Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Intelligent Design is Dead

page: 11
24
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 03:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Microscopictopic
 

You made the same claim in another thread and your math is off by a large margin. Here was my reply




posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


You need to check out the other thread for your answer.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Microscopictopic
 

It wasn't much of an answer.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Microscopictopic
 

You need to check my answer in the other thread. Especially the part about generation times.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   
A friend of mine is an atheist evolutionist.
And yet, he sometimes says things that I find difficult to reconcile.
For example, he is adamant that a child 'Inherrently knows right from wrong', r, 'what is right and what is wrong'.
I cannot fathom how he can believe that and hold to the idea that we have evolved as a species over billions of years from primordial soup to complex thinking machines/animals.
How does right and wrong fit into the mindset of an evolutionist? Just curious that's all, and I would love to know.
I guess my problwm with it (or his personal interpretation of it) is:
1:He is appealing to some kind of common truth notion we all know and share. If there is a right and wrong as he seems to believe and suggest, it is shared by all humankind instinctively. Just a quick look around the variety of social, anthropological, cultural existences and we see that doesn't seem true! People DON'T agree on what is right and what is wrong.
2: If this sense of right and wrong is inherrrant within us, then surely it is just a facet of the evolutionary experience we go through. If so, 'Right and wrong' or 'morality', are relative to our evolutionary growth, and not a constant. It evolves as we do. If so, right and wrong cannot exist, because it becomes subject to the same evolutionary principles of 'hey, don't need a tail anymore/scales anymore, body hair, etc.
He wants a 'constant' of right and wrong, but evolution by nature is a process of continued change and adaptation! He won't accept that saudi arabians beheading someone for shoplifting is an evolutionary process for a sub section of a particular species on this planet.
Can anyone see what I'm getting at here? I don't understand his evolutionary atheism.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucius Driftwood
A friend of mine is an atheist evolutionist.
And yet, he sometimes says things that I find difficult to reconcile.
For example, he is adamant that a child 'Inherrently knows right from wrong', r, 'what is right and what is wrong'.
I cannot fathom how he can believe that and hold to the idea that we have evolved as a species over billions of years from primordial soup to complex thinking machines/animals.
How does right and wrong fit into the mindset of an evolutionist? Just curious that's all, and I would love to know.
I guess my problwm with it (or his personal interpretation of it) is:
1:He is appealing to some kind of common truth notion we all know and share. If there is a right and wrong as he seems to believe and suggest, it is shared by all humankind instinctively. Just a quick look around the variety of social, anthropological, cultural existences and we see that doesn't seem true! People DON'T agree on what is right and what is wrong.
2: If this sense of right and wrong is inherrrant within us, then surely it is just a facet of the evolutionary experience we go through. If so, 'Right and wrong' or 'morality', are relative to our evolutionary growth, and not a constant. It evolves as we do. If so, right and wrong cannot exist, because it becomes subject to the same evolutionary principles of 'hey, don't need a tail anymore/scales anymore, body hair, etc.
He wants a 'constant' of right and wrong, but evolution by nature is a process of continued change and adaptation! He won't accept that saudi arabians beheading someone for shoplifting is an evolutionary process for a sub section of a particular species on this planet.
Can anyone see what I'm getting at here? I don't understand his evolutionary atheism.



Knowing right from wrong has nothing to do with evolution. It has to do with empathy. People don't need religion to have empathy. It's a very simple philosophy known as the golden rule. Do unto others and you would have them do unto you. You don't need a religion to teach you that. When you see an innocent person suffering, you will either put yourself in their shoes and imagine how they feel and why its wrong, OR you ignore them and don't care at all because it's not you. That's the type of mentality that started slavery and torture for not believing in the same god as another. That mentality isn't exclusive to atheists, a large portion of religious folk are pro war, regardless of the suffering it causes. Right and wrong can be subjective, but the general rule of thumb is this: Ask yourself, "Is this action going to cause any harm or suffering to others?" If it does, then it is wrong. If not, then who really cares? Some believe smoking weed is wrong, gay marriage, premarital sex, masturbation, etc etc.. But do those action harm anybody other than potentially yourself? I don't understand the concept that religious folks can tell right from wrong, while non religious cannot. That's simply false and right and wrong is mostly about empathy, just as jesus taught and most other religions teach as well. It really has nothing at all to do with evolution.

edit on 19-3-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 06:01 PM
link   


Knowing right from wrong has nothing to do with evolution. It has to do with empathy. People don't need religion to have empathy. It's a very simple philosophy known as the golden rule. Do unto others and you would have them do unto you. You don't need a religion to teach you that. When you see an innocent person suffering, you will either put yourself in their shoes and imagine how they feel and why its wrong, OR you ignore them and don't care at all because it's not you. That's the type of mentality that started slavery and torture for not believing in the same god as another. That mentality isn't exclusive to atheists, a large portion of religious folk are pro war, regardless of the suffering it causes. Right and wrong can be subjective, but the general rule of thumb is this: Ask yourself, "Is this action going to cause any harm or suffering to others?" If it does, then it is wrong. If not, then who really cares? Some believe smoking weed is wrong, gay marriage, premarital sex, masturbation, etc etc.. But do those action harm anybody other than potentially yourself? I don't understand the concept that religious folks can tell right from wrong, while non religious cannot. That's simply false and right and wrong is mostly about empathy, just as jesus taught and most other religions teach as well. It really has nothing at all to do with evolution.
reply to post by Barcs
 


Nope, still don't get it.
We are nothing more than 'animals'. A bit smarter, more sly, adaptable and manipulative than other animals, but animals all the same (according to evolutionary theory).
Why would I want to hinder/hamper my life by basing every action on how it affects others?
Does a lion feel guilty for killing a gazelle?
Maybe that sounds a bit primitive, but if all I have is the HERE and NOW, consequence is a man made construct to keep me playing 'the game' by the rules that someone other than myself determined. Why would I want to play by anyone elses rules? Why would I limit and hinder my existence to a temporal code that has no real bearing? If I die tomorrow, everything I did serves me no purpose.
Might cause some ripples in other peoples' lives, but I wont be watching from some cloud or fiery pit thinking, 'Oops, my fault that eventually happened/they did that/they didn't do that', and ultimately I won't care. When I'm dead, it serves me no good, so whatever I do now won't serve me any good when I'm dead either.
Would I like to be hunted down like a wild animal into an alleyway and have my wallet and my life stolen from me? No not really, but that's the survival of the fittest. No need for a 'golden rule' just to pacify the collective needy conscience of humanity.
No room in evolution for the 'It's not fair' sentiment that humanity constantly cries out like an angry child.
Why should anything be fair? Who made that rule up?
Oh yeah, the golden ratio-ists....still don't get it.
Does it serve me or do I serve it?



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucius Driftwood
 

Right & wrong are social constructs. People in general play by the rules of the society because they want to avoid trouble. It's the same with all social animals..



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 01:27 AM
link   
When I made this thread in early December 2011, the Origins & Creationism forum was still a place of active (sometimes too active) confrontation and debate. Six months later, that is no longer the case.

In May 2012, only six new threads were created in the forum. Four of them stalled on Page One. One made it to a second page, another lasted four pages. The final post on it is dated 5 May.

The notable creationists and ID supporters on ATS rarely visit the forum any more. The dominant regulars now are people like Titen-Sxull, MrXYZ, Barcs and other promoters of the theory of evolution, though increasingly, they find themselves battling people I suspect they regard as unworthy opponents.

Even some of the obsessive defenders of evolution who were active on the forum have gone missing.

I regard all this as further proof, if proof were needed, that the intelligent design movement is dead. Nobody is defending it any more. Perhaps it is time the ATS authorities shut this forum down. It is no longer needed.

Science has won the debate, as it was always going to.









 
24
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join