Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10
71
Well...yeah, but why would anyone be puzzled by that?  The same can be said of any other species.
72
Perhaps it is that BS et.al. are stumped by concept of human evolution from something that wasn't originally homo sapien sapien because that has only happened once so far.

What has only happened once?  Speciation?  Uhh, no, that's happened countless times.

Us. Not the U.S. but us humans. That has only happened once that I am aware of.
73
General Religious Discussion / Re: The most harmful religons
« Last post by Azdgari on October 18, 2017, 08:56:00 PM »
So, "objective" to you means something that is true regardless of what any mind thinks about it?
74
Perhaps it is that BS et.al. are stumped by concept of human evolution from something that wasn't originally homo sapien sapien because that has only happened once so far.

What has only happened once?  Speciation?  Uhh, no, that's happened countless times.
75
General Religious Discussion / Re: The most harmful religons
« Last post by BibleStudent on October 18, 2017, 08:54:08 PM »
I recommend you stop using the words subjective and objective, because they have no meaning in this context. You might start to say something.

I very much disagree with you on this.
76
General Religious Discussion / Re: The most harmful religons
« Last post by BibleStudent on October 18, 2017, 08:52:57 PM »
Sorry, but we don't even know if logic is real, let alone can be used for deducing self-serving ideologies.

What do you mean by "not real?"...that it might not actually exist? That's some pretty radical thought. I'd certainly be interested in hearing more on this.

Quote
What if there is? You could have a God who uses evolution. The generally spouted view of hard-line atheists could be wrong.

Yep. That could be.

Quote
Potentially, you also made a fallacy of equating God with objective. We have no evidence that anything God does or wants is objective. It's just your decree.

Where did I equate God with objective in this thread? I've been pretty careful to avoid discussions about God in this thread.

Quote
You want objective to mean "BS is correct", and subjective to mean "atheists are wrong".

That's all you are doing; trying to ram square pegs into round holes.

I understand why you may feel that way.
77
Put a mule and a hinny together and what do you get?

I almost said a velkyn....but I won't.
78
always fun to watch BS attach things he doesn't understand.  http://www.pnas.org/content/114/40/10707

More of the same stuff which merely shows how micro-evolution consists of changes in existing genetic information.

plus....

"The actual developmental function of this gene has remained unclear, however. Here we used CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing to show that optix plays a fundamental role in nymphalid butterfly wing pattern development, where it is required for determination of all chromatic coloration."

Do you even know what CRISPR genome editing is?

Quote
Enough small changes to a genome makes a new species and we have seen that happen too. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

? NOT ONE of the examples demonstrates the origin of large-scale biological change.
? The vast majority of the examples do NOT even show the production of new species, where a “species” is defined according to the standard definition of a “reproductively isolated population.” Only one single example shows the production of a new species of plants via hybridization and polyploidy, but this example does not entail significant biological change.
? Only one of the examples purports to document the production of a reproductively isolated population of animals—however this example is overturned by a later study not mentioned in the FAQ.
? Thus, not a single bona fide example of speciation in animals—e.g., the establishment of a completely reproductively isolated population—is given in the
FAQ.
http://www.discovery.org/f/8411

Quote
Quote
Then the scientific evidence derived from the scientific method should be readily available to demonstrate what you claim it does.

and of course it does, by showing how minute changes in genes can cause changes.  Of course, BS, will ignore this because willful ignorance is his thing when it comes to discussions with anyone who knows more than he does.

Who is arguing that minute changes in genes cannot cause changes? It wasn't me.
79
General Religious Discussion / Re: The most harmful religons
« Last post by Add Homonym on October 18, 2017, 08:16:37 PM »
BS, if you remove all the jargon from your language and state what you mean, rather than using words you are using to hide meaning, you might get somewhere. Also, from all we see of you, you could be a Hindu or Muslim.

I recommend you stop using the words subjective and objective, because they have no meaning in this context. You might start to say something.
80
General Religious Discussion / Re: The most harmful religons
« Last post by Add Homonym on October 18, 2017, 08:10:41 PM »

Logic dictates that there must necessarily be an objective purpose or meaning. In a natural world with evolution as the force driving us forward, there is no objective purpose or meaning. It's molecules in motion. Therefore, when you attempt to add moral meaning to something, you are stepping above (ie. supernatural) the natural order  and injecting an objective purpose or meaning into an existence where there is no objective meaning or purpose....only the unguided forces of nature which doesn't care two hoots about meaning or purpose..

The author of the article I linked to made a rather profound statement when he said: "Intelligent people ask serious questions. Serious questions deserve serious answers. There are few questions more serious than the one I’m asking. How do we explain objective meaning and morality that we know are true? If a worldview can’t answer this question, it doesn’t deserve you."




Quote
Logic dictates that there must necessarily be an objective purpose or meaning.

Sorry, but we don't even know if logic is real, let alone can be used for deducing self-serving ideologies. (The type of logic we know, doesn't work outside of proven frameworks.) There are so many options you are not considering, it can only be because you put blinkers on to justify Christianity.

Quote
In a natural world with evolution as the force driving us forward, there is no objective purpose or meaning.

What if there is? You could have a God who uses evolution. The generally spouted view of hard-line atheists could be wrong. (He just wouldn't be a Christian God, and you don't like that.)

Potentially, you also made a fallacy of equating God with objective. We have no evidence that anything God does or wants is objective. It's just your decree.

Quote
Therefore, when you attempt to add moral meaning to something, you are stepping above (ie. supernatural) the natural order  and injecting an objective purpose or meaning into an existence where there is no objective meaning or purpose...

There you go, equating morality with objective purpose. The two are only linked to serve your blinkered argument.

You want objective to mean "BS is correct", and subjective to mean "atheists are wrong".

That's all you are doing; trying to ram square pegs into round holes.

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10