New film tackles evidence for evolution

[kmoney]

Why do the fundie Christians here spend so much time arguing against something they don't believe in? Are they angry at evolution?

I've seen you argue against God so, are you angry at God?

 

[Tinark]

I've seen you argue against God so, are you angry at God?

My comment was sarcastic, was really that hard to tell? :sigh:

I posted that to mock the "argument" I've seen many Christians use, including several times against me on this site.

 

[kmoney]

My comment was sarcastic, was really that hard to tell? :sigh:

I posted that to mock the "argument" I've seen many Christians use, including several against me several times, on this site.

Don't worry. It probably wasn't hard to tell for most people. I'll blame it on it being too early still. Or something. :noid:

 

[Tinark]

Don't worry. It probably wasn't hard to tell for most people. I'll blame it on it being too early still. Or something. :noid:

No problem, I'm just having a little fun on a website that is actually pretty tolerant of a bit of mockery here and there even from the side it is in opposition to

 

[musterion]

-source.

Not familiar with that ministry, I will have to look into it. I do know that ICR and AiG still have several articles up that looked positive to Gentry's work, including stuff by Snelling.

 

[Stripe]

I clearly saw that you believe objectivity is a necessary part of it. If you've said more than that I haven't seen it. Is your definition basically something like, an objective standard of what ought to be done and not done? Or, an objective standard for right and wrong?

Not familiar with that ministry, I will have to look into it. I do know that ICR and AiG still have several articles up that looked positive to Gentry's work, including stuff by Snelling.

Let us know what you find. :up:

 

[resurrected]

The problem is that fundie Christians are singularly determined to reject evolution, so they cannot even entertain the possibility that we all descended from a single-celled life form, even to take part in a rational debate.

the fact that you don't see the disconnect between "we all descended from a single-celled life form"" and "rational" precludes any possibility of debate :idunno:

 

[The Barbarian]

Here's a location where Gentry (not very honestly) attempts to undermine the criticism of another YE creationist who has pointed out the problems with his polonium halo argument:
http://www.halos.com/book/ctm-app-31-a.htm

And here's yet another creationist who found yet another major problem with Gentry's assumptions:

The field evidence points to Stone Mountain being formed during the Recessive stage of the Flood toward the end of a major mountain building episode. This orogeny metamorphosed the Flood-deposited country rock, and uplifted the Southern Appalachians. If this interpretation is correct, the granite was not formed during the Creation Week and the polonium halos cannot be primordial.

http://creation.com/new-radiohalo-find-challenges-primordial-granite-claim

So, if the halos are primordial, then Noah's Flood is a misconception. You see why creationists with some understanding of geology don't like Gentry's conclusion?

 

[rexlunae]

Would your criteria for evaluating such a demonstration be that you would consider my belief, meaning you test it for logic, rationality, plausibility, etc?

That would be a part of it, but on the basis of just the logic, rationality, and plausibility (depending a bit on what plausibility refers to here), I would only be able to tell if it were a possible reality. I would have to have some empirical support, not necessarily for objective morality itself directly, but for the model that incorporates it as a fundamental component, to gauge whether it is likely a true description of an external reality.

I assume you would you be willing to engage on this in an isolated forum, as in a One on One with the aforementioned stated condition that the one who has the best explanation prevails?

I would have to probably request fairly lax rules about the frequency of posts. My schedule at work right now is affording me a fair amount of time to post here, but in the next week or so (if things go well), I expect it to pick up again. But it does sound absolutely intriguing, so if that works for you, I'm in.

 

[rexlunae]

That is because you reject my definition without reason.

Not without reason, Stripe. You claim that you believe in an objective morality, but then when you go to describe it, it sounds thoroughly subjective. If it were what you say it is, I do not think that you would have to do that.

Again with the impossible demands. That morality exists cannot be demonstrated by some physical test.

Then it isn't an objective reality.

AMR has said only a couple of things, both of which directly echo what I presented.

The question is: Which worldview can adequately support the existence of morality? It is a matter of who has the best explanation, not who can prove it objectively.

He's said a bit more than that. As I read what he said, he suggested that we posit a model that includes objective morality as a necessary component, but which can be tested by the points of the model that are more demonstrable.

Given that you reject the existence of morality, it is difficult to see what relevance you have in this debate.

Once again, you miscategorize my position on the issue. I don't reject morality. I reject an understanding of it as some externality floating disembodied in metaphysical space somewhere.

 

[Stripe]

It sounds thoroughly subjective.

So when I presuppose objective morality, that sounds like subjective morality to you?

Then it isn't an objective reality.

Asserting it is so is not a rational response. We need reasons.

Once again, you miscategorize my position on the issue.

Nope. Morality is necessarily an objective reality, otherwise it is just opinion. You asserting otherwise is not a counter to what we say. If you want to be convincing, you are forced to give reasons -- not just assert and expect everyone to tag along.

Meanwhile, you are dancing ever-farther away from the point: Evolution must not be the sole determination of the diversification of life.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

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).

Perfectly stated. :up:

 

[The Barbarian]

Meanwhile, you are dancing ever-farther away from the point: Evolution must not be the sole determination of the diversification of life.

More precisely, it is the diversification of living things.

 

[Nihilo]

Morality is the extremely strong personal opinions people have about human behavior they approve and disapprove of. Adding in the word "objective" to any of this is superfluous.

"Morality is the [objective-ly] extremely strong personal opinions people have about human behavior they approve and disapprove of."

Objectively, these "extremely strong personal opinions . . . about human behavior" are, in fact real. Doesn't seem superfluous. :idunno:

 

[Jose Fly]

Yay...another thread for fundamentalist Christians to display the idiocy of creationism. Oh, and we also get a good look at some of the other nonsense they believe.

"Objective morality"? Hmmmm....is genocide objectively immoral? IOW, is the act of genocide--perhaps the highest crime against humanity imaginable--100% wrong, all the time, no matter what the circumstances?

 

[Jose Fly]

Also, it's always funny how creationists think they have these rock solid, irrefutable scientific arguments against evolutionary theory, but they can only manage to put them into YouTube videos and small budget movies.

But write an actual manuscript and submit it to a prominent journal? I guess they can't be bothered.

 

[Nihilo]

"Objective morality"? Hmmmm....is genocide objectively immoral? IOW, is the act of genocide--perhaps the highest crime against humanity imaginable--100% wrong, all the time, no matter what the circumstances?

Are you a psychopath? What kind of question is this?

 

[Jose Fly]

Are you a psychopath? What kind of question is this?

You didn't answer the question. Is genocide 100% immoral, no matter what?

 

[User Name]

I've seen some good anti-evolution films (most of them, actually) but for a sheer right-between-the-eyes eye opener, nothing tops the one done on polonium halos in granite. A bit on the dry side but stunning in its simplicity. Still has not been refuted.

Polonium is being created all the time as it is a decay product of the radioactive gas radon (which is itself a decay product of uranium). Radon is produced in large amounts in areas of granitic rock, sometimes in sufficient concentrations to present a serious health hazard. As radon is chemically inert, it can easily move through microscopic cracks in minerals and, at some point, it will decay into polonium. Thus there is no issue with pleochroic halos being found throughout a body of granitic rock.​

-- http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Polonium_halos

 

[resurrected]

You didn't answer the question. Is genocide 100% immoral, no matter what?

for man to do, of his own accord?

sure