# Using common sense to debunk evolution



## atlashunter (Jul 25, 2011)

This one is brilliant. How did the first dog that evolved find a female to mate with? I know there are a lot of Pat Robertson types that must be really taken in by this and think Ray is a genius. But I bet there are a lot of educated christians, creationists even, that must cringe that this guy is a prominent spokesman on their side of the debate.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 25, 2011)

He's thinking deeply... That first dog must have been the only thing even closely resembling a dog in the entire world. I've got to say that I'm still thinking about where that female came from. That male dog must have just gotten in to pornography.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 25, 2011)

Show me the creator of the building, of the Ford... Show me your creator.. Can you bring him to me, can you show me a picture?


----------



## KissMyBass (Jul 25, 2011)

if evolution were true, ( which its not ), wouldn't monkeys still be turning, evolving, into humans?? just a thought.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 25, 2011)

KissMyBass said:


> if evolution were true, ( which its not ), wouldn't monkeys still be turning, evolving, into humans?? just a thought.



Who says they aren't evolving?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 25, 2011)

KissMyBass said:


> if evolution were true, ( which its not ), wouldn't monkeys still be turning, evolving, into humans?? just a thought.



Apes and humans shared a common ancestor, they each branched off from that ancestor to where they are today. Each is still evolving. It does not significantly happen over night....or in 100 years....or tens of generations.....it takes thousands of years to see a noticeable difference.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jul 25, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Apes and humans shared a common ancestor, they each branched off from that ancestor to where they are today. Each is still evolving. It does not significantly happen over night....or in 100 years....or tens of generations.....it takes thousands of years to see a noticeable difference.



A few more than thousands according to the evolutionists.

Didn't you see Atlas' post with the CBN video about how the scientific community made a whole lot of assumptions and told down right lies about the data they gathered? Attaching an orangutan jawbone to a human skull, and then later admitting it. Drawing fanciful cartoons of what our ancestors "must" have looked like? Debunking themselves.

Atlas' best thread ever!


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 25, 2011)

The difference between science and religion is when the fraudulent claims are exposed in science they are discarded. You don't see the scientific community continuing to use piltdown man to demonstrate evolution. They don't need to. And by the way, it was scientists who exposed the fraudulent claims.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jul 25, 2011)

I had to go back and watch the video. Atlas hates it when I post and don't watch the video.

You guys are as much a victim of your culture as anyone who belives in a religion. Public schools and universities have crammed the fanciful idea of evolution down your throats and you are buying it. You all have a lot more faith than I do in order to believe in such an outrageous tale. The FSM is more likely to be real than evolution as a means of the existence of humans, and it is well documented on Wikipedia that the FSM is a satire and a parody invented by someone. Say whatever you want about any religion, but don't pretend your beliefs are any different because you have "SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE" to back it up. You ain't got squat.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jul 25, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> The difference between science and religion is when the fraudulent claims are exposed in science they are discarded. You don't see the scientific community continuing to use piltdown man to demonstrate evolution. They don't need to. And by the way, it was scientists who exposed the fraudulent claims.



Absolutely wrong wrong wrong. Global warming is the most recent exampke of scientists with an agenda that will make stuff up to serve that agenda, and continue the facade to save face and policy!


----------



## bullethead (Jul 25, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> I had to go back and watch the video. Atlas hates it when I post and don't watch the video.
> 
> You guys are as much a victim of your culture as anyone who belives in a religion. Public schools and universities have crammed the fanciful idea of evolution down your throats and you are buying it. You all have a lot more faith than I do in order to believe in such an outrageous tale. The FSM is more likely to be real than evolution as a means of the existence of humans, and it is well documented on Wikipedia that the FSM is a satire and a parody invented by someone. Say whatever you want about any religion, but don't pretend your beliefs are any different because you have "SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE" to back it up. You ain't got squat.



As much as I am keeping score and each side having it's share of  dis-proven information, science is WAY ahead in the things that are provable.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 25, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Absolutely wrong wrong wrong. Global warming is the most recent exampke of scientists with an agenda that will make stuff up to serve that agenda, and continue the facade to save face and policy!



I think the each side has proven what they will do to further an agenda. But with science there is always someone willing to step up and prove it wrong. I have seen numerous article written to expose the global warming "epidemic", they were all written by other scientists.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 25, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> I had to go back and watch the video. Atlas hates it when I post and don't watch the video.
> 
> You guys are as much a victim of your culture as anyone who belives in a religion. Public schools and universities have crammed the fanciful idea of evolution down your throats and you are buying it. You all have a lot more faith than I do in order to believe in such an outrageous tale. The FSM is more likely to be real than evolution as a means of the existence of humans, and it is well documented on Wikipedia that the FSM is a satire and a parody invented by someone. Say whatever you want about any religion, but don't pretend your beliefs are any different because you have "SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE" to back it up. You ain't got squat.



Well we have the fossil record and genetics that confirm evolution. And scientists have been able to make predictions based on evolution in both fields that were later confirmed. What predictions have creationists made that confirmed their view?

Are you really as impressed with Ray Comfort's "where is the female dog?" as Pat Robertson is?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 25, 2011)

Libraries full of scientific books that humans use to learn and are considered factual, constantly being updated and accepted worldwide vs. One bible with a little over a thousand pages filled with the writings of.....???? written by....????

Talk about not having squat.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jul 26, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Well we have the fossil record and genetics that confirm evolution. And scientists have been able to make predictions based on evolution in both fields that were later confirmed. What predictions have creationists made that confirmed their view?
> 
> Are you really as impressed with Ray Comfort's "where is the female dog?" as Pat Robertson is?



Did you just say that evolution was confirmed? Wow.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jul 26, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Libraries full of scientific books that humans use to learn and are considered factual, constantly being updated and accepted worldwide vs. One bible with a little over a thousand pages filled with the writings of.....???? written by....????
> 
> Talk about not having squat.



Science is a language used to describe observations. Its method does not even claim to provide any answers.


----------



## Scott G (Jul 26, 2011)

Can someone link me to the website he mentioned? the one with "proof" god is real?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 26, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Science is a language used to describe observations. Its method does not even claim to provide any answers.



And you are scientist?


----------



## ted_BSR (Jul 26, 2011)

bullethead said:


> And you are scientist?



Yes, by education and profession.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jul 26, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Well we have the fossil record and genetics that confirm evolution. And scientists have been able to make predictions based on evolution in both fields that were later confirmed. What predictions have creationists made that confirmed their view?
> 
> Are you really as impressed with Ray Comfort's "where is the female dog?" as Pat Robertson is?



Atlas I wasn't sure you would see this on the other thread, so I am reposting here. Evolution is hardly confirmed.

Borel's law of probability states that if the odds of an event happening are worse than 1 in 1*10^50, then that event will NEVER HAPPEN.

Dr. Harold Morowitz, former professor of biophysics at Yale University, estimated that the probability of the chance formation of the smallest, simplest form of living organism known is 1 out of 10^340,000,000. One out of ten to the 340 millionth power is unimaginable odds. This large figure is a "1" followed by 340,000,000 zeroes. As you can see, Morowitz' odds against even the simplest life evolving were infinitely more than 1*10^50, making them impossible.

The very popular evolutionist, Dr. Carl Sagan of Cornell University, figured even steeper odds against the simplest life beginning naturally on a planet such as earth. According to Sagan, the probability would be about 1 out of 10^2,000,000,000. Try to imagine ten to the 2 billionth power. Pretty astounding odds. Interestingly, these impossible odds against evolution came from one of the most prominent evolutionists of our time.

According to evolutionists, we just got lucky. However, the odds against this luck have been shown above. Borel's law of probability should have been enough to refute evolution completely, but I know that the evolutionary "intellectuals" need more convincing data. 



Dr. Bert Thompson's The Scientific Case for Creation, Apologetics Press Inc., 1999


----------



## bullethead (Jul 26, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Yes, by education and profession.



I thought you did tell me you were a scientist in a previous conversation. Does it upset you at all that the work you do does not provide any answers and amounts to "squat" as you put it? Is there nothing that you or a colleague has done that is accepted as truth in and outside of the scientific world? Why be a scientist if it is such an unacceptable profession doing useless work?

I know I did not word that in the best of ways, but you dismiss the very profession and tactics you use every day. Why? If not science, what IS true?


----------



## ted_BSR (Jul 26, 2011)

bullethead said:


> I thought you did tell me you were a scientist in a previous conversation. Does it upset you at all that the work you do does not provide any answers and amounts to "squat" as you put it? Is there nothing that you or a colleague has done that is accepted as truth in and outside of the scientific world? Why be a scientist if it is such an unacceptable profession doing useless work?
> 
> I know I did not word that in the best of ways, but you dismiss the very profession and tactics you use every day. Why? If not science, what IS true?



I don't dismiss the discipline at all. I see it for what it is meant to be. It is meant to describe observation. A lot of the science I do takes place deep underground. There is no real way to prove or disprove it, it is dark down there.

Many people (scientists included) think of it as the door to truth. The same is true for logic (a form a science).
I have studied and practiced this beautiful discipline for many years. I respect it and actually cherish it. I also understand the scientific method and its limitations.

Your question I have highlighted above in red IS, the million dollar question. Each human must decide for thenselves what they believe to be true.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 26, 2011)

Ted I see your posts. No offense but if I don't respond it's probably because I didn't consider it worthwhile, not because I didn't see it.

This copy and paste job of yours is one of those not worth responding to. These probability calculations that get thrown around by creationists and apologists like William Lane Craig are dependent on the accuracy of the inputs and we are never offered anything that backs up the accuracy claims of the inputs that brought them to their final numbers.

As a "scientist" you know that evolution does not address the origin of life. So your strawman against what I said wouldn't be valid even if it was accurate.

Let me just respond to the one citation that I took the time to look up (Morowitz) as it pretty much sums up my response to the others.

This is from Dr Morowitz testimony in the McLean vs Arkansas Board of Education case in 1982.

http://www.antievolution.org/projects/mclean/new_site/pf_trans/mva_tt_p_morowitz.html



> Q: Doctor Morowitz, do you know how life was first formed on this planet?
> 
> 
> 500
> ...


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 26, 2011)

So... You're telling me there's a chance!!     Lloyd Christmas



ted_BSR said:


> Atlas I wasn't sure you would see this on the other thread, so I am reposting here. Evolution is hardly confirmed.
> 
> Borel's law of probability states that if the odds of an event happening are worse than 1 in 1*10^50, then that event will NEVER HAPPEN.
> 
> ...


----------



## ted_BSR (Jul 26, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Ted I see your posts. No offense but if I don't respond it's probably because I didn't consider it worthwhile, not because I didn't see it.
> 
> This copy and paste job of yours is one of those not worth responding to. These probability calculations that get thrown around by creationists and apologists like William Lane Craig are dependent on the accuracy of the inputs and we are never offered anything that backs up the accuracy claims of the inputs that brought them to their final numbers.
> 
> ...



Why is it not worthwhile to respond to my posts?

I am actually flattered when you don't respond. It tells me that I am under your skin.

I guess I'll go to bed since you probably won't respond.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 26, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> I don't dismiss the discipline at all. I see it for what it is meant to be. It is meant to describe observation. A lot of the science I do takes place deep underground. There is no real way to prove or disprove it, it is dark down there.
> 
> Many people (scientists included) think of it as the door to truth. The same is true for logic (a form a science).
> I have studied and practiced this beautiful discipline for many years. I respect it and actually cherish it. I also understand the scientific method and its limitations.
> ...



I just know that what I have learned from science far outweighs what I have learned from religion. While each have their facts and faults, I personally tend to believe the science side more than the religious side. I have used and benefited from the findings of science much more in my life .


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 26, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Why is it not worthwhile to respond to my posts?
> 
> I am actually flattered when you don't respond. It tells me that I am under your skin.
> 
> I guess I'll go to bed since you probably won't respond.



I just demonstrated in my last post why yours wasn't worth a response. It was a straw man consisting of a copy and paste job and a poor one at that. If you think that's all it takes to ruffle my feathers that's fine. I tend to ignore the baloney. On the rare occasion you post something worth discussing I'm happy to engage.

And this isn't the first time you've specifically asked for a response from me so if no response is flattering for you, you sure have a funny way of showing it.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 26, 2011)

bullethead said:


> I just know that what I have learned from science far outweighs what I have learned from religion. While each have their facts and faults, I personally tend to believe the science side more than the religious side. I have used and benefited from the findings of science much more in my life .



"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 27, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> "Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."



What men do with an idea has nothing to do with whether it's true of not.   Killing in the name of God, and the religious atrocities of history, have nothing to do with whether God exists of not.   The threat of nuclear proliferation and destruction has nothing to do with whether E=mc2.  

Actually, science reinforces my faith in Christ.   My heart could never hold on to something that my mind constantly contradicts.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 27, 2011)

Not in the name of, at the instruction of. All three Abrahamic faiths have committed murder with scriptural backing. The only way to get God off the hook for that is to divorce God from the scriptures.


There are matters in the Bible, said to be done by the express commandment of God, that are shocking to humanity and to every idea we have of moral justice..... ~Thomas Paine


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 27, 2011)

I agree...100%, but that still has nothing to do with whether God exists or not.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 27, 2011)

> The only way to get God off the hook for that is to divorce God from the scriptures.



.....or (as modern Christians do) divorce the law of the OT from the grace of the NT (as Paul instructs).  Two completely different ways of dealing with things, really.  Problem is, Christians can't seem to figure out whether they will follow the law (OT) or grace (NT).  Most I know attempt a hybrid of the two.   A primary example is a Christian church (NT concept) demanding a tithe (OT concept) from their members, or "partners" as the contemporary church likes to call them.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 27, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> I agree...100%, but that still has nothing to do with whether God exists or not.



That's true. But it does tell us something. It tells us the god of the bible is not a good or moral god.

So either:

1. A good god exists but it is not the god of the bible
2. The monstrous god of the bible exists and he is not good
3. Some other evil god exists that has nothing to do with the bible

Or...

4. No god exists

Any of those are possibilities.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 27, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> That's true. But it does tell us something. It tells us the god of the bible is* not a good or moral god.*
> So either:
> 
> 1. A good god exists but it is not the god of the bible
> ...



Don't you believe those words to be subjective?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 27, 2011)

God no doubt favored Israel in the BC, but the God of the NT opened the door for all when they killed His Son.    

Jesus Christ...He is the God I serve.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 27, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Don't you believe those words to be subjective?



Yes


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 27, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Yes



So that sentence means nothing but to you? Whats the point? Do you expect someone else to read that and except it?


----------



## Madman (Jul 27, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> "Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."



Engineers fly you to the moon. 

"Engineers do what scientist dream of."


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 27, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> God no doubt favored Israel in the BC, but the God of the NT opened the door for all when they killed His Son.
> 
> Jesus Christ...He is the God I serve.



Assuming the claims of the NT are true... is it moral or just to murder an innocent man to redeem the guilty? A scapegoat made of a human sacrifice?


Another gem from Thomas Paine (sorry, I can't resist!)

The story of the redemption will not stand examination. That man should redeem himself from the sin of eating an apple by committing a murder on Jesus Christ, is the strangest system of religion ever set up.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 27, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> So that sentence means nothing but to you? Whats the point? Do you expect someone else to read that and except it?



You could very well reject my subjective standards. It doesn't matter because it still holds true even when applied to the supposedly objective moral standards that Christians claim to hold to.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 27, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> The story of the redemption will not stand examination. That man should redeem himself from the sin of eating an apple by committing a murder on Jesus Christ, is the strangest system of religion ever set up.



LOL    I believe history has proven out that the 'story of the redemption' can stand examination!     Christianity rules in america because we are free to weigh out the evidence.   

Jesus Christ,   Lord, Liar, Lunatic...or never existed.  LOL


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 27, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> LOL    I believe history has proven out that the 'story of the redemption' can stand examination!     Christianity rules in america because we are free to weigh out the evidence.
> 
> Jesus Christ,   Lord, Liar, Lunatic...or never existed.  LOL



Or he existed but never claimed to be God. Lord is the least likely of those possibilities.

Christianity rules in the western world because it was adopted by Constantine and become the state religion of the Roman empire. If it could genuinely withstand examination then why not just address Paine's objection instead of pointing out how many people believe it?

Is it moral or just to kill an innocent man to get a guilty man off the hook for what he has done?


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 27, 2011)

> Is it moral or just to kill an innocent man to get a guilty man off the hook for what he has done?



Depends on who's definition of morality you are using, doesn't it?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 27, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Another gem from Thomas Paine (sorry, I can't resist!)
> The story of the redemption will not stand examination. That man should redeem himself from the sin of eating an apple by committing a murder on Jesus Christ, is the strangest system of religion ever set up.



This quote, to me, is silly, as it oversimplifies 'sin'.  That sin has passed through all men is evident in the fact that we all have evil in us.   From childhood we are taught right and wrong, and have chose 'wrong' on many occasions.    The 'murder of Jesus Christ' has always been strange, that's why Jews (as a whole) have rejected the suffering Messiah.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 27, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Depends on who's definition of morality you are using, doesn't it?



I think he's admitting that there is something inside him that knows what's right/wrong/moral.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 27, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Depends on who's definition of morality you are using, doesn't it?



I'm inviting them to use their own definition of morality. I already know the answer by my definition. The reluctance to answer is an answer in itself.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 27, 2011)

> I think he's admitting that there is something inside him that knows what's right/wrong/moral



....or at the very least that he has a system of morality which is true to him.

A universalist appraoch to morality might determine that killing one innocent man to save all men for the sake of compassion, not justice, is moral.  There are a few other systems which might justify such action as moral as well.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 27, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> This quote, to me, is silly, as it oversimplifies 'sin'.  That sin has passed through all men is evident in the fact that we all have evil in us.   From childhood we are taught right and wrong, and have chose 'wrong' on many occasions.    The 'murder of Jesus Christ' has always been strange, that's why Jews (as a whole) have rejected the suffering Messiah.



Well it was the "original sin" and the source of the fall of man that got the whole ball rolling right?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 27, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Well it was the "original sin" and the source of the fall of man that got the whole ball rolling right?



Yes, when they chose to disobey God's commandments.   Although I considered it 'oversimplified', I understand what you are saying.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 27, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> I think he's admitting that there is something inside him that knows what's right/wrong/moral.



Absolutely. Methinks you have an internal compass that points in a similar direction.

I don't expect you to admit it here but I'm betting deep down you know Paine makes a good point. The whole premise doesn't quite add up.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 27, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Absolutely. Methinks you have an internal compass that points in a similar direction.
> 
> I don't expect you to admit it here but I'm betting deep down you know Paine makes a good point. The whole premise doesn't quite add up.



I'll just say I'm glad I live in NT times.       OT times were dangerous to non-Jews.  

Lunchtime guys.....be back in little over an hour.    Enjoying the discussion


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 27, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Absolutely. Methinks you have an internal compass that points in a similar direction.
> 
> I don't expect you to admit it here but I'm betting deep down you know Paine makes a good point. The whole premise doesn't quite add up.



Who or what or where did the "compass"  come from?


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 27, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Who or what or where did the "compass"  come from?



Good question. I think it's partly genetic and partly environmental.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 27, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Good question. I think it's partly genetic and partly environmental.



I would like to know more on your thoughts on the genetic side of things. What do you think formed this "compass" that points towards good or bad?


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 27, 2011)

If you'll open up a separate thread I'll be happy to take part.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jul 27, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> I just demonstrated in my last post why yours wasn't worth a response. It was a straw man consisting of a copy and paste job and a poor one at that. If you think that's all it takes to ruffle my feathers that's fine. I tend to ignore the baloney. On the rare occasion you post something worth discussing I'm happy to engage.
> 
> And this isn't the first time you've specifically asked for a response from me so if no response is flattering for you, you sure have a funny way of showing it.



This is all your opinion, and you are entitled to it.

Am I not holding my tounge the same way you do when you copy and paste? Or should I start embedding YouTube videos?


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Jul 27, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> The difference between science and religion is when the fraudulent claims are exposed in science they are discarded. .


That's peculiar, because Al Gore is still selling carbon credits for his Global Warming scam.


----------



## tween_the_banks (Jul 28, 2011)

I think morality (this compass) is an arm between joy and pain.
I believe even if the world never tasted of religion (which is pretty slim considering our fear of death and our love for those close) you'd still find people trying to do good. We are intricate systems and I believe when we cause pain our own relation to that pain tells us to do better.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 28, 2011)

tween_the_banks said:


> I think morality (this compass) is an arm between joy and pain.
> I believe even if the world never tasted of religion (which is pretty slim considering our fear of death and our love for those close) you'd still find people trying to do good. We are intricate systems and I believe when we cause pain our own relation to that pain tells us to do better.



Morals are more than just felling good or bad, i.e. having joy or pain.

What if I make a bad moral decision that does not cause me or my family pain? Who says that is right or wrong? What convicts us to believe good is good?


----------



## JFS (Jul 28, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Yes, when they chose to disobey God's commandments.



Of course, you do know it's an allegory, not a hisotrical account...


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 28, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> If you'll open up a separate thread I'll be happy to take part.



It would just end up about morals again. Like alot of threads do.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 28, 2011)

JFS said:


> Of course, you do know it's an allegory, not a hisotrical account...



   And how do you know that it's not historical?


----------



## tween_the_banks (Jul 28, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Morals are more than just felling good or bad, i.e. having joy or pain.
> 
> What if I make a bad moral decision that does not cause me or my family pain? Who says that is right or wrong? What convicts us to believe good is good?


Are there any bad decisions made in which some version /form of pain doesn't arise?
Even guilt or shame is attached to pain. Life is pain. And IMO its this pain that forms our morality. 
You're trying to fit this hand in your God's grip,  I don't expect you to agree, nor am I trying to get you to see it my way. I'm just stating how I think. By the way, this really isn't an I'm right you're wrong topic IMO.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 28, 2011)

tween_the_banks said:


> Are there any bad decisions made in which some version /form of pain doesn't arise?
> Even guilt or shame is attached to pain. Life is pain. And IMO its this pain that forms our morality.


 If the bad decision I or anybody makes doesn't affect me or my family, what makes me care?


> I don't expect you to agree, nor am I trying to get you to see it my way. I'm just stating how I think. By the way, this really isn't an I'm right you're wrong topic IMO.


It's all good, I enjoy the dialoge


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 28, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> If the bad decision I or anybody makes doesn't affect me or my family, what makes me care?
> 
> It's all good, I enjoy the dialoge



Empathy. A biological function.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 28, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Empathy. A biological function.



How do you think we biologically came to be empathetic? Did the cosmos somehow know that is the way we needed to be to survive or make us better people?


----------



## JFS (Jul 28, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> How do you think we biologically came to be empathetic?



Why wouldn't natural selection account for that?


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 28, 2011)

JFS said:


> Why wouldn't natural selection account for that?



Why would it? Do we need morals to survive?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 28, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Why would it? Do we need morals to survive?



x2


----------



## fish hawk (Jul 29, 2011)

And once again another youtube video


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 29, 2011)

As a social animal, yes.  Where's Pnome to explain all this....AGAIN?


----------



## pnome (Jul 29, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> As a social animal, yes.  Where's Pnome to explain all this....AGAIN?



Made a whole thread about it.

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=578954


----------



## bullethead (Jul 29, 2011)

fish hawk said:


> And once again another youtube video



Don't get too upset about it, the Bible verses outnumber the vids 100/1.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 29, 2011)

pnome said:


> Made a whole thread about it.
> 
> http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=578954



You da man.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jul 29, 2011)

pnome said:


> Made a whole thread about it.
> 
> http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=578954



This was an excellent thread Pnome, and I enjoyed the discussion, however, other than being one of Diogenes final posts, I find nothing definitive about it. It is laced with speculation and opinion from both sides.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 1, 2011)

what happened to the infamous 'diogenes'?    Did something happen during my layoff?    May someone could PM me if this forum isn't the place to discuss.


----------



## GAFLAjd (Aug 3, 2011)

Maybe the female dog was staying with the women Cain and Abel found?


----------



## ted_BSR (Aug 3, 2011)

GAFLAjd said:


> Maybe the female dog was staying with the women Cain and Abel found?



Is that what happened to Diogenes?


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 4, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Is that what happened to Diogenes?


----------

