I wrote:On May 7, 2008 10:47:04 pm you wrote:
First I am not attacking evolution,
Yes you are, and any reader will notice that. You clearly have a politician's mindset, where it is important to begin by denying your own intentions.
I am trying to determine why, when I follow evolution to its logical conclusions it is considered childish. You didnt respond to any of my questions you just told my they were childish. So you did not present any arguement from your side you only told me Im dumb. How does that prove your point?
Your arguments are childish because they assume that scientific theories must be false if you don't like their implications: that is a common misconception among those who do not yet understand that SOMETHING CAN BE UNPLEASANT YET STILL TRUE. Welcome to Reality.
I think that if you are going to have a theory you should be willing to follow that theory to its conclusions.You cant claim evolution to be scientifically proven when no one has ever witnessed it. You may call it a theory and even a strong theory but you may not call it a law until it has been actually witnessed by someone. That is a generally accepted form of proving discoveries in science. You have a hypothesis then you get a theory and finally you prove your theory with tests which can be duplicated.
That paragraph is wrong on every level. Evolution HAS been witnessed. Laws are NOT necessarily any more true than theories; Newton's laws of motion are actually less precise than Einstein's theory of relativity. And theories are not "proven"; they are only demonstrated to generate predictions which are more accurate than competing theories.
Seriously, grow up. You need to recognize your own limitations.
1. I think the attitude of evolutionists has everything to do with the validity of evolution. If someone told me they believed in God or that they were a Christian but they smoked took drugs and had a criminal record I might be alittle skeptical on this "God" they believed in. Likewise when someone tells me that they are an evolutionist but will refuse to entertain the conclusions that can be drawn from taking evolution to its ultimate conclusions. I am sure you are a very smart person and much smarter than me but I dont understand how you cant realize that your philosophy or outlook on the meaning of life drasticaly affects your actions in life.
Your idea of the "ultimate conclusions" of evolution are drawn from the assumption that it is a morality scheme. For the second time, it is not. You do not appear to understand what this means for your argument. Evolution does not say what is right and wrong; it only tells us how things happen. The most generous and caring orphanage worker is just as much a prediction of evolution theory as the Rwandan genocide.
Evolution theory does not make moral judgments; it simply tells you that this is the way it is. If you can't handle reality, I suggest you run home to your parents and ask them to hug you until it's all better.
2. If you are going to tell me..."Evolution is a scientific theory, not a morality scheme. It has absolutely nothing to say about what is or isn't moral or desirable." Then you are in essence saying that evolution only affects physical changes in our bodies which which doesnt make very much sense since humans have obviously "evolved" a higher sense of conscienceness and morals than animals.
Evolution affects behaviour as well. This doesn't mean that evolution theory is a morality scheme. One could even argue that cultural morality traits are evolved, but that also doesn't mean that evolution theory is a morality scheme. Language was also necessary for the development of social morality; does this mean that language is a morality scheme?
Animals have no sense of morals so I think your arguement is somewhat faulty because a theory that explains how we came about should explain why we have gained certian feelings of what is right and wrong... and dont tell me you arent subject to moral because thats hypocrisy.
Of course I'm subject to morality. The difference is that I understand where morality comes from, while you apparently don't. You seem to think that some creatures are "higher" than others, and that their morality comes from this hierarchy: a bizarre notion with no conceivable basis in fact whatsoever.
A rape is wrong,a murder is wrong, a theft is wrong. WE have a sense of right and wrong and if I am to believe evolution it must explain how we got it.
And it does. Evolution theory predicts that social behaviours which increase the probability of group survival will be propagated in social animals such as ourselves. In a primitive cave-dwelling tribe, people had to learn to work together for survival, not lie to each other or steal from each other, etc. Tribes which lacked these behaviour traits died and their genes were not propagated. That's how evolution theory explains the development of morality. It does not mean evolution theory itself is a morality scheme.
If you say that it evolved along with our human evolution then eventually a split of of humans will evolve higher than the rest of us just like we did with the monkeys.
There you go with this evolutionary/moral hierarchy again. This is completely your personal invention; it has nothing to do with evolution theory.
On the other hand if we each evolve at a personal level then You cant say that someone doesnt have a higher sense of morals than you and is therefore given the ablility to do as he sees fit regardless of laws. Either thought is scary when brought to its extreme. Evolution is a theory of extremes...because only those nature deems most fit get higher.
There you go with this evolutionary/moral hierarchy again. This is completely your personal invention; it has nothing to do with evolution theory.
"Survival of the fittest" does not mean that someone is "higher" in this silly hierarchy of yours. If Jim kills Bob and then has children while Bob dies childless, evolution theory says that Jim was more successful than Bob. It doesn't say he was a morally superior person.
2. you wrote " Do you attack chemistry because chemistry was used to create mustard gas? Do you attack nuclear physics because nuclear physics led to the atom bomb?" No I do not attack those sciences, first because they were able to produce the mustard gas and atomic bomb real tangible things whereas evolution has not produced anything but fossils that we both know are fakes.
Ah, so you're not just a creationist, but also a conspiracy theory nut. Tell me, how do you think tens of thousands of scientists around the world have kept this conspiracy quiet? How do you think scientists have maintained this grand conspiracy for a century and a half? That's quite an amazingly powerful conspiracy, isn't it?
No doubt you will point me to some creationist website crowing because a researcher here or there has gotten caught. Well no kidding; people cheat in school too. But they do get caught, and guess who caught them: other scientists. Pretty strange, if all scientists are involved in this giant conspiracy, isn't it?
but once again those explames of gas and atomics are extremes in those fields of science ...I am taking you to the extreme of evolution but you discredit my ideas how is that fair...you can use extremes in another science to argue with but I cant use the extremes of your theory?!
What you describe is NOT a prediction of evolution theory at all. It's not a matter of being an "extreme". Scientific predictions are either accurate or inaccurate, not "extreme" or "moderate". You are using political language to attack a scientific theory. You must spend a lot of time watching FOXNews or CNN.
finally I will ask you to reply to the questions I asked because I AM interested in their answers. It is very easy to tell me my arguements are childish.
Of course, because they ARE childish, and I have explained why. You obviously lack the simplest understanding of what a scientific theory is, you manufacture false predictions of evolution theory which do NOT follow logically from it, and you ignore all of the evidence against your position by believing in a gigantic century-long world-wide conspiracy of lies perpetrated by scientists. If that isn't childish, what is?
According to your theory of evolution AFRICANS DO NOT DESERVE TO EXIST BECAUSE THEY CANT SURVIVE WITHOUT AID OF LARGER COUNTRIES THEY SAME GOES FOR ANMIMALS THAT ARE DIEING OUT. EITHER ADMIT THIS IS WHAT YOUR THEORY SAYS OR GIVE ME A REASON WHY IT ISNT.
This is not what evolution theory says, and I don't have to give a reason why not. You have to explain why evolution theory DOES say this, particularly since the notion of what people "deserve" is a MORAL judgement, and I have repeatedly tried to pound it into your thick skull that evolution is NOT a morality scheme.
Im trying to be respectful to you as an adult but you didnt show me any respect in your reply. Thanx for your time,Dan Hilmer
Do not presume to demand my respect, boy. I grew up before the Self-Esteem Generation, and in my day, respect was something you EARNED, not something you demanded. What have you done to earn anyone's respect?
Your arguments are among the worst I have ever seen, and you have demonstrated a singular inability to adjust to new ideas in your handling of my rebuttal, in which I pointed out that evolution was NOT a morality scheme and you simply barreled ahead with arguments which all REQUIRE it to be a morality scheme anyway. You clearly didn't see that rebuttal coming, and instead of adapting to it, you simply brushed it off. Not only do you not understand science, you don't even understand how to debate.
How old are you? I am honestly hoping that you are no more than 13 years old, because your arguments are decidedly NOT fit for the high school level.
Look, I know why you're a creationist. Your parents raised you to believe in God, and you believe that all that is good in this world comes from God. Anything which might threaten your faith is therefore threatening and disturbing, because you have convinced yourself that without God, there is nothing but darkness and evil. But what you call "good", I call "socially responsible behaviour".
There IS a way to be a good person without needing to believe that God made us out of clay, and all it takes is for you to develop your own personal judgment, rather than blindly following the teachings of men who lived three thousand years ago and believed that every kind of animal in the entire world lived within walking distance of Noah's house.
