Posted on 05/20/2002 12:53:27 PM PDT by rpage3
See source for details....
You've provided a candidate definition for morality, against which can be stated many others, including "he who dies with the most toys, wins." Your definition says nothing, however, beyond the idea that morality is defined by success -- a good working definition of utilitarianism.
So, it is wrong to suggest that evolution selects against morality.
Not precisely. It is certainly wrong to suggest that evolution selects against cooperation. You're the one equating cooperation with morality. However, cooperation is not an evolutionary absolute, either. And at any rate, if cooperation=morality, Gengis Khan, Atilla the Hun, or Nazi Germany were highly moral groups of folks.
Cooperation in a group is a non-zero sum game, similar to the prisoner's dilemma.
Not even remotely true, as a quick glance around you will show. If cooperation were truly zero-sum, we'd still be shivering in caves rather than conversing via FR.
I feel as though I am repeating myself, since I have made the same point again and again in these thread.
While I haven't encountered these claims from you before, I highly doubt that they'd be any more convincing the 30th time around.
It gets rather tedious to have to refute the same silly ideas about evolution, again and again.
Perhaps it's because you haven't refuted the point being made.....
-----------
Gore3000, for someone as blind as you,
that is the only answer you are entitled to.
For the rest of us, we mourn the loss of a great mind today.
No more, no less.
The flames of hell await you, esteemed Professor.
Agreed.
I may have my beefs with some of Gould's writings, but this isn't the thread for that.
And as to speculation on his eternal reward, this is not a time for spite and glee, and those who see it as such risk their own eternity.
God rest his soul.
Yes indeed, all you have is insults, but you cannot defend the man you praise so highly. You cannot tell what great things he accomplished - because he accomplished nothing except sell a lot of books full of nonsense no one remembers the day after they read it. Cotton candy for atheists is what he sold. He prostituted himself for money and promoted a theory he knew was false as his own studies had shown:
STEPHEN J. GOULD, Harvard, "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontologists,...we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study." Natural History, V.86."
In short, his life was truly that of a 'whore of evolution'.
I cannot believe all the Libertarians and others willing to excuse the damage a really foul little man has done towards Christians because he spoke some cuddly words about baseball on a Ken Burns PBS film.
Hope there is digital satellite in hell so he can catch the Red Sox losing the pennant again..over the next hundred years or so!!
Have you considered the effect you have on non-believers when you bring this up in this way at this time?
Which way do you suppose you are swaying those souls?
"To every thing, there is a season..." some moments are for meekness, and this is one.
You are correct and I apologize if I have offended.
May God be with his family and friends and strengthen them in this time of morning.
The flames of hell await you, esteemed Professor.
203 posted on 5/20/02 9:25 PM Eastern by codebreaker
It is difficult to write the proper words in this situation. For the "death" of a Christian to a Christian is but a sleep. Only God now knows Gould's ultimate fate.
For all of us "living", he is no longer here. That is sadness enough.
Jud 1:20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,
Jud 1:21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.
Jud 1:22 And of some have compassion, making a difference:
Jud 1:23 And others save with fear, pulling [them] out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.
Jud 1:24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present [you] faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,
Jud 1:25 To the only wise God our Saviour, [be] glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.
Yup, guess that in addition to being blind to the evidence against evolution you are also color blind?
But my friend (and others), you are getting dangerously close to it.
To enjoy debating his research is one thing, and I know that we will continue with this topic for years to come.
But to be pissing upon his grave tonight is absolutly disgusting!
I grieve for the family because their son was a destructive force in the world specifically towards Christianity.
Given the chance, he chose to humiliate his Harvard students posing resepctful theological queries while ducking the questions asked.
This man was guilty of the most unpardonable sin known to Christian man and never missed a chance on television or in a lecture setting to humiliate persons who asked respectful questions regarding the issue of Evolution theory vs. Creation
Simply spelling out the facts of what he has done is not judging.
What "arguments for" are there?? What "logic"?? What "evidence"??
There can be only one truth to the matter of 'Big Bang/Evolutionism vs. Creationism. The only significent factor is evidence of a "designer" or creator....
Nobelist Linus Pauling puts the issue into perpective:
"A single cell, the smallest living unit, is "more complicated than New York City." "The 'simplist' self-sufficient cell has the capacity to produce thousands of different proteins and other molecules, at different times and under different conditions. Synthesis, degradation, energy generation, replication, maintanance of cell architecture, mobility, regulation, repair, communication -- ALL of these functions take place in virtually every cell, and each function itself requires the interaction of numerous parts...If any part of this incredibly complex biochemical machinery is not functioning properly, the cell will die.
Even Evolutionst-guru and Oxford University zoolologist Richard Dawkins himself admitted in his book, 'The Blind Watchmaker' that "biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." He also concludes that every cell, either of a plant or animal, contains in its nucleus "a digitally coded database larger, in information content, than all 30 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica put together."
Then there's Sir Fred Hoyle. He calculated that the odds of producing just the basic enzymes of life by chance are 1 in 1 with 40,000 zeros after it. We won't pile on with the research Behe and Johnson...
Life and creation just mere cosmic random acts? Huh?!? Still think it terribly backwards of creationists to ignore the evolutionist "proof"? To believe in evolutionism is truly believing in the absurd.
And the reason for the push and obsession with teaching evolutionism? 'The American Athiest' provides some chilling insight:
"But if death preceded man and was not a result of Adam's sin, then sin is fiction. If sin is fiction, then we have no need for a Savior...Evolution destroys utterly and finally the VERY REASON [FOR] JESUS' EARTHLY LIFE...If Jesus was not the Redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing."
It's not the right word or witness at this time.
Are your reaching souls, or driving them off right now? Jesus didn't always talk about Hell, there were times when it wasn't appropriate.
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.