That doesn't explain why one is good with others. how does one know naturally that it is his/her duty to ensure your gene survival, when they are being good? no one even thinks about genes when helping, we help because we have compassion.
from creation.com, Helpful Animals:
Explanations Flawed
In 1962, Wynne-Edwards put forward the idea that altruism evolved 'for the good of the group', or 'for the good of the species'.9 The idea is that groups with altruists — helpful or caring animals — do better than groups of selfish animals, so the altruistic groups endure better.
But evolutionists admit flaws in this idea. What if a 'selfish' mutant individual arose in a group of altruists, and was able to avoid the cost of being helpful while still benefiting from the group's altruism? Evolutionists admit that as this 'selfish gene' spread through the group, 'the whole system would then break down'.10
Another theory was proposed — the theory of 'kin selection'. This theory tries to take into account that most beneficiaries of altruistic behaviour are relatives of the 'good Samaritan' animal. In its basic form, this theory states that 'a brother or sister shares as many of your genes (half) as a child, so that in helping a sister or brother to survive or reproduce you are helping to perpetuate your own genes (or, to put it another way, making a gain in genetic fitness) as much as if you protect your own child.'11
But evolutionists admit flaws in this idea too. There is hardly gain in genetic fitness when the recipient of the altruistic act is an elderly brother, sister, or other relative that is unlikely to survive much longer anyway.12
And even if the net result to relatives is beneficial, what about the many examples of help given to non-relatives? There are instances where dolphins and whales have supported ill animals of a different species.13 In some cases dolphins have aided humans who were drowning.14 And those birds that squawk when they see an approaching hawk are warning every animal within earshot — they are not counting how many genes they have in common with other birds and animals while the hawk closes in.
Do evolutionists have an answer to this?
Do Me A Favour
Well, sort of, but they wouldn't win a debate with it. The idea is based on one suggested by Robert L. Trivers in 1971. It is called 'reciprocal altruism'.15 The idea of reciprocalism is that cross-species altruism — giving help to non-relatives — occurs because 'an animal helped now will be able to return aid at a later date'.16 The animals are supposed to be saying, 'I'll do you a favour now if you do me a favour in the future'.
But wait a minute. Isn't this exactly what Darwin's theory of 'survival of the fittest' said couldn't happen? The animals that are fittest are supposed to survive while the weak ones perish. What's a fit dolphin doing helping a drowning man or a helpless animal that is not even in its own species? What's a fit meerkat doing staying at home to look after the kids while the rest of the group has a day out with the yellow-mongooses across the Kalahari?
The honest answer is that the explanation for helpful animals cannot be found in a purposeless theory like evolution, but rather in understanding that God the Creator has placed the world's array of animals on earth for His glory and to fill particular roles in the planet's ecology. That some creatures should help others in maintaining that role is no surprise to those who know that God — not evolution — created life on earth.
Thing is, God wouldn't make it ok. that's why it's wrong, God condemns rape and we are made in God's image.
You say it is, but where is your proof? I don't see how at all rape being wrong because it "breaks parent bonds" would evolve into what it is now, if it was ever wrong for that reason, that reason would still be at least one of the reasons even if evolved. "breaking parent bonds" isn't even one of reasons why rape is wrong, thus it never was the reason why rape is wrong.
You say they "evolved" that way, but all that is, is an assumption. Rape has been wrong, is wrong, and always will be wrong for being assault, against will/consent, perverting something sacred, and abuse of someone elses body. it's traumatic and it completely goes against God's Holiness, Rightness, and Love.
"breaking parent bonds" isn't nor ever was the reason why rape is wrong.
If "evolution" happened, sex wouldn't be sacred or private we wouldn't have any dignity at all. it would be a zoo with no love or commitment involved. sex wouldn't be on such a pedestal and importance that it is. the reason why sex is sacred and private is because God commands it to be sacred, to be between a married man and woman to express their love, and to procreate.
Your proof? I don't see how our instincts or morals aren't set in stone.
answer this, do you think rape could ever be morally justified? I am assuming you are sane and will answer no. that shows that rape being wrong is objective. therefore Objective Morals exist.
You don't apply that to the real world. there is cause and effect. if there were infinite amount of past events we would never get to here, no matter how you put it. if I was infinitely away from a store for example, I'd never get to the store, since I am infinitely away. it just wouldn't happen. most scientist agree infinite regression is impossible and the universe had a beginning.
so again, since infinite regression is impossible, there is a beginning, and since there is a beginning there is a first cause that has always existed, a first uncaused cause, God.
Since the first uncaused cause, is, uncaused, the first uncaused always has and always will exist, so by default is eternal. since the uncaused cause is uncaused, the uncaused cause will always exist. the first uncaused cause, God created time, matter, space, He is not bound to it.
add that to the fact that the first uncaused cause is the creator of the universe and everything in it, so by default is greater than everything. the lesser cannot produce the greater. the first uncaused cause, God, is which no greater can be conceived. to say the uncaused caused was only "temporary" or "nothing" would be delusional, you know better than that.
When you add up all the evidence. The Fine Tuning, Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity, Morality, The Bible, The Prophecies, Jesus Christ Death and Resurrection, and the first uncaused cause is undoubtedly, God.
To deny all the evidence showing that God exist, would be like having all the evidence to send person A to prison for a crime he undoubtedly committed, yet say he didn't when all the evidence adds up to person A being guilty having committed the crime.
Actually the first uncaused cause being uncaused means the first uncaused cause is which no greater can be conceived. the universe by default is lesser than the uncaused cause, because the universe had to be, caused and isn't eternal. compared to the uncaused cause which is eternal and uncaused, that by default makes the uncaused cause greater.
To think of the first uncaused cause, God, as anything less than his creation is absurd. it goes against logic. God is the creator everything in existence, so of course he is more than His creation, God is more than everything. God is which no greater can be conceived.
So again, you cannot deny that it all adds up, First Uncaused Cause, Fine Tuning, Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity, Morality, The Bible, The Prophecies, Jesus Christ Death and Resurrection, God exist.
"atheism" doesn't exist. you aren't an "atheist".
Answer this question, why are you an "atheist"? when "atheism" doesn't exist and there is substantial evidence for God. don't give me the "lack" belief excuse either because there is substantial evidence that God exist, so there is no excuse to "lack" belief. we shouldn't ask why "atheist" "lack" belief because they can't, we have to ask,
why don't "atheist" want God to exist?
Either "atheist" don't know God exist and need to research and look at the evidence or they don't want God to exist even though evidence shows that God exist. I believe it's the latter.
The thing about it is even if "macro-evolution" happened, it still doesn't change the fact that God exist. doesn't change the fact that Jesus Christ died for our sins on the cross and rose from the dead, or the first uncaused cause, Fine Tuning, Morality. so even if "macro-evolution" happened, doesn't change the fact that God exist. added to that is "macro-evolution" is an impossibility, it didn't happen. science, logic and math shows it didn't happen, so it is basically a faith. the only way "macro" evolution could have happened is by God.
It is either, Creation or Theistic evolution. either way is it, Creation, by God. I am a Young Earth Creationist, I trust in God's Word.
God Bless!
Romans 1:20
Last edited:
Upvote
0