2. Right and Wrong

Originally posted by dj2becker
[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.

"cannot" is misleading because it has the flavor of implying that evolution is supposed to answer these questions but canno ...[text shortened]... i cannot make heads or tails of this actual fact fact you speak of.

Ever heard of a typo?[/b]

So you prefer to believe something that does not explain anything?

your reading comprehension is abysmal.

Then what does?

for starters, ethical theories are designed to put forth possible answers to such queries.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Moldy 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.

" How can you expect a man who is warm to understand one's who's cold?" - Alexander Solzhentsyn

Originally posted by Moldy Crow
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 .

Natural selection, as it has operated in human history, favors not only the clever but the murderous.

Barbara Ehrenreich (1941-, American author, columnist)

Originally posted by LemonJello
Moldy 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.

Darwinian man, though well behaved, at best is only a monkey shaved.
W. S. Gilbert (1836-1911, British librettist)

The pre-human creature from which man evolved was unlike any other living thing in its malicious viciousness toward its own kind. Humanization was not a leap forward but a groping toward survival.
Eric Hoffer (1902-1983, American author, philosopher)

Originally posted by Halitose
Darwinian man, though well behaved, at best is only a monkey shaved.
W. S. Gilbert (1836-1911, British librettist)

The pre-human creature from which man evolved was unlike any other living thing in its malicious viciousness toward its own kind. Humanization was not a leap forward but a groping toward survival.
Eric Hoffer (1902-1983, American author, philosopher)

None of the people you've quoted so far are scientists (except Gilbert perhaps). Or am I missing your point? (Enjoyable quotes to be sure).

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
None of the people you've quoted so far are scientists (except Gilbert perhaps). Or am I missing your point? (Enjoyable quotes to be sure).

Here's one from a leading scientist:

"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that 'a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein'."

Sir Fred Hoyle (English astronomer, Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University), as quoted in "Hoyle on Evolution". Nature, vol. 294, 12 Nov. 1981, p. 105

Okay, wading in, quite possibly over my head...

(First off, for those who don't know already, I'm a Christian. Just in case you get the wrong idea.)

I think it's wrong to suggest that the theory of evolution, all by itself, has to answer these questions.

Sure, whether you subscribe to evolution or creationism might inform your answer as to the source of morality, but I don't see any reason why a creationist wouldn't be just as interested in the societal forces that shape moral codes as an evolutionist would.

The reason I say this is because even if a creationist thinks the IDEAL is that society's moral codes (and arguably laws) come straight from God, you'd have to be living in cloud-cuckoo land to think that this is what actually happens.

For a start, different societies have different moral codes. You can't just dismiss the societies with a different moral code as being amoral and not worthy of examination. They have morals, and they got them somehow.

Also I think it's too simplistic to think that God has a right and wrong answer for everything. I suspect God isn't excessively interested in the finer details of regulation of the automobile industry, to pick a totally random example, so long as the system is basically fair and protects the welfare of everyone involved - consumers, manufacturers, employees etc. So why is it that different countries set different rules and standards - essentially, placing different weight on competing values?

Finally even if, as a creationist, you believe in principle that there is such a thing as absolute right and wrong, you might have a very hard time convincing your fellow creationist what IS right and wrong. Heck, that problem has been going on since Paul wrote to the Corinthians about whether they should eat meat sacrificed to idols.

To rephrase your question: if everything is NOT due to random chance, then how do we determine right from wrong? Is this question any less problematic than the one you already posed?

Originally posted by Nicolaas
There is a right and a wrong.

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!

BLAAAAARRGGUU!! WAAAMMAAKKAAMMAAKKAA!!! 🙄😲😵

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]So you prefer to believe something that does not explain anything?

your reading comprehension is abysmal.

Then what does?

for starters, ethical theories are designed to put forth possible answers to such queries.[/b]

for starters, ethical theories are designed to put forth possible answers to such queries.

For starters, on what would these ethical theories be based?

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]for starters, ethical theories are designed to put forth possible answers to such queries.

For starters, on what would these ethical theories be based?[/b]

the ethical theories that are worth consideration take the form of coherent arguments and are thus structurally based on our capacity for rational thought. as to the actual substance on which they are based, it can vary considerably. your assertion that all morality comes from God is just one such theory -- and in my opinion, a very badly supported one at that. but, hey, positing the argument is often much simpler than discerning whether or not the argument is sound. you have conjectures and theories and so do many other people concering morality.

but the question here is whether or not the topic of morality is and can be divorced from the topic of how we came to be in our current form. the answer is yes it can, and in practice that seems to be the approach used by a great many people who correctly do not expect evolutionary theory to tell them anything about morality. your general stubborness here seems to lie in the following: it happens to be the case that in your world view, morality and origins are both explained by the same entity (God). somehow, i gather, you think that makes your world view superior to those belonging to others who see morality and origins as completely different topics. however, that is just your opinion for which you have not given me any reasons to take seriously.

what i do know is that your claim that evolution can only be a valid or acceptable theory if it also provides answers to questions about morality is patently false. your other claim that evolutionary theory necessarily implies certain seemingly distasteful conclusions about morality is likewise patently false. what is particularly gratifying and humorous about your ineptitude is the contradictory nature of these two claims you make. first, you say that evolution necessarily implies that humans have no purpose and are just chemical soup; and then you say that evolutionary theory cannot be valid because it has nothing to say on such issues. lol. what you mean, then, is that you reject evolution and the thoughtful, rigorous scientific endeavors contained therein because evolution does not tell you what your ego wants to hear. and why should it? evolutionary theory was not designed to stroke your ego concerning matters of your own moral considerability.

Originally posted by Halitose
" How can you expect a man who is warm to understand one's who's cold?" - Alexander Solzhentsyn

"Creationists make it sound as though a theory is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night."

Isaac Asimov

Originally posted by Halitose
Natural selection, as it has operated in human history, favors not only the clever but the murderous.

Barbara Ehrenreich (1941-, American author, columnist)

"So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence."

Bertrand Russell

Originally posted by Halitose
Darwinian man, though well behaved, at best is only a monkey shaved.
W. S. Gilbert (1836-1911, British librettist)

The pre-human creature from which man evolved was unlike any other living thing in its malicious viciousness toward its own kind. Humanization was not a leap forward but a groping toward survival.
Eric Hoffer (1902-1983, American author, philosopher)

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."

Galileo

Originally posted by LemonJello
"So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence."

Bertrand Russell

"Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly, as I have said, the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes."

Bertrand Russell

Originally posted by LemonJello
the ethical theories that are worth consideration take the form of coherent arguments and are thus structurally based on our capacity for rational thought. as to the actual substance on which they are based, it can vary considerably. your assertion that all morality comes from God is just one such theory -- and in my opinion, a very badly supported one ...[text shortened]... theory was not designed to stroke your ego concerning matters of your own moral considerability.

So, how come you've never admitted to which ethical theory you ascribe to? Are you afraid somebody's gonna question your logic?