoted offered evidence, but feel free to read them and find it. No one in over 12 years of debating this topic has provided evidence of macro evolution. Like I said before transitions should be as fluid as other species, and in fact the species and genus's should be fluid. If macro evolution was real there would be no lines between animals, animals would all be related to one another in some form, because they all had a darwinian common branch that they evolved from. But what we see are separate types of animals, and after thousands of years of evolution we still see the same types.

    here is what I mean that animal types should be fluid according to darwins views:
    ( I will post in another post)
     
  6. gradyll

    gradyll In the grip of grace

    +1,025
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    darwin tree.png
     
  7. Kylie

    Kylie Atheist and Proud

    +3,023
    Australia
    Atheist
    Married
    Why in another post? Did you mean that picture you posted with zero explanation? You're not making anything very clear.

    Please answer my question and give me an example of what you think would count as an example of macroevolution.
     
  8. gradyll

    gradyll In the grip of grace

    +1,025
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    yes maam, no problem.

    an example of macro evolution for instance would be lucy. Lucy is a transition between to entirely different types of animals. At least at first glance she is. However she has a shovel face, and a lack of a nose ridge, and there is a bone in her hip that meant she moved like a knuckle walker, not on two legs. So from those different observations it would appear she was was more of an ape like creature than a human. Another example of a transition between to different animals is neanderthal. While neanderthal is a different species than human, He is still human like and that is obvious regarding everything about him. He would not qualify as an example of macro evolution because it appears He is more human like than ape like. And you can tell this by the shape of the skull, and the hips. Those are two examples that fail to prove a common ancestry between two different types of animals. And by different types I mean two different species that also cannot interbreed in their current state and provide fertile offspring.

    I appreciate your willingness to discuss this with me in a polite and casual manner, and thank you. I just had to block someone tonight, and I don't feel good about it, but they were just being rude and not wanting to debate the topics.
     
  9. Kylie

    Kylie Atheist and Proud

    +3,023
    Australia
    Atheist
    Married
    You claim that Lucy doesn't count as a transitional species between modern Humans and our ape ancestors by claiming that Lucy had features that were more like those of an ape than a Human. This doesn't invalidate the claim, as we wouldn't expect a transitional form to lack ape-like characteristics entirely. We'd expect to see such a transitional form to have some ape-like characteristics and some human-like characteristics. And that's exactly what we see with Lucy. Australopithecus afarensis

    You also mentioned neanderthals. This isn't really a fair example, since no reputable scientists would say that humans evolved from neanderthals or vice versa. Humans and neanderthals both evolved from a common ancestor. We aren't on the same line of descent. It's like you and your cousins - neither of you is the ancestor of the other, but you both share a common ancestors - a grandparent.
     
  10. gradyll

    gradyll In the grip of grace

    +1,025
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    You simply have to prove lucy had human like characteristics. Lucy's ilium bone reveals that she was a knuckle walker, not a biped, like everyone thinks. The way the ilium is facing is a giveaway feature of a knuckle dragger. Also Lucy has a shovel face and no nose ridge which is another giveaway that she is ape like. I don't see a single human characteristic.


    here is some actual replicas of fossils (blue means reconstruction)


    here is LUCY


    Australopithecus afarensis: AL 288-1 | eFossils Resources


    even here:


    http://www.efossils.org/page/bonevie...sis/AL 288-1


    note how Lucy is forward facing on the lobes of the hip


    and note below how a human like hip wraps around for 360 degree balance for walking upright (not knuckle dragging)


    News/Media Center


    there are some CT scan images floating around the internet, showing a more radial ilium bone for lucy, but they are not exact photographs from a certified source, I have not found any pictures of actual fossils showing a radial ilium for lucy, meaning that she probably was a knuckle dragger style of mobility, not a biped as many are trying to claim.
     
    Last edited: Jun 8, 2019
  11. Kylie

    Kylie Atheist and Proud

    +3,023
    Australia
    Atheist
    Married
    I have just one question.

    Are you qualified in any way to determine if Lucy has human characteristics? Yes or no.

    Because I have quite a few sources that say despite your opinion, Lucy had quite a few human characteristics.

    "Au. afarensis had both ape and human characteristics..."

    "With a mixture of ape and human features—including long dangling arms but pelvic, spine, foot, and leg bones suited to walking upright..."

    "The Taung Child's [same species as Lucy] teeth were more like a human child's than an ape's. Dart also concluded that it could walk upright, like humans, because the part of the skull where the spinal cord meets the brain was human-like."

    "By the time Lucy came along, anthropologists accepted that australopithecines were early humans, not just apes."

    "Her species was transitional, with key traits of earlier apes as well as later humans... Lucy walked on two feet, a major step in human evolution. We know this from several clues in her bones, such as the angle of her femur in relation to knee-joint surfaces — an adaptation that helps bipedal animals balance while walking. Her knee joints also show signs of carrying her full body weight, rather than sharing the burden with her front limbs, and various other indications have been found in her pelvis, ankles and vertebrae. Still, her skeleton couldn't have moved quite like ours does, and her big, chimp-like arms suggest she hadn't yet abandoned the trees."

    "unlike most modern apes, this species did not have a deep groove lying behind its brow ridge and the spinal cord emerged from the central part of the skull base rather than from the back."

    "The canine premolar honing complex has been completely lost - this is a feature present in chimpanzees and other apes outside of the hominin lineage, where the large and projecting upper canine teeth are sharpened against the lower third premolars. All known modern and fossil apes have this honing complex. Its absence, along with the presence of bipedalism, is thought to be characteristic of species on the hominin lineage."

    This information is quite easy to find. I have to wonder why it is apparently unknown to you. Surely if you had done even a little bit of research you would have come across it.

    In any case, I would greatly appreciate it if you could answer my question to you. Are you qualified in any way to determine if Lucy has human characteristics? Yes or no.
     
  12. gradyll

    gradyll In the grip of grace

    +1,025
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    I know I know, a google search brings up all sorts of stuff. But if you think about it this way, what is riding on the fact that lucy is a human? Grant money. Lots of funding for federal organizations, as well as the worldviews of millions of americans. So if lucy fails, one of the only examples of macro evolution, then evolution fails too. So of course you are going to have bias. I have bias too. I believe even if lucy was proven factually to be half human and half monkey, that maybe there was a mistake somewhere and I would need to check all the sources. But checking sources is a problem. I have researched this for a long time. So I like photographs of fossils. I don't like scans, and graphics and artistic renditions, because they tend to be biased. So if you have pictures of fossils that appear to be human but on an ape, I am all for it. But simply posting someone's opinion, is not really scientific. Realize this: 99.9% of facts can't even be proven. Only those relating to mathmatics and a few others can be proven. If you cannot prove basic facts, even though 99.99999% of scientists agree with them, then how can you prove this? Now, at this point you may say that you are not trying to prove it, and that you are only providing evidence. But so far you have a habit of posting numerous links, that I am sure you didn't even read. So take a big breath, relax. Get some coffee, and read them. Let us know what you find out. But asking me to read 20 pages of text wall, is a little unfair. You don't see me doing that to you do you? Pick your top three, and find the actual facts of the matter, make an essay, and provide it. It will be fun, at least at that point I can look at this as a challenge. But so far I have been able to use my old stuff, and haven't even needed to look up anything. And to answer your question "am I qualified regarding lucy." I am not qualified no. If you are qualified to answer the matter, then please by all means do so. But don't post other peoples work, because you are qualified remember? And if you are not qualified, then why do you care I am not?
     
  13. Kylie

    Kylie Atheist and Proud

    +3,023
    Australia
    Atheist
    Married
    Wow, for all that, you said only four things I could figure out.

    1. Lucy is said to be a transitional fossil in the line that lead to Humans because it's part of a conspiracy for scientists to get grant money.
    2. I just posted someone's opinion and thus it's just as valid as your opinion.
    3. You think I didn't even read the links I posted.
    4. You are not qualified regarding Lucy, and neither am I.

    Let me respond to each point in turn.

    1. It's part of a conspiracy? Are you kidding? That's t he most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Evolution is just a conspiracy for grant money. HA!
    2. I just posted someone's opinion? No, I posted sources that describe the scientific consensus. It's a lot more valid than your opinion because it's the views of people who are experts on the subject.
    3. Why don't you think I read the links I posted? You do realise that I had to read them in order to cut and paste the relevant parts that talk about how Lucy has human-like characteristics, yes? Or do you think I just cut and pasted random text from each page?
    4. Now, I freely admit that neither of us is qualified to make any determination regarding Lucy. You seem to be under the impression that since I am not qualified, I'm unable to share what those who ARE qualified are saying. Why do you think I am unqualified to share the opinions of experts? So how about this - let's leave it up to the people who are experts in the field who have studied Lucy, okay? Why don't we agree to go with what they say? How does that sound to you?
     
  14. gradyll

    gradyll In the grip of grace

    +1,025
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    so far you haven't made any argument at all regarding the legitimacy of lucy's humanship. You have posted text walls of information. But if you read it you should be able to find the facts and quote them for others to read fairly easy right because they are scientific journals (although not peer review, but ultimately you should find facts in there somewhere). By facts I mean pictures of fossils, undisturbed. What I typically see is pictures of lucy walking upright. Notice that you don't see that in the actual bones. Her ilium, is flat and facing toward the front of her body. A human ilium is curved to support an upright walking and 360 degree motion. So that basically refutes with logic, and direct pictures, 90% of the scientific articles, right? I mean I don't want to jump the gun here, but am I right? So I am curious as to what the articles actually say about her having human characteristics, and I didn't see any peer reviews. So if you want this debate to go farther, you may want to find some. I trust peer review more than scientific journals, but I believe all of them are biased. But if you can solve the ilium issue with photographs of her intact hip, I wouldn't even need to see peer review. Pictures to me are of more scientific value that biased scientists. I hope they are to you too, pictures can make any of us an authority. As it's easy to see what they are saying. The problem is that many pictures have bone reconstruction in them, that is greyed out, and that is where an anthropologist interjected their best opinion as to what the hip looked like, and unfortunately most of the ideas of lucy walking came from such fictitious reconstructions. Lastly, Saying that the "scientists believe it in unison, therefore it's true." has two problems, for one it's the bandwagon fallacy. I won't quote it to you, but it's basically saying that truth is based on popular opinion not on facts. Secondly, I could quote over 20 scientists that disagree that lucy is a transition. So it boils down to what do the facts actually say. Are we agreed on this issue?
     
    Last edited: Jun 8, 2019
  15. Kylie

    Kylie Atheist and Proud

    +3,023
    Australia
    Atheist
    Married
    Please. I literally cut and pasted the relevant parts of each article for you, don't give me any nonsense about not having made any argument. And what makes you think that you can demand scientific articles from me when you are utterly incapable of producing the same? I've given you evidence to show that Lucy is transitional on the way to becoming human. Nowe it's time for you to step up to the palt and do the same. Since you place so much regard on scientific articles, you can produce some of those to support your view!

    The lack of peer reviews suits you just fine when it comes to supporting your view. Where are the anti-evolution peer reviewed articles? Oh, that's right, you can't provide any. Your hypocrisy is glaring.

    Of course, you need some ready-made excuse to use when it comes time for you to decide they're wrong because they don't agree with your anti-evolution stance.

    Given that you have freely admitted you don't have the qualifications required to correctly interpret those photos, your opinion of them means nothing.

    No they can't.

    Absolute rubbish. We have more than 400 specimens of Au Afarensis, and between them we have just about the entire skeleton. You have obviously not done your research on this.

    So the fact they are experts in the field and are far more likely to know what they're actually talking about than you counts for nothing, does it?

    Okay, you go right ahead. I'd like to see how many of these scientists are actually in a relevant field. So go on, give me your list of 20 scientists who say that Lucy doesn't count as an example of evolution.
     
  16. gradyll

    gradyll In the grip of grace

    +1,025
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    Oh thank you for quoting the articles, I didn't notice that. My apologies. And I hope this is not frustrating to you, because I thoroughly enjoy the discussion with a polite poster. And thank you again for the response. But I do see some problems with the brevity of the quotes. When they say a knee bone is similar to a biped, you have faith in them. They don't provide evidence of it, they just state it (At least in the quotation they don't prove it.) The article may provide peer review evidence but from the quotations all I saw were unverified claims. So what do I do with unverified claims. I am to accept it. This is faith. Sort of like me having faith in God. But your faith is somehow more scientific? What I suggest is, like I said providing real unbiased evidence. You have no peer reviews, so I guess that is out of the question. And that is interesting because I believe you were the first to make the argument that lucy was human like. So now a reversal of the burden of proof to me to find peer reviews that lucy is not human? I said there is no evidence of macro evolution, now you say there is. Well then prove it. You want to start with lucy. I asked for peer review. You didn't have any, so you ask me for peer review, lol. But if you want you can post pictures of fossils and we can analyze them ourselves. Once you know the facts of the matter you can start debating like a real scientist. After all, science is unproven anyhow. So you should not be so worried that we are not scientists. We have brains. See that is what I mean by conspiracy. Everyone is trusting the next guy to do the thinking. Every evolutionist is trusting in the documentation. Who is actually dripping the chemicals in the testube and writing down the observations? That is the guy we need to prove this. Even then, we assume their complete, honest and unbiased opinion on the matter, all that we assume. We also assume the scientist did not have a slip of the pen when writing down figures, we also assume that no one tampered with it, when it went on the university server (where everyone can tamper with it). So feel free to try to give evidence for Lucy being a human. Quote the facts I said. You quoted, quotes yes. But you didn't post the actual evidence. I can say that the earth is flat because a group of scientists believe nasa caused a conspiracy and the government caused a conspiracy, but simply showing a mere photograph from space convinces me that they are wrong. Do I have to be a scientist to disprove the earth is flat? No. It's the same with Lucy, if they have photographic evidence of the bone they are talking about, and it's intact with the joint. Then yes that is evidence. Most likely what they have are individual bones, and they assume certain things when they join them together with glue. Remember they are going into this believing that this Lucy specimen is an example of early bipedal locomotion. So they glue the bones together in a fashion resembling bipedalism. When in fact the cartilage (which erodes quicker in dirt and usually is gone) could possible situate the bones more closely to a knuckle walker. Any way there is alot of assumptions being made. So what I am getting at is there are no facts. Unless you can provide pictures of somehow cartilage still attached (which would be a miracle). Or a full skeleton that somehow still has the leg bones attached, then we could simply see a picture verifying the statement. I am asking for simple proof. Is that too much to ask for? Again, if you cannot provide this. I must say our wonderful discussion is over, and my statement stands that currently there is no evidence of macro evolution. I loved this conversation with you, and I must say it's been awhile since I have talked about this. Thanks for bringing it up. I am further strengthened the more we debate. I hope you are too!
     
    Last edited: Jun 8, 2019
  17. Kylie

    Kylie Atheist and Proud

    +3,023
    Australia
    Atheist
    Married
    Out of the 411 words in that post, 304 of them were samples from the relevant parts. How did you not notice?

    The scientists have relevant qualifications in the field. It is a fair conclusion that they know what they are talking about, certainly more than you or me. Accepting them at their word is a perfectly reasonable conclusion.

    Actually, you were the one who first claimed that Lucy is proof that macroevolution does NOT happen, and you asked me to prove you wrong. Since then, I have provided sources that show that you were wrong, and you have provided nothing except your own viewpoint which you admit is totally unqualified and therefore worthless in this discussion.

    And this is despite the burden of proof being on YOU since YOU made the claim that Lucy showed macroevolution doesn't happen and thus you must provide the evidence to support your position!

    Given that you have freely admitted that you have no qualifications whatsoever and neither do I, I fail to see why you think trying to analyze photos of something we know nothing about will give us anything useful.

    Actually, if you want the same results as the real scientists, why not just go to the real scientists who have been studying this stuff for decades?

    HA!

    This is the most ridiculous logic ever. You say we can't trust the people with the expertise because they could make mistakes (despite their work being checked by others), so you propose that we do it ourselves? Because, of course, since we have zero expertise in the field we can't possibly make any mistakes, can we?

    Yeah I did. You just keep raising the standard you require when it comes to what I present, buyt the standard for your own side is pathetically low. Same standard on both sides, dude. I've given evidence as to why Lucy is a transitional form, you've provided nothing. It's time for you to step up and show evidence for your side. If you can't, your position is worthless.

    Again, you do not have the expertise required to make this determination. You have admitted it yourself. So stop saying that you want to investigate it for yourself, because you've already admitted that you don't know how to do it.

    Again you assume you know how the scientists do their work, but remember - you;ve admitted that you have zero qualifications, so you aren't in a position to say if they're doing it right or not, are you?

    And yet you can provide no support for this claim whatsoever. Without support your claims are meaningless. Provide support for this claim or withdraw it.

    And the biggest assumption is the guy who admits he has no qualifications, and no expertise who thinks he is better able to determine the truth about Lucy than the many scientists who have been studying her for decades.

    I've provided it. You refused to accept it because of... reasons. Presumably because it disagreed with you and since you didn't want to admit you were wrong, you just decided to raise the standard of evidence you required. Meanwhile, the standard of evidence you require for your position is, "Well, I have no qualifications to reach a good conclusion, but it seems strange to me, so it must be wrong. Nah, the fact I don't know anything about it doesn't bother me the least."

    This conversation has been filled with the same kind of intellectual dishonesty I've come to expect from believers.

    1. You make a claim and fail to support it, instead, demanding I prove you wrong, even though the burden of proof is on you, not me.
    2. I humour you and present evidence anyway to show why you are wrong.
    3. You decide that the evidence I presented is not good enough and dismiss it, saying that you are correct by default, even though you have no good reason for dismissing the evidence I presented and even though you've presented no evidence of your own.
    4. When faced with this, you say you are leaving the conversation and acting like you've accomplished something important, when all you've done is ignore evidence you don't like and then leave before you are forced to face the facts that you have zero support for your own position.

    Of course, you could prove me wrong by posting evidence to support your own position.
     
  18. gradyll

    gradyll In the grip of grace

    +1,025
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    I would love to engage more with you on this topic.

    I simply don't see evidence. You asked me, what are examples macro evolution would look like, I said, lucy is an example. You said, "well prove that lucy is not an example of macro evolution", attempting to reverse the burden of proof. I said, "there is apparently no evidence lucy is an example of macro evolution.." I don't have to provide my proof of skepticism over a positive claim any more than you would have to prove God is not in the universe, as an athiest. I say God exists, then you say "there is no evidence of that" they I say, prove there is no evidence. It just does not work, you see. It is clearly a case of reversing the burden of proof. So again, you can provide the required documentation if you wish, but I doubt you will, or want to dive into this that much. Sorry, I was a little frustrated by your tactics here so I didn't adress the rest of your post. For now if you wish to keep this conversation going, simply provide evidence lucy is an example of macro evolution. Thanks. (and by the way it should not be hard since all of science agrees yes?)

    and besides I was frustrated that you said, "we should believe scientist's because they know what they are talking about"

    so when they believed in spontanious generation a hundred years ago, scientists were right? Or how about a few hundred years ago when scientists believed the earth was flat? Again this is begging the question. You assume scientists are right, without supporting evidence. When scientists are not infallible. So this is begging the question.

    here is an example that scientists can be wrong:
    Bad science- spontanious generation
     
  19. Kylie

    Kylie Atheist and Proud

    +3,023
    Australia
    Atheist
    Married
    No you didn't. You said Lucy ISN'T an example of evidence for Macroevolution. If you thought Lucy was an example for macroevolution, you wouldn't be saying macroevolution has no evidence.

    No, the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of the one making the claim.

    If I was to make the claim, "There is no God," you would ask that I support my position. If you asked me to support my position and I just answered, "The proof of my claim is that you can't prove there is a God," you'd just think I was a jerk, wouldn't you?

    Likewise, when you say, "There is no macroevolution," I will ask you to support your claim. So far you have not done that.

    No. As I said, if we are having a discussion about that and I make the claim that there is no God, then it is up to me to support that claim.

    Let me make it clear:

    Claim made by me = claim supported by me.
    Claim made by you = claim supported by you.

    I have already provided sources that show how Lucy is an example of macroevolution. You have dismissed them by claiming that the sources were not of sufficient quality.

    You have not provided ANY support for your claim that Lucy is not an example of macroevolution.

    Remember: Claim made by you = claim supported by you.

    And let's not forget that it was SCIENCE that showed those ideas to be wrong.
     
  20. gradyll

    gradyll In the grip of grace

    +1,025
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    Maam everything I said regarding lucy I provided actual photographs in the next post from a unbiased fossil site. That's as objective of evidence as you can get. So my part is done, now if you can't prove your part with the similar style evidence or peer review, then our conversation is politely over in my favor. Have a wonderful rest of your weekend, don't let this stuff get to you.
     
Loading...