How can you tell Right from Wrong Evolutionists?

I have a question for all the Evolution believers, and I call you that cause it is a belief and clearly not a science. If evolution is correct how do you know right from wrong? If evolution is correct would it not be ok to rape and kill those weaker than you? Survival of the fittest and all. If evolution is correct is it not right for America to conquer the world militarily and do away with all that Bush or whomever feels is inferior and detrimental to the gene pool? This was Hitler's philosophy from the start,rid mankind of the "lower" or "less evolved" humans and give evolution a jumpstart. Tell me where he is wrong if evolution and survival of the fittest is the Law?

Tell me how one should know, or in fact that it is wrong to hurt, steal, kill, and the many other things we KNOW to be wrong if evolution is correct? If you came from a rock 3BYA I would say do whatever you want to whomever you want, for there are no rules. But if you were Created by God then we know the rules and we know Right from Wrong because it is inherent in us as God has placed it in all mens hearts.

So simply enough, how do you know right from wrong if there is no Creator and no Law from that Creator. If you claim that Law comes from man then I would respond that Hitler was Elected and Passed Laws and therefore did nothing wrong to the evolutionists. I would also say that if man can make laws he can change them to, whereas my LORD NEVER CHANGES

Bravo. Well said.

Thank you for your post. You stated an excellent explanation. It is a shame that others cannot see your point clearly and will soon be trouncing on you with ten fingers as fast as they can.

It is very hard to not believe in a higher power. What is it that causes some to disbelieve? Is it fear, ego, arrogance, or defiance against authority?

This is very simple but if we evolved from monkeys then why are there still monkeys? If we evolved from amoebas why are there still amoebas?
Are we still evolving? Has mans physical body changed in the past 2,000 years?

I am a believer and stand firm with you OP. Get ready to be flamed. I just wish folks would not be so hateful when disagreeing with a poster. A salute to your bravery OP.

Dizzie (marilyn )

reply to post by dizziedame

---

My personal belief as to why some will not accept that we have a Creator is that then they may be responsible to him and his WORD. They know that that book shows God made this creation and therefore has the Right to Judge it as he did in the days of Noah. Again this is just my personal belief as to why some won't give creation any thought, but it makes sense to me. If their is a Creator what is "THEIR" Responsibility to that Creator? If there is no Creator then their is no responsibility to that Creator, bringing us back to m original question..

How do we know Right from Wrong if we all came from rocks 3 billion years ago?

And thank you for your supporting message, I don't want to start a fight but a serious discussion on where we get our, what seems inherent, knowledge of what is right and wrong.

Everyone knows you don't kick puppies, but how and why? Aren't dogs lower evolved than mankind and wouldn't survival of the fittest give us that right? Shouldn't we as a species allow pit bulls to kill off every other breed of dog under the evolutionists paradigm? The question I believe is a basic one and one that gets to the heart of the matter... Where do humans get their sense of Right and Wrong if we came from rocks?

I think it's because you develop ethics during your life. If you are brought up in a normal way than you learn it's not okay to steal and to commit murders etc. If you look at it from an evolutonary point of view it is in the best interest of a species to develop a social behaviour in order to survive. Brainwise this would translate into group behaviour, in other words we act like the rest is acting in order to be accepted by the group and thus earning the protection of the group.

By the context of your message you are completely unable to understand that "those people" you speak of honestly and truely do not believe in your religious system at all or in the slightest bit. You might aswell be trying to tell them that you worship flying pink elephants.

The fact that you even think that they consider that "they may be responsible to him and his WORD" is inept. It never even crosses their mind.

Step outside the box, in order to properly debate someone on any subject you honestly have to see it from their perspective, and for this case you could not be farther from the truth.

I understand that you are strong in your own beliefs, but that is completely irrelavent to what someone else believes.

[edit on 3/10/2008 by Choronzon]

reply to post by theindependentjournal

---

Quite simply, we can't. I just ate a baby - I was out of ketchup, so I have to mug some old biddy I saw nearby. After I had a little fun with her corpse, I went to the store to steal some ketchup (really, the mugging was just for fun!). By then, my baby was cold, so I had to cram it into the microwave, even though I prefer them raw.



Seriously, how do you guys come up with this nonsesne, time after time? Does your well of silliness never run dry?

Can we Godwin this straight away? Hitler took a big chunk of his 'philosophy' from Luther, rather than Darwin.

So when you say this:



I would like to tell me who said this in reference to jews:

'[we] are at fault for not slaying them'

If you can find how evolutionary theory suggests we should do a similar thing to jews, you might have an argument. Survival of the fittest isn't even to do with who we think are inferior, but to do with reproductive fitness.

You appear to be mixing moral oughts and natural is's.

Evolution is a description of how life became diverse on this planet. Not a set of ethical guidelines to be used in society. In fact, we work against natural 'laws' all the time.

Conborg?

Link Choronzon said. If you aren't able to understand someone elses logic in what they believe in, you will have a hard time ever to understand why there are other religions. Do not be so ignorant that your religion is the one and only true religion, because my religion is the true religion, and it is not the one you stated.

I believe in the Flying Spagetti Monster. I have been touched by his divine noodly appendages, so I know his power to be true. I mean, what is there not to believe in?

In all seriousness. If you want to bash someone for not believing in what you believe, you must first understand why. Do not make excuses for them. That is just makes it more evident to everyone else that you are ignorant.

BTW, I dont kick puppies because its against the law, not because of some moral reason.

reply to post by theindependentjournal

---

That's hilarious. Wow. I didn't think it was possible for someone to be so ill-informed, then *POW!* the ATS *snip* saves the day

Evolution is a scientific theory with a metric buttload of supporting evidence.
Creationism is a theory written in a bronze-age book by some guys who didn't get their story straight

If you think science dictates ethics, you're an *snip*. No, scratch that, if you actually believe what you posted, *snip*.

---

Mod edit: to remove insults. Attack the thought not the member.

Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 3/10/2008 by kinglizard]

I understand why you all get upset about theindependentjournal's question, but (even though I'm more of the evolution type of girl) I must say I understand where she's coming from.

A lot of Christians believe that God and the Holy Spirit keep them on the right track. Also people who don't believe in God do not have a final judgement ahead of them.

But there is a thing or 2 confusing here because there are Christians who are also believing in evolution. And the question is put wrong. It should be "where do non christians get their morals from?"

I understand that its not your question, but OMFG are we serious?!!

It is RIDICULOUS to think that it is impossible to have morals without belief in a christian diety! Actually, i'm hoping that it is an age/maturity thing for even thinking such things.

Humans are humans....period, bottom line...we are born with societal values.

We want are cake, sure.....but we also want to eat it!!! Which means we MUST get along with each other.....give me a break....no values w/o Christianity....wtf people...

reply to post by Choronzon

---

It is ridiculous but nevertheless there are still people who are brought up this way and think this way. That is why I try to give a serious answer in order to explain to them why things aren't the way they were told.

It is called common sense, and it is vastly underated and in short supply.

reply to post by Choronzon

---

What???? You believe humans are born with social values?

Social values are a learned behavior. At birth we have no values.

Our values are learned from family and outside influences.

Dizzie

reply to post by dizziedame

---

To be more specific, it is a naturally occuring process in human beings. And because it is naturally occuring, we are born with what is necessary for that development.

[edit on 3/10/2008 by Choronzon]

i was born and raised agnostic. I was told that to believe in anything religious is ridiculous. But through a combination of common sense, personal experience, and not listening to what the majority of the world said, i came to the conclusion that evolution is more than likely wrong.

People are easily inclined to say evolution is right because it is socially more acceptable and makes life a lot easier. It's pretty much being lazy.

It also shatters any moral ambiguity they might have had.

"It's ok to to this now, because i don't believe in trying to be a good person anymore"

FACT, EVERYONE who claims to not believe in a a higher power is lying to themselves. There have been scientific studies; in which the goal was to prove that belief in a higher power was purely genetic and not magical or mystical. The Tests came out positive. We actually have messages in our genes that suggest to our brain to believe in a higher power. The scientists who embarked on this crusade to prove that mystical experiences are merely fabricated by our DNA and our brain succeeded.

But . . .



either way, everyone believes in a higher power. Even if at a subconscious level. So please all you evolutionists can silence yourselves, every time you say you don't believe. You deny god, that's all you can do. Because he exists (in your head), whether you want him to or not.

I'd like you to take a moment and read a few thoughts I had about your post. I am not, in this post, wishing to represent either side of the proposed argument. Instead, I believe that without further explaination on a number of points, your question does not make logical sense.



Scientists argue. They argue a lot. They argue about tiny things and they argue about huge things. For years, they were split on whether the universe expands or whether it is static. They also argued about Fred Hoyle naming the big bang theory, the big bang. There are a lot of crack-pot scientists, too. Yet, there is a majority who take theory and test it and those people are held in high esteem, not because they get everything right first go, but because they never stop discussing, arguing, thinking and testing. These people argue over evolution. There are a number who do not believe evolution is correct, but there are many who do. A scientist will not be published or believed, however, if they do not back their argument up with factual evidence and plausible theory. My question is: how can you say it is 'clearly not a science' when so many truly brilliant scientists believe it to be a plausible theory? Even the Vatican subscribes to a non-overlapping magisterium and permits evolution, so why is it clearly not a science?



How does evolution have anything to do with morals and ethics? The theory of evolution is a passive mechanism by which species change slowly over time? It is not an active mechanism that promotes anything. Those that reproduce continue and those that don't, die out. To permit any relationship between human morality and natural selection would not be scientific. Scientists can infer that humans have evolved this way because we have developed morals that do not permit murder and rape. However, permitting evolution to be correct does not mean removing the possibilty of a creator, beneficent or reserved. My question is, how have different cultures, with different religions arrived at convergent points of morality? Why do other animals display, from a human perspective, human-like morals about life and death? Why will a tiger appear to mourn the death of a cub if those attributes that some ascribe to a gift from the creator are not present in animals?



Again, what does this have to do with a natural mechanism that has been called evolution?



You've used quotation marks. Are these from Hitler's speeches or writings? You have confused an conscious decision by an human being with an unconscious process by which species develop. If I can be permitted to step in to your confusion of terms, however, you have defeated your own argument. Hitler was stopped. Thus taken to its logical conclusion your argument states: Evolution defeated Hitler. A megalomanical dictator is not the fittest.



Again, wishing only to provoke a clear and unmuddled argument, the central premise (or 'law' in your terms) of evolution also 'NEVER CHANGES': those species that are better adapted as a result of mutation survive and the others do not.

Of course, the details may change, but then so do the laws of Old and New Testements.

What is right and wrong, and what is moral and immoral has been debated for centuries through religion. Probably most if not all wars have been started because of religion. People need to learn that it's not the hard facts but the messages from each religion that are important. Fighting over who worships the ultimate truth/god is ridiculus when you could recognise the huge similarities between most people and their religions.

The differences are small but they are what help teach people to adapt to different people and sorroundings. Evolutionists just skip having to follow these rules because a god or dogma tells them too, rather they learn from all of history and studying different religions/cultures. There are a lot of humans on this planet, how can you expect them all to agree on one religion, when most people cant even agree with their spouses?

As for why you shouldn't go to war or ethnic cleanse etc, is because everyone has a right to be. The reason you can't murder someone because you consider him subhuman etc. is because you wouldn't want to be murdered by some more advanced species which considers you subhuman. Trial and Error is how humans learn. We have a vast history of violence because of religion. Instead we should unite and love and teach eachother and try to learn what we can to be better people.

What frightens me is that arguments such as the one presented by the OP - that only god provides moral fiber - are in fact stating that these people want to kill. They want to rape. They want to pillage and destroy and defile, they want to hold slaves and indulge in cannibalism - and the only thing stopping them is their fear of punishment from god.