Originally posted by HalitoseNo it isn't. A statement of desire is not a statement of morality or ethics. Is it?
[b]I wish that people would keep thier religous morals and ethics to themselves..
Wait just one cotton-picking minute there, fella. This patently absurd statement is itself an ethical and moral stance. My self-defeat-o-meter just blew a fuse trying to make sense of the nonsensical. Try being a little more coherent in future and keep your hilarious views to yourself.[/b]
Originally posted by NosracMost of the concepts you seem to have trouble grasping have already been covered at length in this thread and it's predecssors. Try reading.
How does evolution cross over into Christianity?
How many pages long is this forum?
Have you forgotten the name of the forum:
WHAT'S WRONG WITH EVOLUTION?
Jesus didn't have to say anything about evolution.
He created the world, dahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
C'mon guys this is easy.
I'm very surprised that you'd even say such a thing.
CREATION is it, nothing ...[text shortened]... rend
whomever and plead for your soul!
THINK OF YOUR FAMILIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And as for why we can't see human beings evolving I'll give you a quick mathmatical example. With simplifications for the simple minded.
First assumptions, we assume that every pair of people in this generation gives birth to two people in the next generation (population stable at 6 billion). And we also assume that this mutation goes unnoticed by the population (so there is no selection of partners based on it).
Say someone is born today with a completely dominant (all his decendents will carry it) genetic mutation that gives him a doubled rate of genetic propogation.
In the next generation there will be 4 people with the mutation. 4 out of 6 billion and two. These four will each give birth to four people with such a mutation. How long will it take before the number of people with the mutation tops 1 billion (of 7 billion)? It'll take 14 generations. At 27 years a generation that would be nearly 400 years.
And of course no genetic mutation will double the number of offspring a person has. The population of the non-mutated pool is not stable. Mutations are not usually completely dominant. These and many other assumptions made in this model would all increase this factor a great deal.
And yet we can see that the human being has changed over time. We are (on average) taller than we used to be.
So not only are humans evolving they are evolving despite the fact that the math indicates that we shouldn't be able to observe any real change.
Originally posted by NosracProve that we are still evolving?
How does evolution cross over into Christianity?
How many pages long is this forum?
Have you forgotten the name of the forum:
WHAT'S WRONG WITH EVOLUTION?
Jesus didn't have to say anything about evolution.
He created the world, dahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
C'mon guys this is easy.
I'm very surprised that you'd even say such a thing.
CREATION is it, nothing ...[text shortened]... rend
whomever and plead for your soul!
THINK OF YOUR FAMILIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Do you actually know anything about this scientific theory that you deride?
Evolution takes place over long time periods - or at least over times relative to many generations of whatever species is under consideration - so for humans, that's tens or hundreds of thousands of years. How could I show you that?
A man with two heads or nineteen arms?
Evolution is contingent on the environment. In other words, features evolve if they are useful to the survival of that species in that environment.
Show me an environment on Earth where having two heads or nineteen arms would be so useful as to overide the incredible energy and neural wiring required to achieve such a thing.
I think of my family every day.
But I have no soul to plead for, and to be honest the path I've chosen is exactly right for me. I'm very happy and satisfied.
I'm not waiting for anyone - I'm going out and taking hold of life and living it. When it's over, it'll be over. I will no longer exist.
Originally posted by XanthosNZBe careful.
Most of the concepts you seem to have trouble grasping have already been covered at length in this thread and it's predecssors. Try reading.
And as for why we can't see human beings evolving I'll give you a quick mathmatical example. With simplifications for the simple minded.
First assumptions, we assume that every pair of people in this generation ...[text shortened]... pite the fact that the math indicates that we shouldn't be able to observe any real change.
Taller people now may not be an evolutionary thing.
Originally posted by NosracNow, where's that rec button? You know, for irony's sake.
Prove that we, as human beings, are still evolving. C'mon, it should be easy for you evolutionists to show me a man with two heads, or nineteen arms. GOD created the world for all of us. Jesus died on the cross, and his blood was shed for you Amanion, and you Kelly, and you Scott and everyone in the entire world!!!!!!!!!
Originally posted by Halitose1. Even if what you say is true, preference/desire are not necessarily morality. If all B is A, it does not follow that all A is B.
For the moral relativist such as yourself, morality is merely the voicing of a preference/desire.
2. How is morality not merely the voicing of a preference/desire for a non moral relativist?
Originally posted by AThousandYoung1. Even if what you say is true, preference/desire are not necessarily morality. If all B is A, it does not follow that all A is B.
1. Even if what you say is true, preference/desire are not necessarily morality. If all B is A, it does not follow that all A is B.
2. How is morality not merely the voicing of a preference/desire for a non moral relativist?
Yes, I've explained this before, morality (as I see it) for the relativist can be construed as "normative preference". The statement I alluded to was an "aught" statement -- which would qualify as a moral position.
2. How is morality not merely the voicing of a preference/desire for a non moral relativist?
Please review my extended post in the "morals: relative or absolute" thread where I explained the distinctions between mere preference and normative claims.