Originally posted by robbie carrobiehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality
ok then, let us start with the premise that life, 'happened', whats the theory on why morality and consciousness developed. please remember that i am a wee bit dense so if you could illustrate and use unambiguous language and restrict the technical terms maybe we could grasp it. so make wid da readies oh erudite one!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness#Evolutionary_biology
Knock yourself out.
Originally posted by LemonJellono actually like you stated, i was too dense, so if you could explain it in simple terms, with the use of illustration and avoid the use as far as you are capable of technical terms then that would do, you something like, first there were flowers, and then there was bees, and the flowers and the bees got on real great, they formed a common understanding based of mutuality, thus when humans were formed we also formed a beneficent mechanism that was based on mutuality, we stopped killing other species, not to mention each other and thus conscience and morality was developed, so if you would be as kind, it should not take more than a few sentences.
You're quite a disingenuous person. I already gave you a reference that I believe will help you understand these things, but it's clear you have no genuine interest in exploring this topic. Quit acting like you do.
Originally posted by rwingettNot stupid enough not to know this was coming.
Are you really that incredibly stupid? The theory of evolution has NOTHING to do with the origin of the universe, or the origin of life. It (very briefly) concerns itself with the evolution of species over time through the process of natural selection. If you cared to read anything about evolution, or any of the hundreds of posts made about evolution in this forum, you would know that.
Look wringlet, I've read it all, and still there are no answers.
My questions are designed to evoke questions about how things came to be within the evolutionary model. If you think you can stoop down low enough from your perch way up there and contribute to my enlightenment, then you are welcomed to do so, but if all you want to do is sling mud at me, then go away.
Originally posted by rwingettactually i do not find many of the arguments reassuring, for example it equates humans with animals, this clearly is not only controversial, but when one applies the same characteristics of behavior the results may be disastrous, as in the case of sexuality, for animals may have multiple partners, while this for humans is generally destructive, so the same model is simply invalid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness#Evolutionary_biology
Knock yourself out.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNo, I didn't say you were too dense (although your understanding of natural selection surely leaves something to be desired); the problem with you is that you are intent on remaining willfully ignorant. That much is clear to me, although I leave it up to you to resolve to change. Read the Joyce book I recommended. It is written at a level that will be just fine for you. If you actually have any genuine interest in educating yourself here, then you'll have your reasons to seek out such texts.
no actually like you stated, i was too dense, so if you could explain it in simple terms, with the use of illustration and avoid the use as far as you are capable of technical terms then that would do, you something like, first there were flowers, and then there was bees, and the flowers and the bees got on real great, they formed a common understand ...[text shortened]... orality was developed, so if you would be as kind, it should not take more than a few sentences.
Originally posted by josephwmy goodness you are correct, it does not actually state how this happened, but merely gives certain behavioral characteristics and tries to explain them in evolutionary terms.
Not stupid enough not to know this was coming.
Look wringlet, I've read it all, and still there are no answers.
My questions are designed to evoke questions about how things came to be within the evolutionary model. If you think you can stoop down low enough from you perch way up there and contribute to my enlightenment, then you are welcomed to do so, but if all you want to do is sling mud at me, then go away.
Originally posted by LemonJellodoes it have pictures and diagrams and arrows and boxes?
No, I didn't say you were too dense (although your understanding of natural selection surely leaves something to be desired); the problem with you is that you are intent on remaining willfully ignorant. That much is clear to me, although I leave it up to you to resolve to change. Read the Joyce book I recommended. It is written at a level that will be ...[text shortened]... ine interest in educating yourself here, then you'll have your reasons to seek out such texts.
Originally posted by josephwYou really don't get it, do you? There is no answer to "how things came to be within the evolutionary model", because evolution does not concern itself with those things. Perhaps you mean "how things came to be within a scientific model", but as you're so incredibly stupid I have no way of knowing.
Not stupid enough not to know this was coming.
Look wringlet, I've read it all, and still there are no answers.
My questions are designed to evoke questions about how things came to be within the evolutionary model. If you think you can stoop down low enough from your perch way up there and contribute to my enlightenment, then you are welcomed to do so, but if all you want to do is sling mud at me, then go away.
If I really thought you cared about evolution (or were capable of understanding it) then I might spend my time discussing it with you. But as its clear you don't, then I'd just as soon spend my time slinging mud at you. The conversation will be just as productive either way.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieDo you know how many examples of polygamy there are in the bible? Do you ever actually read the bible?
actually i do not find many of the arguments reassuring, for example it equates humans with animals, this clearly is not only controversial, but when one applies the same characteristics of behavior the results may be disastrous, as in the case of sexuality, for animals may have multiple partners, while this for humans is generally destructive, so the same model is simply invalid.
Originally posted by rwingettJust a whole lot more blah blah blah!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness#Evolutionary_biology
Knock yourself out.
My question is this: What mechanism within evolution caused the development of morality within the human race?
If you think I posed the question incorrectly, then please feel free to rephrase it anyway you'd like.
I've been exposed to the theory of evolution since I was a kid. You know, a little creature crawls out of the sea, changes over the course of time into what we are now.
That I can fathom. But what is the explanation for how we came to have a conscience about morality?
I'm not looking for an easy answer. I don't think there is one. Just some simplified idea about possibilities.
Originally posted by rwingett"...because evolution does not concern itself with those things."
You really don't get it, do you? There is no answer to "how things came to be within the evolutionary model", because evolution does not concern itself with those things. Perhaps you mean "how things came to be within a scientific model", but as you're so incredibly stupid I have no way of knowing.
If I really thought you cared about evolution (or were ...[text shortened]... end my time slinging mud at you. The conversation will be just as productive either way.
See your post at the top of this page.
Originally posted by josephwSimplified idea? Don't you think the whole Genesis myth is a "simplified idea?" It's certainly a lot more simplified (and simplistic) than all the "blah blah blah" you can't seem to grasp.
Just a whole lot more blah blah blah!
My question is this: What mechanism within evolution caused the development of morality within the human race?
If you think I posed the question incorrectly, then please feel free to rephrase it anyway you'd like.
I've been exposed to the theory of evolution since I was a kid. You know, a little creature crawls ...[text shortened]... r an easy answer. I don't think there is one. Just some simplified idea about possibilities.
Originally posted by josephwSo you've narrowed your question down from the origins of the universe and the origins of life to just the origins of morality. Or at least that's what I gather from your cryptic response. Well, you saw the links. Read them. I'm not going to waste my time spelling it all out for you. I'm only here to sling mud. Remember?
[b]"...because evolution does not concern itself with those things."
See your post at the top of this page.[/b]
Originally posted by rwingettlol, yes and it was also essentially destructive then also, for example Solomon had in excess of 300 wives and they drove him to serve other gods, destroying his faith and relationship with God, so you see ringy you bad ol putty cat, its generally accepted as being destructive, one not need harp on about broken marriages, unwanted children, dysfunctional families, unwanted pregnancies etc etc to realize that the same model cannot be applied to humans, but Lordy knows you evolutionary freaks will try anything to substantiate your claims.
Do you know how many examples of polygamy there are in the bible? Do you ever actually read the bible?
so it does not concern itself with those things, then why not just say so, no need to berate the poor boy, a simple , 'we don't know would do'.
sorry i had to paste this, it brought me much gleeful joy and is dedicated to all da bad putty cats out there,
No single, essential difference separates human beings from other animals.' So began a feature article on evolution in TIME magazine ('How Man Began', March 14, 1994). The more I thought about this sweeping statement the more I began to warm to it.
For example, like humans, apes have well formed rational faculties. Their ability to develop an argument, follow a line of logic, draw conclusions and frame hypotheses is quite remarkable.
Also like humans, apes have a marked faculty for language. (This, of course, is intertwined with their powers of reason.) Their vocabulary is enormous, their grammar complex, and their conversations deep and meaningful.
The apes' ability to codify language in writing is further proof of their close relationship to humans. In this respect, it was most gratifying to see the number of apes who wrote to TIME magazine in response to the article on 'How Man Began'. I was particularly interested to follow the line of reasoning of the orang-utan who argued that apes had evolved from humans, not vice versa.
Like humans, apes also have a strong spirit of inquiry. Their research in the fields of astronomy, mathematics, medicine and physics is noteworthy.
Apes also (again, like humans) yearn for meaning in life. This is why they devote so much of their time to philosophy, theology and ethics. The religious sentiments and practices of all apes can be traced back to their intense and endless quest for meaning.
Apes are concerned about questions not only of origin but also of destiny. The best proof I can offer for this claim is the maxim by one famous ape philosopher who said, 'Whether my life leads ultimately to the dirt or to the Judgment, either way, I've got a problem.'
Apes also have, like humans, a refined aesthetic sense. They admire beauty and long to surround themselves with it. When an ape cultivates a garden, puts flowers in a vase, or hangs up a painting, what is it doing if not expressing a love of beauty?
Again like humans, apes have a strong creative impulse. This is seen in their poetry, painting, dance, drama and music. To a lesser extent their creativity is also evident in the way they gather in weekly craft groups to weave baskets, spin wool, knit shawls, and cover photo albums.
The sense of humour shared by all apes is another proof of their close kinship to humans. Their delight in the ridiculous and their love of a good laugh is plain from the popular ape jokes they tell.
Reason, language, inquiry, wonder, longing, religion, morality, aesthetics, creativity, imagination, aspiration and humour ... such intangible but fundamental qualities are by no means unique to humans, as I hope I have conclusively shown. Therefore, in the profound words of TIME magazine: 'No single, essential difference separates human beings from other animals'.
This being the case, Christians are plainly wrong to insist that humans and animals are vastly different. And they are also obviously wrong to insist that this difference arises from the fact that God created us humans in His own likeness. And if they are wrong to insist that God made us in His own likeness, then they are wrong to insist that God has any claim on us.
Furthermore, if God has no claim on us, then we are free — free to be animals like our evolutionary ancestors — free to be as low-down as snakes, and to make pigs of ourselves, and to act like donkeys.
Did I say 'free'?
Hiss! Oink! Hee-haw!
and before anyone cracks up, the source:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/differences.asp