If Evolution doesn't have morality, when will Evolution evolve morality?

[Gottservant]

"He was never in the equation"

Is the first thing they say

When they don't want it to add up

 

[Gottservant]

I just looked at my first post and I realized what I really needed to be saying:

Evolution (on its own) is not a sufficient condition, for sustaining the knowledge of itself.

I can prove it: name one thing the concept of "Evolution" has predatorily killed, devoured, integrated and pursued again. Yet what? It espouses "survival of the fittest" with predatorial conflict (at least frequently) presumed to be the "highest good".

News flash: concepts don't kill people, people do.

Right? And?

Conversely: concepts don't keep themselves, people keep them.

Ok? So?

Motive please! I have laid out in plain English that Evolution does not exist for its own sake. So what is the motive for keeping it: morally???

Waiting.

 

[Cute Tink]

I have laid out in plain English that Evolution does not exist for its own sake.

It actually pretty much does.

So what is the motive for keeping it: morally???

Purely a nod to reality.

 

[Gottservant]

It actually pretty much does.

If I quote you straight back, without limiting what you said to one statement as if that was all that was said... does it sound like you make sense? Or like you have responded with a fragment?

No offence, but if you want to derail serious discussion with flippant remarks, why not find a bambi site?

 

[Cute Tink]

Withdrawn.

 

[Gottservant]

Objection so far hasn't even slightly addressed that Evolutionists will gladly create fantasy argument for how the concept of "morality" evolved... if it suits them to "prop up" their theory.

Very bogus representation.

 

[Tomk80]

Case in point, re: above EDIT.

As for your insolence...

...consider that no matter how many groups of individuals say "you don't make sense", there is almost always one or two that reply meaningfully, having fully understood what I said - given that one or two almost always demonstrate that they have fully understood, and time ends, who will be said to be at least "intelligent"? You or them? And time having ended and great numbers of people standing around saying "but we didn't understand" and they did not ask those who understood, who will be considered foolish? You or them?

If other people understand you better, this still doesn't make your posts well reasoned or coherent. Note that the people who respond to you, always say you are wrong.

I won't deny that there are people on this forum who are better at deciphering loony babble than I am. But their ability to decipher your posts does not your posts any more coherent, or my inability to understand your incoherence foolish.

A man asks many questions, but when he does not seek an answer: he alone is the fool.

Given that you keep claiming the same things, despite the fact that many people have already pointed out to you at length that you are wrong, I'd say this applies pretty well to you.

 

[Gottservant]

Your problem is twofold: one, you think intelligence is instant, two, you think proving it needs to be public.

I am just making an observation, not an assessment of character (I could have said you are stupid because of these things)

 

[Tomk80]

I just looked at my first post and I realized what I really needed to be saying:

Evolution (on its own) is not a sufficient condition, for sustaining the knowledge of itself.

It doesn't have to. It's a process. It doesn't need knowledge.

I can prove it: name one thing the concept of "Evolution" has predatorily killed, devoured, integrated and pursued again. Yet what? It espouses "survival of the fittest" with predatorial conflict (at least frequently) presumed to be the "highest good".

Evolution doesn't kill, devour, intergrate and pursue. Organisms do.

News flash: concepts don't kill people, people do.

Than what was the above about?

Right? And?

Conversely: concepts don't keep themselves, people keep them.

Ok? So?

Motive please! I have laid out in plain English that Evolution does not exist for its own sake. So what is the motive for keeping it: morally???

Waiting.

Evolution happens. Humans describe that it happens and how. Just as gravity happens and humans describe that it does and how. Saying that there is a moral reason for keeping it is incredibly stupid. It is just a description of how reality works. Reality doesn't care whether we keep an accurate description of it or not. It will happen regardless.

Question: Do you seriously think that evolution will stop happening if we, as humans, abandon it as a description of reality?

 

[Tomk80]

Your problem is twofold: one, you think intelligence is instant, two, you think proving it needs to be public.

I am just making an observation, not an assessment of character (I could have said you are stupid because of these things)

Què? Was that directed at me? No, I don't think intelligence is instant. I do think that honesty means listening to what other people say. I have yet to see you do so. There is a point when things have been explained over and over again, that the probability that you are actually reading those explanations approaches zero. I am just making an observation here.

And given that you are posting on a public forum, one about science nonetheless, the coherence of your ideas will be criticized. So far, you ideas are incoherent. Also just an observation.

 

[Gottservant]

It doesn't have to. It's a process. It doesn't need knowledge.

Woah! I could dump you in the ocean of Evolutionist disapproval for that comment alone: you need to find a way to take it back, seriously, aint nobody going to say "evolution is not knowledge" (and agree with you). Seriously, delete it or something, before someone sees (I will delete this if you need me to).

Evolution doesn't kill, devour, intergrate and pursue. Organisms do.

Again, there are Evolutionists that would argue that it can, but since I was saying exactly this (EXACTLY) in order to make a point, I would rather you focus on the point: the point is BECAUSE IT DOESN'T IT WILL DIE UNLESS KEPT.

Than what was the above about?

Not that you understand this, but basically your Evolutionary logic has turned inward on itself and begun to devour your own reasoning. You do not have long, I suggest you stop.

Reality doesn't care whether we keep an accurate description of it or not. It will happen regardless.

Reality does care. People in reality choose to care. Because People in reality choose to care, certain concepts survive and others die. You are in denial (of environmental pressure your own theory says is relevant) if you do not accept this.

Question: Do you seriously think that evolution will stop happening if we, as humans, abandon it as a description of reality?

Presumption: evolution is already happening, therefore it doesn't need to be happening ("it just is"). Pure Nonsense.

 

[Jamin4422]

Woah! I could dump you in the ocean of Evolutionist disapproval for that comment alone:

Really, I just had one evolutionist call another evolutionist crazy because he said that evolution was an idea.We should just let evolutionists fight it out with each other and watch them self destruct. Because they can not seem to agree on much of anything. They sure like to put up a fake front like they agree on the basics, but not really. But like other fake fronts it looks good.

 

[Tomk80]

Woah! I could dump you in the ocean of Evolutionist disapproval for that comment alone: you need to find a way to take it back, seriously, aint nobody going to say "evolution is not knowledge" (and agree with you). Seriously, delete it or something, before someone sees (I will delete this if you need me to).

Our knowledge of description is knowledge. The process as it happens in nature is not. Whether we have knowledge of this process is irrelevant to it happening. Do you understand this?

Again, there are Evolutionists that would argue that it can,

Name one. Seriously.

but since I was saying exactly this (EXACTLY) in order to make a point, I would rather you focus on the point: the point is BECAUSE IT DOESN'T IT WILL DIE UNLESS KEPT.

What do you think this even means? Reality will happen, regardless of whether we get the description of it right. Do you understand this?

Not that you understand this, but basically your Evolutionary logic has turned inward on itself and begun to devour your own reasoning. You do not have long, I suggest you stop.

Què?

Reality does care. People in reality choose to care. Because People in reality choose to care, certain concepts survive and others die. You are in denial (of environmental pressure your own theory says is relevant) if you do not accept this.

People care. Reality does not. If I fall out of an airplane, I care whether gravity exists or not and I'd rather it doesn't. Gravity will exist nonetheless. If I'm out in the desert without water, I will care about the fact that I don't have bumps storing water, like camels. Nature does not care one bit. Do you understand this?

Presumption: evolution is already happening, therefore it doesn't need to be happening ("it just is"). Pure Nonsense.

??? No, evolution will happen, whether we get the description of it right or not. Again, do you really think any natural process will stop happening if we get the description of it wrong?

 

[Gottservant]

I will stop you getting out of the plane if I have to.

Stop asking me if I understand and ASK if you do.

Your theory is dying NOW, NO ONE believes IT and you think because I cannot change it, that somehow it is still TRUE

You are a laughing stock, we have been laughing since WWII and you have never attempted to fix the problem

Now someone who very clearly knows what the problem is IS POINTING IT OUT and you are trying to tell them that "description = innocence"

BAHAHAHAHA

 

[Gottservant]

PS don't expect an immediate reply, I have decided I need a break.

 

[Tomk80]

I will stop you getting out of the plane if I have to.

Stop asking me if I understand and ASK if you do.

Your theory is dying NOW, NO ONE believes IT and you think because I cannot change it, that somehow it is still TRUE

You are a laughing stock, we have been laughing since WWII and you have never attempted to fix the problem

Now someone who very clearly knows what the problem is IS POINTING IT OUT and you are trying to tell them that "description = innocence"

BAHAHAHAHA

Okay, now you're really losing it. Take a break.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

If I quote you straight back, without limiting what you said to one statement as if that was all that was said... does it sound like you make sense? Or like you have responded with a fragment?

No offence, but if you want to derail serious discussion with flippant remarks, why not find a bambi site?

No offense but, this stopped being a serious discussion when the biological mechanism of evolution was said to have it's own morality. I wonder what are the morals of gravity, or electromagnetism? Do you not see where your logic fails?

 

[mzungu]

Objection so far hasn't even slightly addressed that Evolutionists will gladly create fantasy argument for how the concept of "morality" evolved... if it suits them to "prop up" their theory.

Very bogus representation.

If you want to impose your beliefs onto science then remember this: All deities are the inventions of human imagination and belong to the spiritual world. Deities have no place in science. Evolution is nothing more than a process. The process in itself is neither sentient nor moral.

If you insist on imposing on science then you better use scientific methodology and provide empirical evidences to support your claims. If you cannot then all you are doing is hypothesizing without any evidence! In short you are using make believe to try to convince us.

 

[Gottservant]

You want morality or you wouldn't have come to a Christian site.

 

[Gottservant]

Let me tell you something simple, that will help you get context:

When you are talking about the PAST

You are telling a STORY

A story without a MORAL is a FANTASY

This is first grade Wisdom, for fledgling believers. But apparently, no one is sharing it enough.