Jump to content

Whats The Point Of All This?


Recommended Posts

Who's touting? Every species on earth is a product of evolution.YOU are an ape, you are not a divinely inspired creation. You are the product of happenstance. Deal with it.
I will say that knuckleball is definitely something from out of this world. That made no sense, but it needed to be said.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 169
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

odd b/c christianity is rising everyday, and the theory of evolution is not, but that just must be a problem with the statistics. Im sure I am wrong. O wait Im not
Your demonstrated inability to grasp even the most simple of logical arguments/concepts is making ME question evolution...
Link to post
Share on other sites
Your demonstrated inability to grasp even the most simple of logical arguments/concepts is making ME question evolution...
right...im the one that is struggling with these simple concepts...does this really need a sw
Christianity is one thing. A refusal to accept evolution is another.
who has denied evolution at the micro level? all im sayin is that in 100 years people will laugh at the thought of it at the macro level
Link to post
Share on other sites
Your demonstrated inability to grasp even the most simple of logical arguments/concepts is making ME question evolution...
He can only grasp one concept. That the Bible is 100% factual and the final truth about all things in this world. And that makes him feel good.It's great for him. All he needs in terms of "proof" is one book. For us to prove anything we need tons of research and 99% foolproof logic...but that's still not enough for him. The book must be right.
Link to post
Share on other sites
He can only grasp one concept. That the Bible is 100% factual and the final truth about all things in this world. And that makes him feel good.It's great for him. All he needs in terms of "proof" is one book. For us to prove anything we need tons of research and 99% foolproof logic...but that's still not enough for him. The book must be right.
and so you ignore the logic i provided, the research i provided, the explanations i provided all which came from sources outside the bible? your problem is that you don tknow enough to refute what i say so you try to spin it like i dont know what im talkin about. Unfortunately for you, I am smart enough to see through your pointless posts. I provided 3 links all of which provide a better explanation of morals than anything you posted. I didnt need the bible for it did I? What was your response? You attempted to change the subject from morals to evolution. Why? B/c what i posted was above your level. Your problem is that you in actuality have nothing to fall back on. You rely on the what ifs and thats about it. Heres a simple question for you that all your research should be able to tell you an answer to:Its been said that nature follows some laws. Well who or what made these laws that nature follows? Check your research and get back to me
Link to post
Share on other sites
Its been said that nature follows some laws. Well who or what made these laws that nature follows? Check your research and get back to me
Very good question, for which I have a very truthful and accurate answer:No one knows.It's okay to have questions for which we don't have answers. This is why we're still doing research and why we're still thinking and studying as a species. We're trying to find the answers to these deep questions.Maybe the laws of which you speak are totally determined. In other words, maybe they are the only laws that could possibly exist and are able to be proven a priori. Or maybe they are one of a set of infinite choices. This set could contain discrete or indiscrete "laws." In other words, the laws of physics could take any arbitrary form, or they could come in certain specific forms (though the set of these forms may be infinite). Or they could be one of a closed and finite set of possibilities.Assuming there are many different possibilities, maybe there are different universes with each of these possibilities. So, if there are infinite possibilities for these laws, maybe there are infinite universes.Again, we don't know the answers to these questions. No one does and anyone who pretends to know the answers to these questions for sure is either lying or ignorant.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Very good question, for which I have a very truthful and accurate answer:No one knows.It's okay to have questions for which we don't have answers. This is why we're still doing research and why we're still thinking and studying as a species. We're trying to find the answers to these deep questions.Maybe the laws of which you speak are totally determined. In other words, maybe they are the only laws that could possibly exist and are able to be proven a priori. Or maybe they are one of a set of infinite choices. This set could contain discrete or indiscrete "laws." In other words, the laws of physics could take any arbitrary form, or they could come in certain specific forms (though the set of these forms may be infinite). Or they could be one of a closed and finite set of possibilities.Assuming there are many different possibilities, maybe there are different universes with each of these possibilities. So, if there are infinite possibilities for these laws, maybe there are infinite universes.Again, we don't know the answers to these questions. No one does and anyone who pretends to know the answers to these questions for sure is either lying or ignorant.
So this answer is ok for yall to use but not for a christian? Interesting. Also points the fact that yall cannot exclude God from the equation since as you have said, "No one knows"
"Sure I believe in gravity, but not on the PLANETARY level."That's my impression of you.
hmm...When you get to 10 grade i think they will explain it to you. If not try googling it all. It may make more sense to yah
Link to post
Share on other sites
and so you ignore the logic i provided, the research i provided, the explanations i provided all which came from sources outside the bible? your problem is that you don tknow enough to refute what i say so you try to spin it like i dont know what im talkin about. Unfortunately for you, I am smart enough to see through your pointless posts. I provided 3 links all of which provide a better explanation of morals than anything you posted. I didnt need the bible for it did I? What was your response? You attempted to change the subject from morals to evolution. Why? B/c what i posted was above your level. Your problem is that you in actuality have nothing to fall back on. You rely on the what ifs and thats about it. Heres a simple question for you that all your research should be able to tell you an answer to:Its been said that nature follows some laws. Well who or what made these laws that nature follows? Check your research and get back to me
Matt, this post is a joke. Here is what happened in this thread.1. someone posted that morals are a result of evolution2. you asked them to post some sort of proof3. i posted that link4. you ignored it5. i posted it again and asked you to respond6. you posted your links7. i said that your links don't refute mine, because they in no way speak to the actual process of evolution (see my post for the explanation)8. now you are saying that i am "changing the argument from morals to evolution"Do you see why this makes you look like an idiot? Our whole discussion was about the evolution of morals.
and so you ignore the logic i provided, the research i provided, the explanations i provided all which came from sources outside the bible?
Your three links had no relevance to the argument because they didn't speak to the actual process of evolution in terms of genetics. You have offered no "proof" and zero "research". And yet when I call you out on that you think it's me giving up because you are so superior.
Its been said that nature follows some laws. Well who or what made these laws that nature follows? Check your research and get back to me
Maybe God. I think that some form of God probably started the Universe, made the laws, and let it go from there. You think he created each animal from scratch. Neither of us knows who is correct, but you take your proof from a book and some sermons, I get mine from actual studies that look at the genetics and family histories of all animals. Like I said, you put all your faith in a book. I put mine in logic. Good luck.
Link to post
Share on other sites
You're an imbecile.
I guess we should just start saying this after all of Matt's posts. That way we don't waste time trying to explain things to him, and he can feel like we are just anti-Christian (as opposed to pro-logical reasoning).
Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think the author of these articles understands evolution very well. His main problem is that evolutionary explanations for morality must at some point evoke morality and thus are circular, right? I think it's something like that. Here's the refutation of that argument:There could have been many species that are immoral (whatever that means, since it's totally relative, which the author doesn't address). These species don't work together, kill each other at will, don't share food, and are generally cruel to each other. Well, if this immoral behavior impedes their survival, it will impede their survival. They will die out. This is the evolutionary explanation of morality. The species which survive with morality do not have to think about morality (they don't have to ask, "why should I be moral tomorrow" as the author keeps bringing up). They are encoded with morality. It's not a decision.Of course, for more complicated species, such as humans, with our immense power of reasoning and thinking, we can decide to be moral or not. In other words, though it seems that humans do contain some sort of intrinsic sense of morality, it can be unlearned to an extent. Anyway, this last part of my discussion is mostly philosophy. It's very Rousseauian.
So this answer is ok for yall to use but not for a christian?
This answer is by no means okay. For now, it's the only answer we have. But for many scientists around the world, it is no where near satisfactory. This is why people spend their entire lives looking for the answers to the big questions.
Also points the fact that yall cannot exclude God from the equation since as you have said, "No one knows"
Indeed, I'll give you this one. We can not disprove many forms that God may take. However, we can greatly limit the forms that a God can take. It is strongly apparent that God can not break the laws of physics, for instance (ie there is no evidence of this taking place).
Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think the author of these articles understands evolution very well. His main problem is that evolutionary explanations for morality must at some point evoke morality and thus are circular, right? I think it's something like that. Here's the refutation of that argument:There could have been many species that are immoral (whatever that means, since it's totally relative, which the author doesn't address). These species don't work together, kill each other at will, don't share food, and are generally cruel to each other. Well, if this immoral behavior impedes their survival, it will impede their survival. They will die out. This is the evolutionary explanation of morality. The species which survive with morality do not have to think about morality (they don't have to ask, "why should I be moral tomorrow" as the author keeps bringing up). They are encoded with morality. It's not a decision.Of course, for more complicated species, such as humans, with our immense power of reasoning and thinking, we can decide to be moral or not. In other words, though it seems that humans do contain some sort of intrinsic sense of morality, it can be unlearned to an extent. Anyway, this last part of my discussion is mostly philosophy. It's very Rousseauian.
Let me explain it one more time for yall. Those were not dealing with evolution. Those were dealing with the problem of saying morals evolved. Which is exactly what speed was tryin to get at earlier with his articles (which I did read). That is why i posted what i posted. To show that the common theories of morals evolving dont make sense. Like I said, If necessary I can post articles on evolution but those were not specific to evolution.
I guess we should just start saying this after all of Matt's posts. That way we don't waste time trying to explain things to him, and he can feel like we are just anti-Christian (as opposed to pro-logical reasoning).
see this is what is so predictable about you. When you have nothing else to say you attack me and we go round in circles again. When have I ever said that anything not pro-christian is worthless? I have had an open offer to look at any and all information you have that helps your arguments. The problem is when i post logical rebuttals that you cant understand you turn to these personal attacks. Please learn from Tim, He is th eonly one of yall that actually understands the concept of a discussion. It may help you out greatly
Link to post
Share on other sites
Those were not dealing with evolution. Those were dealing with the problem of saying morals evolved.
Aren't the two tied together? How can you be talking about the evolution of morals and not be talking about evolution?Anyway, semantics aside, I believe that I addressed what the article addressed, whatever you want to call it.Let me know if I failed to address what the author was saying. I'd be happy to take another shot at it.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Please learn from Tim, He is th eonly one of yall that actually understands the concept of a discussion. It may help you out greatly
I guess my imbecile remark was stricken from the record. Which is fine.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Matt, this post is a joke. Here is what happened in this thread.1. someone posted that morals are a result of evolution2. you asked them to post some sort of proof3. i posted that link4. you ignored it5. i posted it again and asked you to respond6. you posted your links7. i said that your links don't refute mine, because they in no way speak to the actual process of evolution (see my post for the explanation)8. now you are saying that i am "changing the argument from morals to evolution"Do you see why this makes you look like an idiot? Our whole discussion was about the evolution of morals.
wow. amazing. Lets actually see what happened and not what you want to postTim posted this:
An innate sense of morality can quite plainly be ascribed to evolutionary survival.
I asked him to explain:
are you really willin to back this belief? just wondering?
You then posted this twice, which as I said i missed the first time:
But, Matt, the funny thing is that you asked for our reasoning about the evolution of ethics, as opposed to ethical behavior being taught by religion. I posted a link and a few thoughts. Instead of responding that that post, you responded to the posts that called you arrogant. Here...I'll post it again.http://www.evolutionaryethics.com/
The first article dealt with this fact:
The foundation of ethical evolution can be shown to rest on reason rather than relativity. Human morality, and the ethical systems it gives rise to, are to some extent relative to time and place. However, the underlying principle of the evolution of ethical systems is the survival of the human species.
I posted 3 articles that directly refute this claim. Even Yorke I believe commented on the circular cycle.You then either b/c you didnt understand or I dont know what, tried to then change to evolution which would be slightly different than anything posted. I then pointed out again that we were not dealing with evolution but with the concept of morals and you I assume couldnt grasp it so you reverted back to calling me names. So Speed i am sorry but you are the one that appears lost. I have shown 3 articles that use absolutely sound logic to refute the words in your very own post. So either you need to reread your own articles or actually read mine.
I guess my imbecile remark was stricken from the record. Which is fine.
nah you still come with the personal attacks which are fine. But at least when we discuss things I can count on you to provide actual research as opposed to the good old "it just must be true b/c i said so"
Link to post
Share on other sites
Tim posted this:
An innate sense of morality can quite plainly be ascribed to evolutionary survival.
I asked him to explain:
I never really did answer this because other people beat me to it.But one basic idea is that individual members of a species have a better chance of survival if the individual members of their community act with a sense of ethical judgement.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I asked him to explain:I never really did answer this because other people beat me to it.But one basic idea is that individual members of a species have a better chance of survival if the individual members of their community act with a sense of ethical judgement.
and this leads to the circular reasoning
Link to post
Share on other sites
and this leads to the circular reasoning
Ok, this has already been dealt with in Yorke's post earlier, but let me try my hand to see if I understand it as well.Some species have a genetic predisposition to morals and some don't. Those that do not are more likely to kill each other off and thus have less of a chance to survive. Thus, at the end of the day, the species that are left alive are the ones that had more of a chance to survive, ie are the ones with morals.Note that at no point did the memeber of the species ask itself "should I be moral?" They simply had a genetic predisposition to be moral, and thus were more likely to be moral, which in turn made them more likely to survive. This was done INDEPENDENT of their ever choosing to be moral. The reason they chose to be moral was simply genetics, and then good old survival of the fittest caused the species that didn't have the morality in their genetics to die off, leaving the moral species left.Again, I repeat, this was not because the species ever chose to be more moral, it happened independent of their decision. To repeat the conclusion one more time: some spcecies simply genetically were more likely to be moral, and this made them more likely to survive, and thus they are the ones we see around today, without them ever having to choose this. The order of causation is: species A tends to be moral, and thus has a better chance to survive, and thus is more likely to still be around. It is NOT: species A sees that if it is more moral it will survive longer, and thus chooses to be more moral. The articles that Matt posted were trying to argue that the latter argument involves circular reasoning, and it does, but it also is NOT what the evolution people were arguing, and in fact, arguments of that form show a lack of understanding of the basic principles of evolution.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, this has already been dealt with in Yorke's post earlier, but let me try my hand to see if I understand it as well.Some species have a genetic predisposition to morals and some don't. Those that do not are more likely to kill each other off and thus have less of a chance to survive. Thus, at the end of the day, the species that are left alive are the ones that had more of a chance to survive, ie are the ones with morals.Note that at no point did the memeber of the species ask itself "should I be moral?" They simply had a genetic predisposition to be moral, and thus were more likely to be moral, which in turn made them more likely to survive. This was done INDEPENDENT of their ever choosing to be moral. The reason they chose to be moral was simply genetics, and then good old survival of the fittest caused the species that didn't have the morality in their genetics to die off, leaving the moral species left.Again, I repeat, this was not because the species ever chose to be more moral, it happened independent of their decision. To repeat the conclusion one more time: some spcecies simply genetically were more likely to be moral, and this made them more likely to survive, and thus they are the ones we see around today, without them ever having to choose this. The order of causation is: species A tends to be moral, and thus has a better chance to survive, and thus is more likely to still be around. It is NOT: species A sees that if it is more moral it will survive longer, and thus chooses to be more moral. The articles that Matt posted were trying to argue that the latter argument involves circular reasoning, and it does, but it also is NOT what the evolution people were arguing, and in fact, arguments of that form show a lack of understanding of the basic principles of evolution.
actually this line of reasoning that you use is false if you want to get down to it. Why? B/c it would be a christians view that morals are unique to humans. Since we cant actually speak to animals we dont know thier reasons for choices so to base morality on actions well is just bad. so everything you posted is really void when it comes down to it. You are tryin to broaden morality out to all animals and unfortunately that just isnt the case
Link to post
Share on other sites
actually this line of reasoning that you use is false if you want to get down to it. Why? B/c it would be a christians view that morals are unique to humans. Since we cant actually speak to animals we dont know thier reasons for choices so to base morality on actions well is just bad. so everything you posted is really void when it comes down to it. You are tryin to broaden morality out to all animals and unfortunately that just isnt the case
Note this post made above which has already addressed this issue:
Encouraging socially acceptable behaviour and discouraging anti-social behaviour is not restricted to humans. There are countless numbers of social species that have 'chosen' the benefits of working together through natural selection.Any pack animal like lions and wolves or herd animals like cows and elephants work together as well as discouraging anti-social behaviour. Even insects like bees and ants work together. Now did God give them morals as well? Yet you also have other creatures that are fiercly independant and will kill each other on sight to defend their territory, only coming together to mate. Hands up who wants to be a male praying mantis?And yet again you have other species who mate and spend their lives together in pairs, working together as couples, but shunning a 'society'There is no order there. There is no design. All 3 options (Maximum grouping, minimal grouping (pairs) and non grouping) exist. If it was by design, the best sytem would function, not an inherited one. It's wonderfully random and chaotic, as is all life. Each species carrying on with behaviour that was benefitial to their ancestors survival.See how wonderful nature is and how clever Darwin was for pointing us in the right direction?
Sure we cannot read animal's minds, but we can view their actions. Maybe our defninitions of morality is different. I would define it as a decision to put the interests of others above our own interests. In this view, yes we can observe animals choosing the interests of their society over their own, as above. It is this kind of morality that we have been arguing may in fact be hard-wired into us, and which we have been arguing has evolved.So yes, scientists are suggesting that morality, something we have previously thought was unique to humans, is found in other animals and furthermore can have an explanation in terms of evolution.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Note this post made above which has already addressed this issue:Sure we cannot read animal's minds, but we can view their actions. Maybe our defninitions of morality is different. I would define it as a decision to put the interests of others above our own interests. In this view, yes we can observe animals choosing the interests of their society over their own, as above. It is this kind of morality that we have been arguing may in fact be hard-wired into us, and which we have been arguing has evolved.So yes, scientists are suggesting that morality, something we have previously thought was unique to humans, is found in other animals and furthermore can have an explanation in terms of evolution.
and as i already posted:http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6221Makes an extremely good case for why it is nonsense to believe that
Link to post
Share on other sites
and as i already posted:http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6221Makes an extremely good case for why it is nonsense to believe that
And that arguments is dealt with by my and Yorke's above post, and so the running around in circles continues...To reiterate: the articles that you posted that have a problem with morality being evolved have a problem in that they are looking at evolution the wrong way. The animal/person/whatever doesn't make a "moral" decision by thinking "what will be the best way to have my species survive" but rather chooses the moral decision, the decision to do the right thing because, for whatever reason, it feels good. Dealing with people specifically, if the person is religious, it feels good because they feel that it is what God wants them to do and makes them closer to God or, in the case of more pragmatic people, because it might help them get into heaven, whatever. The point being that we do the right thing because ultimately it feels good. Now, this leads to the question: Why does it feel good? Religious people may argue it feels good because we have an inate sense of morality given to us by our creator. The other argument, the one that myself and others are making, is maybe if feels good because it is in our genes. Those species for which it wasn't in their genes made decisions that were harmful to the survival of their species, and thus were less likely to survive and aren't seen as much, ala survival of the fittest, as the desire to help the group is clearly a trait which is beneficial to the species.I will repeat as this is the key to the entire argument. For whatever reason, a random mutation occured that made certain animals feel good about doing the "right" thing. Those animals were more likely to survive then ones who did not have this gene. Thus, we look at the world and see animals, namely humans, that have this trait. And thus, morals can come from evolution. Do I know that this is the case? Of course not, but it does make a good point and gives a counter to people that feel that morality must come from a creator.
Link to post
Share on other sites

human "species" morality is probably just the beneficial extension of social family/clan evolution. many, if not most higher animal species certainly have evolved what can be viewed as a counterpart to human compassion/concern for family/clan members, and it wouldn't take much of a leap for similar social empathy to be extended to any member of a species as that species evolves to become more and more self aware.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...