Posted on 09/13/2005 4:15:07 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
The Theory of Evolution does not include the so called "Big Bang". They are two different theories.
The Theory of Evolution says nothing on the origin of life, only that life forms evolve through natural selection.
Neither the Theory of Evolution, nor the Big Bang Theory explain "what came before". Science will always be incomplete in this aspect, and scientists will always have to to take their ideas of "what came before" on faith.
Splendid!
Yes, there is no doubt that the descriptiption that morality does help civilization to survive is true, but that's not what entirely what morality is and it doesn't really explain where morality came from.
The first problem in the explanation is that if the 'requirement' came from the need to survive, then where did the impulse to seek the species own survival come from? From the species seeking its own survival? That's not of much help; it's circular.
Reason two is that if self-preservation (or species survival) is all there is to morality then how does one explain those moral categories of denying self?
Reason three is the 'oughtness' of moral behavior. I ought to do this or that because it's right. Where does this 'oughtness' come from, and is it binding? That's what I mean by the 'requirement'. It's the incumbency issue. How can a description of past evolution ever explain why I ought to do something or not in the future? If it can't then it can never account for a central attribute of morality. Is the species survival itself a moral concept? Do I have some moral obligation in the future to cooperate to promote the species survival?
Another deficiency in the proffered explantion is that some things seem to be immoral whether they related to a group surviving or not. How about a hypothetical of torturing Down Syndrome children on TV for entertainment? Let's say that it could be turned into a successful business (with a LOT of advertising) - make it into a huge industry and make tons more money and over time would there could be even a more prosperous society, more likely to survive. Let's say that I could even get rich and increase my own chances of survival. It looks to me that the immorality of torturing Down Syndrome children for entertainment doesn't really seem to have anything to do with the survival of a group or a species. It seems like something that is wrong whether a group prospers or not. It's just not the kind of thing that ought to be done, and the utilitarian account offers no explanation of why.
Cordially,
Why would you have any expectation that self-government should be simpler and easier to understand than cable?
Cordially,
I see you have thoroughly researched Big Bang cosmology. I look forward to reading your publications.
Jesus, that would be God, said: Unless a man is Born Again he will not see the kingdom of God, He went on and said if a persons name is not in the Lambs book of life, that person will spend eternity in the lake of fire.
And He said, no one comes to the father except thru Me.
So, you do what you want, you can insult me, you can rant and rave, but remember this, if I'm right you are in serious trouble, if I'm wrong and you're right, I have lost nothing, nadda, not one thing.
I've read the Bible.
I happen to agree with most of the major denominations of Christianity that accept modern science, not the ones who wish to keep religion in the Dark Ages.
Huh?
"follow and believe either Him or the devil, "
I knew it. One of the "evolution is the devil" crowd.
conversation over.
No, your end of the conversation is over, I'll decide when my end of the conversation is over.
Problem with those of you who follow evolution instead of Christ and Truth is that you think you can open a box and when you get overwhelmed close it, don't work that way, this is not the floor at berkely, it is FreeRepublic.com.
There are two world views out there, one says God created the earth and as a result it is His, He makes the rules and we as His creations follow them.
Then there is the other world view, the mistaken one, the one that says we all came from nothing, absolutely nothing and when we die we return to absolutely nothing. Therefore making man a god unto himself so to speak and allowing man to make rules and have no one to report to except himself and his fellow man.
The old, "If I have the last word, I win argument."
Hey, I didn't tell him to shut up and go away, he simply drifted off, probably to update the newest theory of evolution, ...
Wanna take his palce and play for a while?
Then there is the other world view, the mistaken one, the one that says we all came from nothing, absolutely nothing and when we die we return to absolutely nothing.
Care to give me the third option? Or is ti that you have found a new big word to play with?
God used natural laws to reach the end he wanted. Evolution and God are not incompatible concepts. This is, in fact, the view embraced by most mainstream Christian denominations.
God often used allegories and metaphors to speak to us in the Bible. Objects like the "tree of life" and "tree of knowledge of good and evil" sort of scream out "metaphor", don't they? Either way, the evidence behind an Earth much older than thousands of years, and the evidence supporting vast changes in life over that period, are much too strong to ignore.
I don't feel that natural laws revealed by biology, geology and cosmology have pulled me away from God - if anything, they've given me more awe and reverance for His creative power.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.