Evolution is illogical and non sense

[ArtieE]

I agree that life arose when conditions became favorable by whatever means -but was saying that in the absence of creative influence from the Big Bang until life arose, it would have been inevitable that the conditions became favorable -that there would have been no chance that things could have happened any other way.
We can think of things happening differently, but they will happen exactly as they will happen except when it is decided that they will happen differently -and those decisions are acted upon.

Suppose you have a supercomputer capable of calculating the motions and forces working on absolutely every single atom in the universe from the big bang to now. Would it have ended up with us writing exactly what we write here and now?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Suppose you have a supercomputer capable of calculating the motions and forces working on absolutely every single atom in the universe from the big bang to now. Would it have ended up with us writing exactly what we write here and now?

Computers are designed to avoid freedom. Error correction routines and tollerances make sure that the spontaneous aspects of the electrons is avoided.

It is inherently unpredictable where an electron shows up around an atom when you measure it. Which means the position of the electron is undecided of itself, and somehow the position becomes to be chosen on measurement.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Evil is -at its core -that which adversely affects a system which is beneficial -and a person is evil when they will to do so.

The intentions of a person make them good or evil, but the overall results of their actions make the actions good or evil.

As has been said, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Believers and non-believers are both subject to making mistakes due to ignorance of the overall nature of the system they are within.

The more capable and knowledgeable we become, the greater the potential for evil.

A believers' mindset might adversely affect others by their closed-mindedness causing people to be ignorant of certain things, and to not accept things which are beneficial, but the capabilities made possible by scientific discovery can lead to a corruption of -or the complete destruction of -all life on earth -even by accident.

A religious belief might keep one from accepting beneficial medical advancements made possible by science, but those same advancements can also lead to horrible tragedies due to a mix of knowledge and ignorance.

For example..... We are altering, and even synthesizing, DNA without a complete knowledge of the implications. The science that allows for plants that glow in the dark when they need water -are resistant to certain diseases, etc., might have some short-term benefits, but potentially cause even greater long-term problems. Some fear that synthetic DNA might escape somehow and cause all sorts of problems -and we don't know that it will not.
I don't even want to think about the possibilities given present knowledge coupled with an evil mindset**.

The splitting of the atom led to a situation which may very well destroy all human life, at least -and that may even be a better alternative than an abominable state caused by messing with DNA.
Ignorance can be a good thing when accurate vision and discipline are lacking.

From a biblical perspective, the present state of affairs is known as eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Eating from the tree of life only would have meant continual guidance and government by God -so that we might have protection from forces greater than ourselves, avoid causing many of our own maladies and then seeking remedies, and make advancements in balance with the overall system of which we were initially ignorant.
In other words, we could have advanced more quickly without any risk of destroying everything and ourselves.

After the events in Eden, God purposefully allowed mankind to make their own choices, but also made choices for them which would manage risk and bring them to the end declared from the beginning.
There was a plan for the possibility of obedience -and a plan B for (perhaps inevitable) disobedience (rejection of knowledgeable guidance) which would eventually completely eradicate the possibility of disobedience (and so... disorder leading to tragedy) by allowing us to learn from our choices while managing the risk.

For example... confusing man's speech at Babel postponed the state of affairs we see today for thousands of years while other things were accomplished.
We will now be allowed to nearly destroy all life on earth -but a complete destruction will be prevented.
We will then have a collective experience base from which to discern that obedience to -and government by -God and Christ (belief in him will be made much easier by his actual presence) is necessary.

Mat 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
Mat 24:22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved..............................

**"It's interesting - I used to have this professor at Oxford, okay? Doctor Wickham, his name was and he was, like, this massive fat guy, you know? Huge, big guy. We used to call him - you know, well, I won't tell you what we used to call him, but he taught biomolecular kinetics and cellular dynamics. And he used to sort of scare the underclassmen with this story about how the world would eventually be eviscerated by technology. You see, it was inevitable that a compound would be created which he referred to as the 'Anti-God'. It was like an accelerated mutator or sort of, you know, like a, an unstoppable force of destructive power, that would just lay waste to everything - to buildings and parks and streets and children and ice cream parlors, you know? So whenever I see, like, a rogue organization willing to spend this amount of money on a mystery tech, I always assume... it's the Anti-God. End-of-the-world kinda stuff, you know... But no, I don't have any idea what it is. I was just speculating."

When you watch a horror movie, and the serial killer ties the rope around the wrists of his next victim a bit loosely, you may well find yourself thinking "he is doing it wrong, he should do that better"

That's knowledge of good and evil at work.

Authority figures like government and liberals denanding perfection, put so much pressure on, that it makes people consider good and evil as fact. Or your own ideals can provide tremendous pressure, requiring factual certainty over what is good and evil to deal with the pressure.

And when it is fact then emotions and conscience become irrelevant. One acts much like a robot, without choosing.

 

[`mud]

I think too many people here are watching too many horror movies !
There's 'good' horror movies ?
~
'mud

 

[gnostic]

Pentecostal church are among those who publicly demonstrate "speaking in tongues", while making faces, on national televisions and internationally on the web. They are speaking any foreign languages, they just whole lot of bunch of fools just make gibberish noises.

So I have absolutely no high expectations that any one in that church to understand science of evolution.

Explaining anything to you, is a total waste of time, since you don't want to learn anyway.

 

[Parsimony]

The objective process of evolution and natural selection produced a survival instinct so it's objectively correct of us to have it and to try to survive. Some people are of the subjective opinion that they don't want to survive. But since it is objectively correct of humans to want to survive we say these people are ill and try to stop them from committing suicide and try therapy and medication to heal them.

It is objectively good to follow the instructions the objective process of evolution and natural selection has "programmed" our brain with. We are programmed to breathe so it's objectively good for us to breathe and bad to stop breathing. Staying alive is objectively good for both predator and prey. So when a predator kills a prey it is objectively good for the predator but objectively bad for the prey. This is self evident.

So basically you are saying that good and bad are only applicable on the individual level and not in overall circumstances. That would mean that your model of morality is useless when one must determine what is just action in a criminal case, because one must determine what is good overall, not just for the individual (since what is good for one individual can be at odds with what is good for the other). Imagine you have a gun and you see a man with a knife approaching another man. If you do not shoot the knife-wielder, he will stab his victim. So according to your model, what is the best course of action? Shooting the knife-wielder would be good for his potential victim, but not shooting him would be good the knife-wielder. So what does your morality model dictate that you should do?

 

[ArtieE]

So basically you are saying that good and bad are only applicable on the individual level and not in overall circumstances. That would mean that your model of morality is useless when one must determine what is just action in a criminal case, because one must determine what is good overall, not just for the individual (since what is good for one individual can be at odds with what is good for the other).

This is written in such a way that it doesn't make sense so I can't comment. Please rephrase.

Imagine you have a gun and you see a man with a knife approaching another man. If you do not shoot the knife-wielder, he will stab his victim. So according to your model, what is the best course of action? Shooting the knife-wielder would be good for his potential victim, but not shooting him would be good the knife-wielder. So what does your morality model dictate that you should do?

Shooting the knife-wielder in such a way so as to disable him so he can't stab and if that is not possible shoot to kill. We have no way of knowing who he might stab next if not stopped so better to lose one life than to allow him to possibly take several.

 

[Parsimony]

This is written in such a way that it doesn't make sense so I can't comment. Please rephrase.

You keep saying "good for the predator" and "good for the prey" but you never say what is good overall. That suggests to me that your model of morality cannot address what is good overall.

Shooting the knife-wielder in such a way so as to disable him so he can't stab and if that is not possible shoot to kill. We have no way of knowing who he might stab next if not stopped so better to lose one life than to allow him to possibly take several.

So by that reasoning, it is better for a predator to starve to death instead of hunting and killing prey animals, since the starving of the predator would kill only one individual whereas the continual survival of the predator requires the death of many prey animals.

Suppose you have a supercomputer capable of calculating the motions and forces working on absolutely every single atom in the universe from the big bang to now. Would it have ended up with us writing exactly what we write here and now?

The answer to this, by the way, is no. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle would prevent such a computer from being constructed.

 

[ArtieE]

You keep saying "good for the predator" and "good for the prey" but you never say what is good overall. That suggests to me that your model of morality cannot address what is good overall.

Of course not. There's no "universal" morality. The closest you might get to that for humans is the Golden Rule.

So by that reasoning, it is better for a predator to starve to death instead of hunting and killing prey animals, since the starving of the predator would kill only one individual whereas the continual survival of the predator requires the death of many prey animals.

Since the predator is wired to hunt and kill that is objectively correct survival tactic for him. Running away and avoiding getting captured is the objectively correct survival tactic for them. Different species.

The answer to this, by the way, is no. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle would prevent such a computer from being constructed.

OK. I'll check that out properly later.

 

[Parsimony]

Of course not. There's no "universal" morality. The closest you might get to that for humans is the Golden Rule.

So there you have it. Your morality model cannot be used in court cases because it cannot determine what is best overall. It can only determine what is best for the individual.

Since the predator is wired to hunt and kill that is objectively correct survival tactic for him. Running away and avoiding getting captured is the objectively correct survival tactic for them.Different species.

So now we have a contradiction. You cannot determine what is good overall for this scenario despite claiming to be able to determine what is good overall for my human scenario. Why not?

 

[ArtieE]

So there you have it. Your morality model cannot be used in court cases because it cannot determine what is best overall. It can only determine what is best for the individual.

This doesn't make any sense. In court cases for example involving murderers the point is to find the solution that is least detrimental to the least amount of people. That would be the best solution overall.

So now we have a contradiction. You cannot determine what is good overall for this scenario despite claiming to be able to determine what is good overall for my human scenario. Why not?

This doesn't make sense either. Please rephrase or use examples.

 

[Parsimony]

This doesn't make any sense. In court cases for example involving murderers the point is to find the solution that is least detrimental to the least amount of people. That would be the best solution overall.

Then why not apply the same to nature? Finding the solution that is least detrimental to the least number of species?

This doesn't make sense either. Please rephrase or use examples.

You consistently fail to say what is objectively good overall for a predator-prey scenario despite the fact that you were able to tell me what is objectively good overall for the shooter-knifing scenario I provided before. Why can you say what is good overall for one but not for the other?

 

[ArtieE]

You consistently fail to say what is objectively good overall for a predator-prey scenario despite the fact that you were able to tell me what is objectively good overall for the shooter-knifing scenario I provided before.

But Emergence, this is elementary knowledge. A predator eats prey, the prey gets the old sick and weak culled out of the population. That is what is good overall for both predator and prey, for both species/populations!

 

[Bunyip]

But Emergence, this is elementary knowledge. A predator eats prey, the prey gets the old sick and weak culled out of the population. That is what is good overall for both predator and prey, for both species/populations!

So in that case you are defining 'objective morality' as what is good for the health of the species?

 

[ArtieE]

So in that case you are defining 'objective morality' as what is good for the health of the species?

Of course. What is objectively moral to do is what evolution and natural selection wired them to do.

 

[Bunyip]

Of course. What is objectively moral to do is what evolution and natural selection wired them to do.

Sure, makes sense in that context. Cheers.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Of course. What is objectively moral to do is what evolution and natural selection wired them to do.

You are just copying the stated morality of Hitler.

There is no reason why we shouldn't condemn the rejection of subjectivity as anti-human ideology.

The conclusion about what is good and evil is reached by expression of emotions, which can only occur with free will, thus choosing in the process. Murder is disgusting, awful, unjust etc. Our emotions provide the answer. But then this expression of emotion can occur in very sophisticated ways.

It may involve accepting a whole load of judgements other people made in one go without much of any consideration. For instance one may accept all the laws in a country, without even knowing what many of the laws are. It may involve reference to God, who is believed to exist on faith etc.

You are in effect trying to get rid of the emotive disgusting part of the immorality of murder. By arguing for objectivity you are saying it is a calculation in terms of survival, in which emotion plays no role.

And your understanding of subjectivity is likewise nonsense, because your understanding of subjectivity is not based on people choosing, but based on people being physically different from each other.

When are evolutionists going to stop supporting blatant evil? When are they going to stop seeking the borderline of what is permissable, and going across that border, and in stead provide generous categorical acceptance of the validity of subjectivity?

And when are they going to take freedom seriously in science, when are they going to look at the facts about how things are decided in the universe?

 

[Yerda]

Of course. What is objectively moral to do is what evolution and natural selection wired them to do.

I can't tell if this is sarcasm.

 

[Yerda]

And when are they going to take freedom seriously in science, when are they going to look at the facts about how things are decided in the universe?

I've asked before, but what is your background in science?

 

[Parsimony]

But Emergence, this is elementary knowledge. A predator eats prey, the prey gets the old sick and weak culled out of the population. That is what is good overall for both predator and prey, for both species/populations!

Diseases get old and weak humans culled from the population as well. Is this good overall for humans such that we should not interfere by producing medicine?