Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Where does morality come from?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="createdtoworship" data-source="post: 74023016" data-attributes="member: 29008"><p>I would love to engage more with you on this topic.</p><p></p><p>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?)</p><p></p><p>and besides I was frustrated that you said, "we should believe scientist's because they know what they are talking about"</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>here is an example that scientists can be wrong:</p><p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation#Scientific_method" target="_blank">Bad science- spontanious generation</a></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="createdtoworship, post: 74023016, member: 29008"] 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: [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation#Scientific_method']Bad science- spontanious generation[/URL] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Where does morality come from?
Top
Bottom