Take the test

Originally posted by snowinscotland
Joseph, I despair of you sometimes. Have you not yet learnt what evolution is and is not, after all the debates on this site, all the arguments, and the odd glimmer of hope sometimes that shows you are starting to think about it, then you come out with some statement like this? I put my head in my hands and give a despairing little cry; please please ...[text shortened]... u trot out; but it really shows that you still don't get it; and this is the basic stuff here.

Cheer up snow! All is not lost.
You scientist types are always splitting hairs it seems.

Quite frankly, it doesn't seem to make much difference whether it's abiogenesis or evolution. Both stem from the same root.

If evolution is not random, then design is implied. If abiogenesis explains the origin of life, and claims that it started randomly, then evolution originated by random.

And if you think I sound like an idiot because I believe God created all this, just imagine how I feel when I hear someone claim there is no God and says this whole thing got started by chance and is now evolving.

Originally posted by snowinscotland
Like FabianFnas, please give an example of ONE moral 'absolute'.

Why? Do you not know the difference between what is moral and what is not?

But if it makes you feel better here's five.


Thou shalt not kill.
Neither shalt thou commit adultery.
Neither shalt thou steal.
Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbour.
Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour’s wife.

Read em' and weep.

Originally posted by josephw
Where did you get educated? If there are moral absolutes, then it can only be logically concluded that those moral absolutes are always the same at any time and place.

Your assertion that what is morally wrong now, but was morally right then, is pure convoluted relativism.

The denial of the existence of universal absolute truth is irrational. If it we ...[text shortened]... d collapse without truth to support it. It's a no brainer!

Are you learning anything yet? 😉

Where did you get educated?

Lockerbie Primary School for 7 years, then Lockerbie Academy for a further 6, Dundee University for 4, then finished it off with another 3 at Aberdeen University.

If there are moral absolutes, then it can only be logically concluded that those moral absolutes are always the same at any time and place.

Absolutely, and the key word is "IF".

Your assertion that what is morally wrong now, but was morally right then, is pure convoluted relativism.

Is slavery absolutely wrong? How about sexism? Or racism? Jesus never spoke out against sexism, for example, and the church has been trying its level best to subjugate the rights of women for 2000 years. Racism didn't become morally wrong until the 1950's in the US, and there are still people who think it's ok.

However, the fact that we are all products of the evolution of social animals does mean that we have many of the same basic values, such as not killing each other (except in exceptional circumstances - although not quite so exceptional for religious people.

The denial of the existence of universal absolute truth is irrational.

Indeed. As I said in the quiz. However, the existence of absolute truth does not mean that God exists.

Originally posted by josephw
If evolution is not random, then design is implied.

This is a false-choice. Evolution is a result of non-random, probabilistic events. There is no need for a designer.

Originally posted by josephw
Why? Do you not know the difference between what is moral and what is not?

But if it makes you feel better here's five.


Thou shalt not kill.
Neither shalt thou commit adultery.
Neither shalt thou steal.
Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbour.
Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour’s wife.

Read em' and weep.

Do these moral absolutes apply to you?

When you said this:
"You're beginning to sound like thinkofone."

Were you bearing false witness?

Once again:
In what way does he sound like thinkofone?

I've never said anything like what was posted.

Originally posted by josephw
Why? Do you not know the difference between what is moral and what is not?

But if it makes you feel better here's five.


Thou shalt not kill.
Neither shalt thou commit adultery.
Neither shalt thou steal.
Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbour.
Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour’s wife.

Read em' and weep.

A man kills someone who attacked him without provocation.

A woman marries a man who was previously divorced.

A family steals food to avoid starving to death.

A man is attracted to his neighbor's wife, but does not act on it.

Who here would call any of these people immoral? I probably wouldn't. There may be moral absolutes, but they are a bit more complicated than the ten commandments make them out to be.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
A man kills someone who attacked him without provocation.

A woman marries a man who was previously divorced.

A family steals food to avoid starving to death.

A man is attracted to his neighbor's wife, but does not act on it.

Who here would call any of these people immoral? I probably wouldn't. There may be moral absolutes, but they are a bit more complicated than the ten commandments make them out to be.

A man kills someone who attacked him without provocation.

Yeah, but just remember, Joseph would have rolled over and capitulated to Hitler and Stalin, right Joe?

Is it always absolutely morally wrong to kill, Joe??

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Is it always absolutely morally wrong to kill, Joe??

Not if God commands you to do it, of course.

Originally posted by Nordlys
Not if God commands you to do it, of course.

Who was that guy again? The one God commanded to kill his own son?

Joe, in your opinion, what should he have done? Obeyed God's command, or disobeyed, since he would be committing an absolutely immoral act??

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Who was that guy again? The one God commanded to kill his own son?

Joe, in your opinion, what should he have done? Obeyed God's command, or disobeyed, since he would be committing an absolutely immoral act??

But God stopped Abraham. So they killed a goat instead.

Originally posted by Conrau K
But God stopped Abraham. So they killed a goat instead.

But what if God hadn't?

What should he have done?

Personally, I'd tell any God which told me to kill my own son exactly where to go.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
But what if God hadn't?

What should he have done?

Personally, I'd tell any God which told me to kill my own son exactly where to go.

But what if God hadn't?

Then the goat might have lived.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]But what if God hadn't?

Then the goat might have lived.[/b]

But Abraham's son would have been killed. Or would Abraham have followed "absolute morality" and have defied God???

Originally posted by scottishinnz
But Abraham's son would have been killed. Or would Abraham have followed "absolute morality" and have defied God???

Presumably Abraham would have executed the command to kill his son. The important thing is that the goat would have lived.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]But what if God hadn't?

Then the goat might have lived.[/b]

Eh?