05 Oct 05
If everything is the result of random chance, how can we determine right from wrong. In my studies, the only conclusion is that there is no right and wrong - but rather we react on "instinct" - which is broken down to "survival of the fittest".
Why is stealing considered wrong if it promotes my survival? Why would rape be wrong if it promotes getting my genes into the next generation? Is there right and wrong? Answer me, please - within the context of evolution, mere chance and millions of years of accidents.
05 Oct 05
Originally posted by RatXYou are a ridiculous and ignorant man . Evolution is not a theory which attempts to explain any of these issues . This does not make TOE null , void , false or weakened . It would be the same as trying to explain the tax code using Nuetonian Physics . It is not applicable , you fool .
If everything is the result of random chance, how can we determine right from wrong. In my studies, the only conclusion is that there is no right and wrong - but rather we react on "instinct" - which is broken down to "survival of the fittest".
Why is stealing considered wrong if it promotes my survival? Why would rape be wrong if it promotes getting my ...[text shortened]... er me, please - within the context of evolution, mere chance and millions of years of accidents.
05 Oct 05
Originally posted by RatXMoldy Crow is right; you are just utterly confused. you are supposing that these conclusions follow necessarily from evolutionary theory (lack of free will, lack of human worth, lack of absolute morality), but they do no such thing. you are flavoring your food with crap and then complaining that it tastes bad.
If everything is the result of random chance, how can we determine right from wrong. In my studies, the only conclusion is that there is no right and wrong - but rather we react on "instinct" - which is broken down to "survival of the fittest".
Why is stealing considered wrong if it promotes my survival? Why would rape be wrong if it promotes getting my ...[text shortened]... er me, please - within the context of evolution, mere chance and millions of years of accidents.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
06 Oct 05
Originally posted by Moldy CrowWill you at least admit that Science has limitations?
You are a ridiculous and ignorant man . Evolution is not a theory which attempts to explain any of these issues . This does not make TOE null , void , false or weakened . It would be the same as trying to explain the tax code using Nuetonian Physics . It is not applicable , you fool .
06 Oct 05
Originally posted by Moldy CrowEvolution doesn't attempt to explain any of these issues because it can't. But it must if we are to accept evolution as our Origin - it is the very basis of our world-view.
You are a ridiculous and ignorant man . Evolution is not a theory which attempts to explain any of these issues . This does not make TOE null , void , false or weakened . It would be the same as trying to explain the tax code using Nuetonian Physics . It is not applicable , you fool .
If a world-view has the basis of chance and accident as its Origin and explanation for existence, or if it has the basis of Intelligent design under a supreme intelligent Being, very different conclusions will be drawn on the subjects of value and purpose to life, right and wrong and free will...
How else will you determine any of these issues, while accepting evolution as your origin, without having any contradictions in your thinking? Enlighten me, as you claim I am foolish...
06 Oct 05
Originally posted by RatXSeveral people have already answered these points.
Evolution doesn't attempt to explain any of these issues because it can't. But it must if we are to accept evolution as our Origin - it is the very basis of our world-view.
If a world-view has the basis of chance and accident as its Origin and explanation for existence, or if it has the basis of Intelligent design under a supreme intelligent Being, ...[text shortened]... , without having any contradictions in your thinking? Enlighten me, as you claim I am foolish...
06 Oct 05
Originally posted by RatXEvolution doesn't attempt to explain any of these issues because it can't.
Evolution doesn't attempt to explain any of these issues because it can't. But it must if we are to accept evolution as our Origin - it is the very basis of our world-view.
If a world-view has the basis of chance and accident as its Origin and explanation for existence, or if it has the basis of Intelligent design under a supreme intelligent Being, ...[text shortened]... , without having any contradictions in your thinking? Enlighten me, as you claim I am foolish...
GREAT! now that we have that settled, we can all go back to ignoring your initial thread in which you implied that evolution DOES attempt to answer these questions and DOES lead one to the following "conclusions" in your own words:
"1. Man has no more intrinsic value than a smart ape or a cow in a suburban herd and will ultimately die and be recycled into the ecosystem
2. There is no right and wrong (the only law is gravity, survival and ultimate death)
3. Man has no free will (all man is doing is acting to bio-chemical reactions dictated by his surroundings)"
clearly, you were just mistaken before when you said that evolution implies the above notions. now that we have established that evolution "can't" (doesn't is more accurate by the way) necessarily lead one to these conclusions above, we can all rest more soundly at night whilst we all slowly evolve.
But it must if we are to accept evolution as our Origin
i have a feeling that this misconception is the primary source of your discontent.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
06 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloI think that the point is that if you accept evolution to explain your origin then it should be answering the questions. But as you have pointed out, evolution cannot answer these question.
Evolution doesn't attempt to explain any of these issues because it can't.
GREAT! now that we have that settled, we can all go back to ignoring your initial thread in which you implied that evolution DOES attempt to answer these questions and DOES lead one to the following "conclusions" in your own words:
"1. Man Origin[/b]
i have a feeling that this misconception is the primary source of your discontent.[/b]
Thus in actual fact fact, evolution cannot explain your origin because all the questions are related to your origin.
06 Oct 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerI think that the point is that if you accept evolution to explain your origin then it should be answering the questions.
I think that the point is that if you accept evolution to explain your origin then it should be answering the questions. But as you have pointed out, evolution cannot answer these question.
Thus in actual fact fact, evolution cannot explain your origin because all the questions are related to your origin.
you think so, but you are wrong. that is not the point. rather, that is the misconception which you cannot seem to overcome.
But as you have pointed out, evolution cannot answer these question.
"cannot" is misleading because it has the flavor of implying that evolution is supposed to answer these questions but cannot answer them; however, evolution is not supposed to answer these questions and therefore, to no big surprise, evolution does not answer them.
Thus in actual fact fact, evolution cannot explain your origin because all the questions are related to your origin.
huh? is an "actual fact fact" different from an actual fact? because i can usually understand actual facts, but i cannot make heads or tails of this actual fact fact you speak of.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
06 Oct 05
Originally posted by LemonJelloyou think so, but you are wrong. that is not the point. rather, that is the misconception which you cannot seem to overcome.
[b]I think that the point is that if you accept evolution to explain your origin then it should be answering the questions.
you think so, but you are wrong. that is not the point. rather, that is the misconception which you cannot seem to overcome.
But as you have pointed out, evolution cannot answer these question.
"cannot" is m ...[text shortened]... understand actual facts, but i cannot make heads or tails of this actual fact fact you speak of.[/b]
So you prefer to believe something that does not explain anything? That's fine with me.
"cannot" is misleading because it has the flavor of implying that evolution is supposed to answer these questions but cannot answer them; however, evolution is not supposed to answer these questions and therefore, to no big surprise, evolution does not answer them.
Then what does?
huh? is an "actual fact fact" different from an actual fact? because i can usually understand actual facts, but i cannot make heads or tails of this actual fact fact you speak of.
Ever heard of a typo?
06 Oct 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerI cannot process...cannot process....🙄
[b]you think so, but you are wrong. that is not the point. rather, that is the misconception which you cannot seem to overcome.
So you prefer to believe something that does not explain anything? That's fine with me. [/b]
06 Oct 05
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardThere is a right and a wrong.
Survival of the fittest is history, mankind has already won that race. Now its time for civilisation.
Why would everything be the result of random chance?
PEOPLE! Is there something wrong with you? Or is the word "wrong" that I used, not right to use in this sentence? Ag, this is mad! CRAZY!