Creation/Evolution

**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality[/b]

Whoa just by the name of the site "evolution of morality" for morality to change then human nature would have to change, which supports evolution, which means that God would have to change you see He made us "In His likeness and Image" therefore you are insulting God in the process.

Originally posted by daniel58
Whoa just by the name of the site "evolution of morality" for morality to change then human nature would have to change, which supports evolution, which means that God would have to change you see He made us "In His likeness and Image" therefore you are insulting God in the process.

Daniel, there is absolutely nothing about the concept of creation itself that entails that created objects cannot subsequently evolve or undergo change. There is nothing in principle that makes creation and evolution incompatible: evolutionary theory is not committed to any particular stance concerning how life ultimately came to be; and the concept of creation does not preclude that which is created from subsequently evolving. So, there is in principle no compatibility issue for, say, some theist who holds a view whereby both (1) living things were initially ushered in through some sort of creative act and (2) evolution obtains. Of course, there may be some tension between such a position and your own interpretation of biblical accounts that you take as authoritative. But, despite that so many of these threads suppose evolution and creation to be diametrically opposed, there seems no reason why this cannot be taken in general as a false dichotomy.

At any rate, it's ridiculous that you come to the conclusion that I am "insulting God". For this discussion, you can take it that I am open to the question of whether or not God even exists. I was just talking about inference to the best explanation for moral faculty -- for which I think the existence of your God is neither explanatorily necessary nor particularly recommended by the evidence. If you have some argument that aims to show that, on the contrary, the existence of God ought to be a part of our explanation for moral faculty, then let's hear it.

Originally posted by daniel58
Whoa just by the name of the site "evolution of morality" for morality to change then human nature would have to change, which supports evolution, which means that God would have to change you see He made us "In His likeness and Image" therefore you are insulting God in the process.

one must remember Daniel that orangey melon would have us believe that the human capacity for mathematics, language, long term planning and contemplation of the future, reflection of the past, conscious thought, the appreciation of art and beauty, the faculty of morality and conscience was all the result of our ancestors dodging sabre tooth tigers! 😉

Originally posted by LemonJello
I am really not sure what you are asking. Presumably you mean to ask something about transitional or intermediate forms, but I am not understanding what exactly.

I did not think that I expressed myself that badly. But let me try again:

Time A: An organism, (say a butterfly) gets reproduced by the chain egg-worm-larva-adult
Time B: A precursor of that organism gets reproduced in any other, simpler, way, say, asexual reproduction.

Presumably Time B precedes Time A by several million years.

Can you postulate any intermediate stages between Time B and Time A?

When faced with the chicken and egg question, Dawkins apparently said that at some stage there must have been a chicken that was born OTHER than out of an egg, but that laid the first egg.

My question was: do you agree with that? Simple enough?

Originally posted by daniel58
Whoa just by the name of the site "evolution of morality" for morality to change then human nature would have to change, which supports evolution, which means that God would have to change you see He made us "In His likeness and Image" therefore you are insulting God in the process.

…for morality to change then human nature would have to change,
….

Agreed.

…which supports evolution
...

Actually I think the implied suggestion wasn’t that the evolution of morality is evidence for the theory of evolution (although it might be if actual direct empirical evidence for the evolution of human morality is found with a genetic bases?) but rather the theory of evolution combined with the mere fact that most of us tend to have ideas about ‘morality’ implies that morality (and human nature) also must have evolved.

…which means that God would have to change you see He made us "In His likeness and Image"
….

I think that is an interesting point.
For a Christian that actually believes that ’God’ literally made us "In His likeness and Image" then, logically, if we evolved, then wouldn’t ’God’ have to change to maintain this likeness to us? -if so, this would surely be a rather eccentric conclusion from a Christian point of view!

Of course, this isn’t a problem for certain other religions (that don’t say ‘He’/’they’ made us "In His likeness and Image" ) and this certainly isn’t a problem for an atheist like myself for I don’t think there is any ’God’ thus no ‘God’ that can change.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…for morality to change then human nature would have to change,
….

Agreed.

…which supports evolution
...

Actually I think the implied suggestion wasn’t that the evolution of morality is evidence for the theory of evolution (although it might be if actual direct empirical evidence for the evolution of human morality is found ...[text shortened]... an atheist like myself for I don’t think there is any ’God’ thus no ‘God’ that can change.[/b]

So you think that it may be wrong for me to murder someone today but not tomorrow maybe?

Originally posted by daniel58
So you think that it may be wrong for me to murder someone today but not tomorrow maybe?

No -but that has no relevance here because neither I nor anyone else was implying here in any way that what IS “morally right” or “morally wrong” evolves over time but rather the IDEAS of what is “morally right” or “morally wrong” evolves over time -the two are completely different things.

(actually I don’t think there is such thing as “moral” nor “morally right” nor “morally wrong” but that doesn’t really have any effect on this argument. And this personal disbelief in the existance of "moral" has no effect on my everyday behaviour and nor would I expect it to -I don’t harm people etc because my EMOTIONS make me not want to harm people and my emotions don't come from ideas about morality).

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
No -but that has no relevance here because neither I nor anyone else was implying here in any way that what IS “morally right” or “morally wrong” evolves over time but rather the IDEAS of what is “morally right” or “morally wrong” evolves over time -the two are completely different things.

(actually I don’t think there is such thing as “moral” nor ...[text shortened]... OTIONS make me not want to harm people and my emotions don't come from ideas about morality).

No because God put those emotions or instincts there.

What about stealing what about that?

Originally posted by daniel58
No because God put those emotions or instincts there.

What about stealing what about that?

Originally posted by daniel58
No because God put those emotions or instincts there.
How do you know that?

What about stealing what about that?
A few hundred years ago, they hanged children for theft. What about stealing?

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Originally posted by daniel58
[b]No because God put those emotions or instincts there.
How do you know that?

What about stealing what about that?
A few hundred years ago, they hanged children for theft. What about stealing?[/b]

1. Conscience.

2. I mean do you think stealing is wrong?

Originally addressed to LemonJello

Time A: An organism, (say a butterfly) gets reproduced by the chain egg-worm-larva-adult

Time B: A precursor of that organism gets reproduced in any other, simpler, way, say, asexual reproduction.

Presumably Time B precedes Time A by several million years.

Can you postulate any intermediate stages between Time B and Time A?

When faced with the chicken and egg question, Dawkins apparently said that at some stage there must have been a chicken that was born OTHER than out of an egg, but that laid the first egg.

My question was: do you agree with that?

LJ seems to have left for a while - any other takers?

I'm sure the evolutionists must have an answer to this, I'd just like to know what it is.

In peace,

CJ

Originally posted by daniel58
1. Conscience.

2. I mean do you think stealing is wrong?

Originally posted by daniel58
1. Conscience.
How do you know that your conscience has anything to do with god?

2. I mean do you think stealing is wrong?
Yes, why do you ask?

Originally posted by CalJust
Time A: An organism, (say a butterfly) gets reproduced by the chain egg-worm-larva-adult

Time B: A precursor of that organism gets reproduced in any other, simpler, way, say, asexual reproduction.

Presumably Time B precedes Time A by several million years.

Can you postulate any intermediate stages between Time B and Time A?

When faced with th volutionists must have an answer to this, I'd just like to know what it is.

In peace,

CJ

I'm sorry CalJust, but I have a life outside of RHP, so I cannot always engage in the forums on a set schedule.

Can you postulate any intermediate stages between Time B and Time A?

In existence today, there are different insects that exhibit different degrees of metamorphosis -- from basically none (relative to what you described) to partial or incomplete (relative to what you described) to full or complete (relative to what you described). Why would it be a difficult exercise to postulate intermediate stages in your example? Why would it be difficult to imagine gradual evolution from, say, one degree to another?

Of course, trying to figure out the best explanation for insect metamorphosis in accordance with the evidence is more difficult than just postulating candidates. There are different views I have seen in the literature. If you are interested in checking one out, as an example, you can check out the reference below. It also gives some limited discussion on why metamorphosis could confer advantage (such that there are certainly plausible reasons why it would be selected for).

The Origins of Insect Metamorphosis, Truman and Riddiford, NATURE, Volume 401, 1999.

When faced with the chicken and egg question, Dawkins apparently said that at some stage there must have been a chicken that was born OTHER than out of an egg, but that laid the first egg.

My question was: do you agree with that? Simple enough?

Could you please just post a link to Dawkins' response (either to the video or the transcript or whatever his actual response is contained within)? I don't really understand what exactly you are attributing to him. Just as you have stated it, no I don't agree with that.

From the view of evolution's gradual nature, I think the question sort of retains the feel of a sorites paradox where it suffers from taxonomical vagueness. For instance, if you consider small differences going back, where exactly do you leave chickenhood and enter proto-chickenhood? I don't find the chicken-egg question to be interesting or instructive, but perhaps you see some significance in it that I do not?

Originally posted by daniel58
No because God put those emotions or instincts there.

What about stealing what about that?

What about it?
How does that relate to my post?

Originally posted by CalJust
Hi twhitehead,

Your points are quite valid - and, I believe, sincere rather than argumentative - so I will respond.

Thank you, and sorry for taking a while to see your response as I have been a bit busy and only following one or two interesting threads.

This is really a "debate about debating". Would you agree that a Buddhist and a Hindu have completely different world views?
Yes.

Would you further agree that only one of the two can be correct, if the views are entirely mutually exclusive?
Yes

And would you further agree that to either party his particular point of view is based on the available evidence?
No. In my experience the vast majority of religious beliefs are not based on evidence, and the believers almost invariably admit as such.

Finally, would you agree that trying to get to the "one true correct explanation" in all these RHP debates has NOT yielded that satisfactory result?!
Yes I agree. But that does not mean that no-one has learnt anything, nor does it mean that no-one has changed their points of view quite dramatically - some have. It also does not mean that it is impossible to find the truth or that debates are generally unfruitful.

Your response to my third point is actually the same as this. It is NOT that simple to get to the TRUTH when there are assumptions involved.
Just as an example, the basis of evolution (and geology) is an assumption which cannot be proven.
That depends on what you mean by 'assumption' and what you mean by 'proven'. I would certainly disagree that your statement is a good way to put it. It is my belief that the basis of evolution and geology is the available evidence.

That is the concept of continuity (I actually think there is a technical name for it which escapes me at the moment.) This means that the processes which we see today are exactly the same that there have ever been.
But that is not assumed as you claim. There are many ways to look for historical evidence for variation in the various processes. For example, if we count tree rings, count layers in ice cores and also use carbon dating and radio isotope dating and they all yield very similar results, then we can be fairly sure that they are all fairly consistent processes. The reason this conclusion is made is that if there was variation is is highly unlikely that the variation would lead to good correlation. For example if seasons the earths years were longer, the carbon dating and radio isotope records would be different from tree ring and ice core data.

However, Creationists (and believers in the Flood) believe in a cataclysmic intervention when a lot of things were discontinuous, to say the least. Both of these are assumptions which cannot be proven. However, the way you interpret the present depends entirely on which one you choose.
As I said in my earlier post, as a scientist you should then look at the two views (assumptions if you will) and make predictions about what evidence you expect to find. Then you look for the evidence for the various predictions and isolate which view is correct. If you simply refuse to debate with anyone who has an opposing view then you are basically throwing out the whole basis of science.

For example, when we date rocks using isotopes of radioactive compounds we can make very very accurate predictions about what we would expect to find if a sample was say 1 million years old. If I find a sample which matches those very specific predictions, then I must either accept that the theory that made the predictions is accurate, or look for an alternative explanation. I cant simply hide behind 'well thats your view point'.