Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New film tackles evidence for evolution

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • New film tackles evidence for evolution

    Movie trailer and upcoming event:

    Evolution's Achilles' Heels
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

  • #2
    Originally posted by Stripe View Post
    Movie trailer and upcoming event:

    Evolution's Achilles' Heels

    We don't tell our children fairy tales so that they will know that monsters exist.
    They already know monsters exist.
    We tell our children fairy tales so that they will know that monsters can be killed.

    Comment


    • #3
      I think it's interesting that they mention morality in the clip. Kinda telling, if you ask me. Even if it were true that evolution ruled out morality, which, it isn't, that wouldn't render evolution untrue.
      Global warming denialists are like gravity denialists piloting a helicopter, determined to prove a point. We may not have time to actually persuade them of their mistake.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by rexlunae View Post
        ...that wouldn't render evolution untrue.
        That wholly depends on the truth value of morality. For some people, it would most definitely render evolution untrue.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by zippy2006 View Post
          That wholly depends on the truth value of morality. For some people, it would most definitely render evolution untrue.
          Spot on.

          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).
          Where is the evidence for a global flood?
          E≈mc2
          "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

          "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
          -Bob B.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Stripe View Post
            Spot on.

            If morality exists, it must have an objective standard.
            That's presuming an awful lot about morality.

            Originally posted by Stripe View Post
            Therefore, if evolution is claimed as the only source of the development of life,
            No one claims that.

            Originally posted by Stripe View Post
            the claim is falsified by the existence of morality (not to mention all the numerous other non-physical realities).
            How would you demonstrate that objective morality exists?
            Global warming denialists are like gravity denialists piloting a helicopter, determined to prove a point. We may not have time to actually persuade them of their mistake.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by rexlunae View Post
              That's presuming an awful lot about morality.
              If morality is not based on an objective standard, it is just an opinion.

              No one claims that.


              So something other than evolution contributes to the development of life, in your opinion?

              How would you demonstrate that ... morality exists?
              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.
              Where is the evidence for a global flood?
              E≈mc2
              "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

              "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
              -Bob B.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                If morality is not based on an objective standard, it is just an opinion.
                Nope.

                Originally posted by Stripe View Post


                So something other than evolution contributes to the development of life, in your opinion?
                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.

                Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                Demonstrate? It's a non-physical reality. It cannot be weighed or measured, it has to be accepted.
                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.

                Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                And I deleted the tautology in your question. Morality must be objective or else it is just opinion.
                Ridiculous.
                Last edited by rexlunae; August 27th, 2014, 10:22 PM.
                Global warming denialists are like gravity denialists piloting a helicopter, determined to prove a point. We may not have time to actually persuade them of their mistake.

                Comment


                • #9
                  EVOLUTION Says that a Fruity Fly is Related to an Elephant.
                  A duckbill Platypus is related to an Eagle.
                  A hippopotamus is related to a Shark.
                  An Octopus is related to a Fox.
                  That kind of Belief Rivals Mithras Catholicism.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by OCTOBER23 View Post
                    EVOLUTION Says that a Fruity Fly is Related to an Elephant.
                    A duckbill Platypus is related to an Eagle.
                    A hippopotamus is related to a Shark.
                    An Octopus is related to a Fox.
                    That kind of Belief Rivals Mithras Catholicism.
                    You're right. It seems ridiculous, at first. No one would believe it if there weren't a lot of evidence.
                    Global warming denialists are like gravity denialists piloting a helicopter, determined to prove a point. We may not have time to actually persuade them of their mistake.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by rexlunae View Post
                      How would you demonstrate that objective morality exists?
                      How would you demonstrate objective truth exists?

                      AMR
                      Embedded links in my posts or in my sig below are included for a reason. Tolle Lege.



                      Do you confess?
                      Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
                      AMR's Randomata Blog
                      Learn Reformed Doctrine
                      I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
                      Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
                      Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
                      The best TOL Social Group: here.
                      If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
                      Why?


                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
                        How would you demonstrate objective truth exists?

                        AMR
                        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.
                        Global warming denialists are like gravity denialists piloting a helicopter, determined to prove a point. We may not have time to actually persuade them of their mistake.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by rexlunae View Post
                          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.
                          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
                          Embedded links in my posts or in my sig below are included for a reason. Tolle Lege.



                          Do you confess?
                          Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
                          AMR's Randomata Blog
                          Learn Reformed Doctrine
                          I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
                          Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
                          Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
                          The best TOL Social Group: here.
                          If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
                          Why?


                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
                            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.
                            I would be open to that sort of demonstration utilizing morality.
                            Global warming denialists are like gravity denialists piloting a helicopter, determined to prove a point. We may not have time to actually persuade them of their mistake.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by rexlunae View Post
                              Nope.
                              And because you are unable to present physical evidence and unwilling to present reasoning otherwise, we are justified in ignoring your assertion.

                              Evolution doesn't encompass everything that impacts life. Environmental changes, for instance, may prompt evolution, or extinction, but they aren't themselves evolution.
                              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.

                              There is nothing in the theory of evolution that claims this kind of exclusivity.
                              So you think something other than evolution contributes to the development of life.

                              Tell us what that is.

                              Sure doesn't sound objective.
                              Was that an argument? It sure is lame.

                              The problem is, you need to be able to demonstrate its existence if you want to use it as evidence of anything.
                              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.

                              Ridiculous.
                              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.
                              Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                              E≈mc2
                              "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                              "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                              -Bob B.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X