• 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

    +1,027
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    sir there is no positive statements here than can be validated. So there is no need to refute this statement, it is in self refutation mode.
     
  2. gradyll

    gradyll In the grip of grace

    +1,027
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    more than refuting all the allegations? Maam, that is all that is needed in debate. But you are welcome to try and challenge it, I seen that you realized you have no evidence for macro evolution, or you would have posted it happily. It's not that easy is it? Well hopefully this is a beneficial conversation for all of us.
     
  3. Kylie

    Kylie Atheist and Proud

    +3,028
    Australia
    Atheist
    Married
    No, you didn't refute anything. You just said you did, but you haven't.
     
  4. gradyll

    gradyll In the grip of grace

    +1,027
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    It's not that hard.

    when there is no evidence of something, everyone knows it.
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2019
  5. Kylie

    Kylie Atheist and Proud

    +3,028
    Australia
    Atheist
    Married
    And since there are plenty of people who disagree with you, I guess that means you are wrong.
     
  6. gradyll

    gradyll In the grip of grace

    +1,027
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    lol, this is hilarious.

    Appeal to the populous:

    Examples: Evolution is true because everyone believes it. Truth is not made on the basis of the popular vote. OR Evolution is true because the majority of scientists are evolutionists: This is an appeal to authority, and just because a scientist believes it does not make evolution 100% correct. For example scientists believed in spontaneous generation for many years, or blood letting for example. So the appeal to authority is a fallacy. Something is true based on it’s scientific data, not on how many believe it.

    so unless you can actually prove your position, I will not be talking about this any more with you.


    So take care and good luck in proving evolution.

    (P.S. when someone does not want to adhere to contradiction in their mind they go through a mental stress, it's called

    Cognitive Dissonance-

    “This is the feeling of uncomfortable tension which comes from holding two conflicting thoughts in the mind at the same time.

    Dissonance increases with:

    1. The importance of the subject to us.
    2. How strongly the dissonant thoughts conflict.
    3. Our inability to rationalize and explain away the conflict.”
    Above quote from: http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/cognitive_dissonance.htm

    I say repeatedly:,

    1. "you have to be willing to be wrong."
    2. "you have to be willing to change."
    3. "if you can't do the above then debate is not for you"
    And I exhort myself, we all have preconceived ideas of what truth is, but many times it is simply clouded with self interest. And this could simply be the reason why most posters here (which are atheist), disagree with me. Most posters in all the threads I am in are atheist, according to polls taken.
     
  7. gaara4158

    gaara4158 I prefer you trust your reason.

    +1,372
    United States
    Humanist
    Married
    US-Democrat

    You played yourself.
     
  8. Kylie

    Kylie Atheist and Proud

    +3,028
    Australia
    Atheist
    Married
    You're the one who brought up the "everyone knows it" argument. If you think it's a bad argument, to appeal to popularity, why did you use it?

    Evolution has never been true because lots of people think it's true.

    Evolution is true because all available scientific evidence points to it being true. I have presented sources to support this, you have produced nothing to support your anti-evolution position.

    When you say evolution is wrong, it's up to you to support that claim.
     
  9. gradyll

    gradyll In the grip of grace

    +1,027
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    I knew you would try to call out something that was unfounded. Let me explain why this is in error. See when I said that everyone knows it, I was simply saying "it's recognizable." I was not saying that I trust in the fact that everybody knows it. It's sad the extent that you wish to trap me. It's sort of funny actually. And two people made the same mistake, and said it was funny. I look at replies, and poles, I think they are important to learn how a thread is trending. Right now there are more atheists than any thing else. See they are so worried that God may exist that they have to go to a christian forum and try to convince people who didn't ask them to do so, that they are wrong, and that God does not exist. It's truly sad. But that is neither here nor there. That I can deal with. What I cannot deal with is laziness in logic. See either evolution is true or it is not. No other choice. If it's true, and everyone and everything has evolved from lesser types of animals. Then there would be evidence, not just one transition, mind you, but millions of transitions. And I ask you for simply one. Just one. And the fact you cannot provide one, should instantly convince you that macro evolution does not work. At least not in practice. It's a good theory on paper, but in observational science it's lacking. I know, I know....every scientist disagrees with me. But mind you 300 years ago, every scientist believed in God. So can a scientist be wrong? You tell me. I appreciate your replies. The short ones are usually funnier. I can see you have a sense of humor. Thats a good thing. Especially when someone destroys your worldview. It's good to have some place to fall back and just laugh about it.

    here is more info on the problems of transitioning between two different types of animals and why there is no evidence of it. This is not peer review but a christian book, but it's the logic that I like. It reveals logical errors in universal natural selection:

    "Nonviability of Transitional Forms—Another problem that plagues the plausibility of natural selection creating new life forms is the fact that transitional forms could not survive. For example, consider the Darwinian assertion that birds evolved gradually from reptiles over long periods of time. This would necessitate a transition from scales to feathers. How could a creature survive that no longer has scales but does not quite have feathers? Feathers are irreducibly complex. A creature with the structure of half a feather has no ability to fly. It would be easy prey on land, in water, and from the air. And as a halfway house between reptiles and birds, it probably wouldn’t be adept at finding food for itself either. So the problem for Darwinists is twofold: first, they have no viable mechanism for getting from reptiles to birds; and second, even if a viable mechanism were discovered, the transitional forms would be unlikely to survive anyway."

    above quotes from- Norman Geisler, frank turek - book entitled -I don't have faith enough to be an atheist.
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2019
  10. gaara4158

    gaara4158 I prefer you trust your reason.

    +1,372
    United States
    Humanist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    Yeah, no.
     
  11. Moral Orel

    Moral Orel Proud Citizen of Moralton Supporter

    +1,814
    United States
    Agnostic
    Married
    This is a fun one, and probably a logical fallacy you've never even heard of. This is called "Appeal to False Authority".

    Appeal to False Authority

    Norman Geisler has a PHD in philosophy and a Master's degree in theology, while Frank Turek has a Master's degree in public administration. None of these degrees have anything to do with biology or evolution, so they are not qualified to be considered authorities on the matter of evolution. Whatever they have to say about the subject is no more authoritative than what I might have to say on the subject and I only have a BS in computer science.

    It must take an enormous amount of effort to put such a diverse display of logical fallacies and poor debate tactics out there for everyone to learn how not to argue. Thank you for all your hard work. Next.
     
  12. gaara4158

    gaara4158 I prefer you trust your reason.

    +1,372
    United States
    Humanist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    This shows nothing but Turek’s failure to understand the concept of transitional forms. It’s not as though new features evolve in slivers or chunks until a final piece is added, ending the string of transitional forms resulting in some discrete “final” form. That would be miraculous and it would disprove the very concept of natural selection. No, transitional forms are each in themselves functional - or at the very least benign - structures. The function of the structures may change over time, as in the case of bats slowly evolving wings from what used to be front legs. In the case of scales to feathers, it has never been suggested that some reptile species suddenly lost their scales and had to begin developing feathers from the ground up. Feathers evolved from a very long series of slight modifications to scales in size, position, and structure, each modification being advantageous over the last. If you think this is impossible, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that feathers are irreducibly complex.
     
  13. gradyll

    gradyll In the grip of grace

    +1,027
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    I won't adress the scales to feathers at this point, but this positive claim that rats evolved into bats ( I assume you are going with the consensus here), do you have evidence of this macro evolution. I prefer a peer review that states a solid example for instance, a transitional form that can link between the two genus's. And you obviously don't have that evidence. So this again is a fairytale understanding of science. I can believe pink elephants spontaniously combusted, and then evolved into unicorns. But I would at that point have to prove it.
     
  14. gaara4158

    gaara4158 I prefer you trust your reason.

    +1,372
    United States
    Humanist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    I don’t know that it was particularly rats, but yes bats most likely evolved from some kind of rodent. But it doesn’t matter if we can prove that or not; again, the burden is on you to prove that it couldn’t possibly happen. Let’s see a “peer review” proving that. You obviously don’t have that, or you wouldn’t have bothered with Turek’s nonsense.
     
  15. gradyll

    gradyll In the grip of grace

    +1,027
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    I never said it coudn't possibly happen. I said that taxonomy itself poses a natural barrier to evolution. That is not saying it can't happen. But taxonomical structure would be wrong if it did happen.
     
  16. gaara4158

    gaara4158 I prefer you trust your reason.

    +1,372
    United States
    Humanist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    Taxonomy is just the system by which we classify different organisms, so it’s bizarre to suggest that somehow the way we decide to categorize different life forms has a physical effect on how far they’re allowed to deviate from any given point of “origin.” Maybe you’re using the wrong word, because what you just said makes absolutely no sense.
     
  17. holo

    holo former Christian

    +599
    Norway
    Agnostic
    Private
    The problem with "missing links" is that there will always be a hole. Find some creature that's somewhere between ape and man, that's a link, right? But now you have two more missing links, one between the ape and the ape-man, and one between the ape-man and the man. Find another missing link and again, you get two more missing links.

    There's also apparently this idea that fossilization happens all the time. But it's actually extremely rare. Almost all dead bodies eventually rot away.
     
  18. gradyll

    gradyll In the grip of grace

    +1,027
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    sir taxonomy of the genus level has a barrier to it, a barrier that evolution cannot cross that is the sole reason why they started using differnt classifications for animals "phylogeny". But again animals mate within there respective genra. A monkey literally will not mate with a man, and vice versa (and reproduce fertile offspring). So there that is proof they are separate animals as I have said. So your premise that animals are related through universal common ancestry, fails when those changes can't reproduce fertile offspring. You may claim to have an example that I am unaware of, but so far no one has revealed one.
     
  19. gradyll

    gradyll In the grip of grace

    +1,027
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Private
    you are correct. But we have no missing links that unite two different types of animals. So evolution fails on a macro level.
     
  20. gaara4158

    gaara4158 I prefer you trust your reason.

    +1,372
    United States
    Humanist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    Here I am, teaching evolution to a creationist even though I consider it an indulgent waste of time. Can't be any worse than video games, I guess.

    It's hard to tell what you're tying to say, because taken at face value your words make no sense. Phylogeny is the study of the evolutionary history of a species. Taxonomy is the system by which different organisms are classified. Phylogeny is a useful tool for taxonomists, not an alternative system developed to accommodate some "barrier."

    Did you mean that there is a physical barrier beyond which a species cannot possibly evolve? Take modern wolves, for example. Are you saying they could never, in any number of generations, evolve into something you wouldn't recognize as the same species? If so, where is your evidence? Remember, even if no one directly watched it happen, that's not evidence that it's impossible, which is the argument you're making.

    Oh, there's all kinds of interspecies copulation. You've clearly never been on a farm ^_^ But I think you meant that animals generally only reproduce within their own species, and that's true enough for the most part. That's no surprise seeing as that's part of the definition of "species."

    But that's neither here nor there. No one is suggesting that evolution happens via cross-species interbreeding. Evolution happens on the population-level, not the individual level. Evolution occurs when certain traits are favored by environmental pressures and others aren't. When the environment changes, so do the traits expressed in the population. After enough changes in the environment happen, the population can have changed so dramatically that they are no longer reproductively compatible (cannot mate or produce fertile offspring) with members of the species from which they originated. This is called speciation, and it's been observed directly in rapidly-reproducing populations like fruit flies. It takes much longer for a population to evolve so dramatically that it requires a brand new genus to be named for it, but there's no evidence suggesting that it can't happen. There's no evidence suggesting that it can't happen past any taxonomic level, in fact. I know that's your main objection, that evolution cannot occur past the genus level, so I await your evidence supporting that. And do keep in mind what counts and what doesn't count as evidence.
     
Loading...