Question for Evolutonists

[DrStrangelove]

I have a question for evolutionists. I am only curious and just want to keep an open mind about everything.

If creationists can't proove God because there is no proof, then how do evolutionists proove love exists? How do they proove morality exists? If morality does exist, what is moral and what decides what is and isn't? Furthermore, if morality doesn't exist than why isn't everyoe out raping, stealing, killing, and doing anything else to appease your immediate wants?

I mean this in all open-mindedness and I hope everyone who posts here posts with the same state of mind... (does that even make sence?)

[Potholer]

Here's an odd coincidence - just last night I was reading a book by C.S. Lewis called Mere Christianity. I didn't get to the part where Christianity is discussed but the part I did get to was Lewis's opinion on a Moral Law.

He says that the evidence of a moral law is through comments like "that's not fair" or "I was there first!". When, in response, the other person tries to give an excuse as to why they are in the right and teh one who is misses out is in the wrong. It illustrates it because they both believe in a moral code. The person to complain about the unfairness of the situation is assuming the other goes by a moral rule. The second person, also a believer in this moral code, tries to give an excuse that gives reason why they go against this code.

Lewis said that there is evidence of two things

1. We all believe in a moral code

2. We don't abide by it all the time.

Ok, I'm not sure if i'm making any sense here. Oh well.

If morality does exist, what is moral and what decides what is and isn't?

Morality is subjective

[Xenojjin]

here is what I think . ( assuming by evolutionists you mean athiests )

If creationists can't proove God because there is no proof, then how do evolutionists proove love exists?

Love is something evolutionists will claim came to be by natural selection , love allows people to become attracted to each other and thus mate carrying on the species . Why carry on the species ? now theres a differant story ...

How do they proove morality exists

If morality does exist, what is moral and what decides what is and isn't?

they cant no matter how hard of a debate is made fact remains that if we are the result of a random occurance then their is no such thing as morality and good and evil is purely subjuctive .

Furthermore, if morality doesn't exist than why isn't everyoe out raping, stealing, killing, and doing anything else to appease your immediate wants

some are , some are not . Athiests will also argue that this is the result of natural selection as working together as a species is better for survival ... or is it ? ( looks at global warming and prisons full of innocent lives )

[bathory]

If creationists can't proove God because there is no proof, then how do evolutionists proove love exists?

well what is love?

It is a concept used to describe certain chemical reactions that go on in our brains.

However i fail to see what your point is? Love is not some entity, its a concept, unlike God.

Why love came about? well i would assume that as we are social animals, those that share a deeper connection are more likely to do things to ensure the groups survival.

How do they proove morality exists? If morality does exist, what is moral and what decides what is and isn't?

morality is purely subjective, all we have to do is look across different cultures to see that, which would indicate that a certain specific set of morals aren't hardwired into us all, and yet again, morality is a concept, not an entity.

Furthermore, if morality doesn't exist than why isn't everyoe out raping, stealing, killing, and doing anything else to appease your immediate wants?

because we have evolved into social animals

tell me though, why does love and morality have to be attributed to a God?

[PsychicPenguin]

tell me though, why does love and morality have to be attributed to a God?

Because morality is what goes with the will of God, and sin is what goes against God. So if God wants you to kill, it is imoral not to kill.

[Druidus]

If creationists can't proove God because there is no proof, then how do evolutionists proove love exists? How do they proove morality exists? If morality does exist, what is moral and what decides what is and isn't? Furthermore, if morality doesn't exist than why isn't everyoe out raping, stealing, killing, and doing anything else to appease your immediate wants?

Both love and morality in the strictly evolutionary stance evolved as a need in any social animal. With love and morality you are more compelled to try and protect the whole group instead of watching out for just themselves. Chimps have the same type of morals we have because they are very social, but orangutan do not because they are not social. I don't want to be burned by fanatics all of a sudden so let me say one thing before you start the protests: I believe in God. In fact I believe in many of them. Quite a lot actually. I believe they instigated evolution, and that works. Why can't both be right?

[Druidus]

Because morality is what goes with the will of God, and sin is what goes against God. So if God wants you to kill, it is imoral not to kill.

Then wouldn't we all have to have talked to "God" to know what is moral? Morality is created inside the person, by the person. It's only logical.

[doomgirl]

Um, what does love and morality have to do with evolution

[PsychicPenguin]

Um, what does love and morality have to do with evolution

Evolution is far from our idea of morality (natural selection, kill or be killed), however it created morality.

[aquatus1]

Love and Morality are the name of the rules that societies gave to a physical phenomena. As far as evolution is concerned, Love is simply the desire for social contact or reproductive action. Morality is simply agreed upon roles which prevent potentialy fatal encounters resulting in the destruction of the species. With those two basic urges(among others) pushing evolution forward, humanity and his desire to make things more complicated set up rules and guidelines around them. I say humanity did, because if there had only been one source, i.e. God, then the rules for romance and fair play would be the same everywhere. They are not, but the physical drive that is their foundation is.

[Druidus]

Um, what does love and morality have to do with evolution 

Everything and anything. Can there be a society without moral laws? Or reproduction as much as it is without love? These are debatable but the truth is they form the foundation for any "real" society. This leads me to my other point...

Evolution is far from our idea of morality (natural selection, kill or be killed), however it created morality.

Kill or be killed has nothing to do with evolution. Conventional theories on evolution are that every couple thousand years a creature is born with a mutation. This causes him/her to either be better suited to the environment that he/her is in or worse or the same. Natural selection or adaptation is when over millions of years a species becomes adapted to it's environment so well that it has difficulty living anywhere else. i.e. Deep sea fish die at the surface waters. Kill or be killed is a rather odd saying though. It isn't really true. If a lion doesn't kill something to eat surely it will die, but no, it probably won't be killed.

[PsychicPenguin]

If a lion doesn't kill something to eat surely it will die, but no, it probably won't be killed.

Okay.. that's better.. but you get the idea

[Monkyburd]

When you take apart the theroy of evolution, the bare bones of survival are:

To Survive

To reproduce

We as humans created various social institutions as we became the dominant species. By some freak of nature we became our own natural enemy and as a means of protection we began to evolve socially.

One thing I always have to remind creationists is that evolution is not instantaneous. It takes thousands of years to perfect, and several failed generations to get things right.

Edited March 21, 2004 by Monkyburd

[crosswarrior]

I understand that Evolution supposedly took mult- thousands of years; but how does simply adding a few zero's change anything? After all it is like taking the Fairytale about the frog being changed into a prince; we all know it is impossible. But Lets say perhaps that every day a princess kissed a frog for several million years, would the frog over time gradually change into a prince? It seems such a change would be benificial, right? After all, it would be a more directed chance than a piece of dirt becoming a living thing.

[PsychicPenguin]

Evolution has no goal, and it is not as simple as that. It is the fundamental mechanisms that are important.

[aquatus1]

The frog to prince example is lacking in many ways, but the most glaring one is the assumption that the princess's desire would in any way affect the evolution of the frog. The place where all the 'zeroes' would come into play is in the generations involved. Each individual frog itself would not change from how it was born (no teenage mutant ninja turtles effect here). Each new generation, however, would exhibit a minor change that might, or might not, help it survive and reproduce again.

Let us say that the princess protected the frogs that she liked to kiss (and that her parents were okay with her particular hobby). At first, she is indiscriminantly kissing any random frog, but the next generation of frogs comes in two colors, red and blue. The princess decides that she would rather kiss blue frogs. Those frogs are then protected from predators (by the Knights of the Frog Pond). The red frogs suddenly have a much harder time surviving, because all the predators that would have munched on any frog are suddenly limited to eating red ones only. Eventually, all the red frogs are gone and the blue frogs reign supreme. As years go by and the strange tradition of frog-kissing princesses is firmly established in society, the mutations which make the frogs more attractive are protected while those with ugly genes are ignored and eaten by predators. Eventually, years later, we end up with a frog that looks positively kissable, further ensuring it's survival.

The frogs became blue, not because the princess wanted them too, but because of random mutation in their genes. By coincidence, that color helped them survive and thrive. The chances of them becoming human are so impossibly high that they are effectively nil.

[X~File_Agent]

Crosswarrior

I understand that Evolution supposedly took mult- thousands of years; but how does simply adding a few zero's change anything? After all it is like taking the Fairytale about the frog being changed into a prince; we all know it is impossible. But Lets say perhaps that every day a princess kissed a frog for several million years, would the frog over time gradually change into a prince? It seems such a change would be benificial, right? After all, it would be a more directed chance than a piece of dirt becoming a living thing.

Gee Cross, then explain to me, how such a powerful and intelligent being could make himself out of nothing?

This is like another version of Creationism Vs. Evolution thread

On that thread it's pretty much been debated, that Evolution was/is the solid process for our development, the question that is still being discussed is the origin, which with more research I'm sure we'll find the answer. Old Indian tribes didn't know anything about christianity and values. In fact they had many Gods. However, they had a system of morality. How did they work this out, I would say it took them awhile to figure who the chief was, I'm sure many people beat each other up to be the alpha male. At this point, it was animal instinct. As time went by they developed, a more social attitude. Yet they managed to accomplish all of this without, any guidance from a written scripture by the so called "True" christian God.

This is the reason, why in some countries women are treated like crap "in our minds" and vice-versa. In the end, it's all subjective and how far a society has developed.

[DC09]

Some very interesting poll results.

Poll Scroll to the bottom, right.

Poll

[PsychicPenguin]

Why do we need to teach creationism in school, with profesional teachers???

Q: How did humans come into being?

A: God did it!

Q: Where did fish come from:

A: God did it!

Q: Why do we have fossils?

A: God did it!

[DC09]

Why do we need to teach creationism in school, with profesional teachers???

Q: How did humans come into being?

A: God did it!

Q: Where did fish come from:

A: God did it!

Q: Why do we have fossils?

A: God did it!

And?

[PsychicPenguin]

And?

... God did it!!!!!

Seriously.. I can cover creationism in one hour lecture. In my high school we learned about creationism in about 15 minutes, then we proceeded to learn evolution for the rest of the semester. Any parents should be able to teach their children about creationism, it doesn't take too much time.

[DC09]

I think they most like mean something like this.

And this.

[PsychicPenguin]

Critical Analysis of Evolution?? Why not?? Oh... and it has nothing to do with creationism

[DC09]

Critical Analysis of Evolution?? Why not?? Oh... and it has nothing to do with creationism

I know.

Oh, and they're not just gonna say 'God did it!' if they decide to teach creation. It'll be the Intelligent Design Theory. Anything from God to aliens.

Edited March 23, 2004 by Kellalor

[Nethius]

Um, what does love and morality have to do with evolution

i'm still curious on that as well