Evolution In Industry - What has evolution ever done for us?

[chadpratch]

There should be a tag on a creationists license saying that they don't believe in evolution and they can't take part in anything that has be produced from the theory of evolution.

[MonsterEnergyMan]

Aww, Dawkins was such a cutie! lol

[SolMaster]

And this begs the question... what have Christian science and the theory of creation done for the world?

[arsjth]

@SolMaster

i dont want to make fun of u but if u think this has anything to do with darwinian evolution then i feel sorry for you.

using the term evolution to explain how something is manipulated bit by bit to achieve the optimal design is far more an example of intelligent design than random evolution.

and clearly it has nothing to do with the general theory of evolution and common ancestry.

u r easily duped by the smooth words of a conman.

now to ur question of christian science...Galileo.

[SolMaster]

Actually, this is exactly a representation of the Darwinian theory of evolution. Random chance is shown to lead to a "designed" result, and the (blind) designer has the goal of increasing survival and reproductive ability. These genetic manipulations do not require an appeal to religion. They are random. Which organisms survive is determined by genetics, so we get Darwinian evolution.

And, just because a scientist believes in God doesn't mean that their belief is at all relevant to their work.

[arsjth]

@SolMaster

as soon as you add some human design, ingenuity, plan to the scenario it is no longer darwinian which claims that it all happens by itself.

The only true representation is to simply look at nature as it is without adding or subtracting from it.

What we dont see is darwinian gradualism! PE was introduced to explain that fact.

Even Dawkins says that things have the appearance of design.

The only examples u give of evolution r the vestigial scenarios where we r losing function.

[SolMaster]

Also, a common misconception is that the Darwinian theory explains the ORIGIN of life, which it does not. Darwinian theory explains how life adapts to its outer circumstances, and that is its extent. If you're saying that "pure" (ie: non creationist) Darwinian theory is wrong because it does not accurately portray the origin of life, then you're arguing a non sequitur.

[arsjth]

@SolMaster

we need prodigious amounts of additional function & information for darwinian evolution.

They have already moved from Darwin to neo-darwin to the new synthesis that is being developed....see altenberg 16.

Genetic manipulations....these are your magic pudding. U need it desperately to prop up the flagging theory.

Evolution happens. yes.

does it mean that all creatures came from one creature billions of years ago?

No.

u need something so convincing so as to suspend our common sense

[SolMaster]

Also, you may not have understood my terminology. By "christian science", I mean scientific theories predicated and dependent on the assumption that the Bible is the ultimate truth. I argue that such organizations have made no notable contribution to our objective knowledge of the world around us. I didn't mean scientists who are Christan, I mean scientists whose professional work is necessarily Christian in nature. Sorry if I was being unclear.

[arsjth]

@Sol

"I argue that such organizations hav made no notable contribution2our objective knowledge of the world around us."

well that depends on whether u value accuracy.

Simple things such as believing we were designed/created leads christian scientists to say such crazy things as our organs all have functions. Where as evolutionists looking2prove their theory claim that any organ that appeared2hav no use...didnt!

SO their contribution is accuracy.

what do u think evolutionists hav contributed?

[SolMaster]

And, if you're trying to ask me what evolutionary theory has done for science, you should watch the very video that you're commenting on.

[arsjth]

@SolMaster

oh soul master...i seriously feel sorry for you.

if you think that these advancements are due to the idea that the world created itself unguided & undirected & that from there life commenced & every creature we see today came unassisted from that initial life???

u r kidding yourself.

A belief in evolution is not required to make evolving designs. U think that people only came up with these ideas because of common ancestry & biological change?

**slumped on desk in shock***

[arsjth]

@Sol

"scientific theories predicated and dependent on the assumption that the Bible is the ultimate truth."

what scientific theories are there predicated on the bible being false?

The key to the biblical truth is that we were designed/planned/special not random/accidental/mutants. We have a purpose/destiny/hope not born only 2 die & to have been no consequence.

The teaching of atheists works wel 4middleclass educated people who were socialized in2 basic christian values but reject God.

[arsjth]

@Sol

u should refer to the skeptics rules on pseudo science. 9 of 10 apply 2 evolution.

ur weak efforts2 discredit creation scientists by putting up a false argument of what they believe is nothing but a strawman.

Creationists start with a bias as do evolutionists.

but when the facts are considered who is more accurate.

i am sick of repeating myself but evolutionists named 180 vestigial organs in the human body, creationists said zero, they all have designd functions.

they were correct.

simple

[arsjth]

@SolMaster

Coelacanth was a fish that was believed by evolutionists to have gone extinct 400 mill yrs ago. They believed it was the intermediate of the tetrapods, it had leg like structures which evolutionists claimed were proto legs & used for walking.

Dam thing turned up alive today. doesnt walk on its legs.

Creationists predicted that it wouldnt & wasnt an intermediate.

correct again for the creationists.

can u see a pattern developing. Creationists consistently backed up by the facts.

[arsjth]

@SolMaster

"Unprovable (as well as unfalsifiable) faith is in a completely different realm from observed and methodically tested truth."

wow...its not even called science now...its called truth.lol.

Let me know how abiogenesis could be falsified please?

also let me know how abiogenesis was tested and observed methodically?

the reality is you have a faith that is unprovable.

ur faith is that life happened unguided & undirected. We have a faith that it was not undirected.

i await ur proof.

[SolMaster]

And there you go, assuming that evolution has anything to do with origins. You also assume that I'm an atheist. In reality, I believe in a sort of creation. Nothing like the bible, or any popular religion for that matter, but I believe that there was a consciousness which initiated this whole playground we call the universe. You could call it spiritualism or deism.

I never said that creationism is absolutely wrong. I just said that it is faith based and science is evidence based.

[SolMaster]

I believe that the design only went as far as creating a universe that was certain to create life. Once life inevitably surfaces, the process of evolution happens, because the goal of a living organism is to survive and create a legacy. The organisms that survive are the organisms which have the better set of genes. Iterate this a couple million times, with the most fit organisms surviving in each generation, and you have us. A few million years down the road, who knows what we'll have.

[arsjth]

@SolMaster

it has every thing to do with origins.

dont equivocate.

if your argument is that things change thru natural selection then y are we arguing?

every creationist believes that.

why do you divert the argument from the obvious by pretending abiogenesis is not linked to the atheistic evolutionary theory?

if u believe there is some form of consciousness that initiated life then u r and intelligent design supporter.

Yes creationism comes from the point of view that the bible is correct.

[SolMaster]

You're equating intelligent design with Christianity, and this is wrong. One can believe in a designer without ascribing to a religious dogma. The only two things I believe that Christians also believe are:

-Some form of intelligent consciousness created the universe

-The Golden Rule

And also, abiogenesis actually does have a strong basis. Many of the "organic" molecules occur very naturally in the absence of life, under correct circumstances. I think Dawkins has something on this.

[SolMaster]

I shouldn't have to do research for you, but as far as abiogenesis goes, here's an easy to understand video about the chemistry of life and a prominent theory explaining how the major players in the chemical structure of life may have emerged from the primordial seas:

watch?v=v8nYTJf62sE

(Or just search for "The origin of life made easy")

[arsjth]

@Sol

"You're equating intelligent design with Christianity"

please point out where i did this?

it is evolutionists who claim ID is creationism...they r clearly wrong & reveal their lack of knowledge of their opponents arguments.

Abiogenesis has string basis in the minds of those who believe it must have happened.

the fact that it has never happened again is a pretty good indicator it never happened in the 1st place.

Dawkins has something on everything but often speaks outside his field.

[SolMaster]

@arsjth

"Yes creationism comes from the point of view that the bible is correct. "

That is where you equated intelligent design with Christianity. That statement there that I quoted is true the other way around but not necessarily true the way you stated it, and it indicates to me that you think creationism IS necessarily Christianity.

[arsjth]

@SolMaster

creationism is what many christians believe in ie 6 days minimal phyla/barramin 6000 years ago.

That is not to say all christians believe in this.

as i remember you said ID and creationism were the same ....which they are not

[dxrocker69]

@arsjth "it is evolutionists who claim ID is creationism" actually, it was a Judge who ruled ID to be creationism and NOT science. Look up the "dover trial" where creationism/ID/creation science is all proven to be pseudo-scientific bullshit with no basis whatsoever...

Evolution theory however, that's another story. It has 200.000+ peer reviewed papers to support it, as well as an overwhelming amount of data. And no data to contradict it. At all.

[dxrocker69]

@arsjth the pope - and all other catholics - accept evolution theory as solid sound science. clearly it's not an "atheistic" theory. I'ld also like to point out that an "atheistic" doctrine in any way or form is unexistant.

Atheism tell syou about what the person is NOT, what he does NOT believe. It doesn't tell you anything about what he DOES believe or accept.

[arsjth]

@SolMaster

where as Evolution comes from the point of view that there is anaturalistic explanation for everything.

This is a faith position becos knowing is impossible.

all you can do is see what the facts fit.

both sides believe the facts fit their argument.

this is clear indication that the facts are not empirical but subject to the interpreters bias.

[dxrocker69]

@arsjth Science by defenition only concerns itself with natural things. By defenition, creationism etc can never be science as it tries to give a supernatural explanation of natural phenomena.

Evolution is a proven scientific fact as well as a theory explanaining the mechanism of the fact. Want evidence? Explain why Tibetians have a unique gene that provides them with better ways of survival on high altitudes? Nowhere else is this gene found. Explain our fused chromosome nr 2. Explain ERVs.

[arsjth]

@dxrocker69

"Science by defenition only concerns itself with natural things"

science should concern itself with truth not whether something is natural.

Tell me are aliens natural?

How about multiverses that we cant see? are they natural?

Science deals with much that is not natural? How do u define 'natural' that u should declare God is not natural?

"Evolution is a proven scientific fact " that should do it...dont worry about proof mate just say that a few times fast & abracadabra its true

[dxrocker69]

@arsjth "science should concern itself with truth" I'll even go further and say "reality" instead of "truth". There's no such thing as "absolute truth". There is such a thing as "reality".

"Tell me are aliens natural" Yes.

"How about multiverses that we cant see" If M-theory or something similar is correct, then yes.

"Science deals with much that is not natural" Such as?

"How do u define 'natural' that u should declare God " well... god only exists in your head and he violates physics

[dxrocker69]

@arsjth "that should do it...dont worry about proof mate just say that a few times fast & abracadabra its true" I have given you proof allready. Being our fused chromosome. You prefered to stick your head in the sand.

Let's try this another way. What would convince you that evolution is true? What would be convincing evidence for you?

[arsjth]

@dxrocker

"What would convince u that evolution is true?"

i already accept all the proven aspects. nything that was observed, tested & replicated i accept.

let me know when you observe a human chromosome fusing into a functional on going non degenerative chromosome please.

When i see a new species of being derived from man by the fusing of an additional two chromosomes i'll b convinced that it can happen.

Whilst u want me 2 assume that it happened & believe the most likely method then...sorry.

[dxrocker69]

@arsjth Something doesn't need to be replicated in order to be proven dumbass. You're basicly saying that humans are unable to determine cause when all we can see is effect.

You're saying that a criminal investigator is UNABLE to solve a murder crime because the murder can't be replicated.

[dxrocker69]

@arsjth Furthermore, the evidence you ask for is completely dishonest. By asking to demonstrate a species evolving in a completely different species (higher then the bacteria level, so we're talking a mammal to a completely different type of mammal) you are ACTUALLY asking to DEBUNK evolution theory.

Evolution Theory does not predict we should see such things. It predicts the OPPOSITE. It predicts that we will NOT see such a speciation even in our lifetime as that takes millions of years.

[dxrocker69]

@arsjth So with this post, you essentially just showed that you have NO CLUE about what evolution theory says and you even insult human intelligence by saying that we are unable to determine cause when all we can see is effect.

Yes, a lot of the evidence for evolution is circumstantial evidence. But that is ok. The central mechanism of evolution (decent with modification) has been proven countless times. It's just a matter of extra polating it to thousands, millions of generations.

[arsjth]

@dxrocker69 " our fused chromosome" from the 1991 paper "Similarities in chromosome banding patterns and hybridization homologies between ape and human chromosomes suggest that human chromosome 2 arose out of the fusion of two ancestral ape chromosomes"...SUGGEST "Although the precise nature of this putative fusion is unknown"....UNKNOWN "The observation that telomeric DNA is present in chromosomal band q13 suggests that telomeres, may have been involved in this fusion"...MAY HAVE hello??

[dxrocker69]

@arsjth Just like a DNA sample on a murder victim SUGGEST that the owner of the DNA is the murderer dumbass.

Watch and learn: watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk

We're talking past events here. It's also not just the chromosome. It's also the overwhelming amount of shared ERV's, that can ONLY get there if we have a common ancestor who was infected by the viruses.

Dumbass.

[arsjth]

@dxrocker69

I SUGGEST that Jesus Christ was the son of God & although it is UNKNOWN for sure, he MAY HAVE been.

will you take this statement as proof?

why should i take as proof the previously mention Chromosome 2 statements.

give me..PROVED,KNOWN & DID....you know why they didnt use this language dont you?

[dxrocker69]

@arsjth The thing is... in the paper, it's NOT the scientist who "suggests" the dna chromosome to be the result of the fusion of 2 primate chromsomes... It's the CHROMOSOME ITSELF.

Here, it is YOU making the suggestion based ON NOTHING AT ALL.

Data suggests explanations. Those explanations make predictions. You can check those predictions. Chromosome 2, ERV's, shared pseudo genes etc are things predicted by common ancestroy. The fact that these things exist, supports evolution.

[dxrocker69]

@arsjth "PROVED,KNOWN & DID....you know why they didnt use this language dont you? " Because science is not in the business of claiming absolute knowledge. Scientists aren't arrogant enough to do that.

A physicist will also say that dropping a pen "suggests" that it is attracted to the earth.

Why you should take the statment as proof?

Chromosome fusion is known mutation. It DOES happen in nature. Our fused mutation lines up perfectly with 2 primate chromosomes. Explain.

[arsjth]

@dxrocker69

"Explain our fused chromosome nr 2. Explain ERVs."

is this amateur hour?

Your fused chromosome only exists in your mind & is a complete assumption based entirely on the theory of common ancestry. U cant use your theory as proof of your theory.

There is no fused chromosome & u r being called on it to prove that it is fused from something else. Its just speculation based on similarities.

How unscientific...where does speculation fit in to the scientific process?

[dxrocker69]

@arsjth "Your fused chromosome only exists in your mind " Are you kidding me? This is scientific observed FACT. We have fused chromosome that matches perfectly with 2 primate chromosomes. Read a fucking biology book dumbass.

Or hear it from an actual biologist: watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk

This is not using "my theory" as "proof of my theory". This is using observations from nature supporting the theory. Evolution theory predicts that we should see such things. idiot.

[SolMaster]

Also, it's very easy, in retrospect, to say that a religious dogma was right whereas a scientific theory was wrong. What you fail to note is that there are many things that are claimed by religious books and institutions which are absolutely wrong, and these shortcomings are completely overlooked by the constituents whereas the few bits of what may be called "proof" are parroted.

You asked what the science of evolution has done for us. The answer is right up there. What has your religion given?

[arsjth]

@Sol

They work poorly for those who have not recieved the middleclass benefits and they are dangerous for those who havent accepted the values of their parents as many dont & decide that anything goes now as there are no ultimate restraints to lawlessness ie Stalin.

We have laws (rules) we sanction (punish) for disobedience. yet we seem to castigate God for having rules & punishments 4 breaching them.

Should we do away with speed limits?

Y not?

do u only do the right thing becos of the fear?

[arsjth]

@SolMaster

just to name a few you may have heard of. try not to remain ignorant & try even harder not to display it for all to see in a public forum.

Physics—Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin

Chemistry—Boyle, Dalton, Ramsay

Biology—Ray, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, Virchow, Agassiz

Geology—Steno, Woodward, Brewster, Buckland, Cuvier

Astronomy—Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Herschel, Maunder

Mathematics—Pascal, Leibnitz, Euler

[TheStraightFacts]

@arsjth

What about all the leading Christian scientists today who all accept and embrace evolutionary science? Ken Miller, Francis Collins, Francisco Ayala (who just won the Templeton Prize), Keith Miller, Simon Conway Morris, Darrel Falk, Bob Bakker, Karl Giberson, and many, many more.

watch?v=Of0PjoZY4L0

[arsjth]

@TheStraightFacts

what about them?

how is that relevant to the irrelevance of this video to darwinian evolution and how is it relevant to the contributions of the great creation scientists?

Solmaster asked a foolish question that only an ill-informed poorly researched brainwashed atheist would even ask.

its embarrassing.

[dxrocker69]

@arsjth Please cite any valued scientific paper that invokes magic, god or the supernatural.

If you can't, then your list is completely meaningless. Just because these people believed completely undefendable things, doesn't mean that those undefendable things are part of their scientific work. Newton didn't need god to make gravity work.

[arsjth]

@dxrocker69

"Newton didn't need god to make gravity work."

&i dont need Henry Ford to make my car work but his design of it made it possible2 drive.

ur strawman of magic is just the usual tripe from ignorant evolutionists. u already believe in magic because u believe that the universe was contained in a singularity & hey presto it became the universe. Didnt even need any1 to wave the magic wand.

Science eliminates th supernatural as an explanation so u wont find papers that invoke it.

[dxrocker69]

@arsjth No magic is part of big bang theory. It might be dificult to comprehend for sure, but magic is no part of it.

Science doesn't negate the supernatural. There simply is no observation of supernatural things.

The post I replied to seemed to claim that religion produced these scientists' work, or that somehow was an indespensible ingredient. However, no supernatural things are part of their actual scientific papers. Therefor you are wrong.

[arsjth]

@dxrocker69

"but magic is no part of it."

this is your interpretation of magic of course. how convenient. In your view the universe comes into being unassisted from a singularity the size of a pinhead but this is not magic. However if a being of supreme intellect & power does it from the same pinhead its called magic by u.

Y is it magic when u believe there is a cause but its not magic if u believe it had no cause?

just wishful thinking on your behalf.

[dxrocker69]

@arsjth Big bang theory doesn't violate the known laws of nature, therefor it is not magic. A "being of supreme intellect and power" that was present before the universe DOES violate the known laws of nature. So untill you actually prove that such a being is a normal occurance in nature, your supreme being will be regarded as magical.

magic/supernatural = in violation of natural laws

[arsjth]

@dxrocker69

"Science doesn't negate the supernatural. There simply is no observation of supernatural things."

lol.

agreed.

Now if only you had taken pictures of the big bang when u observed it!!!

but since there was simply no observation of the big bang science should not speculate on it.

Or can u speculate on events as long as ur conclusion does not involve a creator? I find it fascinating how u eliminate possibilities based on what outcome u find acceptable not on whether they r observable.

[dxrocker69]

@arsjth "Now if only you had taken pictures of the big bang when u observed it!!!" Expansion of the universe and back ground radiation are both excellent observations in support of big bang theory. It's quite stupid to ask for a picture of the singularity starting to expand. You're basicly implying that a detective is unable to solve a murder case if nobody witnessed the actual murder.

[TAz69x]

@SolMaster Helped the war industry.

[SolMaster]

@TAz69x Yes, and religion has never caused a war, ever. (That was sarcasm, since I know it's hard to discern seriousness on the internet.)

Science and technology don't give us any reasons to kill eachother. Technology only makes the process a bit more flashy. Many religions, on the other hand, explicitly give people reasons to kill. Let's face it; science is neutral on morality.

You can't condemn all technology because there are bad apples, many of which are influenced by religion.

[TAz69x]

@SolMaster lol, that was the inference; how religion can unleash the worst manifestations of humanity and aid the War industry.

Morality can be objective, with socials traits borne through allele variations to evolve pack behavior, empathy, comfort, etc.

[Limehammers]

without a religion, you can't define morality in the first place...

without religion, or God, you cant define what right and wrong..

if you can, prove it

[dxrocker69]

@Limehammers I don't subscribe to any religion and consider it wrong to run around punching people in the face. I consider it good to buy a hungry homeless fellow a sandwich.

There, proven.

All you need for telling right from wrong is a mimumum of education and some empathy.

Contrary to your belief system, I don't consider it good to kill babies, keep slaves, stone people or make people pay for the wrongs of their parents (or parent's parents or ancient forefathers). Religionh is immoral

[Limehammers]

@dxrocker69... you said "I" dont consider this wrong.. or you said "I" consider this good... Hitler thought he was doing "good" for all of humanity, something moral by wiping out jews.. he was definitely educated and did have empathy. The second people start determining whats right and wrong for themselves, chaos emerges. Life becomes a free-for-all. Do you understand this, that if people all do what they "think" is right, than awful things will happen? what do you mean by education?

[dxrocker69]

@Limehammers That's why we have law doofus.

And you have just proven yourself that morality is subjective. Yes, Hitler considered his actions good. Obviously others didn't agree. That's clear evidence that there is no such thing as objective morality.

The second you start ancient books dictate to you what is right or wrong, you plummeth society in the dark ages, just like medieval europe in the past or the middle east today.

[Limehammers]

@dxrocker69.. so you think that whatever makes society happier and more comfortable is whats right.. whatever helps out our peers and society is right. So again we go back to Hitler. He thought he was right, others didn't. Now what? who was right? were they both right? Law.. so do you think law determines whats right and wrong? Some governemnts back in history would kill people and take their land. what about stalins whole regime? so far, I dont know what you consider right and wrong

[dxrocker69]

@Limehammers Stalin, Hitler etc were people who acted just like a religion acts. Out of dogmatic stances. They replaced the church with the state. Today, we call theocracies, communism and facism "evil" for a very simple reason. We've seen where it leads to. The biggest evil of these people were their desires for power through oppression. Everything else they did was a direct result of that. Secular democracy was the response of society to such forms of rule.

[Limehammers]

You say "The biggest evil of these people(stalin, hitler) were their desires for power through oppression" why technically does that make him evil? because we all seem to think so and are all mostly in agreement? im sure there are a lot of people that would love to rule a country and oppress them. why not? If I think I am good and want to rule, why can't I and who is to tell me im wrong.. no one is more special than the other.. I still see a free-for-all moral system in your views.. chaos

[dxrocker69]

@Limehammers Look up the word "oppression". It's not exactly something that benefits society or the people residing in that society.

You don't seem to understand how secular democracy was born. We learn from history. And what we see is that in totalitarian systems, the oppression is NOT a good outcome for both the society as well as the people that live in it. You are just willingly sticking your head in the sand here.

[dxrocker69]

@Limehammers Ask yourself: why does secular democracies exist? Is it because totalitarian regimes like we have seen dozens in the past (like communism, theocracies, dictatorships etc) worked so well for both the nation as well as the people of that nation (and neighbouring nations)? Or is it rather because oppression, unnecessary suffering and injustice roamed the land?

" I still see a free-for-all moral system in your views.. chaos " secular democracy proves you wrong.

[dxrocker69]

@Limehammers You see a "free-for-all" moral system... I see a flexible moral system. One that is open to improvement. One that is humble and recognises the fact that we make mistakes and need to learn from it. One that realises that it is impossible to do good for everybody and can only strive to approach that eutopian model as closely as possible.

YOUR moral system however, is a static system NOT open for discussion with rules from millenia ago.

[Limehammers]

@dxrocker69 a "flexible" moral system.. so I can go murder people as long as society sees fit "one that is open to improvement" .. so who gets to say what the moral system is improving to? are you basing that on history and learning from mistakes? well, who says its a mistake in the first place.. you? society? government? "people with an education?"

"only strive to approach that eutopian model as close as possible" is that are ultimate goal then? it aint mine. it aint a lot of peoples

[dxrocker69]

@Limehammers " so I can go murder people as long as society sees fit" basicly, yes. And that's exactly what we see today. A soldier who kills someone in a war is not prosecuted for murder. Someone who kills someone in the street due to a dispute, robbery, whatever, IS prosecuted for murder.

"so who gets to say what the moral system is improving to" democratically elected governments (since they are the ones making the law), human rights organisations... And off course the population itself

[dxrocker69]

@Limehammers "are you basing that on history and learning from mistakes" What else? I think we can both agree that we installed a firm separation of church and state because a theocracy clearly wasn't working. Injustice roamed the land, freedom was inexistant. Now we see theocracies as evil, whereas no longer then a few centuries ago antoher form of rule was completely unthinkable (and funnily enough, considered to be evil...)

[dxrocker69]

@Limehammers "well, who says its a mistake in the first place.. you" Where would you prefer to live? A secular democracy or church ruled Europe during the dark ages?  A secular democracy or Nazi Germany? Or to bring it into the present: a secular democracy, or Taliban Afghanistan? So the answer to your question is... everybody with half a brain and a modern open education.

[dxrocker69]

@Limehammers The funny thing about your protest to this trail of thought is that YOU YOURSELF as a christian (assuming you're christian here, correct me if i'm wrong) admit that morals evolve and that we have a DIFFERENT understanding today of what should and shouldn't be allowed. Your very own bible contains laws to stone children to death if they are disobedient. You don't do that anymore do you? You don't think any more that that is ok do you?

[Limehammers]

@dxrocker69 .. I dont admit morals "evolve" because I don't think they can. Stoning children was back in the old testament, and Jesus changed these things in the new testament.. I asked if you thought we learned from mistakes, but then what I tried to get at was "who gets to call that a mistake?" from what you've been saying, you think government sets the rules for where we are to progress to. Government is where we should look to for morals...

[dxrocker69]

@Limehammers Let's assume you are correct that jezus "changed" them (which he didn't btw), then you essentially say that there is NO objective morality. Since it was ok once and not anymore.

" from what you've been saying, you think government sets the rules for where we are to progress to" Governments make laws. These laws are based on what happened in the past, what worked and what didn't and where do we need finetuning. And those lessons are gathered from all corners from society.

[dxrocker69]

@Limehammers yes, governments themselves can be evil. Just think about nazi germany, church ruled medieval europe or current theocracies in the middle east. A secular democracy however... that's a different story. Yyes, corruption still exists. But we get to change leaders every 4 years if we deem it necessary. In such systems, it gets harder for governments to act like Hitler or Stalin did, or to have militant branchess like the SS, the Inquisition or Iran's religious police.

[dxrocker69]

@Limehammers I'ld say that your biggest mistake is to try and portray morals as something universal which is set in stone. Morals are a flexible dynamic property of human civilisation. They change through time. And this change happens through experience. We can look back at the past and learn from it.

[dxrocker69]

@Limehammers Another nice argument against "static, universal morals" are the many moral dillemma's that can easily be imagined. For example...

Suppose a brilliant biologist who is extremely close to finding a permanent cure for all types of cancers needs a new hearth within 30 minutes or he'll die. For the sake of the example, we'll go ahead and assume only he can finish his anti-cancer research. 5 minutes further down the street is a prison. Here lives a dude who's been sentenced for life.

[dxrocker69]

@Limehammers The dude in prison is a perfect match for hearth transplantation. But he refuses, he doesn't want to die and give his life for that biologist.

Now... is it moral to murder that prisoner to save the biologist who then in turn will save millions with his cancer treatment?

How about if the perfect match is actually just a high school kid? Or a soldier? Any normal citizen? Is it "moral" to let the biologist (and the millions of cancer patients) die?

[dxrocker69]

@Limehammers Was it moral to throw an atomic bomb on Hirosjima, killing several hundred thousand people, in an attempt to force Japan into surrender? The alternative scenario models (invasion) predicted more then a million deaths (but all of them soldiers). Was it moral to kill 200.000 japanese citzens (men, women, children) to save a million soldiers?

Bottom line: sometimes, there simply isn't a real 'good' decision... This proves that objective universal morality simply doesn't exist.

[Limehammers]

@dxrocker69 alright so heres what I believe. I think morals are set in stone and aren't changeable except by the designer God.. (I do believe things changed as Jesus died on the cross.. things like no more sacrificing stuff.. we have grace).. anyways, the second morals arent set in stone, we get to make them.. gov, society, or people get to make their own morals.. so with that, there's always something different morally wrong or right.. its ever changing.. cont...

[Limehammers]

@dxrocker69 I think when people create their own morals, it is for their own benefit. killing my unborn baby makes me happy, smoking coke makes me happy, looking at child porn makes me happy, murdering ethnics makes me happy.. people are selfish and want what they want which always ends up corrupting their moral beliefs.. but who am I to say what they do is wrong or right, right? there is no right or wrong, its all relative.. chaos.. oh and about the guy in prison... cont...

[Limehammers]

@dxrocker69 the prisoner shouldn't have been killed to save thousands.. it's not even time for his deathrow yet.. by the gov's law, which we are supposed to follow says the bible, we should not kill him before his deathrow date.. we have a law to follow.. he should have been givin the option, but its barbaric to kill him whilst breaking the law.. it isnt fair for the prisoner.. it wasnt immoral to drop the bomb.. in fact, that strategy was more humane than most other strategies..

[Limehammers]

@dxrocker69 we couldve kept a fight going for several years whilst killing thousands more.. we could have dropped smaller bombs on their city day in and day out for years... they were "evil" and tried to kill us americans because we werent communist.. we were a threat to their future so we wiped em out fast and without too many casualties.. the japanese people were going to cause death while the prisoner wasnt going to cause death.. the disease was going to cause it..

[Limehammers]

@dxrocker69 for one thing, the bible teaches to follow government law until a point at which it contradicts the bible too much.. like lets say genocide... Our government (usa) has been going in the wrong direction imo and just because I disagree with my gov doesnt make me immoral whatsoever. if governments are capable of being corrupt, how can we EVER trust them with our moral set? a eutopia isnt possible because so many people have different views on whats right and wrong

[dxrocker69]

@Limehammers "just because I disagree with my gov doesnt make me immoral whatsoever" true. You're essentially proving my point: morality is not a black and white story. There's a lot of gray. In other words: it's SUBJECTIVE.

"so many people have different views on whats right and wrong" again proving my point. If morals were universal and objective and from a god... then they would NOT change. Then we wold NOT have different views.

[dxrocker69]

@Limehammers Since we belong to the same culture (and thus have the same cultural heritage) we most probably have quite a common understanding of what is right and what is wrong. But since you speak from a religious point of view, we will stand on completely opposite sides. I'll reason out of rational skepticism and with respect for my fellow humans, while you will just repeat whatever priests tell you.

[dxrocker69]

@Limehammers Examples of these points of difference most probably are:

Human's right to choose who they have sex with, when and why; Early abortion; masturbation; blasphemy; birth control; who can marry and who can't; death penalty; STRICT separation of church and state.

There's more, but I guess those are the main ones. Wouldn't you agree?

[dxrocker69]

@Limehammers What I meant by "education" is rather obvious I'ld think... It's the fact that we LEARN what is right or wrong (ie what is good for society and your peers or what is bad for society or your peers). Certain muslims have been brought up thinking it's a good thing to kill themselves and take as much people as possible with them. I'ld consider that a bad education.

[arsjth]

@dxrocker69

"All you need for telling right from wrong is a mimumum of education and some empathy."

Not at all. You are simply responding to your socialization. Were you born in PNG u might believe that it would heal your aids virus by having sex with a young girl.

The issue is this. if we r a result of random mutations then there is no basis for right & wrong. Dawkins already acknowledged this.

Adapting the values of others is possible & probable its just that they are baseless.

[dxrocker69]

@arsjth "Were you born in PNG u might believe that it would heal your aids virus by having sex with a young girl." How does that conflict with what I was saying? If anything, it proves that morality is subjective and culture dependent.

"The issue is this. if we r a result of random mutations then there is no basis for right & wrong. " your very own example involving aids cures proves that to be false. You allready proved that we create our own basis for morality.

[arsjth]

@dxrocker69

"Contrary to your belief system, I don't consider it good to kill babies, keep slaves, stone people or make people pay for the wrongs of their parents (or parent's parents or ancient forefathers). Religionh is immoral"

of course to us u seem so unintelligent becos u misunderstand & misquote everything intentionally.

U think it was only christians who had slaves? Whilst atheists rebelled against the concept? What a fool.

In biblical times slavery was a type of work, u got paid.

[dxrocker69]

@arsjth I don't care which people did what. The only relevant point is that your religions unanymously support and condone the stoning of people, the killing of babies, the enslavement of people etc. I'm not even claiming that you believe these vile acts are ok today. I'm just pointing out that your scripture has no problem with it.

And that clearly, you do. So your morality cannot possibly come from your scripture, since you don't agree with it.

[arsjth]

@dxrocker69

"The only relevant point is that your religions unanymously support and condone the stoning of people"

you are genuinely stupid & u r unashamed about it.

please name the most recently stoned person by a christian?

U may have christians confused with atheists who kill babies in the womb in staggering numbers. Unborn baby murder has been made legal becos u want the right to murder. U support this view. Christians support the protection of innocent life.

[dxrocker69]

@arsjth I don't consider early abortion "murder".

The only reason why christians can't engage in vile acts anymore is because secular law made it illegal.

Your bible tells you that you should stone your child if he is disrespectfull to you and doesn't obey you. Does it not? ps: the fact that you don't agree with that proves that your morals do not come from the bible.

[arsjth]

@dxrocker69

Of course a ingrate who grows up with the freedom & security provided for him by the previous generation criticizes the customs & habits of previous cultures. becos he is unable to understand that culture affects all groups.

If u werent self employed u didnt go & work 40 hours per week in the local factory, the economy didnt work that way.

Do u live in the USA? do they have the death penalty? Do u support abortion?

i imagine u do.

U r a HYPOCRITE !

[dxrocker69]

@arsjth I have no idea what you are talking about dude.

I live in Belgium and am a second generation immigrant. My dad busted his ass at the factory to get me through school. I grew up with not much.

I do not support the death penalty. And I that if somebody wants an early abortion, then that is their business. Wheter I, or anyone else, approve of it or not shouldn't really matter. I'ld say that measures should be taken as soon as the fetus could survive outside of the whomb.

[arsjth]

@dxrocker69

"And I that if somebody wants an early abortion, then that is their business."

wow....murdering babies is private business.

what if i want to stone someone? private or public?

[dxrocker69]

@arsjth a lump of cells is not a baby. Just like a spermazoid or an eggcell is not a baby.

You conveniently missed the part where I said "EARLY abortion".

And even then... if a woman is 6 months pregnant for example, and complications arise which guarantees the woman to die without aborting, then aborting is the moral thing to do. Stoning a person is actually committing murder.

[pinkishblueblack]

i love the comparison between the computer's solution and the biological solution :)

[evolutionisscience]

This is an excellent segment.

[x246869]

I didn't know I was using evolution principals for a contest years ago, but now see how it relates to evolution.

The goal was to put as many words, from a list of 175 product names, into an 8x8 checker board grid.

All I did was randomly put a letter or 2 into the grid. I then asked how many words were in the grid. If the result wasn't any worse, then I kept the change.

Can't argue with the result of 1'st place and a nice cash prize.

[youpick4me]

brilliant!