Biology Questions

The naturalistic approach to the origin of life is lacking in several areas. To start with, the origin of life from non-life can hardly be addressed by the theory of evolution. Despite the fact that it is accepted as scientific fact that life cannot arise from non-life, many scientists cling to the idea that what we know as life came from a massive ocean in which flowed all the necessary components of life just simply not put together yet. As intelligent as it sounds to place faith in such a belief, the mathematics of probability are against it greatly. The odds being so vast that it is virtually impossible or to say the least not possible within the span of time allotted to the age of the earth in what evolutionist describe.

Another problem with the naturalistic worldview is the material evidence on Earth, which does not lend itself to agreement with many evolutionary ideas. Namely the fossil record, which Charles Darwin himself detailed must be in agreement with his claims or his theory falls to pieces, does not support evolution’s claims. Where Fossil records should point to a progression of a single organism into all the various forms of life, no just connecting links are apparent. Indeed they are still missing links in the chain of evolutionary theory.

The last problem I will mention is the Issue with the complexity of life, which could not have been developed randomly. The concept of irreducible complexity explains that there comes a point where an entity does not function without all of its necessary components. Evolution cannot stand in light of this concept because the process of evolution requires cells to still work while they are undergoing changes and developing new functions. Many of these functions do not aid survival and would be selected against until they are complete, which they could not ever become because the process would be too slow.

First Post (11-22-2010)

I apologize for the trouble but it seems I am too long-winded for the basic Blog comment space and attempted to comment twice to no avail.


There are no absolute morals that apply to everyone. This statement is cause for much strife in the debate world, or at least to my knowledge a major topic of conflict between Moral relativist and Moral objectivist. Whether the belief is Personal moral relativism or Cultural Relativism, the concept is directly opposed to the Christian belief of a set standard of human conduct depicting what is right and what is wrong. Firstly I would have to begin to discuss the topic by explaining different definitions as in the words of my dear friend Derek Ridings, "Most likely half if not more arguments exist because of differing definitions." Once definitions of moral and absolute are lad then progress can be made. For the sake of the discussion, I would press that morals meant the standard of an individual’s belief in what is right or wrong. Absolute would be more known and probably far more easily agreed upon; it meaning something that is constant regardless of time or situation. When together it creates a timeless constant standard that depicts what is right or wrong, and if applied to everyone it is the code of conduct C.S. Lewis described as the Law of Human Morality, or what human beings ought to or ought not to do. With the definitions firmly set I would move on.


 In dealing with Relativists I would approach them differently based on their focus on the individual or society as the deciding factor for morals. The following depicts a focus on a personal relativist: My first point of order would be to ask whether or not said person believes evil exist in the world. If the answer returns no then I would question the various atrocities found in the world as to how they view the actions of murder, rape, child abuse, genocide and other intense issues. If that answer returns as they are neither good nor bad, most likely “based on perspective” at that point I have a partner in discussion who has declared Hitler was not such a bad guy. In that situation I am not sure I could continue meaningful discussion as ethics, values and sense of humanity would have been eliminated. Now if the answer is yes, well then my partner has contradicted himself as I would soon prove to him. My next question would be to describe evil, which would usually be something along the lines of violence, injustice, or things that are simply not fair. A simple counter to stop my partner would be and how are these things wrong? If my partner agrees they are wrong or explain they are wrong because they are not right, then without knowing he has acknowledged a standard of Morality. To say that something is wrong means it is obviously not right, and what is right is the standard that the wrong action is not measuring up to. In saying there is a standard in existence I will have either proven my companion wrong in his belief that there is no absolute morality, or I will have pushed him into Cultural relativism, accepting there is a standard but that that standard is different from culture to culture.


From that point I would have to begin a new focus of my questions, or begin here if this was already the opinion I was facing. Again terms would have to be defined as culture is not as definite as personal. After a few exchanged hopefully the agreed description for the sake of progress would be something along the lines of; Cultural Morality is the behavior and collective belief in right and wrong of a society- a group of like minded people. Once the definition is laid down I would be able to continue. Cultural relativism depends on how dedicated an individual is to the idea or cultural equality. To say that all cultures should be observed and learned from equally is correct, but this still allows for critic and condemnation of those immoral and fundamentally wrong. When one believes that all cultures are completely equal and than none are any better than others, there becomes an obvious discrepancy. Are we to say the ancient society of summer had no better technology than us in modern-day? Quickly my partner will change to say that societies are no more moral or “Right” than any other. Now here he has sunk himself for the last time. As I would ask if our society, the one we are both part of is any more moral than Hitler’s NAZI society, or any other genocidal group. If the answer is yes, then I have proven my point. If the answer is not then again I cannot continue to discuss meaningfully with anyone who believes Adolf Hitler was not such a bad guy after all.