Search results

[1] Evolution isn't about morality. [2] It is an explanation about the past and it is a great explanation of where our morality comes from ([3] not saying it is the basis for morality). The debate about whether it is a moral theory sais nothing about whether or not it is true[4].

The fine-tune argument is nonsence because it just tries to calculate the odds for this specific event to happen. If I drop a hand of sand on the ground, there are billions of ways that it could have landed but it ended up picking some formation. The odds of that formation instead of any other...

My answer would be, its a guage boson, they are massless.

You have to learn better English.

First, work on your question, your sentinces aren't even coherent. You are missing if's. Do you mean: Hypothetical, if a mysterious force emerges that kills of potential for "Evolution", should you have seen the selection pressure coming? Why not? Mutation "first"? Even if this was the actual...

This has to do with smart stupid people. We know where NDE's come from and it isn't interesting. Oxygen deprivation is enough to explain almost everything about NDE's. Oncologists or neurologists who have them and claim it was actually an experience from the afterlife are either lying or...

Your example doesn't coincide with your question. I don't know how the genes of thorns and the color of the flowers are positioned so my guess would be that one gene mutation that would change the leaf colour doesn't change the ability for the flower to have thorns or anything, I expect that...

Yes, and there are many more forms of energy we might not have even thought of. Besides that, nuclear fusion is also very promising fusing tritium and deuterium which are either very present in our water or a waste product of the fusion reaction if you use Lithium Thermal shields. Lithium is...

Please, tell me if you are serious.

The question you are formulation is not one with a definitive answer. Its not a matter of logic. It depends on the situation. You are also taking conclusions about mutations in general that aren't necessarily true. A mutation is just a random gene change that introduces new random information...

I Think I sort of get your statement but not entirely. Is your post about evolution and the role of mutation or am I misreading this?

Let me try to put it into words, Because the light that we see didn't originate 46 billion lightyears away. They are now 46 billion lightyears away but we saw the light from when they were much closer. The reason we don't see expansion in our day to day life is because the electromagnetic and...

Your assumptions are very bad approximations. You assume that every time someone is late, the reason is random and different. but if the weather is horrible(snow, ice on the road) the chance that everybody is late becomes a lot bigger. Same goes for maybe a faulty invitation to the choir. Just...

Ok I think I can conclude that even tough I think that I am being clear, and have a clear definition in my head, I need to practice on conveying it to others. Please allow me to start again. This time I'll try to keep it short: I don't think we ought to do anything. As you said, I think the...

I think to explain what I meant with this is the following. And I hope I understood the Is-ought gap properly here. I think we don't ought to do anything. We don't ought to do good things. We could do good or bad. Both are equally acceptable(not talking about morally acceptable). The question...

No I have reconsidered this. I don't agree with what I said. It is not a sensation. Morality is the differentiation of the value we assing to actions making them either good or bad. Where bad and good is defined according to the logic I described above. In short, something we would ultimately...

This comment is no longer valid. I reconsidered my comment on the next page! I would say that morality is the sensation or opinion we have about actions making them to us either experienced as a positive or negative thing to do. If an action is morally bad in the eyes of a person, then that...

I am hearing a lot of great theories here. I wonder what you think of this philosophy: I once did the following thought experiment. Lets imagine a world of 1000 people. 500 of them have the build in moral value to kill each other a.s.a.p. The other 500 have the moral value to keep each other...

You don't seem to understand that no matter how much effort you put into researching the next life, it won't guarantee that it is there. You seem to be sure of the existence but as far as I know it simply doesn't exist and simply studying it will not make it appear. You could go looking for it...

Wait. I am getting a bit confused here. It might be me. From one of your previous posts I got the impression that you were happy that you eventually found out that you knew how it worked so that Now you can say SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE with conviction. And then you say that you hope people do...