Posted on 01/26/2006 1:47:10 PM PST by jennyp
And why there are still monkeys?
"Example #1 of my previous post. There are tens of thousands of transitional fossils in collections all over the world, and have been for years."Uh, a transitional form that's alive? Well, OK, a chimpanzee is a transitional form between a gorilla & a human. All the great apes (chimps, gorillas, & orangs) are living transitional forms between monkeys and humans.Bunk, no transitional forms have been found to exist alive, (which would surely be the case if evolution were true), nor has the 'missing link' been found. What you believe in takes more radical, blind faith than believing in a God Who created the universe. In fact, it takes a conscious desire to not believe in God to believe this crap.
So there are transitional forms that made it, and others that didn't. Your emotions are strong, but they're supporting a very weak point.
You evolutionists sling more bull s#!t than a bull. There are no transitional forms between apes and humans walking around out there. If humans evolved from apes and there are still plenty of apes and humans alive today, where the hell are the transitional forms living?
Hint: it's in the minds of the evolutionist whackos.
It slows down - all the way down to the glacial pace of biological evolution. And the rampant horizontal meme transfer that occurs as companies copy innovations from each other pretty much stops.
It'd slow down so badly that we'd all be living like savages again. ('course if you removed the intelligence from the actors then that would mean we WOULD be just savages anyway... but I digress. :-)
Since biological evolution is a system where the actors are not very intelligent (the brainpower of the organisms doesn't enter into it much), the whole process takes many generations to produce new biological features or species; whereas industries or economies can make major changes in a couple decades. And before Darwinian evolution was able to get started with the first self-replicating protocell, it probably took 100-500 million years for organic chemistry to reach the complexity necessary for life to get started.
The fact that the actors in biological evolution are not intelligent is not a difference in kind. It's a difference in degree. (Even though a big one.)
Sorry. I'll sit out for a bit and see if I can work up a rage.
...
Nope. Can't do it. Music's good, the tea's on, its warm inside...
By the way, I like your new nickname ("jebby").
Cheers, and have a good one...
(signed mabbon)
The fact that I cannot function as a human being without them. And the fact that the type of society that supports life as a human cannot exist without them.And you would characterize life under such a system as supporting life as a human being? (I'm referring to flourishing as a human being, as opposed to living like a drawhorse. A slave or serf may be existing, but they are not living like a human. I was probably not clear about that.)Nonsense. The vast majority of human beings in history existed in societies that did not recognize natural rights, other that, I suppose, the right of the strong to lord over the week.
I'm curious. What kind of evil does Ed Hudgins rationalize, since you know him?
Well, the current party line is that "evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis." I say "current" because I've been on these threads long enough (I used to spend weeks at a time in these debates) to know that that's a lot of bunk--there was a time, not too many years ago, when the Evos on FR and elsewhere thought that abiogenesis was just a matter of having the right chemicals in the right place at the right time, perhaps with some sort of crystalization forming the matrix necessary for primitive DNA or RNA.(<sigh> How soon they forget.) Abiogenesis is NOT part of the theory of evolution. But you guys keep throwing the origin of life at us as if were a talisman to ward off the eeeevil eeeeeevilushunists, so naturally sometimes we get sucked into the side-issue.They distanced themselves from that when they started getting killed in the debates.
I'm beginning to think that Darwinists are certified lunatics. Chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, all are apes, all of the family Pongidae. To claim that any one of these is the transition form between the other two and humans is, well, bananas.
I'm still waiting for you evolutionists to point out the living transitional forms that link apes and humans. Chimpanzees are every bit as much a primate as their larger cousins are, so there exists no viable claim to chimps being living transitional forms of apes to humans. In case you haven't noticed, CHIMPS ARE STILL APES.
Since the core principle of 'evolution' claims an extremely slow, gradual metamorphosis, not an immediate leap from one species to another, any living transitional forms between apes and humans would necessarily have to be something other than an ape or a human, something like, um, Piltdown man if he weren't a Darwinist fraud. Because of the so-called 'evolutionary' process, these more latent transitional forms would be far more intelligent than apes, would not be dragging their knuckles and masturbating on a tree limb. So once again, where are they? Why did their less intelligent 'ancestors', the apes, survive but they did not?
I think you misunderstand markets. Markets are simply the sum total of individual initiative, profit motive, direction and planning (preferably not the central kind). Take away those and there is no market.Everything dies.Now what happens if you remove individual initiative, profit motive, direction and planning from evolution?
But as it is, every living thing has just enough intelligence to interact with their surroundings well enough to reproduce & in some cases eventually evolve. Every living thing has a profit motive. There is no direction to evolution. There is no planning. Just individual actors going with what they're endowed with at birth, and the ones whose "business plan" works for them, get to spin off new copies of themselves, which may or may not be the same as themselves. Ad infinitum.
What a system!
The thread is dead. Long live the thread!
Hudgins is saying here that there need be no spiritual basis for morality; that the source is "our own human nature" and that this is enough.No, we need to appeal to something outside this man to make the call. He's a sociopath. The very concept of a moral principle is alien to him.The raises the question of what to do with someone with no or very few moral impulses. If there is no morality external to man's nature, then on what grounds do we judge the morality of a man who does not posess this trait? If morality is simply part of man's nature, then what makes one man's nature better than another? We would have to appeal to something outside man to make the call.
This is generally not a problem, since nearly all men acknowledge virtually the same morality, with the deviations among cultures and individuals being in the details. Examples of people with no sense of morality are very rare. But when they appear there is no means of measuring the "rightness" of one man's nature without an appeal to some kind of objective standard outside of man.No, the standard just has to be based on something objective. The objective basis for morality is that we are all members of the same species.I'm not using this argument to prove the existence of God, because I don't think it does, but it is very problematic for those who claim that no source of morality external to man's nature is needed.
See, morality is all about principles. The purpose of having a moral code is to sustain the kind of society where you can flourish. This has nothing to do with ad-hoc, spur of the moment calculations of what will profit you in the immediate term. Everyone knows what actions would profit them in the immediate sense. Knock me unconsious & steal my purse? Of course; that would profit you immediately. That kind of calculation is a no-brainer. What morality is all about is deciding on what principles of behavior to live by.
A sociopath is incapable of thinking in terms of moral principles. So the question of morality really doesn't even seriously enter his head. The only really relevant question is for the rest of society: What do we do with a person like this?
Thanks for the comment. I hope you stick around these threads for a while. It'll raise the level of discussion. :-)
The Darwinists have already answered that question in the elaborate hoax of their "Piltdown Man", (fastening an ape's jaw and various human skull fragments together to dupe the world.
Any transitional form or links between apes and man would obviously have to resemble both to varying degrees, depending on how far along the alleged 'link' has progressed from ape to man.
It's all hooey anyway; it's an escape for the imaginations of the young, a waste of time for the honest and serious minded, and a drag on confused people who are trying to find faith. And it's the latter that Darwin's Piper, Lucifer, wants the most.
But I do believe in devolution, where intelligent human beings become Darwinists and begin thinking with the rationality of apes.
Morality and all of those associated ideals are rooted entirely in the presupposition some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior.
Morality is defined by men. There's no presupposition, there are only reasons presented by men to justify the content of the moral code.
Why do you want to mix politics and science?
The ones that crash are the result of random chance. :)
That is false.
Morality and all of those associated ideals are rooted entirely in the presupposition some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior.
Platos Euthyphro is a great illustration. Socrates advances the argument to Euthyphro that, piety to the gods, who all want conflicting devotions and/or actions from humans, is impossible. (Socrates exposed the pagan esoteric sophistry.)
Likewise, morals are such a construction of idols used by the Left (and yourself here) as a rationale for them to demand compliance to their wishes in politics, which most often are a skewed mess of fallacies in logic. Morals are a deceptive replacement for the avoidance of sin.
And, since I am such an amoral atheist, you would attempt to falsely label me as sociopath - - just as the constipated psychologists want to label anyone they see as homophobic with a mental illness for opposing the radical homosexual activists.
Today, morals are defined by a religious pagan philosophy based on esoteric hobgoblins. Transfiguration is a pantheon of fantasies as the medium of infinitization. Others get derision for having an unwavering Judaic belief in Yahweh or Yeshua, although their critics and enemies will evangelize insertion of phantasmagoric fetishisms into secular law.
A greater number of atheists and pagans adopt the same hackneyed tenets of a false Judaic-Christian ideal (golden calf). They also subscribe to the Judaic fetishism of sin, but will fight to their death in denial of it. Most of them are so wrapped up in their own polemics that they have become nothing more than pathetic anti-Christians with the same false hypocritical philosophy.
They just slap a new label on it hoping nobody will notice - - they replace the idea of avoiding sin with morals.
Anyone who says I am immoral is no different than any preacher or rabbi saying I am a sinner. I am not an orthodox atheist, nor am I an ecumenical atheist - - there is no such thing!
Objectivists have failed to see that gaping hole in the philosophy of Ayn Rand, whose egotism is taken directly from Thomas Hobbes, minus the Biblical arguments, and with a smattering of nihilism from Neitzche thrown in to sell books.
The Geneology of Morals, borrowing from Neitzche's title, is much like the geneology of drama from the ancient Greeks - - it is nothing more than an extension of religion, a psychodramatic game.
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.