How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 Philosophy 101
 Questions for evolutionists   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  ]
 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Questions for evolutionists

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


100 posted 02-05-2006 08:16 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


“I'm just one to believe that if naturalism were true (though I don't believe it is), Nietzsche wasn't so far off.  And I'm always interested in the various atheistic answers given to his challenge.”

I like a challenge

“He (Nietzsche) went on to say that since evolution described morals in terms of "survival of the fittest", we could easily deduce that the Christian ethic of "turning the other cheek" is a weak and deplorable thing in terms of what is better.  According to Nietzsche, it was not the meek who would inherit the earth, but the strong ... not the nice and anemic, but the  ruthless and vigorous.  His system of thought was what helped Hitler to justify his own actions in Nazi Germany.  (He was an admirer and avid reader of Nietzsche).

Survival of the fittest doesn’t relate to strength at all, it relates to an ability to survive and in a social environment the meek and the nice have a distinct advantage over the ruthless but strong – it’s called cooperation through mutual benefit.

Something Hitler should have realised.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


101 posted 02-05-2006 11:40 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Ron knows I'm just razzing him Ess... he is known to advocate a position without it being 'his'.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


102 posted 02-07-2006 01:17 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Grinch:
quote:
Survival of the fittest doesn’t relate to strength at all, it relates to an ability to survive and in a social environment the meek and the nice have a distinct advantage over the ruthless but strong – it’s called cooperation through mutual benefit.

Something Hitler should have realised.


I agree, up to a point.  If Nietzsche (or anyone else) says that altruism and the "kinder virtues" are at an evolutionary disadvantage, he would be mistaken.  Why?  Because for the most part, Evolution has become a tautology, which says that if something exists, it had an evolutionary advantage.  From that standpoint, morality, immorality, meanness, and kindness, all exist in abudance and therefore have been a help to survival.  


But if Nietzsche could not cogently say that "Christian" virtues are at an evolutionary disadvantage, neither can moral naturalists (like yourself) say that ruthless strength is at an evolutionary disadvantage.  Naturalistically, it can (and does) go both ways.  It's too simplistic, to say that the "good guys" always fare better in this life, while the "bad guys" always run amuck.  


So my original point remains the same, that in a purely naturalistic system, moral "oughtness" cannot be defended out of sheer pragmatism ... a little supra-natural smugglling always takes place, where it is implied that good morals are transcedently virtuous, not merely pragmatic tools.  Though I don't deny morals the epithet "useful", I deny that pragmatism can recommend them on their own terms.  In other words, moral oughtness, cannot be taught as obligatory.  I'm aware that some would tell me that since they are not obligatory in actuality, it doesn't matter whether or not morals can be incumbently taught.  But some considerations come into play here ...  1) Moral teaching does influence behavior.  2) The more coherent the teaching, the more likely it will be followed.  3) Those who believe in God, believe that the obligatory nature of morals will be realized, fully in the consummation of time, if only partially here and now.  So moral oughtness matters, even if, and while, transgression is possible.


So, from a naturalistic scheme, I don't think you would have much to say to Hitler about his choices.  Some win, some lose.  That's the nature of gambling, for the martyr as well as the malefactor.


Stephen.

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (02-07-2006 02:24 AM).]

Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


103 posted 02-07-2006 03:21 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


Stephanos,

You’re falling into the same trap as Nietzsche, morals are not hereditary or inherent in the make-up of humans so Darwinian evolution in its truest form can’t be applied on the individual level however they can be applied to societies.

Strength, morality, immorality meanness and kindness in individuals are individual traits and in some cases just plain individual choices and as such they can’t be removed or affected by evolution. Nietzsche's trap is that he explains individual benefit in evolutionary terms where no evolution takes place. The real evolution is that of general morality within a society however individual choice means that immorality is always an option, which is why immorality does, and will always, exist.

Which is better immorality or morality?

Morality is better for the survival of a society and individuals within that society

Immorality is sometimes better for the individual

Here’s an example.

In a society of five people each of the five searches for food daily, if they find food they keep half and share the remainder with those in the group that didn’t find any. This is good for the society and good for the individuals within that society. Now suppose one of the five decides to lie about whether he’s found food, he gets to keep everything he finds plus he gets extra from other members of the group who believe he has no food. That individual is better off cheating, right? Well yes unless the others discover his lie and decide not to share food with him in the future, sometimes the consequences are high enough to discourage immorality. You could of course invent eternal damnation as a consequence and use that if you like but it’s not necessary for the model to work. In fact if eternal damnation were the only consequence it’d be better to be an Atheist.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


104 posted 02-07-2006 09:06 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Grinch
quote:
You’re falling into the same trap as Nietzsche, morals are not hereditary or inherent in the make-up of humans so Darwinian evolution in its truest form can’t be applied on the individual level however they can be applied to societies.

I don't think I agree with you.  Evolution (if you accept it) must have given rise to moral sense.  And what affects societies must affect individuals.  If you deny that morality is not rooted in genetics, you're definitely in the minority, since most evolutionary thinkers make a connection between darwinism and mental processes.  

But regardless of how you think evolution would relate to morals, my original point is the same:  From a naturalistic scheme, morals cannot be recommended except on the basis of pragmatism (which you've admitted is dubious, to the moral question).  You cannot get "ought" out of the equation, except by leap into 1) arbitrariness, or 2) a view like the Judeo-Christian world-view, where morality represents a "higher" law.  


Stephen.  
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


105 posted 02-08-2006 02:03 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


Are we the only ones left?

I don’t mind being in a minority, I don’t even mind being wrong every now and then but in this case I’m convinced I’m not.

Darwinian evolution is often labelled survival of the fittest but that fitness doesn’t mean the strongest or the fastest or even the nicest, the fitness defined in Darwinian evolution is specific to two areas – the ability to survive and the ability to produce offspring with the ability to do the same. Evolution in this sense doesn’t happen overnight, it works over generations and all the time mutations are appearing, the positive mutations are beneficial and aid survival the negative mutations reduce the chance of survival or reproduction. Eventually you end up with a species whose individual members have inherited the best attributes from every generation that ensures survival  – evolution sieves the good from the bad.

If morality is the best policy, which I think we agree is the case, and morality was a product of genetics Darwinian evolution would have eradicated immorality.

The fact that immorality exists under such circumstances proves that morality isn’t controlled by genetics; it also disproves the question regarding tautology that you raised earlier - everything that exists doesn’t have to have an evolutionary advantage.

I don’t mind the ‘ought’ – as long as there are consequences:

You ought not to kill

You ought not to steal

You ought not to sleep with you sister

You ought not to smoke

We can all picture the consequences of the first three and the majority of us choose to heed the warning, the last one however has less obvious consequences and was never seen as anti-social (that’s changed of course) so the choice is easier to get wrong. In all cases the arbitrary choice isn’t that arbitrary when the consequences are understood, of course you know that, you’re arguing the same point it’s just your consequences are super-natural.

Thou shalt not kill because you may get killed yourself for doing it and you may also suffer eternal damnation is fine – but I along with the majority of the human race are convinced by the first consequence, why invent more?

Why not substitute ‘arbitrary choice’ for ‘best bet’ or even ‘most selfish’ (if you don’t jump on that last one I’m doing something wrong).


Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


106 posted 02-08-2006 04:40 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Grinch:
quote:
If morality is the best policy, which I think we agree is the case, and morality was a product of genetics Darwinian evolution would have eradicated immorality.


Then where did moral sense come from ... where did consciousness come from, for that matter ... if not from "genetics" ?

You have a theory we haven't heard of?


quote:
The fact that immorality exists under such circumstances proves that morality isn’t controlled by genetics; it also disproves the question regarding tautology that you raised earlier - everything that exists doesn’t have to have an evolutionary advantage.

I don’t mind the ‘ought’ – as long as there are consequences:


You keep contradicting yourself.  You affirm that morality doesn't have to have an advantage.  Then you say that there must be "consequences", which undergird moral behavior.  If there are consequences, even to the point of losing your own life, (your example), this IS a survival issue, and directly pertains to the evolutionary question.


But, (more in line with your former view) I don't see that temporal consequences of immoral activity are necessarily inescapable.  That's why egoism, as a explanation of why people think they should be "good", is inadequate.  


quote:
In all cases the arbitrary choice isn’t that arbitrary when the consequences are understood, of course you know that, you’re arguing the same point it’s just your consequences are super-natural.

Thou shalt not kill because you may get killed yourself for doing it and you may also suffer eternal damnation is fine – but I along with the majority of the human race are convinced by the first consequence, why invent more?

Why not substitute ‘arbitrary choice’ for ‘best bet’ or even ‘most selfish’ (if you don’t jump on that last one I’m doing something wrong).


That's my point ... if "consequences" (how things may affect oneself) are the sole reason for being good, then morality cannot be said to be obligatory, or even that it should be obligatory.  Now if you're going to tell me that moral behavior is preferential, or the best prospect for personal gain, you have stepped out of arena of ethics altogether, and can only reinvent the word "moral".  Because, by definition, morality involves what is right or wrong, regardless of personal gain.  It's interesting that you said "Better Bet", that's telling, to me, that you've accepted egoism.  But egoism is a bankrupt philosophy when it tries to provide an explanation or foundation for morals.


Does that mean, that I think there's no such thing as self interest, or that self interest is always wrong.  No.  But I don't think that's all there is.  The problem with a naturalistic scheme, in my mind, is that it cannot recommend moral behavior for any reason beyond egoism.  From your viewpoint, you should not blame the man who steals food, as long as he doesn't get caught.  And even if he did get caught, you'll be able to chide him for being an imprudent business-man, a poor stock-broker, or a careless gambler ... but certainly not immoral.


Lastly, you keep bring up "Hell".  I do believe in Hell, but it is only distantly related to the question at hand.  Hell is the final state of those who lose God forever, rejecting his offers of love, forgiveness, and mercy.  God disciplines and corrects people for sins, all the time, in many many ways, and natural consequences are a part of that.  Hell represents a final state, and totality of being, not a knee-jerk threat for doing something wrong.    


When I say that God is necessary for morals, I'm not referring to his methods and means of reward and punishment, nor to the final destiny he has decreed for the individual.  Rather I was referring to the fact that without a basis for morality being "a higher law", it becomes a preferential and arbitrary teaching.  But preference, and arbitrariness, are both contrary to the very definition of what morals are:  What is really right and wrong.        
  

Stephen.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


107 posted 02-08-2006 05:56 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

Stephanos

“Then where did moral sense come from ... where did consciousness come from, for that matter ... if not from "genetics" ?”

Moral sense doesn’t exist, people choose to do one thing or another based on potential consequences and risk, even if it did exist it would have to be closer to Lamarckism than Darwinism, and that doesn't make any sense
Genetics does supply the capacity for consciousness but the nature and use of that consciousness isn’t prewritten by genetics. If it were a moral couple would produce moral offspring and murderers would begat more murderers.

You have a theory we haven't heard of?

Yes, actually I do.

Unfortunately it explains speciation not moral genetics.

“You keep contradicting yourself.  You affirm that morality doesn't have to have an advantage.  Then you say that there must be "consequences", which undergird moral behavior.  If there are consequences, even to the point of losing your own life, (your example), this IS a survival issue, and directly pertains to the evolutionary question.”

Falling off a cliff while searching for food is a survival issue and has about the same evolutionary impact and relevance as far as Darwinism is concerned – none.

“But, (more in line with your former view) I don't see that temporal consequences of immoral activity are necessarily inescapable.  That's why egoism, as a explanation of why people think they should be "good", is inadequate. “

Which one? Ethical Egoism, Psychological Egoism, Rational Egoism or Normative Egoism?

Conditional Egoism would be closest to my example, of course there will always be people who break the rules and even those that get away with it. Which is what we would expect to see reflected in the real world if it were true, but as long as the majority follow the rules society survives.

“When I say that God is necessary for morals, I'm not referring to his methods and means of reward and punishment, nor to the final destiny he has decreed for the individual.  Rather I was referring to the fact that without a basis for morality being "a higher law", it becomes a preferential and arbitrary teaching.  But preference, and arbitrariness, are both contrary to the very definition of what morals are:  What is really right and wrong.”

What is really right or wrong isn’t based on any higher law, if it was surely it would be universal not the broad spectrum and diversity of acceptability we see in the real world. Or is it that your moral framework just happens to be closer to the higher law ideal than everyone else’s? Or is your ideal perspective influencing your judgement?
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


108 posted 02-09-2006 01:12 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Grinch:
quote:
Moral sense doesn’t exist, people choose to do one thing or another based on potential consequences and risk...



Moral sense doesn't exist?  lol.  I guess the entire branch of philosophy we call "ethics" was mistaken.  The part of the equation that you are leaving out, is that desired consequences often have moral considerations surrounding them.  If I won't play mail-box baseball, because I feel that it would be morally wrong to do so, the desired outcome is based upon an ethical consideration.  You can't simply wish the moral question away, it's pretty persistent at voicing it's concerns when we are weighing or ascribing value to consequences.  


quote:
even if it did exist it would have to be closer to Lamarckism than Darwinism, and that doesn't make any sense.
  

I see no inherent reason within the tautology of evolution (though I don't believe it), that would rule out rational minds developing a moral barometer, or conscience.  When you mention the absurdity of squeaky clean moralists always giving birth to philanthropists, and murderers always giving birth to mafia members, you are missing my point.  When I was suggesting the necessity (from your naturalistic view) of genetics giving rise to morals, I was speaking of a moral measuring apparatus in the conscience .... not any kind of constraint to follow it, or to disobey it.  That would be the question of free will, a whole other topic.  


quote:
Falling off a cliff while searching for food is a survival issue and has about the same evolutionary impact and relevance as far as Darwinism is concerned – none.
  


You really don't know that, do you?  It could have been a precondition for the development of mammilian wings, climbing claws, or even eyes with depth-perception.  If even it didn't happen that way, it could have.  Brad is always tellling us that it didn't have to turn out the way it has.  And from evolutionists, I've heard many postulated scenarios that weren't much different than what you describe.  


If the development of a tiny flagellum, to swim a tiny bit faster than an enemy microbe, may influence evolution, then that tells me that (according to evolutionists), individual genetic changes, and individual commonplace experiences CAN affect evolution.  Darwin depended upon incrementalism for his theory to work.


quote:
Which one? Ethical Egoism, Psychological Egoism, Rational Egoism or Normative Egoism?


They are all based on similar principles.  Egoism can be referred to in general, for the purposes of our discussion.  But if you want to bring out the differences between these variations, for discussion, that would be fine.  


quote:
Conditional Egoism would be closest to my example, of course there will always be people who break the rules and even those that get away with it. Which is what we would expect to see reflected in the real world if it were true, but as long as the majority follow the rules society survives.



Actually conditional egoism is the most viable form of egoism for me too ...  Because I have nothing against self interest per se.  Conditional egoism proposes that self-interest can and should be pursued, as long as the outcome doesn't violate a moral principle.  I personally find that this a great concession, on the part of an egoist.  Why?  Because self-interest is not the foundation for moral considerations.  The moral question is separate from, even above, the drive for self interest.  

But that raises the whole moral question all over again.  Why should morality condition my drive to fulfill self interest?  Why should it pose a limit?  I'm not saying that you don't have an answer.  I'm just saying it will necessarily be an answer which itself has a moral foundation.  


quote:
What is really right or wrong isn’t based on any higher law, if it was surely it would be universal not the broad spectrum and diversity of acceptability we see in the real world. Or is it that your moral framework just happens to be closer to the higher law ideal than everyone else’s? Or is your ideal perspective influencing your judgement?



I think you're overplaying the differences, and downplaying the similarities between moral systems of societies throughout history.


Though you might want to read the essays in their entirety ... (here is the book online) ... I wanted you to look at an appendix in C.S. Lewis' "The Abolition of Man", which juxtaposes the strikingly similar moral prescriptions found in ancient cultures, such as Roman, Egyptian, Jewish, Babylonian.


http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/lewis/abolition4.htm


And as Lewis himself wrote: " ...think what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two make five. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to--whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or everyone. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked. (from "Mere Christianity")  


Stephen.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


109 posted 02-09-2006 07:50 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

Stephanos,

Moral sense doesn't exist?  lol.  I guess the entire branch of philosophy we call "ethics" was mistaken.

Ethics doesn’t rely on an intrinsic and universal set of in built ‘Higher laws’, there is no fixed and predetermined list of ethical and non-ethical acts against which human beings compare choices. Ethics and morality are descriptions of the end product in the same way that fashion is a description of the end product of wearing clothes. You may say that some people have an in built ‘fashion sense’; I just think that people around them and a desire to fit in influences their choice in clothes. If I’m right ‘moral sense’ and ‘fashion sense’ don’t need to exist for Ethics and fashion to exist.


The part of the equation that you are leaving out, is that desired consequences often have moral considerations surrounding them.  If I won't play mail-box baseball, because I feel that it would be morally wrong to do so, the desired outcome is based upon an ethical consideration.  You can't simply wish the moral question away, it's pretty persistent at voicing it's concerns when we are weighing or ascribing value to consequences.

I wasn’t leaving out reward as part of the consequence equation, I just hadn’t got round to it yet.

Positive consequences when it comes to decision making is as important as negative consequences, we weigh the negatives (risks) against the positives (possible gains) before making any choice. Religion hasn’t missed this fundamental element; it may in fact be this aspect of religion that explains why good people do bad things

If I kill someone I may get killed myself (risk) but I may also end up with seventy something virgins and a first class ticket to eternal happiness (possible gain).

I can be convinced not to kill by the first argument - the majority of people generally are - but if a person’s religious belief is strong enough they could decide that the possible gains outweigh the risks.

I see no inherent reason within the tautology of evolution (though I don't believe it), that would rule out rational minds developing a moral barometer, or conscience.  When you mention the absurdity of squeaky clean moralists always giving birth to philanthropists, and murderers always giving birth to mafia members, you are missing my point.  When I was suggesting the necessity (from your naturalistic view) of genetics giving rise to morals, I was speaking of a moral measuring apparatus in the conscience .... not any kind of constraint to follow it, or to disobey it.  That would be the question of free will, a whole other topic.

Genetics produced the brain and the capacity to reason, genetics did not produce the moral framework against which that reason is applied. Your argument would be like saying genetics produced ears so music is a construct of genetics

You really don't know that, do you?  It could have been a precondition for the development of mammilian wings, climbing claws, or even eyes with depth-perception.  If even it didn't happen that way, it could have.  Brad is always tellling us that it didn't have to turn out the way it has.  And from evolutionists, I've heard many postulated scenarios that weren't much different than what you describe.

Falling to your death off a cliff has zero impact but I agree falling off a cliff and not dying because of some mutated improvement is fundamental to Darwinian evolution but in a very specific way. For evolution to work the chances of falling off a cliff have to be very very high, in the case of bats this would be the case if all their foraging took place on cliff faces. A human falling off a cliff is statistically less likely; cliff faces aren’t our natural habitat. If a human fell off a cliff face and died there’s zero effect in evolutionary terms, even if a mutated human fell off a cliff and survived there would be no evolutionary advantage passed to his offspring either because falling off cliffs doesn’t happen often enough.

But that raises the whole moral question all over again.  Why should morality condition my drive to fulfill self interest?  Why should it pose a limit?  I'm not saying that you don't have an answer.  I'm just saying it will necessarily be an answer which itself has a moral foundation.

You’ve got it backwards; self-interest is the foundation morality is a product of that self-interest.

Lewis highlights a good point:

Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two make five.

The point is that the imagined straw dog country doesn’t exist, it has to be imagined and the reason it has to be imagined is that people in the real world recognise that fighting battles and being kind can be in their own self interest.

Think of a country where people were admired for always rushing into battle, or where a man felt proud of always being kind to all the people who have double-crossed him. You might as well imagine a country where two and two make five.

This imagined country doesn’t exist either.

Now think of a country where people went to battle only when it was in their own best interest to do so, or where it was in their own self interest to be kind to people who might be kind in return and to shun anyone that double crossed you.

Countries like this exit throughout the world, all built on the foundation of self-interest.
  
beautyincalvary
Member
since 07-13-2006
Posts 98


110 posted 08-08-2006 12:35 AM       View Profile for beautyincalvary   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for beautyincalvary

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?  
How could someone be expected to know this?

2. Where did matter come from?  
Two giant balls of gases collapsed into each other, creating all matter.

3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
It came supposedly from the collapse (the Big Bang).

4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?  
Meaning what? Do you mean humans are perfectly organized? Because we’re not. There are so many things that don’t work right. That is why evolution is still selecting what’s working and what isn’t.

5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?  
That makes no sense. Who says “something” was an organizer?

6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?  
The key is from inorganic to organic. Stanley Miller showed us it was possible. Go research it.

7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?  
What a reasonable question.

8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?  
Again, another reasonable question.

9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)  
The species, of course. The creator of these questions is thinking too much like a human. Animals don’t worry about themselves surving in the way humans do. The can die as soon as they’ve reproduced. How do I explain this? It makes perfect sense. The individual animal’s (or plant’s) goal is to reproduce in order for the species to survive.

10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)  
If a mutation works better for a species to survive, natural selection will keep that mutation, and eventually, the species will evolve. Enough mutations (granted these new mutations are separated from the original), the species will have so many new mutations it is incapable of reproducing with the original. (English and Chinese are too different. Recombining LATIN letters can someday produce Spanish books.)

11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?  
Since an all-powerful Creator can NEVER be disproved, it is possible to many people, but irrelevant to others.


12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?
I admit I don’t know enough to answer this. I am fifteen years old. I’m not an expert.


13. When, where, why, and how did  
a. Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)  
b. Single-celled animals evolve?  
c. Fish change to amphibians?  
d. Amphibians change to reptiles?  
e. Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)  
f. How did the intermediate forms live?  
Evolutionists will readily admit all these specifics have not been obtained yet. The human genome was first drafted in 2001. WE’ve come a LONG way with what we do know.

14. When, where, why, how, and from what did:  
a. Whales evolve?  
b. Sea horses evolve?  
c. Bats evolve?  
d. Eyes evolve?
e. Ears evolve?
f.  Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?  
These are very unreasonable questions. I suppose this is all in the Bible!


15. Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others)?  
a. The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body"'"s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?  
b. The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?  
c. The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?  
d. DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?  
e. The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?  
f. The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?  
g. The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?  
h. The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?  
i. The immune system or the need for it?  


16. There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?  


17. How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?  
Mutations!

18. When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
Since psychologists and neurologists hardly know anything about feelings, is it rationals to expect evolutionists to explain what is so vague already? And who says humans are the only things with feelings.

19. How did photosynthesis evolve?  


20. How did thought evolve?  


21. How did flowering plants evolve, and from what?  


22. What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?  


23. What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?  


24. Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?  


25. What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen gas becoming human?
The trillions of years between the two and everything that happened for it to be possible.

26. Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?
After you have answered the preceding questions, please look carefully at your answers and thoughtfully consider the following questions.


1. Are you sure your answers are reasonable, right, and scientifically provable, or do you just believe that it may have happened the way you have answered? (Do these answers reflect your religion or your science?)  
Yes.

2. Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says, "God must have designed it"?  
Less faith, more science. Because with more evidence, I know my views will change.

3. Is it possible that an unseen Creator designed this universe? If God is excluded at the beginning of the discussion by your definition of science, how could it be shown that He did create the universe if He did?  
It can’t be disproven. I don’t believe it.

4. Is it wise and fair to present the theory of evolution to students as fact?
Yes, as much as it is to present the theory of gravity.

5. What is the end result of a belief in evolution (lifestyle, society, attitude about others, eternal destiny, etc.)?  
It changes depending on the person.

6. Do people accept evolution because of the following factors?  
a. It is all they have been taught.  No.
b. They like the freedom from God (no moral absolutes, etc.).  Np.
c. They are bound to support the theory for fear of losing their job or status or grade point average.  No.
d. They are too proud to admit they are wrong.  No.
e. Evolution is the only philosophy that can be used to justify their political agenda.  No.
EMPERICAL KNOWLEDGE.

7. Should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable, or inconclusive evidences to support the theory of evolution because we don"'"t have a suitable substitute (Piltdown man, recapitulation, archaeopteryx, Lucy, Java man, Neanderthal man, horse evolution, vestigial organs, etc.)?  Ha… Lucy, Java man, Neanderthal man… these are upright walking people.


8. Should parents be allowed to require that evolution not be taught as fact in their school system unless equal time is given to other theories of origins (like divine creation)?  
Divine creation is NOT science. It is PHILOSOPHY. It does not belong in the schoolroom; leave it for Sunday school.

9. What are you risking if you are wrong? As one of my debate opponents said, "Either there is a God or there is not. Both possibilities are frightening."  I am not wrong. I guess I’ll go to hell. I mean, I haven’t been baptized. I’ll go to Limbo. After all, that’s where God sends children who haven’t been baptized.


10. Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of creationism being presented in public schools? If we are not supposed to teach religion in schools, then why not get evolution out of the textbooks? It is just a religious worldview.  
If creationism is taught in schools, goodbye to science! HELLO, ARISTOTLE! We are not that primitive. Except, the people won’t even realize how primitive that is because they think we were once Adam and Eve, exactly how we are today.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> Philosophy 101 >> Questions for evolutionists   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors