An interesting exchange

[Guest]

Morality predates faith. And our basic empathetic instinct is indeed an evolved trait.

That is an opinion. Where is the science to back it up? Or did a bunch of people just vote on it?

Normally I get the old answer that evolution is true therefore everything observed is part of evolution and since social structures are observed they must come from evolution.

Is this what you are saying? Notice any circles?

Animals have picked up morality without any preachy self-righteous guys asking for 10% of their bananas. I think it's safe to say it's an evolved trait, Einstein. Consider, also, that religion is a relatively recent development in the history of our species.

[_Buffalo]

As a primer, check out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality

[_Franktalk]

Animals have picked up morality without any preachy self-righteous guys asking for 10% of their bananas. I think it's safe to say it's an evolved trait, Einstein. Consider, also, that religion is a relatively recent development in the history of our species.

Again with the assumptions. You assume that evolution is true and then assume that everything observed is connected to evolution. I am sorry that logic is false.

In the Bible it states:

Job 39:13 Gavest thou the goodly wings unto the peacocks? or wings and feathers unto the ostrich?
Job 39:14 Which leaveth her eggs in the earth, and warmeth them in dust,
Job 39:15 And forgetteth that the foot may crush them, or that the wild beast may break them.
Job 39:16 She is hardened against her young ones, as though they were not hers: her labor is in vain without fear;
Job 39:17 Because God hath deprived her of wisdom, neither hath he imparted to her understanding.

So this is one view and you have another. You can point to wiki and I can point to the Bible. So what. I say I can't prove the Bible one must believe and have faith. You say that science is based on provable facts. So prove your case.

[_Buffalo]

Animals have picked up morality without any preachy self-righteous guys asking for 10% of their bananas. I think it's safe to say it's an evolved trait, Einstein. Consider, also, that religion is a relatively recent development in the history of our species.

Again with the assumptions. You assume that evolution is true and then assume that everything observed is connected to evolution. I am sorry that logic is false.

In the Bible it states:

Job 39:13 Gavest thou the goodly wings unto the peacocks? or wings and feathers unto the ostrich?
Job 39:14 Which leaveth her eggs in the earth, and warmeth them in dust,
Job 39:15 And forgetteth that the foot may crush them, or that the wild beast may break them.
Job 39:16 She is hardened against her young ones, as though they were not hers: her labor is in vain without fear;
Job 39:17 Because God hath deprived her of wisdom, neither hath he imparted to her understanding.

So this is one view and you have another. You can point to wiki and I can point to the Bible. So what. I say I can't prove the Bible one must believe and have faith. You say that science is based on provable facts. So prove your case.

I'm not assuming anything. Evolution is a proven fact - there is no doubt whatsoever that it occurs. It's backed up by mountains of evidence. Whereas your opinion seems to be shored up by a rather inferior bronze age religious text of dubious authorship.

Too bad the men who wrote the Bible weren't more knowledgeable about animals. They'd learn that many animals, especially mammals, are quite good nurturers of their young. They also show empathy and charity towards other animals.

[_Franktalk]

I'm not assuming anything. Evolution is a proven fact - there is no doubt whatsoever that it occurs. It's backed up by mountains of evidence. Whereas your opinion seems to be shored up by a rather inferior bronze age religious text of dubious authorship.

Too bad the men who wrote the Bible weren't more knowledgeable about animals. They'd learn that many animals, especially mammals, are quite good nurturers of their young. They also show empathy and charity towards other animals.

I see. So you point to a pile of books that use the same type of reasoning you have shown in your posts. Mostly circular. Then declare that the pile of books proves something. I have to disagree, data and observation may lead us to valid conclusions. We have indirect data and no observations dealing with evolution. So your proof is faith based. Yet you will not admit to that simple fact. If you can't admit to this simple fact why would anyone trust anything you say at all?

Science is a set of observations and theories which try and link those observations in meaningful ways. Nothing is proven. It is a study of interactions of parts of nature. Once you go away from direct observation you enter the realm of possibilities but loosely tied to data. These are fine as a tool to reach out and explore new turf. There have been great thinkers who see science on the wrong course.

"Philosopher of science Paul K Feyerabend advanced the idea of epistemological anarchism, which holds that there are no useful and exception-free methodological rules governing the progress of science or the growth of knowledge, and that the idea that science can or should operate according to universal and fixed rules is unrealistic, pernicious and detrimental to science itself.[71] Feyerabend advocates treating science as an ideology alongside others such as religion, magic and mythology, and considers the dominance of science in society authoritarian and unjustified.[71] He also contended (along with Imre Lakatos) that the demarcation problem of distinguishing science from pseudoscience on objective grounds is not possible and thus fatal to the notion of science running according to fixed, universal rules.[71]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

So don't get to full of your self and your support structure.

[_bcspace]

Anyway, I thought this was interesting because as a Mormon, he really makes a persuasive argument here for Atheism in the story (there is more in the book but this was just a good snippet). The king also sounds a little book of mormonish too "If ye say there is no law, etc, etc.....". I highly recommend his books.

Well, with Mormonism at the pinnacle of Christianity, if it were not true, Christianity itself is not true and only atheism is left because I do not accept the other religions.

[_Buffalo]

I'm not assuming anything. Evolution is a proven fact - there is no doubt whatsoever that it occurs. It's backed up by mountains of evidence. Whereas your opinion seems to be shored up by a rather inferior bronze age religious text of dubious authorship.

Too bad the men who wrote the Bible weren't more knowledgeable about animals. They'd learn that many animals, especially mammals, are quite good nurturers of their young. They also show empathy and charity towards other animals.

I see. So you point to a pile of books that use the same type of reasoning you have shown in your posts. Mostly circular. Then declare that the pile of books proves something. I have to disagree, data and observation may lead us to valid conclusions. We have indirect data and no observations dealing with evolution. So your proof is faith based. Yet you will not admit to that simple fact. If you can't admit to this simple fact why would anyone trust anything you say at all?

Science is a set of observations and theories which try and link those observations in meaningful ways. Nothing is proven. It is a study of interactions of parts of nature. Once you go away from direct observation you enter the realm of possibilities but loosely tied to data. These are fine as a tool to reach out and explore new turf. There have been great thinkers who see science on the wrong course.

"Philosopher of science Paul K Feyerabend advanced the idea of epistemological anarchism, which holds that there are no useful and exception-free methodological rules governing the progress of science or the growth of knowledge, and that the idea that science can or should operate according to universal and fixed rules is unrealistic, pernicious and detrimental to science itself.[71] Feyerabend advocates treating science as an ideology alongside others such as religion, magic and mythology, and considers the dominance of science in society authoritarian and unjustified.[71] He also contended (along with Imre Lakatos) that the demarcation problem of distinguishing science from pseudoscience on objective grounds is not possible and thus fatal to the notion of science running according to fixed, universal rules.[71]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

So don't get to full of your self and your support structure.

The theory of evolution is the model that explains why evolution occurs. THAT evolution occurs is not in question. Just like the theory of gravity explains why gravitational attraction occurs. THAT it occurs is not in question.

Do you really want me to tutor you on the theory of evolution? It's a rather broad topic, don't you think?

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/e ... ntro.shtml

[_Franktalk]

The theory of evolution is the model that explains why evolution occurs. THAT evolution occurs is not in question. Just like the theory of gravity explains why gravitational attraction occurs. THAT it occurs is not in question.

Do you really want me to tutor you on the theory of evolution? It's a rather broad topic, don't you think?

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/e ... ntro.shtml

There are two forms of evolution. The mico which has been seen in bacteria. Mutations do make changes. But those mutations are limited, the ones we see. Then science makes this big leap that macro evolution is true. But the numbers don't add up and no one has ever seen macro evolution. So don't lecture me about what is known and not known.

If we see gravity and name it it does not mean we understand it. We can observe its effects but do we understand gravity itself? No.

Think about it, at some point we dig down and come to an observation of nature. We don't know why it happens that way it just does. So at some base level we don't know how it all works. But you have faith that all of the ideas on top of those observations mean something. But they are based on a foundation of vapor. In the end it is faith. You have faith in man's knowledge and I have faith somewhere else.

[_Some Schmo]

There are two forms of evolution. The mico which has been seen in bacteria. Mutations do make changes. But those mutations are limited, the ones we see. Then science makes this big leap that macro evolution is true. But the numbers don't add up and no one has ever seen macro evolution. So don't lecture me about what is known and not known.

This is nonsense and you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. I can't even be bothered to tell you why this is nonsense (and realize that'll you take that as a victory), but I have no patience for this sort of nonsense and don't care if you want to think it. Go ahead and present yourself as a complete ignoramus. Enjoy yourself.

[_Buffalo]

The theory of evolution is the model that explains why evolution occurs. THAT evolution occurs is not in question. Just like the theory of gravity explains why gravitational attraction occurs. THAT it occurs is not in question.

Do you really want me to tutor you on the theory of evolution? It's a rather broad topic, don't you think?

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/e ... ntro.shtml

There are two forms of evolution. The mico which has been seen in bacteria. Mutations do make changes. But those mutations are limited, the ones we see. Then science makes this big leap that macro evolution is true. But the numbers don't add up and no one has ever seen macro evolution. So don't lecture me about what is known and not known.

If we see gravity and name it it does not mean we understand it. We can observe its effects but do we understand gravity itself? No.

Think about it, at some point we dig down and come to an observation of nature. We don't know why it happens that way it just does. So at some base level we don't know how it all works. But you have faith that all of the ideas on top of those observations mean something. But they are based on a foundation of vapor. In the end it is faith. You have faith in man's knowledge and I have faith somewhere else.

Micro/Macro is largely a meaningless distinction. The only difference between the two is time. But "macro" HAS been directly observed, and is readily apparent in studies of DNA and the fossil record.

I'm afraid it's the totality of the evidence verses your ipse dixit proclamations.