Where does morality come from?

[createdtoworship]

CitationS? do you accept the following...

Variation: In all species, individuals differ in their genetic makeup, producing many variations in their physical features; individuals in a population vary from each other.

Inheritance: Individuals pass some of their genetic material to their offspring; parents pass on their traits to their offspring.

Selection: Some individuals have inherited character (genes) that allows them to better survive or produce more offspring. These offspring, in turn, are more likely to survive and create offspring of their own. As a result, their genes become more common in the entire population; some variants reproduce more than others.

and how does that apply to what I was saying?

I was asking for citations regarding this post:

"The evidence for "macro" evolution is the same as the evidence for "micro" evolution, since they are the same process, just in different degrees. To say that you can have micro but not macro is like saying a wheel can rotate 30 degrees but it can't make a full revolution."

let me be clear:

1.Cosmic evolution- the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang.
2.Chemical evolution- the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
3.Stellar and planetary evolution- Origin of stars and planets.
4.Organic evolution- Origin of life from inanimate matter.
5.Macroevolution- Origin of major kinds.
6.Microevolution- Variations within kinds
Microevolution, or natural selection, is the only one of these we actually observe with science.

 

[Jimmy D]

and how does that apply to what I was saying?

I was asking for citations regarding this post:

"The evidence for "macro" evolution is the same as the evidence for "micro" evolution, since they are the same process, just in different degrees. To say that you can have micro but not macro is like saying a wheel can rotate 30 degrees but it can't make a full revolution."

you made a lot of statements that are unverified there, you mind giving citations?

I know what was said, hence my response.

You were asking for citations for something that's common knowledge.... If you have some information that makes you think that "The evidence for "macro" evolution is the same as the evidence for "micro" evolution, since they are the same process" is not true maybe you could share it.

1.Cosmic evolution- the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang.
2.Chemical evolution- the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
3.Stellar and planetary evolution- Origin of stars and planets.
4.Organic evolution- Origin of life from inanimate matter.

Irrelevant, the topic was biological evolution.

5.Macroevolution- Origin of major kinds.
6.Microevolution- Variations within kinds

There is no such classification in biology as a "kind", so you're not being clear at all.

The main principles of the Theory of evolution are Variation, Inheritance and selection, which apply to both micro and macro evolution, do you disagree?

 

[BioLeap]

I have another very important question to ask of everyone.

I am a firm believer in God and believe that morality is certainly derived from Him and Him alone... that being said, however, I'm wondering how a person would debate this with someone like an Atheist? Atheists do not believe in God, so telling them that morality comes from God would probably not be all that convincing.

If morality comes from God and God only, then there would obviously be no other answer to tell anyone who was asking since the truth is objective and not just some kind of malleable or subjective reality. But, even still, how would someone discuss this point with an Atheist who clearly does not believe in God and seems highly unlikely to cave in to the idea?

The only way to prove God to an Atheist is to not use your Bible (That only makes them more Atheist)

 

[Kylie]

1.Cosmic evolution- the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang.
2.Chemical evolution- the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
3.Stellar and planetary evolution- Origin of stars and planets.
4.Organic evolution- Origin of life from inanimate matter.
5.Macroevolution- Origin of major kinds.
6.Microevolution- Variations within kinds
Microevolution, or natural selection, is the only one of these we actually observe with science.

I seem to remember seeing AV post something like this once.

A friendly word of advice - don't get information about evolution from AV. Get it from scientists.

 

[Ken-1122]

no, sir. They would be considered ape like creatures, and humans would not be the same human either, they would be considered for lack of a better term, "human like creatures." That is if I believed in macro evolution. Which there is no evidence for.

So why did you claim the apes that humans evolved from (which has not been around for millions of years) did not forgive their enemies?

 

[gaara4158]

and what is that exactly, and how does it correlate with your beloved evolution. After all it would seem to contradict evolution. And so it boils down to the fact that these human traits have no evidence of evolving, at least in the examples you provide.

It’s easily plausible that it arose as a mutation in some extinct ancestor of ours. It’s also plausible that it arose as an emergent phenomenon resulting from a combination of other inherited traits. This isn’t difficult to imagine if you understand how evolution works. A ton of work has been done to find out exactly which explanation is most likely, all available for your review with a simple google search. I take it you just don’t want to understand.

And what’s more - as you keep ignoring - none of this actually matters. Whether we can or cannot explain the existence of your special “self sacrificial love” in humans, your position is not supported. It is not the default. We don’t get to jump to supernatural conclusions in the absence of a natural explanation (which you already admitted we could never empirically confirm nor deny). That’s why your argument is so absolutely ridiculous.

 

[createdtoworship]

I know what was said, hence my response.

You were asking for citations for something that's common knowledge.... If you have some information that makes you think that "The evidence for "macro" evolution is the same as the evidence for "micro" evolution, since they are the same process" is not true maybe you could share it.




Irrelevant, the topic was biological evolution.



There is no such classification in biology as a "kind", so you're not being clear at all.

The main principles of the Theory of evolution are Variation, Inheritance and selection, which apply to both micro and macro evolution, do you disagree?

Sir I fully answered your question microevolution is variations within kinds. In scientific terms it would be variations at species level and below. Macro evolution would be one kind os animal evolving into a different kind. The engine of variation is there, but not the evolution of one kind of animal.into another, scientifically speaking this would be evolution between two separate genra of animals. There is no observed evidence of an intermediary that satisfies macro evolution. Yes the engine is there, the variance is there, but no so much variance that two distinct animals are related via evolutionary history.

 

[createdtoworship]

I seem to remember seeing AV post something like this once.

A friendly word of advice - don't get information about evolution from AV. Get it from scientists.

He may have got it from my sources. I don't know. Regardless, belittling othe posters is not effective in debate, nor is it a mature tactic.

 

[createdtoworship]

So why did you claim the apes that humans evolved from (which has not been around for millions of years) did not forgive their enemies?

Well sir, I am using terms evolutionist use and terms I use. So you may be confused between the two. I don't believe there are ape like creatures, but I mention it for debate purposes, that would be what would have to hapen if evolution were true, theoretically of course, because it's not true, as there is no evidence of evolution as we know, only variation.

 

[Ken-1122]

Well sir, I am using terms evolutionist use and terms I use. So you may be confused between the two. I don't believe there are ape like creatures, but I mention it for debate purposes, that would be what would have to hapen if evolution were true, theoretically of course, because it's not true, as there is no evidence of evolution as we know, only variation.

First of all, there is no such a thing as "ape like creatures" (sounds like something you just made up) the creature humans (along with modern apes, gorillas, monkey's, etc) evolved from was called an ape; not an ape like creature.
Second, Evolution has been proven to be true; modern medicine, even Agriculture, is based on the theory of evolution being true. If what you said about evolution was true, much of our medicines wouldn't work and our agricultural programs would be a failure.
Third, if you are going to claim the apes humans evolved from did not forgive their enemies, you need to explain how you know this.

 

[Kylie]

He may have got it from my sources. I don't know. Regardless, belittling othe posters is not effective in debate, nor is it a mature tactic.

Please do not take it as me belittling anyone. All I am saying is that if you want accurate information about evolution and what it is, please go to someone who actually knows what it is. AV has stated that he doesn't know what evolution is, and he doesn't care to know. As such, any information he provides about evolution is not reliable.

 

[createdtoworship]

First of all, there is no such a thing as "ape like creatures" (sounds like something you just made up) the creature humans (along with modern apes, gorillas, monkey's, etc) evolved from was called an ape; not an ape like creature.
Second, Evolution has been proven to be true; modern medicine, even Agriculture, is based on the theory of evolution being true. If what you said about evolution was true, much of our medicines wouldn't work and our agricultural programs would be a failure.
Third, if you are going to claim the apes humans evolved from did not forgive their enemies, you need to explain how you know this.

You have no observable evidence of large scale evolution. Oly small scale varience, which no one disputes.

 

[createdtoworship]

Please do not take it as me belittling anyone. All I am saying is that if you want accurate information about evolution and what it is, please go to someone who actually knows what it is. AV has stated that he doesn't know what evolution is, and he doesn't care to know. As such, any information he provides about evolution is not reliable.

This is an adhomimem fallacy. And poisoning the well. Just because someone admits they don't know everything, does nit make everything they say in error. What if we said that about you? Simply because you claimed to be fallible?

 

[Ken-1122]

You have no observable evidence of large scale evolution. Oly small scale varience, which no one disputes.

I'm not the one with the evidence, it is the scientists who study evolution who have the evidence; I'm must relaying what they say, and they say nothing about how the original ape treated it's enemies. And by the way, there are plenty of people who dispute the small scale variance.

 

[createdtoworship]

I'm not the one with the evidence, it is the scientists who study evolution who have the evidence; I'm must relaying what they say, and they say nothing about how the original ape treated it's enemies. And by the way, there are plenty of people who dispute the small scale variance.

people dispute small scare variance because logically you guys say the engine of evolution works on a micro and a macro level. So because they disagree with monkey to man ideology, they reject all evolution. It's just being naive. They haven't debated this topic long enough. And or, are not open minded. Small scale evolution happens all the time, when you get over a cold there is micro evolution happening. The circles I run in, don't ever debate the validity of getting over a cold, or of other variance. It's the macro evolution, monkey to man ideology that is a little different than simple variance. Let me illustrate, a fruit fly developing spots, is still a fruit fly but a spotty fruitfly. It is the same with all variance, it never changes the animal into some other animal, it could hypothetically speaking, it's just that part has never been observed. And I have debated biologists, astronomers, you name it. They don't have any more evidence than you do. They may throw out a few common, "missing links." But nothing that can be explained as a transition between to genra of animals, or two different mating groups. That is how I define an animal, a group that can mate with each other and produce fertile offspring. Sometimes animals can mate with animals of a different genus, but the offspring are infertile. That is not a true animal group, only those which have successful mating should be considered the same animal group. That is what the biblical group "kind" means. Creationists, use the word kind a lot. Basically they are meaning, within the same genus. I replied to your argument, as if it was valid. But that was giving you the benefit of the doubt, even if nothing I said was correct in this post, your argument is still what is called "the band wagon fallacy." That basically means " my view is correct not because of the evidence but because someone I view as authoritative believes it, in this case a scientist."

I can tell you thousands of christian scientists that believe evolution is unproven, but that is not what makes is unproven, it's the lack of evidence that makes in unproven.

 

[gaara4158]

people dispute small scare variance because logically you guys say the engine of evolution works on a micro and a macro level. So because they disagree with monkey to man ideology, they reject all evolution. It's just being naive. They haven't debated this topic long enough. And or, are not open minded. Small scale evolution happens all the time, when you get over a cold there is micro evolution happening. The circles I run in, don't ever debate the validity of getting over a cold, or of other variance. It's the macro evolution, monkey to man ideology that is a little different than simple variance. Let me illustrate, a fruit fly developing spots, is still a fruit fly but a spotty fruitfly. It is the same with all variance, it never changes the animal into some other animal, it could hypothetically speaking, it's just that part has never been observed. And I have debated biologists, astronomers, you name it. They don't have any more evidence than you do. They may throw out a few common, "missing links." But nothing that can be explained as a transition between to genra of animals, or two different mating groups. That is how I define an animal, a group that can mate with each other and produce fertile offspring. Sometimes animals can mate with animals of a different genus, but the offspring are infertile. That is not a true animal group, only those which have successful mating should be considered the same animal group. That is what the biblical group "kind" means. Creationists, use the word kind a lot. Basically they are meaning, within the same genus. I replied to your argument, as if it was valid. But that was giving you the benefit of the doubt, even if nothing I said was correct in this post, your argument is still what is called "the band wagon fallacy." That basically means " my view is correct not because of the evidence but because someone I view as authoritative believes it, in this case a scientist."

I can tell you thousands of christian scientists that believe evolution is unproven, but that is not what makes is unproven, it's the lack of evidence that makes in unproven.

It’s been pointed out to you many times that deferring to the scientific consensus is not the same as the bandwagon fallacy. Do you have a poor memory, or do you have no integrity?

 

[createdtoworship]

It’s been pointed out to you many times that deferring to the scientific consensus is not the same as the bandwagon fallacy. Do you have a poor memory, or do you have no integrity?

Just because the scientists being trusted in, happen to be in unison still makes it a bandwagon fallacy. Mainly because you are trusting in the bandwagon of consensus, and not the actual facts. Remember I have proven many times that scientists were in unison on several scientific errors of the past, spontaneous generation, flat earth...you name it. Just because scientists agree, does not make your argument more valid, because ultimately you are trusting in man, and not the actual argument.

 

[Kylie]

You have no observable evidence of large scale evolution. Oly small scale varience, which no one disputes.

And what do you think happens when small scale variance goes on for a very long time?

 

[gaara4158]

Just because the scientists being trusted in, happen to be in unison still makes it a bandwagon fallacy. Mainly because you are trusting in the bandwagon of consensus, and not the actual facts. Remember I have proven many times that scientists were in unison on several scientific errors of the past, spontaneous generation, flat earth...you name it. Just because scientists agree, does not make your argument more valid, because ultimately you are trusting in man, and not the actual argument.

No, it literally isn’t, you’re 100% wrong. The difference between the bandwagon fallacy and the scientific consensus is that we actually have good reason other than mere consensus to believe the scientific community knows best on scientific matters. We know that scientists are far more educated than the average person and that they are the ones most familiar with the data and evidence, plus they are most qualified to interpret it. The bandwagon fallacy, on the other hand, contains no such premise.

The reason logical fallacies are so convincing is because they are so close to legitimate logical arguments. Scientific consensus is the legitimate argument that the bandwagon fallacy imitates to make it so appealing. You’re doing the opposite here, which is just as fallacious. You’re rejecting the legitimate argument on the grounds that it’s so close to the fallacy. Which is a little funny, but not unexpected.

The important thing is we both learned something. I actually had to look that up the first time you dropped it on us, and now here I am explaining it in my own words. Hopefully you’ve learned from this too, so we can have yet another win together!

 

[Kylie]

This is an adhomimem fallacy. And poisoning the well. Just because someone admits they don't know everything, does nit make everything they say in error. What if we said that about you? Simply because you claimed to be fallible?

No, it's not an ad hominem fallacy.

If it was an ad hominem, I would have to say that a person's opinion on subject A should not be considered because they have a big nose.

Your logical fallacy is ad hominem

But in this case, I am saying that AV's opinion about evolution should not be considered because he has freely admitted that he does not know very much about evolution. It's not an ad hominem because I am dealing with AV's self-admitted knowledge about the very subject we are discussing.

And I never said that you should accept my word on evolution either. You asked me for citations, and I gave them. Specifically, I gave you:

• A source from Berkeley university.
• An answer on Quora which was given by David Moscato, Science Communicator with a Master's in Paleontology.
• The wikipedia article, specifically, the sentence, "Macroevolution and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales." This sentence has two citations. The first is credited to Nick Matzke and Paul R. Gross. Nick has several notable contributions to the field, including serving in an instrumental role in NCSE's preparation for the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, and writing a paper on the evolution of the flagella. Paul is a biologist and author who has degrees in zoology and physiology, and has written widely on biology, evolution and creationism. The second citation is credited to Douglas J Futuyma, who is an American evolutionary biologist. He is a Distinguished Professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at Stony Brook University in Stony Brook, New York and a Research Associate on staff at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. His research focuses on speciation and population biology.
• An article on a biology website
• An article on a website that corrects the false claims often made by creationists.

So, I'm not asking you to take my word for it, am I? I'm asking you to take the word of people who have spent years studying this exact field and have a great deal more knowledge and experience in this topic than either of us. I think accepting their position is the smart thing to do, seeing as they are actual experts in the field. Who do you think would be able to provide better information about a topic? Someone who has years of experience in the topic, or someone who freely admits that they don't know much - if anything - about it?

On the other hand, your source claims that evolution could cover many different things, and only one of them had any supporting evidence. Would you care to share your source? Was it written by someone who is an expert in the field?