Fundy Trying To Pass Off Proof Of God

[Canuckfish]

Is decieving people or lying absolutely immoral? If I can find one situation where it is not immoral to lie would it be absolutely immoral? What if I can find scripture where God lies/decieves people is it then absolutely immoral?

 

 

The Bible clearly teaches that God 'does not lie, and 'cannot lie.' The texts you will cite I interpret as anthropomorphic, because I presuppose that the Bible is infallible. You on the other hand presuppose that the Bible is not God's word and will therefore find them as contradictory.

 

The question is not whether one can find apparent contradictions, the question is, who's worldview can account for the reason we use to be able to make ANY determinations.

 

Tell me how you account for universal, abstract, invariant laws before you use them to evaluate anything. You see, you must borrow logic from MY worldview, in order to attempt to refute my worldview.

[All Gods Fail]

We will see who the idiot, fuck tard, and retard is when the end comes and you find yourself being judged by someone who you do not think exists. "The Evil Demon Himself"

 

who will send your sorry ass to a real HELL, like it or not, that is the way it is, and you will find out when you are dead that what Iam saying is true.

 

I feel love all around me...

 

This must be those 'fruits of the spirit' that fundies are always yammering about.

[Guest milphog6]

"Hmmmm. You have to misrepresent what I said, in order to make it conform to your notion that it is wrong. Show me where I said I ONLY believe the Bible. Clearly I said that the Bible is my ultimate authority, and not that it is only what I believe. I believe that my name is Sye and it is nowhere written in the Bible. I can believe this and STILL have the Bible as my ultimate authority."

 

you didn't answer where the authority came from, or what makes it authoratative, for the various translations, versions, books, etc. you have completely avoided this subject, and it's a very important one. what you wrote above leads me to this assumption, please correct me if i'm wrong, you belive your name is sye even thought it's not in the bible. you believe it and still believe the bible as your ultimate authority. so even if something is not in the bible, for instance what books should be in the bible, then the bible is still the authority? even though we don't know who gave the various councils the authority to put certain books in the final canon? i just want to be clear on what you're saying before i proceed.

[Asimov]

Lets start with the law of non-contradiction. It came from God by the impossibility of the contrary.

 

How is that a proof of the divinity? The laws of logic are necessary, they don't require explanation for their being. They are descriptions of reality in the form of abstracts. Necessary things have no creation.

 

Sorry, I did not feel that it deserved a response. Hopefully no one here did either. Maybe you should post your sources for mutations that increase genetic information.

 

(This would go a lot better if other people on this thread policed their own when it came to outlandish statements).

 

How is it outlandish? If you're going to challenge my statements at least have a rebuttal in place rather than just a gainsay response.

 

http://www.gate.net/%7Erwms/EvoMutations.html#mutations

http://www.gate.net/%7Erwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html

 

A mutation adds or changes the existing DNA, thus causing information to either change or increase. I'll concede that some mutations only changes existing DNA, but that's not a decrease in information.

[All Gods Fail]

 

The Bible clearly teaches that God 'does not lie, and 'cannot lie.' The texts you will cite I interpret as anthropomorphic, because I presuppose that the Bible is infallible. You on the other hand presuppose that the Bible is not God's word and will therefore find them as contradictory.

 

The question is not whether one can find apparent contradictions, the question is, who's worldview can account for the reason we use to be able to make ANY determinations.

 

Tell me how you account for universal, abstract, invariant laws before you use them to evaluate anything. You see, you must borrow logic from MY worldview, in order to attempt to refute my worldview.

 

Dude, you soooo don't get it.

 

It's very simple - you are making the extraordinary claims (we were made from dirt and ribs by a bronze-age sky god, life after death, etc). Therefore you must provide extraordinary proof. What you've offered so far is fairly standard semantics.

 

If your god could, for example, send an angel to instantly re-grow someone's missing limb, or write his name in outer space with the stars, then I might believe he actually exists. Provided no rational explanations could be provided, of course.

 

I could make every single argument you've attempted to prove anything make-believe is real, including Greek mythology, hollow-earth theories, and The Lord Of The Rings. The fact that you show very little knowledge of how evolution actually works, and have to resort to ridiculous obfuscations to battle simple logic ("The question is not whether one can find apparent contradictions, the question is, who's worldview can account for the reason we use to be able to make ANY determinations."), tells me you have almost no ability to think critically.

 

If you did, of course, really try to study evolution or philosophy, or even research the history of the bible, you would simply not be spouting off the way you are.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is: Fool, you better recognize.

[Dhampir]

Actually, it's "Foo', you betta recanize!"

[All Gods Fail]

Actually, it's "Foo', you betta recanize!"

 

[KT45]

The Bible clearly teaches that God 'does not lie, and 'cannot lie.' The texts you will cite I interpret as anthropomorphic, because I presuppose that the Bible is infallible. You on the other hand presuppose that the Bible is not God's word and will therefore find them as contradictory.

Great the bible is infallible. It says god decieves or lies to people.

Jeremiah 4:10 Then said I, Ah, Lord GOD! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people

 

Jeremiah 20:7 O LORD, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived

 

Ezekiel 14:9 And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet,

 

2 Thessalonians 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

 

Tell me how you account for universal, abstract, invariant laws before you use them to evaluate anything. You see, you must borrow logic from MY worldview, in order to attempt to refute my worldview.

I'm using your bible, that is borrowing your logic. Universal laws are testable and provable.

[Kuroikaze]

 

Well you could have posted one inconsistency after I asked for it. The fact that you can't is telling.

 

 

The only thing that it is telling of, is that you can't read. I clearly DID post an inconsistency

 

 

Hmmmm. You have to misrepresent what I said, in order to make it conform to your notion that it is wrong. Show me where I said I ONLY believe the Bible. Clearly I said that the Bible is my ultimate authority, and not that it is only what I believe. I believe that my name is Sye and it is nowhere written in the Bible. I can believe this and STILL have the Bible as my ultimate authority.

 

No, your misrepresenting me....My point is that your mind IS your ultimate authority no matter how loudly you claim it otherwise.... If it weren't you wouldn't make theological claims without scripture to back them up

 

 

First of all, as I stated repeatedly, some of the laws were only intended for the people of the OT, and not for us. With that said, what is earthly imprisonment compared to eternity with God?!?

 

Yes....only if you accept YOUR claim....which I don't.

 

Because society is after the will of man, not the will of God.

 

 

Yes...but since we have no idea what the will of god is then this is all we have to go on.

 

Yup, just like Hitler did. (By the way, happiness is not the Christian goal, serving God is)

 

Again, with the ad-hominems.... Hitler thought he was doing the will of god...which is my point entirely.... You just said yourself, that the christian goal is not to make our lives better.... Hitler may have made people suffer, but by your own words, that in itself does not make him wrong.

 

All you are convincing me off is that your "moral" position is dangerous to our society

 

Oh He'll let you know buddy. Count on that one.

 

 

He still hasn't..... You'll have to excuse me if I don't take your word on it.....What exactly are your credentials?

 

 

(By the way, how was it again that you said you accounted for universal, abstract, invariant laws outside of God?)

 

OK, since you apparently still can't read I'll post my ideas on this again.

 

Why exactly does there have to be a source for abstract laws? Isn't the whole point that they are abstract? how are you sure they are even universal? The only thing I can think of that could be considered "universal" and "invariant" might be physics, and even then once you get the the level of stuff like chaos theory, we find out that even things that seem invariant are in fact built out of chaos and disorder at the most basic levels.

 

Mathematics? well, math is a system that was built of of observations of physics.

 

Logic? was primarily based off of mathematical principals

 

If you are talking about moral laws there are plenty of reasonable explanations for how moral systems developed naturally. A good into book on anthropology or sociology could explain this.

 

as far as I can see your argument is just so much smoke and mirrors....its sophistry pure and simple. I know because I used your arguments to evangelize to people myself once upon a time

 

 

You ignored my post before, maybe now your deal with it...the fact of the matter is that you have yet to demonstrate that there ARE any universal or invariant laws.

[mwc]

"Hmmmm. You have to misrepresent what I said, in order to make it conform to your notion that it is wrong. Show me where I said I ONLY believe the Bible. Clearly I said that the Bible is my ultimate authority, and not that it is only what I believe. I believe that my name is Sye and it is nowhere written in the Bible. I can believe this and STILL have the Bible as my ultimate authority."

 

you didn't answer where the authority came from, or what makes it authoratative, for the various translations, versions, books, etc. you have completely avoided this subject, and it's a very important one. what you wrote above leads me to this assumption, please correct me if i'm wrong, you belive your name is sye even thought it's not in the bible. you believe it and still believe the bible as your ultimate authority. so even if something is not in the bible, for instance what books should be in the bible, then the bible is still the authority? even though we don't know who gave the various councils the authority to put certain books in the final canon? i just want to be clear on what you're saying before i proceed.

What you ask is impossible to answer and so it's better to pretend you never asked at all.

 

I'm sure you're aware of this information but I'll post it anyway just for completeness (there are more detailed sources but here's a good summary to start from http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/canon.html):

 

Development of the Old Testament Canon

1000-50 BC:

The Old Testament (hereafter "OT") books are written.

 

C. 200 BC:

Rabbis translate the OT from Hebrew to Greek, a translation called the "Septuagint" (abbreviation: "LXX"). The LXX ultimately includes 46 books.

 

AD 30-100:

Christians use the LXX as their scriptures. This upsets the Jews.

 

C. AD 100:

So Jewish rabbis meet at the Council of Jamniah and decide to include in their canon only 39 books, since only these can be found in Hebrew.

 

C. AD 400:

Jerome translates the Bible from Hebrew and Greek into Latin (called the "Vulgate"). He knows that the Jews have only 39 books, and he wants to limit the OT to these; the 7 he would leave out (Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach [or "Ecclesiasticus"], and Baruch--he calls "apocrypha," that is, "hidden books." But Pope Damasus wants all 46 traditionally-used books included in the OT, so the Vulgate has 46.

 

AD 1536:

Luther translates the Bible from Hebrew and Greek to German. He assumes that, since Jews wrote the Old Testament, theirs is the correct canon; he puts the extra 7 books in an appendix that he calls the "Apocrypha."

 

AD 1546:

The Catholic Council of Trent reaffirms the canonicity of all 46 books.

 

Development of the New Testament Canon

C. AD 51-125:

The New Testament books are written, but during this same period other early Christian writings are produced--for example, the Didache (c. AD 70), 1 Clement (c. 96), the Epistle of Barnabas (c. 100), and the 7 letters of Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110).

 

C. AD 140:

Marcion, a businessman in Rome, teaches that there were two Gods: Yahweh, the cruel God of the OT, and Abba, the kind father of the NT. So Marcion eliminates the Old Testament as scriptures and, since he is anti-Semitic, keeps from the NT only 10 letters of Paul and 2/3 of Luke's gospel (he deletes references to Jesus' Jewishness). Marcion's "New Testament"--the first to be compiled--forces the mainstream Church to decide on a core canon: the four gospels and letters of Paul.

 

C. AD 200:

But the periphery of the canon is not yet determined. According to one list, compiled at Rome c. AD 200 (the Muratorian Canon), the NT consists of the 4 gospels; Acts; 13 letters of Paul (Hebrews is not included); 3 of the 7 General Epistles (1-2 John and Jude); and also the Apocalypse of Peter.

 

AD 367:

The earliest extant list of the books of the NT, in exactly the number and order in which we presently have them, is written by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in his Easter letter of 367. [Note: this is well after the Constantine's Edict of Toleration in 313 A.D.]

 

AD 904:

Pope Damasus, in a letter to a French bishop, lists the New Testament books in their present number and order.

 

AD 1442:

At the Council of Florence, the entire Church recognizes the 27 books, though does not declare them unalterable.

 

AD 1536:

In his translation of the Bible from Greek into German, Luther removes 4 NT books (Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelations) from their normal order and places them at the end, stating that they are less than canonical.

 

AD 1546:

At the Council of Trent, the Catholic Church reaffirms once and for all the full list of 27 books as traditionally accepted.

 

So, the "self-authorizing" book apparently "authorized" itself a number of times over its lifetime in order to get to its "perfect" form we have today. However, this "worldview" is so sadly out of step with reality it is laughable. Unlike a certain fish from Canada, however, I will be more than happy to provide proof to back my statement (from http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~gavinru/canon.htm):

 

Canon? Which Canon?

 

Much more could be added. For example:

 

* The Ethiopian Orthodox Church adds four extra books to its New Testament, and another two (including 1 Enoch) to the Old Testament.

* Writing around 300 AD Eusebius, the historian of the early church, listed Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Jude and Revelation as either dubious or false.

* The Syrian Orthodox tradition continues to reject 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Jude and Revelation.

* Irenaeus, who is credited with standardizing the number of gospels at the present four, included a book called The Revelation of Peter in his canon.

* Codex Sinaiticus, the oldest complete New Testament manuscript that has come down to us (fourth century AD) includes Barnabas and The Shepherd of Hermas.

* As late as the fifth century the Codex Alexandrinus included 1 & 2 Clement.

So, now what? Who's "worldview" is right? Who's bible is the "right" bible? Of course, they'll all maintain that their particular version is "The One" and the rest are somehow flawed. The above list contains the canons that have been in use or are in current use today. This is in addition to the Catholic and Protestant canons that most of us are familiar with already (this fact alone shows that there are two competing canons at the highest levels of the religion and that the book is not "self-authorizing" because based purely on numbers it's pretty much a dead heat although the advantage is still slightly on the side of the Catholic canon but I can't prove it offhand).

 

Unless the bible fell out of the sky, complete, with YHWH's stamp of approval on the correct version, there is no way for anyone to state which version, if any, is "THE" version since they ALL "self-authorize" in the same exact fashion. At this point one must elevate one's self to the level of a god in order to discern which is the "correct" version. A position the presuppositionalist enjoys placing themselves in. Answerable to no one. Not even the god they claim to serve.

 

Now, having said all that, I am still waiting for that list of absolute moral laws from our xian friend. Thank you.

 

mwc

[mwc]

How is it outlandish? If you're going to challenge my statements at least have a rebuttal in place rather than just a gainsay response.

 

http://www.gate.net/%7Erwms/EvoMutations.html#mutations

http://www.gate.net/%7Erwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html

 

A mutation adds or changes the existing DNA, thus causing information to either change or increase. I'll concede that some mutations only changes existing DNA, but that's not a decrease in information.

Canuckfish will answer you once he's done "researching."

 

 

mwc

[HuaiDan]

Ok, what do you think of this:

 

Morality is a means to an end. It's easy to speculate what would be considered immoral or bad; that which causes pain and suffering in people (or animals for that matter). But when we consider what is moral, what is the right thing to do, and most importantly, why we act in a moral fashion, then things get a bit tricky.

After pondering this conundrum, as it relates to so-called absolute morality, i envisioned morality as a code that is a means to an end. A code of civil cooperation that establishes a set of practices for the greater good of a society. Moralityis the foundation of and codified by laws.Morality would be meaningless to a hermit that had absolutely no contact with other humans or sentient beings. Morality only exists as it applies to the interaction between 2 or more sentient beings. I challenge anyone to present a case where morality applies strictly to the individual without any implications towards others. Suicide is wrong, not because it's bad for the individual, but because we accept it as bad for society. Remember, ritual suicide in ancient Japan was a sacntioned practice as it preserved honor, so here we can't even say suicide is absolutely wrong.

Morality as a means to an end suggests that as the highest ideals and goals of a society change from place to place and from time to time, so does the perceived morality of that society. Which raises the question: if there indeed were an absolute morality, which would imply an absolute goal and highest ideal for a society, then what is that goal or highest ideal? WHo decides what direction a society should take? Is it manifest destiny? Greatest reproductive success? To produce the most art? To build the tallest skyscrapers? To have the mightiest army? SHould we exist like ants and have a perfect division of labor to have a perfectly efficient society?

As should be well obvious, there are pluses and problems with the rhetorical examples above, but certainly not any one of them would be considered an absolute highest ideal by any thinking person. If it is god who decides what the highest aspiration of a society should be, then he should very well let us know because it isn't clearly spelled out anywhere, unless God intends for us to live as bronze age nomads for eternity. In that case I'm sure 'thou shalt not make progress' would be one of the ten commandments. Some might argue it's the lesson of genesis, either way it's absurd.

In conclusion I will state, if it can not be shown that there is one highest goal, ideal, or aspiration for all mankind and every society on earth, then the idea of absolute morality is nonsense. Morality is a means to an end. If the ends change, so too does the morality.

[Canuckfish]

It's very simple - you are making the extraordinary claims (we were made from dirt and ribs by a bronze-age sky god, life after death, etc). Therefore you must provide extraordinary proof. What you've offered so far is fairly standard semantics.

 

 

I'd say that the proof of God's existence, being that without Him you couldn't prove anything, as fairly extraordinary.

 

Now how is it that you account for universal, abstract, invariant laws, and thus your ability to prove anything, outside of God?

[Astreja]

It's enough that I perceive something to be wrong, and I don't particularly care if I'm outnumbered. In my own mind, the critical battle has already been won.

Thank goodness you are not a Hitler then. (At least I hope you aren't)

*cough* Godwin's Law *cough*

[Astreja]

On a more serious note, absolute knowledge and absolute morality sound mighty good but aren't particularly useful in real life.

 

It's unlikely that any being anywhere could ever have perfect knowledge for the simple reason that knowledge keeps expanding with every passing second. The supposed omniscience of the hypothetical god of the Bible is unfalsifiable because we have yet to even find the god, let alone measure its intelligence.

 

And a quick read through the Bible will show that what's sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander. "Thou shalt not kill" (or "murder", if you prefer) is regularly broken by IHVH in rather spectacular fashion. Mass drownings, first in the Noah era and again in the time of Moses. The extermination of the Amakelite people. IHVH is dealing death everywhere, and we're supposed to take "Thou shalt not kill" seriously?? I, for one, am glad that I set my moral compass to sources other than the Bible.

 

And what are you trying to say when you use the word "abstract" in the phrase "universal, abstract, invariant laws", Canuckfish? The meaning is not clear from the context.

[Asimov]

It's very simple - you are making the extraordinary claims (we were made from dirt and ribs by a bronze-age sky god, life after death, etc). Therefore you must provide extraordinary proof. What you've offered so far is fairly standard semantics.

 

 

I'd say that the proof of God's existence, being that without Him you couldn't prove anything, as fairly extraordinary.

 

Now how is it that you account for universal, abstract, invariant laws, and thus your ability to prove anything, outside of God?

 

Which laws? You need to list those laws before you go around claiming shit like that, buddy.

[Canuckfish]

It's very simple - you are making the extraordinary claims (we were made from dirt and ribs by a bronze-age sky god, life after death, etc). Therefore you must provide extraordinary proof. What you've offered so far is fairly standard semantics.

 

 

I'd say that the proof of God's existence, being that without Him you couldn't prove anything, as fairly extraordinary.

 

Now how is it that you account for universal, abstract, invariant laws, and thus your ability to prove anything, outside of God?

 

Which laws? You need to list those laws before you go around claiming shit like that, buddy.

 

The laws of logic for instance.

 

I'll even narrow it down further. The law of non-contradiction. Universal, abstract, and invariant.

 

How do you account for that law in your worldview?

[mwc]

Mr. CanuckFish,

 

I am still waiting for that list of absolute moral laws (from your "worldview" of course).

 

I am actually still waiting for you to address any posting that I have made. Are you here to engage in a discussion or simply throw out a few red herrings, threats of hell and then run away when confronted?

 

mwc

[AbsolutPauer]

 

You claim that reason is dependent upon the existence of God, so it must be either a creation of God

 

It isn't, so we can dump that one.

 

If, on the other hand, reason is posited as inherent to God's nature such that the laws of logic are immutable, we still do not escape the problem that the laws of logic are contingent upon God's nature and could be different if His nature were different.

 

It ain't and it can't be. God is who He is.

 

Hello again, Canuckfish. Thank you for your brief reply. I appreciate conciseness. By denying that the laws of logic are creations of God, you assume the burden of proof of showing that these laws are dependent upon God. You claim that they are dependent because they are part of God's nature; God must exist or the laws would not exist. What you lose, however, is the ability to claim a basis for the laws of logic that is independent of the laws themselves. They become, in your view, necessary properties of a necessary and self-existant God. But why does it make any more sense to posit a necessary and self-existant God than it does to posit necessary and self-existant laws of logic? If the laws of logic are not dependent on God for their creation, and God is independent and self-existant, then it seems to me that the laws of logic could just as easily be independent and self-existant.

[Guest Big Mac]

Oh yeah, we are sinners so we don't know what will really make us happy right? Bull crap, I'll decided what makes me happy or unhappy.

 

Then this asshole uses the infamous "Hitler Argument" which brings any remaining respect to a very very low point in my eyes. Of course he'll counter with "Well I only care about what I look like in God's eye.....his brown one!"

 

Yup, just like Hitler did. (By the way, happiness is not the Christian goal, serving God is)

 

 

It's enough that I perceive something to be wrong, and I don't particularly care if I'm outnumbered. In my own mind, the critical battle has already been won.

 

Again he uses the Hitler Argument.

 

Thank goodness you are not a Hitler then. (At least I hope you aren't)

 

By the way, asshole, that is really childish to get Hitler involved. You know he was a Christian? You can say he wasn't but he had the Catholic church in contact with him quite a bit.

 

 

Here's a question I have. If these laws are to be (this is hypothetical, do you know what that is? Good boy....eat your cheerios) attributed to a higher being, how are you so absolutely positively megatively diddly-doodley sure that it's from the Judeo-Christian God? What if it really is a Giant Taco that craps ice cream? The answer is that you can't prove any of that, hence all these claims are on faith. Fanatical faith in you and many other's case.

[Kuroikaze]

He keeps asking the same damn question over and over, and when someone gives an answer he ignores it and just asks the question again.....

 

 

"invariant universal....blah blah blah"..... I've posted an answer to this....TWICE. and he still ignores me....maybe because he can't really offer an answer.

[Lunar Shadow]

He keeps asking the same damn question over and over, and when someone gives an answer he ignores it and just asks the question again.....

 

 

"invariant universal....blah blah blah"..... I've posted an answer to this....TWICE. and he still ignores me....maybe because he can't really offer an answer.

 

 

 

The same experiance here.... I offer proof and he ignores it and when I call him on it I get no reply Typical Apologist move.... Move the goal posts and if you are called on it change gears and ignore the person who called you on in cuz no one wil notice. Well Sye I hate to break it to you PEOPLE NOTICE that type of shoot and run activity here. when you rebut some oen you need more than "oh well you're werong I am right... we reqire sources here and and explaination of why remember many are here who are not posting in this thread but are reading resources are helpful to them as well as the people participating.

 

now if you can't play by the rules then you can take your ball and go home.

[Asimov]

The laws of logic for instance.

 

I'll even narrow it down further. The law of non-contradiction. Universal, abstract, and invariant.

 

How do you account for that law in your worldview?

 

 

I don't, the laws of logic are necessary and require no accounting for their existence.

 

 

 

How is it outlandish? If you're going to challenge my statements at least have a rebuttal in place rather than just a gainsay response.

 

http://www.gate.net/%7Erwms/EvoMutations.html#mutations

http://www.gate.net/%7Erwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html

 

A mutation adds or changes the existing DNA, thus causing information to either change or increase. I'll concede that some mutations only changes existing DNA, but that's not a decrease in information.

 

Still waiting....

[Lunar Shadow]

Evidently Asimov we didn't get the memo

 

I guess that n references can be used and typical rules do not apply to him. LOL

[lothartx]

This whole thread reminds me of a conversation I had with a fundy from the wifes church. He insisted that moral laws and codes etc. had to come from god. Since I couldn't pull up a carbon dated physical moral code older than 10K years, he was right.

 

I just couldn't even begin to see his point. I'm pretty good a putting myself in someone elses shoes to see their point of view. In this case, I could not even fathom what why you begin to draw that conclusion as irrefutable evidence.

 

I wonder if it's because it's so confusing and easily manipulated that fundies are falling back to this stance. Most other gaps can easily be accounted for by one method or another so the fundies keep losing. Now they've found a position that is neither defendable nor can be refuted by "physical" evidence. It's a play on words and emotions and opinions.

 

Very interesting debate.

 

To stay on topic, I've read "The Origins of Virtue". It clearly demonstrates how moral and human nature could have (and did) evolve. There are close parrellels in other primates. Humans are unique to level in which we cooperate on a civil level. All species are unique in how they cooperate or lack cooperation. So in escence, we are not unique because every species is unique.