Link doesn't work for me. Have you reported it?

(November 25, 2016 at 6:25 am)Tazzycorn Wrote: Original post plagarises Kent Hovind, with joker trying to pass Hovind's words off as his own. Original text can be found at http://www.apologeet.nl/evolutie-scheppi...WzJMLFIo9A

 If you do not have an objective standard of morality by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then how are your moral values not just based on your subjective opinions?

(November 22, 2016 at 2:43 pm)Mathilda Wrote:

(November 22, 2016 at 2:10 pm)The Joker Wrote: 8 Examples of Evolution in Action are all examples of variation within a kind they are not evolution.

This is going to get repetitive ...

(November 22, 2016 at 8:47 am)Mathilda Wrote: Your argument about 'kinds' shows that you do not understand the theory of evolution. Only creationists refer to 'kinds'. No scientist ever does and scientists are the ones who have researched evolution. You can't breed a fox and a donkey, but both species have a common ancestor. Evolution works in very small steps (or variation if you will) and these small steps accumulate over time. Speciation occurs when a population finds a separate evolutionary niche that can be filled and the subsequent generations become adapted to it instead.

You're the one using the term 'kinds'. How do you define a kind of animal? Do you define it as two species that cannot breed? In which case all you are doing is stating a tautology.

Try learning what evolution actually is before you try arguing against it otherwise all you do is perform a strawman argument.

(November 22, 2016 at 2:10 pm)The Joker Wrote: When it comes to dating the age of the earth.

"A circular argument arises: Interpret the fossil record in the terms of a
particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it
confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn’t it?"
Tom Kemp, "A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record", New
Scientist, Vol. 108, Dec. 5, 1985, p. 67.

We also know the age of the Earth based on geology. I am not a geologist, I married one and have just asked him about it now as he as walked through the door.

Radiometric dating tells us that the Earth is over 4 billion years. We have rocks from the moon, zircon crystals that do not change once they form and the oldest one found is 4.4 billion years old. There is no chance that Zircon is pre-Earth. The heat of the Earth is consistent with our understanding the age and the radioactive material within. We can observe solar systems forming in other parts of the galaxy which is consistent with our understanding of the age of the Earth.

The fossil record is just one extra bit of observable evidence.

The last bit of joker's you've quoted is a quote mine beloved of creatards because they believe a) it disproves evolution and b) it disproves geological dating. But when you look at the whole of the relevant passage from the original article it says the opposite of what creatards like joker want it to say, as has been shown at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/m...rt1-2.html (quote#33)

(November 25, 2016 at 6:33 am)robvalue Wrote: Link doesn't work for me. Have you reported it?

I have. Edit: link to the original search I did, from whence the first hit downloaded the pdf https://www.google.ie/search?q=Well%2C+i...e&ie=UTF-8

(November 25, 2016 at 6:45 am)Tazzycorn Wrote:

(November 25, 2016 at 6:33 am)robvalue Wrote: Link doesn't work for me. Have you reported it?

I have. Edit: link to the original search I did, from whence the first hit downloaded the pdf https://www.google.ie/search?q=Well%2C+i...e&ie=UTF-8

Why is copying wrong?

(November 25, 2016 at 6:42 am)The Joker Wrote:

(November 25, 2016 at 6:25 am)Tazzycorn Wrote: Original post plagarises Kent Hovind, with joker trying to pass Hovind's words off as his own. Original text can be found at http://www.apologeet.nl/evolutie-scheppi...WzJMLFIo9A

 If you do not have an objective standard of morality by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then how are your moral values not just based on your subjective opinions?

I don't know how this excuses your plagarism, but to answer your question, my morality is as objective as your morality, the difference being that I understand that morality is an offshoot of human evolution as a social species and is subject to change and improvement over time.

We are both far from perfect, I acknowledge that, you deny it.

(November 25, 2016 at 6:42 am)The Joker Wrote:  If you do not have an objective standard of morality by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then how are your moral values not just based on your subjective opinions?

What does it even mean to say that morality is objective or subjective?

If our morality stems from biologically encoded pack instincts that have evolved, then they objectively exist as common patterns of neuronal wiring within our brains, yet we feel them subjectively.

If you say that morals are objective, then there is something that you can point, you can observe, measure, pick up, destroy and say is morality.

If you say that morals continue to exist even if the human race does not, then what is morality? What's it made out of? Where did it come from? How does it function and interact with the rest of the world? Or does it just sit there doing nothing?

We can answer all these questions with the idea of morality being a common way that human brains are wired. You can't answer any of them.

You say that morality is objective yet you've never seen morality and don't even know what it is.

(November 25, 2016 at 6:42 am)The Joker Wrote:  If you do not have an objective standard of morality by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then how are your moral values not just based on your subjective opinions?

Obedience is amoral. There is no deciding what is right or wrong if your sky fairy tells you in advance how to think. Kill if god tells you to, don't kill when god tells you not to. Is this your "objective standard" ?

(November 25, 2016 at 6:55 am)Mathilda Wrote:

(November 25, 2016 at 6:42 am)The Joker Wrote:  If you do not have an objective standard of morality by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then how are your moral values not just based on your subjective opinions?

What does it even mean to say that morality is objective or subjective?

If our morality stems from biologically encoded pack instincts that have evolved, then they objectively exist as common patterns of neuronal wiring within our brains, yet we feel them subjectively.

If you say that morals are objective, then there is something that you can point, you can observe, measure, pick up, destroy and say is morality.

If you say that morals continue to exist even if the human race does not, then what is morality? What's it made out of? Where did it come from?  How does it function and interact with the rest of the world? Or does it just sit there doing nothing?

We can answer all these questions with the idea of morality being a common way that human brains are wired. You can't answer any of them.

You say that morality is objective yet you've never seen morality and don't even know what it is.

But where is the evidence that morality can evolve? Why is morality there?

---

(November 25, 2016 at 6:51 am)Tazzycorn Wrote:

(November 25, 2016 at 6:42 am)The Joker Wrote:  If you do not have an objective standard of morality by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then how are your moral values not just based on your subjective opinions?

I don't know how this excuses your plagarism, but to answer your question, my morality is as objective as your morality, the difference being that I understand that morality is an offshoot of human evolution as a social species and is subject to change and improvement over time.

We are both far from perfect, I acknowledge that, you deny it.

What do you mean by far from perfect?

(November 25, 2016 at 6:44 am)Tazzycorn Wrote: The last bit of joker's you've quoted is a quote mine beloved of creatards because they believe a) it disproves evolution and b) it disproves geological dating. But when you look at the whole of the relevant passage from the original article it says the opposite of what creatards like joker want it to say, as has been shown at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/m...rt1-2.html (quote#33)

Good find! This shows just how The Joker is literally lying for Jesus. He can't make a valid argument so he has to deceive people in order to try and convince them. The rest of the sentence changes the context deliberately

As is now well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the record, persist for some millions of years virtually unchanged, only to disappear abruptly - the 'punctuated equilibrium' pattern of Eldredge and Gould."

And the sentence afterwards destroys what the quote miner's argument:

Irrespective of one's view of the biological causes of such a pattern (and there continues to be much debate about this), it leads in practice to description of long-term evolution, or macroevolution, in terms of the differential survival, extinction and proliferation of species.


Joker, you should be utterly ashamed of yourself. You are a disgrace.