PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Moral and ethical problems
       Evolution, life without morals

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I would like to set the stage for this debate with a dictionary. It seams to me that even Darwin didn't have a clear definition of "species" and such.

Species- within a certain kind

Kind- a certain type such as dogs, cats,            people, rats, and so on and so forth.

Variation- Macro-evolution small changes within kinds

Evolution- Major changes from kind to kind

Please use these terms so we all know what eachother mean. If you have any problems with my terms please feel free to tell me why.

The first reason i wish to pose for the case that Evolution calls for moral instability is:
1. If we have evolved from apes we are just a link in the chain therefore we have no reason whatsoever to respect eachother. Whoever has the most power or strenght has the right to elliminate everyone else.
2. Why bother to save any other animals? You can't be an evolutionist and save animals that are going extinct.
3.There is no need for law because we all are changing anyway.
4. If evolution were true why is there order? especially among humans? we all are changing.

Do we have any moral responsibility if we have evolved and why?


 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 12:51 AM on May 27, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I don't know why it won't let me sign in. I am Turbo 3. There is a mistake in my dictionary. Under variation that should be micro not macro. sorry.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 01:03 AM on May 27, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You're going to define species in terms of kind -an undefined term-?

If you have any problems with my terms please feel free to tell me why.


Variation, as you call it, is evolution.

1. If we have evolved from apes we are just a link in the chain therefore we have no reason whatsoever to respect eachother.

Why wouldn't we?  It means we're all related and in it together.

Whoever has the most power or strenght has the right to elliminate everyone else.


Says who?  

2. Why bother to save any other animals? You can't be an evolutionist and save animals that are going extinct.

You can't be a rational human being and save animals at the same time?  

3.There is no need for law because we all are changing anyway.

Wtf are you talking about?  Law maintains social order, which is necessary for human survival (or any social animal, for that matter).

Do we have any moral responsibility if we have evolved and why?

Moral behavior results in an ordered society which benefits everyone.  
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 4:29 PM on May 27, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I know that variation is "evolution" to many scientists today but variation is also micro-evolution and not macro evolution therefore I defined it as a different thing so as to avoid confusion.

I defined "kind" It is a set such as dogs, cats, speicies as i understand them from others I have debated is a variation of a dog or a cat or such.

1. We may be in it altogether but natural selection would say that whatever is more capable and more able to evolve should win out.
Darwins theory Says that the strongest and fittest will survive.

2. Exactly you can't be a rational veing and believe in saving animals.
"Extinction and natural selection will, as we have seen, go hand in hand"-Charels Darwin in Origens of Species By means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
In essence you if you believed in saving exteenct animals would be hindering the evolutionary process.

3. Why is there law then? If we are all evolving and survival of the fittest and such how can there be order? Who or what created order?

Survival of the Fitest and evolution do not benifit everyone so why should we have an ordered society that benifits everyone?
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 6:55 PM on May 27, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Darwins theory Says that the strongest and fittest will survive.

The strong and fit ENOUGH will survive.

In essence you if you believed in saving exteenct animals would be hindering the evolutionary process.

Evolution has no goal and even if it did, I don't owe it any favors to help the process.

Survival of the Fitest and evolution do not benifit everyone so why should we have an ordered society that benifits everyone?

Each individual is part of that 'everyone'.  It is in their own -and the groups'- best interest to cooperate.   Nearly everyone loses in anarchy.  
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 7:22 PM on May 27, 2003 | IP
Turbo

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well than the strongest and fit enough. So why should we look our for others? I am strong and fit enough maybe others aren't.

So who cares if we hinder or help it it has no goal. Exactly if it had a goal or purpose then there would be a purpose to life.

So what if almost everyone loses? The one persone who was most fit has controll.




-------
Body Peircing Saved My Life!!!!!
Has It Saved Yours????
 


Posts: 15 | Posted: 11:04 PM on May 27, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So why should we look our for others? I am strong and fit enough maybe others aren't.


No person is always strong.  Helping others when they're down makes it more likely for you to be helped when you are down.

So who cares if we hinder or help it it has no goal. Exactly if it had a goal or purpose then there would be a purpose to life.

What are you talking about?  Why would a scientific theory bring meaning to anyone's life anyways?
Man, I'm sure gonna live for that Theory of Gravity.

So what if almost everyone loses? The one persone who was most fit has controll.

I assume you can provide a situation where one person is more fit than the other 6 billion combined, especially since that person requires a mate for their 'fitness' to be passed on.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 01:19 AM on May 28, 2003 | IP
Turbo

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Helping others when they are down would be a service. According to many people serving isn't a great thing compaired to ruling.
Are you saying our morality should be based on doing things for others so they will help us?
Hmmm, that sounds like the golden rule. That is found in the bible. According to evolution though there are no moral absolutes.

We do not live for gravity, but why do we have natural and moral laws if evolution is true? Evolution states that things came about in an accidental fasion with the strongest or most "evolved" winning out. What morality can people who believe we came from 100% natural selection have? I'm here by chance then. There would be no reason to do anything if I was here by chance.
If I asked who am I? the answer would be just another cog in the wheel of life.
Why am I here? I'm an accident.
Where am I going? Nowhere, buried.
No reason for anything any living any desire to make a difference, any desire to do anything or be anything. Other than selfish me actions. Because if we are here by accident I'm the only one I'm oing to care about.

You said that person requires a mate to be passed on, well how did we get here in the first place if mates are needed to pass on information?
Maybe there is one person who has more strength and power than 6 billion. Maybe they should have absolute dominion.

Why is there law? We are all changing/ evolving. why bother being moral?

Why should we bother to save endangered animals? Going exteinct is natural so let em all die.

Where does morality and Law come from? It comes from believing that all we see around us comes from a God or a creator. Why else would there be morals, laws, and evidence of a designer?




-------
Body Peircing Saved My Life!!!!!
Has It Saved Yours????
 


Posts: 15 | Posted: 7:27 PM on May 28, 2003 | IP
ufthak

|       |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm here by chance then. There would be no reason to do anything if I was here by chance.


You are not here by chance.  You are here because your parents chose to have you.

We are all changing/ evolving. why bother being moral?

What do you mean by this? I fail to see the point you are trying to make here.  I hate it when people bring morality into evolution.  Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with morals.  It is simply the explanation for the diversity of life we see today.  Why must people constantly bring this question in, and claim that the two can't coexist?



Why should we bother to save endangered animals? Going exteinct is natural so let em all die.


Why should we bother? Because we are entering a new extinction phase in the history of the planet.  Yes, species go extinct all the time, and the earth can definitely take quite a few losses.  But the question no one can answer is how many losses before it is too late, and irreparable damage is done to the ecosystem.  Think of the earth as a plane.  You can remove a bolt here, and a nut there, and the plane will still fly, but when will you remove that one crucial bolt holding everything together? I'd rather not find out about where that bolt is the hard way.  So, we should prevent species from going extinct.
 


Posts: 28 | Posted: 10:22 PM on May 28, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

According to evolution though there are no moral absolutes.


Which part of the theory speaks of morals...at all?  

We do not live for gravity

Of course we don't.  The ToG, like the ToE, explain natural phenomenon, they don't provide guides to life.  One finds that in their personal religion or philosophy.

There would be no reason to do anything if I was here by chance.


Humanity is here because of selection and the will of our ancestors, not pure chance.  You are here because your parents wanted you (or maybe didn't want you, but wanted to have sex).

Where does morality and Law come from?

As already explained, moral behavior is necessary to the survival of any social animal.

It comes from believing that all we see around us comes from a God or a creator.

No, it doesn't.   How would the existance of a creator give you reason to be moral?
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 01:46 AM on May 29, 2003 | IP
Turbo

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But as evolution would state I am here by chance cause we came from a chance ansestor a long time ago.

You didn't answer the question, why bother being moral? If i have an evolutionistic world veiw everything else that I understand comes from my basic wroldveiw so yes they are linked. I didn't say they couldn't co-exist just that it didn't make any sence.

Darwin said in his book that Extinction and evolution go hand in hand. If we stop extinction we stop evolution. How do we know that we didn't hinder our offspring from being able to do something more?Darwin belived in extinction and said it was natural.

Where would you say morals come from then? Why do we have morals?



-------
Body Peircing Saved My Life!!!!!
Has It Saved Yours????
 


Posts: 15 | Posted: 01:50 AM on May 29, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If i have an evolutionistic world veiw everything else that I understand comes from my basic wroldveiw so yes they are linked.

There is no 'evolutionistic world view'.   Evolution is a science.  

If we stop extinction we stop evolution.

No, we don't.  To stop evolution, you'd have to either wipe out all life or stop reproduction.

Why do we have morals?


For like the 5th time, morals are a necessary contruct for any social animal to thrive.

Now why do YOU think we have morals?
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 12:46 PM on May 29, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution cannot explain a human's consciousness of right and wrong--what even defines such actions? The animal kingdom--and I mean everything falling below human--shies from having the stable order that homosapiens do. Also strange is the fact that our relationships tend to be for a lifetime, whereas animals tend to raise their young only to a certain age before releasing them. My point is, humans exercise a phenomenal superiority to the rest of the animal Kingdom. However, if without the creationism documentm, I find it startingly unlikely that humans of any sort would have survived throughout the comings of evolution. Inferior, simpler organisms that would later become homosapiens could not be expected to survive now-modern day creatures such as alligators, which had surely survived the extinction of the dinosaurs. It's your judgement call.
   What do you believe?
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 6:42 PM on May 29, 2003 | IP
Turbo

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolutionism and Darwinism are world veiws. How people veiw there world.


I know you said that morals are necessary for animals to thrive. The question I am trying to ask is why? why do they thrive on morals? And where did they come from?

Evolution cannot explain right or wrong, true but our definition of right or wrong depends on what we believe.




-------
Body Peircing Saved My Life!!!!!
Has It Saved Yours????
 


Posts: 15 | Posted: 12:23 AM on May 30, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Evolutionism and Darwinism are world veiws. How people veiw there world."

Evolutionism is a made up word by creationists trying to distort the TOE.  The Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory, not a world view.

"I know you said that morals are necessary for animals to thrive. The question I am trying to ask is why? why do they thrive on morals? And where did they come from?"

Morals are essentially behavior patterns that have evolved to ensure the survival of the species.  Obviously social animals that evolved complex behavior patterns are successful.  Where did they come from?  They evolved.  Where do you think they come from?

"Evolution cannot explain right or wrong, true but our definition of right or wrong depends on what we believe."

I think this is untrue to a degree.  I believe your a Christian and I know I'm an atheist.  From a societal point of view, what you and I believe is right or wrong is probably identical.  So in the same society right or wrong does not depend on what you believe in.




 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 02:51 AM on May 30, 2003 | IP
Turbo

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes, evolution is a world veiw. So is creationism. They are both theorys of how we got where we are. They both canno't be proven 100% sure, they have to be believed.

Why are morals seen in humans and not apes? If we came from them how come thy have multiple sex relationships and humans only have one, (well unless they are unmoral)?
There are a whole heck of a lot of moral differences in other primates. Why such a big gap?


I know for a fact that your version of right and wrong would not be the same. except a few major rules found in the ten commandments, Even then it i'm sure we wouldn't agree.

I think God gave us morals when he created people.

In a poll of the American people 90% said they believed there was a God, 40% of those 90 believed he used evolution, 9% af the american people are atheists that believe in evolutio.
It does effect the way people think and act and it is a way that people veiw thier world therefore it is a worldveiw.

I won't use the term evolutionism anymore if it angers you.  Evolution and Creation are both sientific theorys. I believ they are both religions also because they both take faith that it happened that way.




-------
Body Peircing Saved My Life!!!!!
Has It Saved Yours????
 


Posts: 15 | Posted: 11:33 PM on May 30, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes, evolution is a world veiw. So is creationism.

Evolution is a science.  Naturalism is a worldview.  Creationism is an archaic idea.  Christianity is a world view.

They both canno't be proven 100% sure, they have to be believed.


No theory is proven 100% true.   They can, however, be disproven, as Creationism has been.   Evolution, like other scientific ideas, is accepted on the weight of their evidence and success.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 12:10 AM on May 31, 2003 | IP
Turbo

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Creationism is a science also evolutionas in micro evolution is a science. Macro evolution is not science.

Evolution other than Micro or variation has been disproven.



-------
Body Peircing Saved My Life!!!!!
Has It Saved Yours????
 


Posts: 15 | Posted: 12:13 AM on May 31, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Creationism is most definitely NOT a science.  It doesn't provide mechanisms, much of it is not falsifiable, and the rest HAS been falsified.

You would have to provide a barrier to macroevolution to 'disprove' it.  And any barrier you come up with will be wrong, since macroevolution has already been observed.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 12:39 AM on May 31, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Yes, evolution is a world veiw. So is creationism. They are both theorys of how we got where we are. They both canno't be proven 100% sure, they have to be believed."

No evolution, as has been stated countless times, is not a world view, it's a scientific theory.  And as with all scientific theories, evolution is can not be proven 100%.  But creationism is an old scientific theory that was completely disproved over 200 years ago.  It's false, it's not true, it's only a myth.  

"Creationism is a science also evolutionas in micro evolution is a science. Macro evolution is not science.

Evolution other than Micro or variation has been disproven."

There is no difference between micro and macro except the difference invented by creationists.  As for macro evolution being disproven, now that's a boldface lie.  You can believe in what ever you want, that doesn't change reality.  Evolution, macro and micro, is a fact.  



 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 05:03 AM on May 31, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sorry I answered these posts out of order...

"Why are morals seen in humans and not apes? If we came from them how come thy have multiple sex relationships and humans only have one, (well unless they are unmoral)?
There are a whole heck of a lot of moral differences in other primates. Why such a big gap?"

First of all morals are complex social behaviors that preserve the group.  I say that apes do have morals appropriate to their society.  Complex social behavior has been observed and documented.  I think you are completely wrong with that assertion.  And you can't possibly be claiming the vast majority of humanity only takes one sex partner?!  With divorce well over 50%?!  You've got to be kidding me.  While I have absolutely no evidence at all, I'd wager that the average human would have more sex partners during the course of their life than the average ape!
And the gap in the complexity of primate morals, I think it probably compares roughly to the intelligence of the primate, the more intelligent, the more complex the social behavior.

"I know for a fact that your version of right and wrong would not be the same. except a few major rules found in the ten commandments, Even then it i'm sure we wouldn't agree."

I'm a relatively law abiding citizen, I'm a family man still in love with his wife (15 years) and never been divorced, I live by the "golden rule", now you tell me how different my version of right from wrong is from yours...

"I think God gave us morals when he created people."

Since we see different levels of social organization in animals, I think it's pretty obvious morals evolved.

"In a poll of the American people 90% said they believed there was a God, 40% of those 90 believed he used evolution, 9% af the american people are atheists that believe in evolutio."

I'd like to see this poll, because I sure don't believe it on your say so.  It seems to imply that christian creationists are in the majority, which I seriously doubt.   I'll check around because I was pretty sure most christians accepted evolution and those who believe in creationism were a minority.







 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 05:25 AM on May 31, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why do you guys keep saying that "evolution is only a theory, it has nothing to do with worldviews"?  It seems to me that it would be pretty obvious that this theory has serious ramifications for its adherents.  Allow me to explain...

Evolution pretty much rules out God, at least the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible.  It's been proven that the Creation and Flood accounts in Genesis are written in such a style as to indicate a historical account, not a figurative story, so people who strive to make Christianity and evolution fit must invent some pretty clever language to cross this barrier.

Secondly, creationism has not been disproven, any more than the theory of gravity has been disproven.  Creationists and evolutionists all look at the same evidence - we all live on the same earth, after all - and draw different conclusions.  One looks at the fossil record and sees a record of       and evolution, while another sees a burial record after the Flood.  There is evidence supporting both theories - some say more for evolution, some say more for creation.  The difference is that I, as a Christian, have had a spiritual encounter with a living God that, sadly, you can't understand because you don't believe in Him.  I'm ready to accept the word of God over the fallible word of man any day.  And this isn't just blind faith - this faith is supported by much empirical evidence, and not just in the areas of science.

But anyways, since evolution rules out belief in the God of the Bible, you have one of two options.  You could adhere to the beliefs of some other world religion that is less specific about origins - say, Buddhism - or you could simply profess atheism.

Either choice has its problems.  First off, these other world religions - they're big on faith and followers, but short on empirical facts and evidence.  One's faith is only as good as what it's placed in, so if you're believing something that is only evidenced in your own mind, well, you see where that goes.

Atheism has its problems too.  How can you know that there is no God, somewhere, in the entire universe?  To know such a thing would be to know everything, therefore yourself being God.  The most viable position to have is that of agnostic - this is honest, because it's saying you're unsure of what you believe and are either searching or content in your unsureness.

The debate about a "moral evolutionist" stems from these conclusions.  If you're an atheist, this implies that you have no higher moral power to be accountable to, short of the government of where you live.  Even this presents problems, however, because think about it - where did these morals come from?  Where did traits, such as altruism (giving your life for somebody else's) come from?  Altruism is directly discordant with evolutionary theory, which embraces survival of the fittest and looking after yourself before others.  If your genes are to be passed on, you must keep yourself alive at all costs, right?  So why do something like die for somebody else?  When did that idea get inserted into our evolutionary history - when we were still lesser life forms not even capable of rational reasoning?  Come on, guys.  These are fairy tales, not science.

I'll close with this - if a beast turns into a man in a second, it's called "magic" - the kind of thing you see in movies.  Throw in a few billion years and it's called science.  Why?

{rory}
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 10:56 AM on May 31, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution pretty much rules out God, at least the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible.

No, evolution, like EVERY science, must use a naturalist methodology.   NO science invokes gods because if they did, they wouldn't be sciences.

It's been proven that the Creation and Flood accounts in Genesis are written in such a style as to indicate a historical account, not a figurative story, so people who strive to make Christianity and evolution fit must invent some pretty clever language to cross this barrier.


If one wants to take a literal interpretation of such stories, then they're simply wrong.

Secondly, creationism has not been disproven

Creationism's predictions on the fossil record, the earth, and life have been wrong.

Atheism has its problems too.  


Atheism doesn't require anyone be sure, though many atheists (strong atheists) will say they are due to the incoherence of gods.   Atheism merely requires one to lack theism.   An agnostics says either 'I don't know' or 'We can't know'.   Either is compatible with weak atheism or even theism (ie: I don't know, but I have have it does).

altruism etc

This has been explained multiple times in this thread.

I'll close with this - if a beast turns into a man in a second, it's called "magic" - the kind of thing you see in movies.  Throw in a few billion years and it's called science.  Why?

Because the mechanisms by which organisms change take longer than a second.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 1:15 PM on May 31, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This is still me, just with a username.

Evolution as a science, in and of itself, does not invoke God.  You're right.  However, it's a common concept - taught in high school, actually - that science affects morals, ethics, and the like.  I think the exact words were that science is simply there; it's up to the people to interpret it and develop ethics.  Well, I would say that certain ethics/conclusions to a this theory are inherent to the theory within the constraints of Christianity - e.g., the conclusion that evolution rules out the need for God is inherent because of the traits of God (special creation, flood, etc.).  Drawing any other conclusion based on the science is illogical, since this conclusion makes the most sense and fits what is known about the Christian God.

"If one wants to take a literal interpretation of such stories, then they're simply wrong."

Wow, what a dismissive statement.  That sure induces debate and discussion!  Surely you have your reasons for believing that it's "simply wrong" - are all Christian scientists, theologians, and politicians insane because they believe in a living God?  Do you think we're all morons or something, that we just don't understand science?  Hardly.  The honest answer to my statement would have been "Even though they are written historically, I do not believe in the God that caused them or the book they're contained in, so I still consider them lacking."  It's not a matter of "interpretation", my friend, it's a matter of whether you believe the historical account actually happened or not.  That is yours to choose; but you cannot say that it is open to "interpretation" because that option does not lie open.  That's like those people who believe the Holocause never happened.  It's only "open to interpretation" to those few who, well, wish to believe that way.

Creationism's "predictions" have not been wrong; the CORRECT answer is "I do not agree with the conclusions creation scientists draw from the evidence."  

As for the "lack theism" comment, please go to www.carm.org/atheism/lackbeliefoutline.htm to understand why I completely disagree with your statement that atheism "merely requires one to lack theism".   The outline is very concise and proves that one cannot simply "lack belief" in something.

And please don't just call "change" evolution.  Change, or speciation, is not evolution.  Evolution requires the introduction of new and beneficial genes through mutations.  And we all here know how often beneficial mutations actually happen.  "Beneficial mutation" might as well be an oxymoron.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 7:49 PM on May 31, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

To add to that:

The conclusion that I wish to reach is this: Evidence does not speak for itself.  All historical facts, fossils, etc. are interpreted within one's own philosophical framework.  This is undeniable, has been well documented by scientists on both sides of the debate, and is self-incriminating when discussed.  Therefore, the issue isn't the evidence for either theory - the issue is the underlying philosophical presuppositions.  I challenge you to question your so-called "lack of belief" in God, and see just why.  Are you waiting for Him to grab you or something?  Or are you just comfortable with the way you are?  Believe me, I've been there.  And I'm glad I'm not anymore.

{rory}
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 7:53 PM on May 31, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

are all Christian scientists, theologians, and politicians insane because they believe in a living God?

I was referring to events such as a global flood, not simply a belief in gods.

Creationism's "predictions" have not been wrong; the CORRECT answer is "I do not agree with the conclusions creation scientists draw from the evidence."  


Incorrect.  Scientific theories, as some people would like Creationism to be, must make predictions.   The predictions Creationism makes are false.  

I do not agree with that site's outline.   Nonbelief is always the default position.   One must be convinced of the positive.  Atheism could be considered the author's 'unsure' position as well.

It also claims there are not positive proofs for atheism, only rebuttles of theist proofs.  If the outline writer had spent 2 seconds on google, they would know there are many atheist proofs (of varying quality).

And please don't just call "change" evolution.  Change, or speciation, is not evolution.

Evolution is defined as a change in allele frequences in a population over time.  Both 'adaptation' and speciation fulfill this definition.

'Beneficial' is relative to the situation.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 8:00 PM on May 31, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Evolution pretty much rules out God, at least the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible. "

Then how come the majority of Christians accept evolution?  As has been said numerous times, evolution does not rule out God.

"Secondly, creationism has not been disproven, any more than the theory of gravity has been disproven.  Creationists and evolutionists all look at the same evidence - we all live on the same earth, after all - and draw different conclusions.  One looks at the fossil record and sees a record of       and evolution, while another sees a burial record after the Flood.  There is evidence supporting both theories - some say more for evolution, some say more for creation.  The difference is that I, as a Christian, have had a spiritual encounter with a living God that, sadly, you can't understand because you don't believe in Him.  I'm ready to accept the word of God over the fallible word of man any day.  And this isn't just blind faith - this faith is supported by much empirical evidence, and not just in the areas of science."

You're 100% wrong here.  Creationism was completely disproven over 200 years ago.  Yes
creationists and evolutionists do look at the same evidence and draw different conclusions, but one set of conclusions is based on empirical evidence and reality, the other is based on a book of primitive myths.  A belief in creationism is based solely on blind faith.  You forget that at one time the bias was for a young, created earth but despite this strong bias, christian geologists realized that the earth could not possibly be young and was a product of natural forces not supernatural creation.  The evidence was that convincing.  

"If you're an atheist, this implies that you have no higher moral power to be accountable to, short of the government of where you live.  Even this presents problems, however, because think about it - where did these morals come from?  Where did traits, such as altruism (giving your life for somebody else's) come from?  Altruism is directly discordant with evolutionary theory, which embraces survival of the fittest and looking after yourself before others.  If your genes are to be passed on, you must keep yourself alive at all costs, right?  So why do something like die for somebody else?  When did that idea get inserted into our evolutionary history - when we were still lesser life forms not even capable of rational reasoning?  Come on, guys.  These are fairy tales, not science."

Your claims that God gave us morals are laughable.  Morals evolved from social interaction.  We see social structure in lower animal groups, by our greater intelligence it is reasonable to expect our social structure to be more complex, creationists believe that this is a gift given to us from God.  But we see the rudiments of morals in various degrees in the animal kingdom, so it is not something that sets us above the other animals, it is something that we share with them and evolved from their behavior.  
You say altruism is discordant with evolutionary theory, I say you're wrong, altruism has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution.  You're trying to twist evolution into something it is not.  Evolution deals with the physical developement of life, you can't apply your straw man version of it to social behavior.
And it's funny you calling science a "fairytale" when you believe in fairytales like creationism and Noah's flood, which have been decisively disproven.
Atheism has it's problems?  Sorry, I don't see them.  I don't need any higher power to be accountable to.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:53 PM on May 31, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1. If we have evolved from apes we are just a link in the chain therefore we have no reason whatsoever to respect eachother. Whoever has the most power or strenght has the right to elliminate everyone else.

Apes still treat other apes with respect...the bigger the ape the more respect received from the group....how is this different from political standards...

2. Why bother to save any other animals? You can't be an evolutionist and save animals that are going extinct.

Evolution does not totally take away free will...human choice allows us to save animals weither or not it is their turn to evolve

3.There is no need for law because we all are changing anyway.

again we still have free will...and most organisms that are proven to think for themselves instead of instinctive behaviour....follow a leader...or show some type of democracy

4. If evolution were true why is there order? especially among humans? we all are changing.

evolution takes a long time to be achieved....we have not reached changing point yet....


Do we have any moral responsibility if we have evolved and why?

I think you do know the answer to that...because you are indeed asking the question


 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 02:21 AM on August 4, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Anyone else notice that people are trying to make evolution into a religion in this thread?  It's a theory people, not a belief system.

:D
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 09:45 AM on August 4, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Are you saying Darwin didn't create the Earth in 7 days?

Oh no we've been lied to!

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 6:18 PM on August 5, 2003 | IP
TheoMorphic

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution is in no way a guideline for moral behavior. It is a theory that explains observations in the natural world, and how life arrived at the state we see today.

While evolution does not explicitly try to predict why humans (and other animals) interact with each other in certain ways, I can imagine situations that would have certain behaviors evolve over time. Unlike physical characteristics of animals, however, the evolution of behavior would be next to impossible to actually prove, since it has to do with the brain. Nevertheless, it doesnít stop me from speculating, and having discussions about how we act came about (including morals).

I donít see any problem with individuals believing in a God, and this God having perfect knowledge about everything, and (in having perfect knowledge) knowing what is the best moral code for humans (or not knowing the code, but instead having enough power to say ďbecause I said soĒ, and being followed).

I personally however havenít seen any evidence that shows the existence of this (or any other) God. Because of my upbringing, and education, and just who I am, I have a lot of difficulty believing in something on faith alone. I prefer to have evidence (and reasons) to hold beliefs. Granted, there are some beliefs I hold that donít have reasons to back them up, however based on past experiences I think Iíll find supporting reasons to hold these beliefs.

For example I believe that it would be bad for our government and police force (in the US) to be able to search homes with out probable cause. The opposing argument is that only people who have something to hide would oppose this kind of law. Another unfounded belief I have is that humans should remain faithful to whomever they are currently with, even if both parties donít mind being promiscuous.

While I have a few moral positions that are not supported by reason and logic, most of my positions are. These positions are held with out any reliance on a God to tell me what to do or think. Most of the morals correlate with the teachings of the bible, and Christianity (and probably most other religions), however as any statistics teacher will tell you: correlation does not prove causation.

Morals do not have ANY absolute value. Morals and ethics were created by humans. There is no absolute moral authority that can be objectively realized. Just look at cultures all over the world to see differences in behaviors. There are a lot of similarities between moral codes (such as no killing, or stealing), however itís not hard to see the logic in codes like this in structured societies. Of course just because they can be explained reasonably does not mean there is no God directing everything. While good and evil donít ACTUALLY exist, most humans can agree on some guidelines. I accept that some people see God as the origin of morality, and humanity, and take their guidelines from him... and I will accept this position so long as they do not hurt me, or take away anything from my life.

Sorry this turned into so much of a rant. I felt my personal beliefs were being attacked when it was suggested that a believer in evolution could not feel purpose or meaning in life. A person who asserts that is simply wrong; Iím proof as to why.
I have my own set of moral codes that I would be happy to discuss, and talk about, including why I hold certain beliefs, and where my morals probably came from. At the risk of attacking anotherís belief systemÖ I think being able to say where my morals derive from is more than what a believer in Godís word and law can say.

 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 02:30 AM on August 28, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

about all these undefined terms...
here try this...
define
number

and oh yeah...moral schmoral...this is not a moral question where you think we evolve from apes? absurd but then we'd have no right to respect and those who are most powerful have right to destroy lessers...that's just ranting.

Either we did or we didn't. We can't have NOT evolved just because some people think it's immoral!
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 9:18 PM on September 9, 2003 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

©†YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.