New film tackles evidence for evolution
- Thread starter Stripe
- Start date
- Status
:thumb:
zippy2006
New member
That wholly depends on the truth value of morality. For some people, it would most definitely render evolution untrue.
Spot on. :thumb:
If morality exists, it must have an objective standard.
Evolution cannot produce such a standard.
Therefore, if evolution is claimed as the only source of the development of life, the claim is falsified by the existence of morality (not to mention all the numerous other non-physical realities).
That's presuming an awful lot about morality.
No one claims that.
How would you demonstrate that objective morality exists?
If morality is not based on an objective standard, it is just an opinion.
:darwinsm:
So something other than evolution contributes to the development of life, in your opinion?
Demonstrate? It's a non-physical reality. It cannot be weighed or measured, it has to be accepted.
And I deleted the tautology in your question. Morality must be objective or else it is just opinion.
Nope.
Evolution doesn't encompass everything that impacts life. Environmental changes, for instance, may prompt evolution, or extinction, but they aren't themselves evolution.
But the main reason I raise the objection is that there is nothing in the theory of evolution that claims this kind of exclusivity.
Sure doesn't sound objective. The problem is, you need to be able to demonstrate its existence if you want to use it as evidence of anything.
Ridiculous.
Last edited:
You're right. It seems ridiculous, at first. No one would believe it if there weren't a lot of evidence.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
You could try to demonstrate that all of the alternatives are absurdities. But I don't think you can demonstrate it very well, which makes it fairly weak as supporting evidence for other propositions.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
The problem is that once you believe that there is such a thing as objective reality and that there are such things objective truths, then you posited a metaphysical claim (namely that the correspondence theory of truth is an adequate test for truth).
Now the question becomes, which worldview can adequately appropriate and support such a belief? It is a matter of who has the best explanation, not who can prove it objectively.
AMR
I would be open to that sort of demonstration utilizing morality.
And because you are unable to present physical evidence and unwilling to present reasoning otherwise, we are justified in ignoring your assertion.
Dear, oh dear.
Backing off your opposition to what I said would be a rational response.
Evolutionists believe that evolution is the only game in town when it comes to the development of life. That non-evolution factors can influence the development of life is utterly irrelevant.
So you think something other than evolution contributes to the development of life.
Tell us what that is.
Was that an argument? It sure is lame.
Ignoring what I say is not a rational debate tactic. Morality cannot be weighed. It cannot be demonstrated by any physical test. It has to be accepted.
I accept that morality is part of reality -- a nonphysical part of reality.
You deny that this is the case. We cannot assume the truth of your position to analyze my claim, but we can assume the truth of my position to analyze it.
And sans any reasoning, again, we just ignore your opinion. Morality is real. That you think this is ridiculous is of no value to a rational debate.
Exactly. The problem is that evolutionists are singularly determined to reject God, so they cannot even entertain the possibility of a nonphysical reality, even to take part in a rational debate.
What can be asserted without evidence can be denied without evidence. I merely rejected your naked assertion.
No thanks.
Most likely.
I don't know, Stripe. I'm just pointing out that no such claim to absolute exclusivity isn't a part of evolutionary theory. For instance, evolution doesn't, by itself, explain the genesis of life, as far as we've been able to figure out.
You are arguing that something can be called objective, despite the fact that it can't be demonstrated by any objective means, and the fact that there is substantial disagreement about what it entails, and no obvious way to decide that some group of people are more right about it than others. That sounds pretty subjective to me. It's at least functionally subjective.
That isn't what I was calling ridiculous. I was calling your assertion that "objective morality" is a tautology ridiculous. You may not like subjectivity in moral discussions, but you can't just discard it without reasoning, especially when presenting and discussing other people's ideas.
None. Love isn't an objective reality.
You could look at the physiological symptoms of love. You could develop some technology to read and interpret brain states. You might even infer that they are likely in love. But you can't experience someone else's being in love.
Another crackpot video "proving" God is wrong. Tell us Stipe, what argument in the video do you think is most persuasive.
If you don't understand it enough to tell us, what makes you think your guy is right?
If you don't understand it enough to tell us, what makes you think your guy is right?
- Status