# Evolutionary purpose for evil.



## stringmusic (Oct 29, 2014)

What is the evolutionary purpose for evil?


----------



## 660griz (Oct 29, 2014)

Since 'evil' varies across the globe, which act are you referring to?

Have you seen what happens when a new king of a lion pride shows up? He will kill all the offspring from the previous king. To me, that is evil, to the lions, it is survival.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 29, 2014)

Evolutionary wise evil is a byproduct of Survival of the Fittest.
Bad things happen.
Because of bad events creatures either die off or become stronger in order to adapt.
Evolution did not crate evil. Evil is not a purpose of evolution.
Evil is used to describe bad events that humans cannot wrap their minds around. I don't know if evil existed until humans were smart enough coin the phrase and carry out the acts.

I personally associate evil with the human race. Nature is harsh. Humans are evil.

In what ways are you viewing evil that you would think evolution would have a purpose for it?


----------



## bullethead (Oct 29, 2014)

Take grizz's lions example.
A rival male will kill the offspring of his foe in order that he can breed with the female and start his own bloodline.

In the animal world that type of killing goes on regularly. A few quick chomps and a shake of the back of the neck and it is over.
Survival of the Fittest

Humans have been killing each other since the beginning of the species. It is a dominance thing just like all the other animals. We have been at war with each other since 2 humans existed.

The evil comes into play when the methods are exposed. Humans have a knack for taking killing and torture to a level that goes above and beyond.
Serial killers.
Serial rapists
Abusers that torture animals and people physically and mentally for no other reason than they enjoy watching the suffering.
Kidnappers that hold people against their will for years and abuse them in all kinds of ways.
And on and on and on with humans almost exclusively being involved.

A volcano exploding and burying 2000 people is not evil.
Some twisted guy standing at the edge of the volcano and tossing other humans in IS!


----------



## bullethead (Oct 29, 2014)

Take humans out of the picture and evil goes away with them.


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 29, 2014)

660griz said:


> Since 'evil' varies across the globe, which act are you referring to?


Anything you deem an evil act by a human.


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 29, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Evolutionary wise evil is a byproduct of Survival of the Fittest.
> Bad things happen.
> Because of bad events creatures either die off or become stronger in order to adapt.
> Evolution did not crate evil Evil is not a purpose of evolution.
> ...



If humans are a byproduct of evolution, and humans are evil, but evolution didn't create evil, then were did evil come from?


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 29, 2014)

bullethead said:


> A volcano exploding and burying 2000 people is not evil.
> Some twisted guy standing at the edge of the volcano and tossing other humans in IS!


And that twisted guy evolved, so you say.


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 29, 2014)

Why are humans still doing evil things? Why has that part of humans continued to evolve? It seems as though a person doing evil things, i.e. murder and rape, etc, etc, serves no purpose in survival of the fittest, nor does it help reproduce or perpetuate the species.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Oct 29, 2014)

You're looking at it backwards. Evolution did not cause evil. Evil, as you so succinctly put it in an earlier post, is a human creation for acts we find despicable. 

Evil is a malformed expression of selfishness, which is derived from the survival instinct, which has no rhyme or reason in human terms, but merely serves to propagate the species. 

That instinct resides on a bell curve with some having a suppressed instinct, thus dying quickly, some have an inflated sense, thus becoming "evil". Most of us naturally fall in the middle.


----------



## 660griz (Oct 29, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> It seems as though a person doing evil things, i.e. murder and rape, etc, etc, serves no purpose in survival of the fittest, nor does it help reproduce or perpetuate the species.



Imagine a caveman raping every woman he meets. The chance of his bloodline continuing, go up. Murder, killing babies, has been a survival means since the dawn of man. If food is scarce, babies were killed. Rival mates were killed. 

Real evil, i.e. torture, could be evolutionary(somebody had to be made to tell where the food was) or it could just be a brain defect.  Why do some animals 'play' with their food?


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 29, 2014)

String, in effect, you are saying evolution MUST benefit every species of animal including humans or its "bad".
Not how it works.
The gazelle who evolved long legs and speed isn't benefiting the lion who is chasing him but it certainly benefits the gazelle.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 29, 2014)

Evil is a willful intentional act to cause harm to others in ways that are beyond what occurs naturally.


----------



## 660griz (Oct 29, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Evil is a willful intentional act to cause harm to others in ways that are beyond what occurs naturally.



Ah, there's the rub. 'Naturally'. 
It is all really just 'nature'. 

I know what you mean though. Just splittin hairs.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Oct 29, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Evil is a willful intentional act to cause harm to others in ways that are beyond what occurs naturally.



But for selfish reasons.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 29, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> If humans are a byproduct of evolution, and humans are evil, but evolution didn't create evil, then were did evil come from?



You are looking at it as an intended purpose instead of an unintended consequence.
Humans have found out that evil has benefits and create it and use it to their advantage.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 29, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> But for selfish reasons.



Yep


----------



## bullethead (Oct 29, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> And that twisted guy evolved, so you say.



And you say he was designed by an intelligent being.


----------



## gemcgrew (Oct 29, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Evil is a willful intentional act to cause harm to others in ways that are beyond what occurs naturally.


Are you saying that evil is a supernatural act?


----------



## bullethead (Oct 29, 2014)

gemcgrew said:


> Are you saying that evil is a supernatural act?



Nope. Ultimately it is part of nature since everything exists within nature. But nature happens through courses of action which all have consequences good bad or otherwise. It is the side if nature that humans contribute to.


----------



## 660griz (Oct 29, 2014)

gemcgrew said:


> Are you saying that evil is a supernatural act?



Pretty sure he is saying it is not natural. Or, un-natural.
But, you knew that.


----------



## gemcgrew (Oct 29, 2014)

660griz said:


> Pretty sure he is saying it is not natural. Or, un-natural.
> But, you knew that.


I am still unsure.


bullethead said:


> Nope. Ultimately it is part of nature since everything exists within nature.


----------



## 660griz (Oct 29, 2014)

gemcgrew said:


> I am still unsure.



Gotcha. I am not answering for bullet anymore. 

Man walking upright. Natural.
Man walking on hands. Un-natural but, found in nature.
Confusing, I know.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 29, 2014)

gemcgrew said:


> I am still unsure.



You are right to question what I meant.
I should have been more clear by wording it properly.

Instead saying "Evil is a willful intentional act to cause harm to others in ways that are beyond what occurs naturally"

I should have said:

Evil is a willful intentional act to cause harm to others in ways that are beyond what occurs elsewhere within nature.

Meaning taking humans out of the mix you won't find examples of evil in the rest of nature like you can find being done by humans.

Ebola isn't evil.
Knowing you have ebola and purposefully going to a stadium, school, office building or public place full of people and wiping your hands all over every door knob and hand rail after you have smeared your nose or sneezed into your palms is Evil.


----------



## 660griz (Oct 29, 2014)

There are some that state two distinct types of evil.
Natural evil and moral evil.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Oct 29, 2014)

660griz said:


> Gotcha. I am not answering for bullet anymore.
> 
> Man walking upright. Natural.
> Man walking on hands. Un-natural but, found in nature.
> Confusing, I know.



Not normative does not mean not natural.


----------



## 660griz (Oct 29, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Not normative does not mean not natural.



But it can. 
Depends on the context.
May not be the normal way of walking but, if born with no legs, it could be their way. 
Not the natural/normative way to walk...except in their case.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Oct 29, 2014)

660griz said:


> But it can.
> Depends on the context.
> May not be the normal way of walking but, if born with no legs, it could be their way.
> Not the natural/normative way to walk...except in their case.



Their physical condition is not normative, either. I'm not trying to be callous, just dispassionately qualifying the situation. 

You're trying to rationalize why one might do that. The fact of the matter is that most don't. That is what makes it not normative. 

Most people = normative.

Few people = not normative. 

It has no implications on right/wrong or good/bad, it just exists as such.


----------



## 660griz (Oct 29, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Their physical condition is not normative, either. I'm not trying to be callous, just dispassionately qualifying the situation.
> 
> You're trying to rationalize why one might do that. The fact of the matter is that most don't. That is what makes it not normative.
> 
> ...



I was just trying to explain the use of natural/un-natural in bullets statement. While yours is correct. Whether un-natural or non-normative, they both appear in the natural world.
They are not, to answer gemcrew, supernatural.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Oct 29, 2014)

660griz said:


> They are not, to answer gemcrew, supernatural.



Agreed


----------



## Israel (Oct 29, 2014)

I see a two edged sword...


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 30, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> String, in effect, you are saying evolution MUST benefit every species of animal including humans or its "bad".
> Not how it works.
> The gazelle who evolved long legs and speed isn't benefiting the lion who is chasing him but it certainly benefits the gazelle.


I strictly speaking of humans and evil, not any other species.

I'm wanting to know why humans evolved to do evil things that do not help the human species.


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 30, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> You're looking at it backwards. Evolution did not cause evil. Evil, as you so succinctly put it in an earlier post, is a human creation for acts we find despicable.


Ok, so it's a human creation...and humans evolved. Humans simply "dance to our DNA" put forth by evolution.



> Evil is a malformed expression of selfishness, which is derived from the survival instinct, which has no rhyme or reason in human terms, but merely serves to propagate the species.


In what way does child molestation propagate the species?


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 30, 2014)

bullethead said:


> You are looking at it as an intended purpose instead of an unintended consequence.
> Humans have found out that evil has benefits and create it and use it to their advantage.


Everything in nature doesn't have a purpose?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Oct 30, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> I strictly speaking of humans and evil, not any other species.
> 
> I'm wanting to know why humans evolved to do evil things that do not help the human species.



There is no why behind evolution. It's random chance that plays out without concern for favoritism. 

The first white snowshoe rabbit wasn't chosen to have larger feet or be white in order to adapt to the environment. Those adaptations were random chance that just happened to benefit that individual, or those individuals, and those traits were passed down. 

The desire to personify natural processes are what lead the first humans to create the first gods. They couldn't explain why the sun rose, so they let Ra do it. They couldn't explain thunderstorms, so that was the work of Zeus. War, Harvest, reproduction, the whole gamut of environmental and human experiences all got their own gods over time. 

I would recommend to you that you don't try to look at evolution as a guiding force. It's not. Period statement. I would, rather, recommend that you try to accept it for the random mutative force that it is. 

But we both know that you see divine intervention in mutative force, where there is proof of none outside of religion. And that's okay.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Oct 30, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Ok, so it's a human creation...and humans evolved. Humans simply "dance to our DNA" put forth by evolution.
> 
> 
> In what way does child molestation propagate the species?



I'm saying the name, and characterization of, evil is a human creation. We could have just as easily called it happiness, or it could just as easily be just normal human behavior. 

Again, you're looking at it with the premise that ALL evolution MUST be beneficial to the species or the individual. 

It doesn't. That's a fact. 

Your premise is flawed, buddy.


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 30, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> There is no why behind evolution. It's random chance that plays out without concern for favoritism.


But it always helps things survive, right? Why do we need other humans to do evil things to survive?  



> I would recommend to you that you don't try to look at evolution as a guiding force. It's not. Period statement. I would, rather, recommend that you try to accept it for the random mutative force that it is.


I simply looking at the conclusions, to this point in time, of evolution.  



> But we both know that you see divine intervention in mutative force, where there is proof of none outside of religion. And that's okay.


People put just as much faith in the mutative force being random as I do in it being divine.


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 30, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I'm saying the name, and characterization of, evil is a human creation. We could have just as easily called it happiness, or it could just as easily be just normal human behavior.
> 
> Again, you're looking at it with the premise that ALL evolution MUST be beneficial to the species or the individual.
> 
> ...


Your right, my premise is flawed if the highlighted part is true.

I understand that natural selection and evoluton just are, they just happen, and whatever species survives, just survives because they were somehow able to adapt.

I look at humans today, the way we look and act, we are the ones that have been able to survive to this point, and we do evil things. That's how I've come to the conclusion that there must be a purpose for evil in the evolutionary process, because if not, humans that did evil things would not have survived to this point.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Oct 30, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> But it always helps things survive, right? Why do we need other humans to do evil things to survive?
> 
> 
> I simply looking at the conclusions, to this point in time, of evolution.
> ...



No. That's the common misconception. Evolution is not always beneficial to the organism. For every successful mutation that we see, the white snowshoe rabbit as opposed to black, there are untold quantities of neutral, or even harmful mutations. The neutrals are out-competed by the better adapted and are shortly bred out of the population, where the harmful mutations may not get that far due to predation or death from said mutation. 



stringmusic said:


> Your right, my premise is flawed if the highlighted part is true.
> 
> I understand that natural selection and evoluton just are, they just happen, and whatever species survives, just survives because they were somehow able to survive.
> 
> I look at humans today, the way we look and act, we are the ones that have been able to survive to this point, and we do evil things. That's how I've come to the conclusion that there must be a purpose for evil in the evolutionary process, because if not, humans that did evil things would not have survived to this point.



I could rationalize that evil acts, as you would call them, are a byproduct of no natural predation. 

It's how I also look at people who are afraid of irrational things. Like clowns, or the color purple. 

If we were still running around in loin cloths chucking spears at our only chance for food, you wouldn't have time to experience them, or if they were that severe, you would be out-competed by your tribesmen and die. At the very least your genes wouldn't make it to the next generation. 

Those fears, and those murderous instincts are random chance expressed in a bored species, IMO. 

That's not based on anything but my own observations, so I'm sure there are experts who would disagree with me.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 30, 2014)

string, humans have been around for a very short time on this planet. The evil that they do may not be beneficial at all and may very well contribute to the species dying off.
You are expecting almost immediate results and evolution just does not work that way. 
Evolution absolutely does not always help things survive. The species that died off are because they could not keep up. It is not always a "better version" that evolves. At best it is a version that is capable of surviving the current conditions. You cannot think of it as species 1.0, then 1.1, 1.2 1.3,.... 2.0. Humans for example are not all on the same evolutionary timeline. What people in modernized countries shrug off as the sniffles would kill other humans in more remote spots and some dietary items that those remote villagers have been eating for thousands of years would kill you and I within days. Evolution is not always beneficial. Evolution allows small groups to hopefully adapt to their surroundings and 10,000 years of adaptation could be wiped out in what would be considered a split second compared to all the time it took to get to that point.

You really should research evolution instead of trying to have a few guys on an AAA forum try to explain a process you that you don't have a basic understanding of and refuse to believe what we say anyway.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 30, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Your right, my premise is flawed if the highlighted part is true.
> 
> I understand that natural selection and evoluton just are, they just happen, and whatever species survives, just survives because they were somehow able to adapt.
> 
> I look at humans today, the way we look and act, we are the ones that have been able to survive to this point, and we do evil things. That's how I've come to the conclusion that there must be a purpose for evil in the evolutionary process, because if not, humans that did evil things would not have survived to this point.



String, humans are a blip on the timescale. We are not here that long. If the species survives another million years it still is not that long comparatively. We will be lucky to survive a tenth of that. "Evil" may be a trait we acquired within the last 10,000 years of "modern" man.
10,000 years is literally nothing on the time scale.

You will go insane trying to find an evolutionary purpose for each and every single trait found within the human species. You fail to recognize some traits as possibly being detrimental to our survival. 

Evils evolutionary "purpose" might just be to wipe out our species. Time will tell who adapts.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 30, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> No. That's the common misconception. Evolution is not always beneficial to the organism. For every successful mutation that we see, the white snowshoe rabbit as opposed to black, there are untold quantities of neutral, or even harmful mutations. The neutrals are out-competed by the better adapted and are shortly bred out of the population, where the harmful mutations may not get that far due to predation or death from said mutation.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Part in blue is a good thought.
As we got more comfortable in being top dog in the animal world we found new ways to be more devious to our fellow humans.
Idle hands so to speak...

There is always a certain ratio of (mentally unstable) bad apples in any bushel. When you get enough bushels to fill the bed of a dump truck the amount of bad apples increases also.

When there were 10 million people worldwide a small percentage of those people were the "bad apples". There were too few and too far between to make a noticeable difference.
Now with almost 8 Billion people worldwide and a world that is made up of instant social media because of the yearn for instant gratification...the amount of bad apples has increased and we know about them almost instantly.

Factor in mentally stable people that through greed, jealously, desire and all of those other (evolutionary????) traits and no wonder the species is overflowing with people willing to purposefully do bad things to other humans in order for personal satisfaction or gains.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 30, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> I look at humans today, the way we look and act, we are the ones that have been able to survive to this point, and we do evil things. That's how I've come to the conclusion that there must be a purpose for evil in the evolutionary process, because if not, humans that did evil things would not have survived to this point.



How do you look and act compared to the Indian tribe in Brazil?
How do you look and act compared to the Maasai tribe in Kenya?
The world is littered with uncivilized and uncontacted tribes. If you are comparing yourself and humans of today that live in your neighboring town, neighboring county, heck neighboring state....then you are onto something. When you think outside the box and start getting into neighboring countries the "modern" human thing gets thinned down a bit. When you get into these humans that still live like thousands of years ago and the date is still 2014 for us and them then I have to ask you if you have thought much of this through at all.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 30, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> I strictly speaking of humans and evil, not any other species.
> 
> I'm wanting to know why humans evolved to do evil things that do not help the human species.


I think you are over simplifying it. And Im one who believes in simplicity ie cutting out the fat and getting to the meat. BUT....
I can do an evil thing such as knock you down and take your lunch money and have a nice lunch with it.
It was evil. And Im now well fed. And Im also a well fed part of the human species. So that does help the human species. It just didn't help you as part of the human species.


----------



## 660griz (Oct 30, 2014)

Lots of animals do 'evil' things. Humans are the only ones that define them as evil. To the animals, they are just doing what comes naturally. 
Cats, chimps, killer whales, ants, hornets, all do things that can be classified (by us) as evil. (torture, killing for fun, rape, war, 'genocide'.) That doesn't mean they are.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 30, 2014)

bullethead said:


> I personally associate evil with the human race. Nature is harsh. Humans are evil.



I agree.  This brings up a question I was thinking about posting on here.

Do Atheist/agnostics see evil (human evil) as just unproductive but natural behavior or do you guys see some acts as so despicable and without any explanation what-so-ever that you acknowledge that only 'evil' can account for it?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Oct 30, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I agree.  This brings up a question I was thinking about posting on here.
> 
> Do Atheist/agnostics see evil (human evil) as just unproductive but natural behavior or do you guys see some acts as so despicable and without any explanation what-so-ever that you acknowledge that only 'evil' can account for it?



I don't speak for anyone but me, but evil is in the eye of the beholder. 

I do witness acts that are so despicable that I revile the human being that perpetrated them, but I hold no one, or thing, responsible for those actions than the person who perpetrated them. 

People can overcome their nurtured behaviors, and do all the time, so blaming the parents for the faults of the offspring doesn't wash with me all the time either.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 30, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I agree.  This brings up a question I was thinking about posting on here.
> 
> Do Atheist/agnostics see evil (human evil) as just unproductive but natural behavior or do you guys see some acts as so despicable and without any explanation what-so-ever that you acknowledge that only 'evil' can account for it?



No because without humans in the mix those evil acts do not occur.
If evil exists from another entity outside of our realm it would rear it's ugly head outside of human form.
We don't hear of random green fogs shaped like the devil flowing through cities and tearing limbs off of women and children only to let them suffer for days while they slowly die.
There is always some human behind purposeful, willful acts meant to cause what we call evil.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 30, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I don't speak for anyone but me, but evil is in the eye of the beholder.
> 
> I do witness acts that are so despicable that I revile the human being that perpetrated them, but I hold no one, or thing, responsible for those actions than the person who perpetrated them.
> 
> People can overcome their nurtured behaviors, and do all the time, so blaming the parents for the faults of the offspring doesn't wash with me all the time either.



I agree with what you said above.


Evil or what we consider as evil has changed along with society, cultures and civilization. All three factor in what constitutes an evil act.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 30, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I agree.  This brings up a question I was thinking about posting on here.
> 
> Do Atheist/agnostics see evil (human evil) as just unproductive but natural behavior or do you guys see some acts as so despicable and without any explanation what-so-ever that you acknowledge that only 'evil' can account for it?





> or do you guys see some acts as so despicable and without any explanation what-so-ever that you acknowledge that only 'evil' can account for it?


To me, evil is simply a word that we have assigned to acts so far out of the norm of what society deems "acceptable" or "unacceptable".
Ganger banger shoot out, 1 dead - not acceptable but not to the level of "evil".
Child tortured, 1 dead - "evil".
Its a word that conveys our inability to understand how someone could do something horrible, terrible, unthinkable, mind boggling, atrocious .... evil... like that.
Just a word and as such cant "account" for anything.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 30, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> To me, evil is simply a word that we have assigned to acts so far out of the norm of what society deems "acceptable" or "unacceptable".
> Ganger banger shoot out, 1 dead - not acceptable but not to the level of "evil".
> Child tortured, 1 dead - "evil".
> Its a word that conveys our inability to understand how someone could do something horrible, terrible, unthinkable, mind boggling, atrocious .... evil... like that.
> Just a word and as such cant "account" for anything.



Well said


----------



## bullethead (Oct 30, 2014)

Humans are a truly ridiculous animal at times.

San Fransisco Giants win the World Series and people smash windows, loot stores, beat other people up and set fire to things.

It is due to evolution?
Is it a designed reaction by some deity?

Or are some of us just idiots that need to be culled?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Oct 30, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Humans are a truly ridiculous animal at times.
> 
> San Fransisco Giants win the World Series and people smash windows, loot stores, beat other people up and set fire to things.
> 
> ...



Rampant, non-resisted, selfishness.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 30, 2014)

bullethead said:


> We don't hear of random green fogs shaped like the devil flowing through cities and tearing limbs off of women and children only to let them suffer for days while they slowly die.



No but there was that movie ' Snakes On A Plane'.


----------



## gemcgrew (Oct 30, 2014)

bullethead said:


> You are looking at it as an intended purpose instead of an unintended consequence.


How can there be "unintended consequence" without "intended purpose"?


----------



## 660griz (Oct 30, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Do Atheist/agnostics see evil (human evil) as just unproductive but natural behavior or do you guys see some acts as so despicable and without any explanation what-so-ever that you acknowledge that only 'evil' can account for it?



To allow your son to be nailed to a cross, crown of thorns and stabbed, is one act I see as so despicable that only evil could account for it. (Or, it isn't true)


----------



## gemcgrew (Oct 30, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> No but there was that movie ' Snakes On A Plane'.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 30, 2014)

gemcgrew said:


> How can there be "unintended consequence" without "intended purpose"?



The answer is probably found throughout all of your insightful posts that you have made on this subject so far.
I'll look into it and get back to you.
Don't wait up.


----------



## gemcgrew (Oct 30, 2014)

bullethead said:


> The answer is probably found throughout all of your insightful posts that you have made on this subject so far.
> I'll look into it and get back to you.
> Don't wait up.


I will save you the effort.

There can't be.


----------



## gemcgrew (Oct 30, 2014)

660griz said:


> To allow your son to be nailed to a cross, crown of thorns and stabbed, is one act I see as so despicable that only evil could account for it. (Or, it isn't true)


Or the purpose for evil was to account for it.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Oct 30, 2014)

gemcgrew said:


> How can there be "unintended consequence" without "intended purpose"?



Intent is a mortal construct. Evolution is not a mortal being. 

Evolution is tantamount to wind. It doesn't care that it blows down your house, or turns the windmill. It just blows because it's wind and that's what it does. 

Sunlight doesn't care that it burns your skin. It doesn't "intend" to shine, it just does. 

Evolution is just random genetic chance played out with no consideration for a goal. It has equal chance to benefit, or harm, the individual it mutates.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 30, 2014)

gemcgrew said:


> I will save you the effort.
> 
> There can't be.



 I was putting it in terms that string could relate to.
Evolution does not have plans or goals.

If string thinks of it as an intended purpose I used unintended consequence to relate to his line of thinking.


----------



## 660griz (Oct 30, 2014)

Male mice seem to be more evolved than humans when it comes to nipples. Male mice don't have them but, most other mammals do. 
I think evil evolution is still happening. Although plenty of bad stuff still happens, and due to better media coverage, we know about it, I think these are far less evil times than in the past. 
It seems there are fewer dungeons of torture than there use to be. Slavery has surely decreased around the globe. 

A correlation may be drawn to the evolution of religions around the world.


----------



## gemcgrew (Oct 30, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Intent is a mortal construct. Evolution is not a mortal being.


Evolution is a mortal construct. Intent is not a mortal being. 

The word "intent" may be a mortal construct, but what the word points to existed prior to the word.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Oct 30, 2014)

gemcgrew said:


> Evolution is a mortal construct. Intent is not a mortal being.
> 
> The word "intent" may be a mortal construct, but what the word points to existed prior to the word.



But what the word points to does not exist in everything. 

The phrase evolution is a mortal construct. Evolution itself takes place all around us, predating us by the same length as the existence of life itself, and is not based on anything that a human can or can not do.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Oct 30, 2014)

660griz said:


> Male mice seem to be more evolved than humans when it comes to nipples. Male mice don't have them but, most other mammals do.



That would indicate that mice embryos start out male, where every other mammal starts out female. That's why males in other species have nipples that don't do anything. 

I'd venture to say that it's an evolutionarily neutral condition since even those males with nipples can't nurse, so the survivability of the offspring is unaffected. Also, the lack of nipples in males would lend no advantage, so any random mutation that would exclude them wouldn't make them more certain than their nippled counterparts to survive.


----------



## 660griz (Oct 30, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> That would indicate that mice embryos start out male, where every other mammal starts out female. That's why males in other species have nipples that don't do anything.


 No both male and female mice embryos start off with mammary tissue, as do most mammals but, their mammary tissue breaks down later on due to a protein that 'lops' off the stuff needed for nipples.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Oct 30, 2014)

660griz said:


> No both male and female mice embryos start off with mammary tissue, as do most mammals but, their mammary tissue breaks down later on due to a protein that 'lops' off the stuff needed for nipples.



Interesting.


----------



## gemcgrew (Oct 30, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> But what the word points to does not exist in everything.


I say that it does.


StripeRR HunteRR said:


> The phrase evolution is a mortal construct. Evolution itself takes place all around us, predating us by the same length as the existence of life itself, and is not based on anything that a human can or can not do.


Then what is it based upon?


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 30, 2014)

660griz said:


> No both male and female mice embryos start off with mammary tissue, as do most mammals but, their mammary tissue breaks down later on due to a protein that 'lops' off the stuff needed for nipples.



If that ain't proof of a designer I don't know what is.


----------



## Israel (Oct 30, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> I think you are over simplifying it. And Im one who believes in simplicity ie cutting out the fat and getting to the meat. BUT....
> I can do an evil thing such as knock you down and take your lunch money and have a nice lunch with it.
> It was evil. And Im now well fed. And Im also a well fed part of the human species. So that does help the human species. It just didn't help you as part of the human species.


Ultimately then, are you saying "good" is what is good for me, evil is what is "bad" for me/to me?
That I might be able to "square it" with humanity in toto becomes kinda moot, then?


----------



## Israel (Oct 30, 2014)

gemcgrew said:


> Or the purpose for evil was to account for it.



yes.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 30, 2014)

Are humans, plants, and animals born good and learn to become evil or is it the other way around?

How can we say as Christians that nature doesn't count or "I'm not talking about nature" or "I'm just talking about humans?"
Because God made Nature. If everything in God's plan has a purpose then so does science and nature. 
Did the sun appear for us to appear? Did planets appear for us to appear? Did plants and animals appear before we could appear?

Do most Christians believe everything is for a reason or everything is random?
Hard question for freewill believers to answer, easy for predestination believers to answer.

Now if God the Great Scientist who made the Universe, Earth, and man uses DNA and genetics to include natural selection, who am I to argue?

I can't deny the similarities between me and other animals. We both have similar systems and genetics. What this means is we are all part of Nature/Creation. There is no difference between evil in nature and evil in man. 
Sin introduced evil into nature. God the Great Scientist decided to allow it to continue or as my predestination brothers believe, it is part of his plan.

That being said Ebola, isn't from Satan. It is a result of the Great Scientist's creation in the form of a mutation or evolution. Ebola is just doing what God created all of his creation to do. Sometimes this is seen as evil by man. 

Who get's to decide what or how God the Great Creator uses science? Who decides what is random and what is controlled? God decides what is evil. God decides what is predestined and/or if by anything else "freewill." Randomness being freewill. I like randomness. I'm glad God allows for things to happen randomly. I'm glad we have earthquakes, hurricanes, Ebola, and AIDS. I'm glad we have healthy deer populations and genetically deficient populations don't get a chance. Is this evil on my part? 
Why does God use light refraction for rainbows but He can't use natural selection for human creation?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 30, 2014)

The basic concept of Christianity concerning evil is; we are all equally as guilty. The only difference is we are washed.
For this reason, as a Christian, the origin of evil doesn't matter as much as the redemption from evil. 
My Old physical self will continue to perform evil sins. My New spiritual self is forgiven.

For the life of me I can't understand why Christians keep bringing up the question of where evil comes from or where morality comes from on this forum. I can't understand what message they are teaching.
Paul said; "and such were some of you but you were washed."
It's a pretty simple concept of salvation from this evil regardless of where it comes from.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 31, 2014)

Here's the issue as I see it as far as an evolutionary explanation for evil.
If you say the there's no good or evil with evolution.  It is simply survival of the fittest.  All actions have a natural explanation.  I can agree that that is a reasonable and sound explanation.

However the minute you acknowledge that there is a right and wrong, a good and bad/evil or even that man is capable of knowing good from bad, you have just denied the premise of the former argument.  I don't think logically that you can deny morals exist on one hand and acknowledge them on another( when I say "morals" I'm speaking strictly in the context of acknowledging good and evil, not mores, values, ethics, etc.)

I reject the evolutionary argument on this, and here's why.   It requires me to deny what I inherently know to be true.  To accept the argument that there is no good and evil, that all actions are just the result of "dancing to my DNA" (as I think Dawkins put it) suggests that I shouldn't care when a man rapes a child,  when innocent people are savaged, when a friend dies.  It's just evolution, survival of the fittest. 'Circle of life' you know.  

But I do get angry when children are raped, innocent people are savaged.  I cannot deny that.  In those instances I want justice.  Why? Because I feel an injustice has been done.    I feel grief when loved ones die.  Why?   Because of a loss that goes much deeper than the value that person had in advancing his genetic material into future generations.  The evolutionary explanation requires me to believe those feelings shouldn't exist.  'Justice and injustice', just like 'right and wrong'  are subjects evolution deny even exist, yet I can't deny they exist no more than I can deny my nose exists.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 31, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Here's the issue as I see it as far as an evolutionary explanation for evil.
> If you say the there's no good or evil with evolution.  It is simply survival of the fittest.  All actions have a natural explanation.  I can agree that that is a reasonable and sound explanation.
> 
> However the minute you acknowledge that there is a right and wrong, a good and bad/evil or even that man is capable of knowing good from bad, you have just denied the premise of the former argument.  I don't think you can deny morals exist on one hand and acknowledge them on another( when I say "morals" I'm speaking strictly in the context of acknowledging good and evil, not mores, values, ethics, etc.)





> Here's the issue as I see it as far as an evolutionary explanation for evil.


I cant get past this sentence.
Evolution doesn't explain evil. Nor claim to or attempt to.
Evil is a word man thought up to describe certain actions.
Evil is not even a word that everyone agrees on the definition.
Same with this -


> However the minute you acknowledge that there is a right and wrong, a good and bad/evil or even that man is capable of knowing good from bad, you have just denied the premise of the former argument.


"Right" and "wrong" weren't just sitting there until man decided to acknowledge them.
Man determined and is still determining what "right and wrong" is.
This premise is linking two subjects together that are not linked at all.
Now if you want to discuss the possible impacts that evolution may have on the subject of why people do things that their particular society deems as evil, then that is a whole different subject.


----------



## 660griz (Oct 31, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> But I do get angry when children are raped, innocent people are savaged.  I cannot deny that.



Unless?


----------



## bullethead (Oct 31, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Here's the issue as I see it as far as an evolutionary explanation for evil.
> If you say the there's no good or evil with evolution.  It is simply survival of the fittest.  All actions have a natural explanation.  I can agree that that is a reasonable and sound explanation.
> 
> However the minute you acknowledge that there is a right and wrong, a good and bad/evil or even that man is capable of knowing good from bad, you have just denied the premise of the former argument.  I don't think logically that you can deny morals exist on one hand and acknowledge them on another( when I say "morals" I'm speaking strictly in the context of acknowledging good and evil, not mores, values, ethics, etc.)
> ...



What you outright deny, reject, and fail to look into further is the History of humans.
It does not go back 5000 to 6000 years to a garden where two fully modern looking people were made from clay.

You fail to acknowledge the evolution of morals, good, evil and how it all plays into out lives today.

Rape, incest, murder, torture, cannibalism, dominance, abuse etc etc etc were all part of human history from the very beginning. I don't know if anyone can say it was accepted early on as much as it was all just part of the natural order of things.
It took tens of thousands of years for humans to advance enough where feelings finally trumped instincts and the greater good of the clan outweighed the desires of the individual.
Still then, as a clan, they continued to do all of those "evil" things to other clans until tens of thousands of years went by and more social skills evolved into where two clans could live relatively close to another and share. Then some sort of rules evolved. And on and on and on and on watching the humans do all examples of variations of evil, good, bad.. to other humans the entire time until you come to modern man today. But it was only 50-60 years ago when the USA was still segregating people. 100 years before that people were OWNED. Up until the early 1900's lots of 30 year old guys married 12 year old girls. Was it not rape cause the preacher said you may kiss the bride?? And I have got news for you there are still many many many places on this Earth where people did not get the memo from a higher power that they are instilled with these right and wrong sensors and are still using auto pilot where things have not changed...because things have not needed to change where they live. It is not evil, bad, or frowned upon there to lop off a head , shrink it, and hang it outside of the hut. If they are feeling saucy they sneak over to another village and steal a 9 year old. If two tribes come to an agreement..one leader will give his daughter to the other tribe as a good faith gesture and I highly doubt the daughter had her bags packed just waiting to go.
This stuff STILL goes on today! Right NOW! And in parts all over the world. And is about the perfect example of evolution on so many levels that can be witnessed going on.
It can be rejected by you because the way you think things are is the way you assume everybody else on earth thinks... and you think your sense of good and evil is a universal sense. You think you know in your core what is good, bad, evil. But you fail to acknowledge that you are a product of your clan, your society, your teachers, your elders, your town, your county, your state and your country.
You are basing it all off your own personal life experiences and fail to educate yourself about what has gone on and continues to go on worldwide today. The evidence provides precisely direct examples to counter your statements. Rejecting them for the reasons you do does not invalidate them. You are a prime example of evolving morals, ethics, good, bad, evil as you make your decisions off of what best suits you and then reject what you don't like and ignore anything that provides a direct counter to your argument.
Human history is fascinating. The timelines provide all the necessary info you need. All you have to do is read it.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Oct 31, 2014)

gemcgrew said:


> I say that it does.
> 
> Then what is it based upon?



I can say that a raven is a writing desk all I want to. It doesn't affect the reality of it. 

It is based on the systems set forth by natural law. 

Perfection is unattainable, so replication will never be 100% accurate, and that error is called mutation. It has no driving force behind it determining which genes or resultant proteins will be altered, it just happens. 

If the change benefits the organism, it lives and propagates that "defect". If it doesn't then the organism either immediately dies, or suffers and handicap that makes it less competitive than those around it, and less likely to pass on those traits.


----------



## 660griz (Oct 31, 2014)

bullethead said:


> What you outright deny, reject, and fail to look into further is the History of humans.<Snipped for brevity>



Good read bh.

That helps my point, probably lost, that evil evolution has some correlation to religious evolution. 
It wasn't that long ago that witches were burned or hanged because the bible told them to. 
Now, we see burning folks alive for witchcraft as evil. Well, most do. Medieval Europe and later in colonial America, not so much.
It still happens around the world, including Saudi Arabia. I think their police department has an anti-witch unit or something to that affect. They are still evolving...I hope.

So, the purpose of evil? So we can look back and see just how stupid we were.


----------



## gemcgrew (Oct 31, 2014)

660griz said:


> So, the purpose of evil? So we can look back and see just how stupid we were.


So, if I say the purpose of evil is to expose us, we are in agreement?


----------



## 660griz (Oct 31, 2014)

gemcgrew said:


> So, if I say the purpose of evil is to expose us, we are in agreement?



"Teach us" would be a better substitute. Expose seems to imply it is still there but, we can see it. Last time I was in Salem, no witches were harmed.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 31, 2014)

gemcgrew said:


> So, if I say the purpose of evil is to expose us, we are in agreement?



Romans 9:11
Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad--in order that God's purpose in election might stand.


----------



## gemcgrew (Oct 31, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I can say that a raven is a writing desk all I want to. It doesn't affect the reality of it.


Are you saying that a raven can never be a writing desk? Not even a small one? 



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> It is based on the systems set forth by natural law.


Is "natural law" the first principle in your evolutionary worldview?


StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Perfection is unattainable, so replication will never be 100% accurate, and that error is called mutation.


Or there is no error in it at all and perfection accounts for it.


StripeRR HunteRR said:


> It has no driving force behind it determining which genes or resultant proteins will be altered, it just happens.


So there is an effect without a cause.


----------



## gemcgrew (Oct 31, 2014)

660griz said:


> "Teach us" would be a better substitute. Expose seems to imply it is still there but, we can see it. Last time I was in Salem, no witches were harmed.


I am fine with "teach us".


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 31, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> I cant get past this sentence.
> Evolution doesn't explain evil. Nor claim to or attempt to.
> Evil is a word man thought up to describe certain actions.
> Evil is not even a word that everyone agrees on the definition..



I agree Walt.  It was a poorly worded attempt to tie the reply back to the thread title.



WaltL1 said:


> Same with this -
> 
> "Right" and "wrong" weren't just sitting there until man decided to acknowledge them.
> Man determined and is still determining what "right and wrong" is.



I disagree with your assertion, but would note that the terms "Man determined" fundamentally implies that "man" recognized something which evolution denies even exists which was my point.



WaltL1 said:


> This premise is linking two subjects together that are not linked at all.
> Now if you want to discuss the possible impacts that evolution may have on the subject of why people do things that their particular society deems as evil, then that is a whole different subject.



I understand where you are coming from by uncoupling the two and I appreciate your position.  That being said I thinks it places you in a corner ideologically speaking.  To be honest I would really like to pursue it, but to be fair I'm going on 2 weeks vacation trying to put some meat in the freezer so it wouldn't be fair to you to start that conversation now as posting here is going to be the last thing on my mind.  Maybe when I get back we can take that up.


----------



## drippin' rock (Oct 31, 2014)

Why would feelings of love, loss, sorrow, joy, not be a product of evolution?  Those things are nessessary for the survival of the species.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 31, 2014)

bullethead said:


> You fail to acknowledge the evolution of morals, good, evil and how it all plays into out lives today.



You're right.  I do reject it, but tell me something.  How can you acknowledge something (morals, good, evil) when evolution denies it.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 31, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I agree Walt.  It was a poorly worded attempt to tie the reply back to the thread title.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> I disagree with your assertion, but would note that the terms "Man determined" fundamentally implies that "man" recognized something which evolution denies even exists which was my point.


Evolution can not "deny" anything. That's really the point that trumps all points. 
Evolution doesn't deny, accept, confirm, judge, expect, explain or any other human quality. 
It just does what it does. Man is responsible for the rest.

And Good Luck!


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Oct 31, 2014)

gemcgrew said:


> Are you saying that a raven can never be a writing desk? Not even a small one?
> 
> 
> Is "natural law" the first principle in your evolutionary worldview?
> ...



You could call it one, you could even try to use it as one, but it would never BE one. 

I don't have a codified world view, so I'm not sure of what you're asking. 

Perfection is unattainable in the real world. Just like no machine is 100% efficient, no process is infallible. You can try to deny it, but it is a natural law. 

No, there is cause for what we call evolution. It's routine cellular division, both in a single individual in terms of replacing lost cells, and in DNA replication in terms of the gestation process. 

Genetic replication and cellular division are the root cause of mutations, which have a longer effect which we call evolution, with the need to replace lost/damaged cells, and reproduction, being the root causes of why those cells and structures replicate in the first place. 

Evolution, on this planet, exists because of the natural processes that all life follows. The only way to get rid of evolution is to also get rid of life.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Oct 31, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You're right.  I do reject it, but tell me something.  How can you acknowledge something (morals, good, evil) when evolution denies it.



The same way I acknowledge man's laws, even though there's no natural precedent for them. They're human constructs brought on by advanced brains and sociological engineering. Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 31, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You're right.  I do reject it, but tell me something.  How can you acknowledge something (morals, good, evil) when evolution denies it.



I have shown you in this thread and others how those traits evolved as humans evolved.  
I am scratching my head at your "evolution denies it" comment.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 31, 2014)

bullethead said:


> I have shown you in this thread and others how those traits evolved as humans evolved.
> I am scratching my head at your "evolution denies it" comment.



If I may, Deists seem to think that non-believers substitute Evolution for a deity and that we believe that evolution has a will and an intent.  They think that evolution is our "god".  No one in their right mind believes that a process like erosion has a will.  Evolution is a process like erosion or respiration or the combustion of the sun.......Oh yeah, people _did_ worship the sun.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 31, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> If I may, Deists seem to think that non-believers substitute Evolution for a deity and that we believe that evolution has a will and an intent.  They think that evolution is our "god".  No one in their right mind believes that a process like erosion has a will.  Evolution is a process like erosion or respiration or the combustion of the sun.......Oh yeah, people _did_ worship the sun.



Exactly. They try to talk about things that they have almost no understanding about and then try to argue points, that if they even had a basic understanding about in the first place, they would already have their answers.

Evolution did not turn a single cell that was in the ocean into evil or morals or good or bad or into ethics.
These things evolved right along with humans AS humans evolved. It/they are a part of us and as random and variable as evolution is...these human traits vary just as much within us.
The timelines are there to follow. The evidence in history is there to study from the past. There are living breathing examples all over the world right now.
Denial and rejection is part of the process when everything you hear goes against your indoctrination and beliefs. Education trumps it all in the end.

The hardest part is taking the first step to educate ones self. And then follow the facts.


----------



## Israel (Oct 31, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Exactly. They try to talk about things that they have almost no understanding about and then try to argue points, that if they even had a basic understanding about in the first place, they would already have their answers.
> 
> Evolution did not turn a single cell that was in the ocean into evil or morals or good or bad or into ethics.
> These things evolved right along with humans AS humans evolved. It/they are a part of us and as random and variable as evolution is...these human traits vary just as much within us.
> ...


Is consciousness...random?
Is understanding constructed "at random"?
Might that not make this statement if not silly, then moot?

"They try to talk about things that they have almost no understanding about and then try to argue points, that if they even had a basic understanding about in the first place, they would already have their answers."

Basic...what?
To take from Ambush's kindness extended, in the "If I may"...
If I may, am I wrong in seeing an attempt to impose an order where the alleged "random" reigns?
Or, do none of y'all have watches, clocks, or the "right" breakers in your service panel at home?
Random is great for discussions, till you feel it in your chest, when one's heart does a little of what seems the "chaotic tango". Then you hope...or do you not?...that 911 connects you something other than "Hillside Gun and Pawn" at 3 am, and summons an ambulance to take you to a man who has spent many years trying to make order of cardiac rhythms and outputs through many years of study for both mind and hands?
Is there order?
I eschew "intelligent design" if only for its redundancy...is there design?
I believe you'd be a little more, (but maybe I'm wrong), hopeful that your cardiologist wasn't just some guy picked "at random" in Cincinnati.
I enjoy discussion at least as much as the next guy...(I think).


----------



## bullethead (Oct 31, 2014)

Israel said:


> Is consciousness...random?
> Is understanding constructed "at random"?
> Might that not make this statement if not silly, then moot?
> 
> ...



Does evolution have a conscious? 
I  confined my "random" comment to evolution and as usual you are trying to interject non random things that have no place in this conversation in order for you to try to muddy up the waters.
Nowhere did I say everything going on at all times is random. 


"Basic" comment is directed towards knowledge of  the subject at hand.


----------



## drippin' rock (Oct 31, 2014)

Israel said:


> Is consciousness...random?
> Is understanding constructed "at random"?
> Might that not make this statement if not silly, then moot?
> 
> ...



I spent my entire life up until age 20 or so in church. Every year we had revival. The Decons would always arrange a guest preacher for the 4 day marathon. These guys could really pull it out of you. With the right lilt to the voice, jokes, and tear jurker stories, we would all be on that mountain top. Felt great.  After enough years passed, I realized I got the same emotional tug from the Budweiser Clydesdales commercials.  

That tightening in my chest is not Jesus tapping me on the shoulder. It's the chili I ate for lunch.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 1, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> The same way I acknowledge man's laws, even though there's no natural precedent for them. They're human constructs brought on by advanced brains and sociological engineering. Nothing more, nothing less.


Yes and it seems to me in this discussion/premise the lines are being blurred between human construct and "nature". If that makes any sense.


----------



## Israel (Nov 1, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Does evolution have a conscious?
> I  confined my "random" comment to evolution and as usual you are trying to interject non random things that have no place in this conversation in order for you to try to muddy up the waters.
> Nowhere did I say everything going on at all times is random.
> 
> ...


Isn't that kinda specious?
Evolution is random(?), "we" are a product of evolution in its randomness...but somehow a thing I attribute to this thing I am, that I have, that is consciousness...thought, understanding...is not just as steeped and born no less of disorder and does not, of necessity, display its nativity..."the"  random?
When you see that that argument...the "my imposition of order" argument, "my bringing reason to everything" argument, "my will...will make order of chaos" makes you a god.
Which is closer than one may think to apprehending something. The small "g" in God is no less significant than the smaller "c" in chaos...for in God, there is no chaos. (or...maybe all CHAOS, without any effect unallowed)
The integration of consciousness and reason...into "matter", in our sight...takes time...but in God has the Son always been.

I know of one who has said "I shall will order out of the chaos, I shall declare even what is random and not"
It's a start, but God knows the finish.
From the beginning.


----------



## Israel (Nov 1, 2014)

drippin' rock said:


> I spent my entire life up until age 20 or so in church. Every year we had revival. The Decons would always arrange a guest preacher for the 4 day marathon. These guys could really pull it out of you. With the right lilt to the voice, jokes, and tear jurker stories, we would all be on that mountain top. Felt great.  After enough years passed, I realized I got the same emotional tug from the Budweiser Clydesdales commercials.
> 
> That tightening in my chest is not Jesus tapping me on the shoulder. It's the chili I ate for lunch.



Yeah. It might not at all be about whatever all that other stuff seemed to be. But, I wasn't there. I think I have seen it, though.


----------



## Israel (Nov 1, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Yes and it seems to me in this discussion/premise the lines are being blurred between human construct and "nature". If that makes any sense.


How can you find this "divide"?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 1, 2014)

Israel said:


> Isn't that kinda specious?
> Evolution is random(?), "we" are a product of evolution in its randomness...but somehow a thing I attribute to this thing I am, that I have, that is consciousness...thought, understanding...is not just as steeped and born no less of disorder and does not, of necessity, display its nativity..."the"  random?
> When you see that that argument...the "my imposition of order" argument, "my bringing reason to everything" argument, "my will...will make order of chaos" makes you a god.
> Which is closer than one may think to apprehending something. The small "g" in God is no less significant than the smaller "c" in chaos...for in God, there is no chaos. (or...maybe all CHAOS, without any effect unallowed)
> ...



Amen brother Israel..tell it all..tell it all...hopefully upstairs.


----------



## gemcgrew (Nov 2, 2014)

bullethead said:


> The hardest part is taking the first step to educate ones self. And then follow the facts.


Education can also show a man that science always affirms the consequent, that the premise can be replaced with an infinite number of other possibilities.


----------



## Israel (Nov 2, 2014)

gemcgrew said:


> Education can also show a man that science always affirms the consequent, that the premise can be replaced with an infinite number of other possibilities.


Amen!
The consequent is always assumed.
Yet we may learn of all our own assumptions pale in the place where "with God, all things are possible".
Pale to gone.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 2, 2014)

Yeah, no consequent where religion is involved.
Spot on guys.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 2, 2014)

Israel said:


> How can you find this "divide"?


Well for starters its not some philosophical "place" that you go find.
When we start assigning human emotions like evil etc to evolution we have passed the exit.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 2, 2014)

Israel said:


> Amen!
> The consequent is always assumed.
> Yet we may learn of all our own assumptions pale in the place where "with God, all things are possible".
> Pale to gone.


Surely you get that you used an assumption to address assumptions?


----------



## Israel (Nov 2, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Well for starters its not some philosophical "place" that you go find.
> When we start assigning human emotions like evil etc to evolution we have passed the exit.


So, just to be clear, evil is strictly, to you, a construct of human emotion?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 2, 2014)

Israel said:


> So, just to be clear, evil is strictly, to you, a construct of human emotion?



Is there evil when humans are not in the equation?
Where elsewhere does evil exist?

Evil is a construct of willful human action.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 2, 2014)

Israel said:


> So, just to be clear, evil is strictly, to you, a construct of human emotion?


Yes, in that human emotion is the controlling factor when we deem something as "evil".
As Bullet said "evil" doesn't exist without people to do "evil" or people to consider something as "evil".
If you take a way people, the concept of "evil" goes with them and you are left with nature.
Do I really have to throw out the example of the Flood?
Exterminate Jews = evil.
Exterminate everybody and everything except a lucky few = praise God.
Clearly humans decide for themselves what is "evil" and what isn't.


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 2, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> If you take a way people, the concept of "evil" goes with them and you are left with nature.



If evil is a human construct, good would have to be also.  Considering these two natural reactions removes value for the critter making the choice, he/she is acting on natural programming.  This removes responsibility of the choice from the critter, he is who he is made to be.

I think that's too easy.  We make choices every day between the two, and we weigh things that don't get considered by the critters that play with their food.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 2, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> If evil is a human construct, good would have to be also.  Considering these two natural reactions removes value for the critter making the choice, he/she is acting on natural programming.  This removes responsibility of the choice from the critter, he is who he is made to be.
> 
> I think that's too easy.  We make choices every day between the two, and we weigh things that don't get considered by the critters that play with their food.



We make choices
We weigh things

We=Humans right?

We base it all on how it effects us.
We don't rely on natural programming as much as we rely on our family,upbringing, culture, society, town/county/state/country. Some humans are constantly evolving away from natural programming every day for those reasons.
Good and evil are the same things that have evolved with humans from the beginning and the same things that effect how good and evil is perceived by individuals.

If not, with humans out of the picture, where is evil?
Where is "good" without humans?

Neither roam the Universe doing anything.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 2, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> If evil is a human construct, good would have to be also.  Considering these two natural reactions removes value for the critter making the choice, he/she is acting on natural programming.  This removes responsibility of the choice from the critter, he is who he is made to be.
> 
> I think that's too easy.  We make choices every day between the two, and we weigh things that don't get considered by the critters that play with their food


Ok first Im a little confused if we are talking about critters or humans here but -


> If evil is a human construct, good would have to be also.


Yes. Things that happen that we deem as positive we call "good". 


> We make choices every day between the two, and we weigh things that don't get considered by the critters that play with their food.


Yes and thats pretty much the point.
All the things we consider, whether they are "good" or "bad" are CREATED by us. We created the construct of whether something is "good" or "bad" or "evil". 
Critters don't have that construct and therefore don't have the same considerations.


----------



## Israel (Nov 3, 2014)

Interesting responses, all.
So, to the man who is told, practically speaking "your God concept is flawed, or wrong in that you don't see the caprice of it (by let's say the posting of a photo of starving or cancer stricken children) while touting his grace toward you...well...this is a "not good" exercise of reason"
Such a man saying this to another may feel that his perception of such "caprice" cannot be consistent with his perception of "the" good, or good reasoning, at least...to that hearers (perhaps previous) declaration that all and only what is good is God?
Perceived caprice and consistent good don't seem to square, right?
But since (if) such things as good/bad/evil are only, and always the product of "human reasoning", then on what basis could such a God be indicted?

Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. 

Now, any man may respond according to his understanding of the above, and some have said, at least as I believe I have heard "of what good then would such a God be to believe in who does what he pleases any, and that, all the time, regardless of your faith or belief in his goodness?" (as though the one "of faith" had of himself chosen to believe, and at that chosen the "good" God)
One man may see caprice, yet another, perhaps, perfection of intent and the undeniable "consequent" in every facet of being.


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 3, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Ok first Im a little confused if we are talking about critters or humans here but -



Both at first, then I create a comparison.  From your perspective, we would have to be lumped in with all.  From mine, we are different.




WaltL1 said:


> Yes and thats pretty much the point.
> All the things we consider, whether they are "good" or "bad" are CREATED by us. We created the construct of whether something is "good" or "bad" or "evil".
> Critters don't have that construct and therefore don't have the same considerations.



Which is why I think it is pretty clear that we are different.


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 3, 2014)

bullethead said:


> If not, with humans out of the picture, where is evil?
> Where is "good" without humans?



Same as my response to Walt......I see this as a primary difference between us and other life forms.  We place a value on actions and how they impact others for many reasons outside basic survival of the species.  For instance, a man will die for principle or faith.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Nov 3, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> If evil is a human construct, good would have to be also.  Considering these two natural reactions removes value for the critter making the choice, he/she is acting on natural programming.  This removes responsibility of the choice from the critter, he is who he is made to be.
> 
> I think that's too easy.  We make choices every day between the two, and we weigh things that don't get considered by the critters that play with their food.



Evil/wrong-doing does not directly tie to justice in all societies, and certainly not in all corners of the natural world. 

Good is a human construct, as well. In some areas of the world it's considered good to slurp your food to show appreciation to the cook. In western civilization it's considered uncouth and would get you scolded. 

That doesn't remove the responsibility of the person, though, to behave within the confines, or work to change them, of the society in which they live. 

You're trying to draw a straight line from good/evil to reward/punishment. Society creates that corollary, not the universe.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 3, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Both at first, then I create a comparison.  From your perspective, we would have to be lumped in with all.  From mine, we are different.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Now remove all the things that we create that require our consideration, say drop a human off on a deserted island, and watch the gap of our "considerations" shrink.
Food, shelter and staying alive. Just like the animals.
After that is when the difference in our brains kick in. Once fed, sheltered and staying alive, man will start thinking about getting off the deserted island.


> We place a value on actions and how they impact others for many reasons outside basic survival of the species. For instance, a man will die for principle or faith.


Yes, because we (most of us) now have that luxury. We aren't worried about food, shelter and staying alive so our advanced minds can now create and place more weight on principles and faith etc. And note that principles and faith are also man made concepts.
I don't think early man shared food with his clan due to "principles" in that it was a "good", kind thing to do.
It was strength in numbers and a healthy clan fought better, could gather more etc.
Our advanced brain and the ability to use it is what separates us from other animals but at our core we are the same (um we ARE biologically animals).
And even then we aren't at the top of the list of everything. I know I didn't find my dinner last night using echo location. Or smelled that steak from 2 miles away....
I understand that if you believe God put us here as fully developed humans, superior to animals, in His likeness etc etc your viewpoint will be very different.
But its our core likenesses biologically and behaviorally to animals that throws a wrench into that scenario.


----------



## Israel (Nov 3, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Now remove all the things that we create that require our consideration, say drop a human off on a deserted island, and watch the gap of our "considerations" shrink.
> Food, shelter and staying alive. Just like the animals.
> After that is when the difference in our brains kick in. Once fed, sheltered and staying alive, man will start thinking about getting off the deserted island.
> 
> ...


Different "core" different scenario?


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 3, 2014)

Israel said:


> Different "core" different scenario?


The scenario is thought up by man.
The core comparisons are what they are and will either support or conflict with the scenario(s) thought up by man.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 3, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Same as my response to Walt......I see this as a primary difference between us and other life forms.  We place a value on actions and how they impact others for many reasons outside basic survival of the species.  For instance, a man will die for principle or faith.



Well yes there is a difference.
We know that.

Is it a difference that evolved as our species evolved?
Evidence points to Yes.


----------



## Israel (Nov 3, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> The scenario is thought up by man.
> The core comparisons are what they are and will either support or conflict with the scenario(s) thought up by man.


Then...men's reason is both inescapable and irrefutable?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 3, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Same as my response to Walt......I see this as a primary difference between us and other life forms.  We place a value on actions and how they impact others for many reasons outside basic survival of the species.  For instance, a man will die for principle or faith.



from: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-animal/


1. The Moral Considerability of Animals

To say that a being deserves moral consideration is to say that there is a moral claim that this being has on those who can recognize such claims. A morally considerable being is a being who can be wronged in a morally relevant sense. It is generally thought that all and only human beings make such claims, because it is only humans who can respond to these claims. However, when we ask why it is thought that all and only humans are the types of beings that can be wronged, answers are not particularly easy to come by. Humans are members of the species Homo sapiens. But species membership does not explain why there is a moral claim made by those that belong to this species and not other species. That humans are members of the species Homo sapiens is certainly a distinguishing feature of humans—humans share a genetic make-up and a distinctive physiology, but this is unimportant from the moral point of view. Species membership is a morally irrelevant characteristic, a bit of luck that is no more morally interesting than being born male or female, Malaysian or French. Species membership itself cannot support the view that members of one species, namely ours, deserve moral consideration that is not owed to members of other species. Of course, one might respond that it is not membership in a biological category that matters morally, it is our humanity that grounds the moral claims we make. Humans are morally considerable because of the distinctively human capacities we possess, capacities that only we humans have.

But which capacities mark out all and only humans as the kinds of beings that can be wronged? A number of candidate capacities have been proposed—developing family ties, solving social problems, expressing emotions, starting wars, having sex for pleasure, using language, or thinking abstractly, are just a few. As it turns out, none of these activities is uncontroversially unique to human. Both scholarly and popular work on animal behavior suggests that many of the activities that are thought to be distinct to humans occurs in non-humans. For example, many species of non-humans develop long lasting kinship ties—orangutan mothers stay with their young for eight to ten years and while they eventually part company, they continue to maintain their relationships. Less solitary animals, such as chimpanzees, baboons, wolves, and elephants maintain extended family units built upon complex individual relationships, for long periods of time. Meerkats in the Kalahari desert are known to sacrifice their own safety by staying with sick or injured family members so that the fatally ill will not die alone. All animals living in socially complex groups must solve various problems that inevitably arise in such groups. Canids and primates are particularly adept at it, yet even chickens and horses are known to recognize large numbers of individuals in their social hierarchies and to maneuver within them. One of the ways that non-human animals negotiate their social environments is by being particularly attentive to the emotional states of others around them. When a conspecific is angry, it is a good idea to get out of his way. Animals that develop life-long bonds are known to suffer terribly from the death of their partners. Some are even said to die of sorrow. Darwin reported this in The Descent of Man: “So intense is the grief of female monkeys for the loss of their young, that it invariably caused the death of certain kinds.” Jane Goodall's report of the death of the healthy 8 year old chimpanzee Flint just three weeks after the death of his mother Flo also suggests that sorrow can have a devastating effect on non-human animals. (see Goodall 2000, p. 140-141 in Bekoff 2000). Coyotes, elephants and killer whales are also among the species for which profound effects of grief have been reported (Bekoff 2000) and many dog owners can provide similar accounts. While the lives of many, perhaps most, non-humans in the wild are consumed with struggle for survival, aggression and battle, there are some non-humans whose lives are characterized by expressions of joy, playfulness, and a great deal of sex (Woods, 2010). Recent studies in cognitive ethology have suggested that some non-humans engage in manipulative and deceptive activity, can construct “cognitive maps” for navigation, and some non-humans appear to understand symbolic representation and are able to use language.[1] It appears then that most of the capacities that are thought to distinguish humans as morally considerable beings, have been observed, often in less elaborate form, in the non-human world. Because human behavior and cognition share deep roots with the behavior and cognition of other animals, approaches that try to find sharp behavioral or cognitive boundaries between humans and other animals remain controversial. For this reason, attempts to establish human uniqueness by identifying certain capacities, like those discussed in this paragraph and perhaps others, are not the most promising when it comes to thinking hard about the moral status of animals.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 3, 2014)

Israel said:


> Then...men's reason is both inescapable and irrefutable?


Certainly men's reason can be refuted or at least shown to be not so reasonable. That's where facts come in.
At one time it was reasoned the earth was flat.


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 4, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Humans are morally considerable because of the distinctively human capacities we possess, capacities that only we humans have.



Does the following paragraph elliminate that assumption?  Or, does it point out a few things animals do which can be considered moral?



bullethead said:


> But which capacities mark out all and only humans as the kinds of beings that can be wronged? A number of candidate capacities have been proposed—developing family ties, solving social problems, expressing emotions, starting wars, having sex for pleasure, using language, or thinking abstractly, are just a few. As it turns out, none of these activities is uncontroversially unique to human. Both scholarly and popular work on animal behavior suggests that many of the activities that are thought to be distinct to humans occurs in non-humans. For example, many species of non-humans develop long lasting kinship ties—orangutan mothers stay with their young for eight to ten years and while they eventually part company, they continue to maintain their relationships. Less solitary animals, such as chimpanzees, baboons, wolves, and elephants maintain extended family units built upon complex individual relationships, for long periods of time. Meerkats in the Kalahari desert are known to sacrifice their own safety by staying with sick or injured family members so that the fatally ill will not die alone. All animals living in socially complex groups must solve various problems that inevitably arise in such groups. Canids and primates are particularly adept at it, yet even chickens and horses are known to recognize large numbers of individuals in their social hierarchies and to maneuver within them. One of the ways that non-human animals negotiate their social environments is by being particularly attentive to the emotional states of others around them. When a conspecific is angry, it is a good idea to get out of his way. Animals that develop life-long bonds are known to suffer terribly from the death of their partners. Some are even said to die of sorrow. Darwin reported this in The Descent of Man: “So intense is the grief of female monkeys for the loss of their young, that it invariably caused the death of certain kinds.” Jane Goodall's report of the death of the healthy 8 year old chimpanzee Flint just three weeks after the death of his mother Flo also suggests that sorrow can have a devastating effect on non-human animals. (see Goodall 2000, p. 140-141 in Bekoff 2000). Coyotes, elephants and killer whales are also among the species for which profound effects of grief have been reported (Bekoff 2000) and many dog owners can provide similar accounts. While the lives of many, perhaps most, non-humans in the wild are consumed with struggle for survival, aggression and battle, there are some non-humans whose lives are characterized by expressions of joy, playfulness, and a great deal of sex (Woods, 2010). Recent studies in cognitive ethology have suggested that some non-humans engage in manipulative and deceptive activity, can construct “cognitive maps” for navigation, and some non-humans appear to understand symbolic representation and are able to use language.[1] It appears then that most of the capacities that are thought to distinguish humans as morally considerable beings, have been observed, often in less elaborate form, in the non-human world. Because human behavior and cognition share deep roots with the behavior and cognition of other animals, approaches that try to find sharp behavioral or cognitive boundaries between humans and other animals remain controversial. For this reason, attempts to establish human uniqueness by identifying certain capacities, like those discussed in this paragraph and perhaps others, are not the most promising when it comes to thinking hard about the moral status of animals.



Has a lion ever been ostracized by his pride for the way he treated the ladies?  

My point is that we assign human characteristics to the actions of these animals without knowing for sure whether we are witnessing what we think we see.  Was the chimpanzee sick with grief, or was the same thing that killed his mother an illness which also killed him?  I have never in my life seen animals use morality to sway the behavior of others.   Nor have I read research where animals used moral consequences to reason with each other, and persuade each other to alternative actions.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 4, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Does the following paragraph elliminate that assumption?  Or, does it point out a few things animals do which can be considered moral?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If you don't know this -


> without knowing for sure whether we are witnessing what we think we see


You cant determine this -


> I have never in my life seen animals use morality to sway the behavior of others.


JB, Ive lost track of all the points being made.
Where are you going with this?
So if animals don't have what we call morals, what does that mean? What point are you trying to make with that?
That animals are animals and humans are not animals they are humans? Which makes God creating humans in his image more credible? Some other point?
I'm lost


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 4, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Where are you going with this?



If you read the information posted, you can see multiple assumptions made to get to the point they were trying to make.

Orangutan died 3 weeks after Momma.....he was sad

Meerkats die with relatives......so they wont die alone (does a meerkat even comprehend death?)

These assumptions are presented as factual in the article.  What I have witnessed within the animal kingdom can also be boiled down to an act of survival......even a dog chasing a ball.  When we know that strength is typically the driving force in animal social structures, why would we move from that and say there is a morality to it as well?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 4, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> If you read the information posted, you can see multiple assumptions made to get to the point they were trying to make.
> 
> Orangutan died 3 weeks after Momma.....he was sad
> 
> ...



JB, I am not sure what you have witnessed in the animal world and I do not have a clue to what depth you study animals so I don't know how credible your observations are.
But you are using ONE portion of an article posted to make your points where if you would take the time to research these animal behaviors further there are more in depth and well documented observations done by experts in those fields that show animal morality beyond what little examples the article provided.
You asked if Meerkats comprehend death.
I don't know.
I have a high suspicion that you don't know.  
I would bet that has something to do with you and I never actually studying Meerkats.
But what I can tell you is that based off of in depth information based off of long term studies done by people who's job is studying Meerkats....the data suggests that Meerkats will stay with a sick relative until it gets to safety or dies. It it not based off of ten minutes of Meerkat observation on a 2 hour Safari tour. Data suggests that it has been witnessed multiple times in multiple Meerkat groups by multiple people specifically studying Meerkats. 
It shows that there is something there beyond eat sleep poop reproduce repeat.
No one is saying those animal examples are on the level humans achieve but enough studies have been done that show humans are not unique to these emotions, social status, respect, grieving, morals etc etc.
It certainly shows how ours evolved along with us to suit the survival of our species, in contrast to theirs where only a basic limited amount is needed for what they need to survive.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 4, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> If you read the information posted, you can see multiple assumptions made to get to the point they were trying to make.
> 
> Orangutan died 3 weeks after Momma.....he was sad
> 
> ...


Ok you got me refocused. Thanks 
I read that article a little bit differently.
I read it saying - animals display behavior, that if a human did it, it would be considered "moral".
So if "morality" is based on behavior, and animals display behavior that "we" consider moral, doesn't that make them moral at least at that moment?
I don't read them as asserting as a fact that the animal has any concept of what moral is but pointing out the same behavior for a human is considered to be moral.
If morals are based on behaviors, and they are, then to claim animals cant have morals ignores the behavior and now switches to "well animals cant have morals".
Despite what we observe to be the same behavior.
Maybe its - can/do animals have morals vs. can/do animals act "morally"?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 4, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Ok you got me refocused. Thanks
> I read that article a little bit differently.
> I read it saying - animals display behavior, that if a human did it, it would be considered "moral".
> So if "morality" is based on behavior, and animals display behavior that "we" consider moral, doesn't that make them moral at least at that moment?
> ...



Insightful.
I like it.


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 4, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Ok you got me refocused. Thanks
> I read that article a little bit differently.
> I read it saying - animals display behavior, that if a human did it, it would be considered "moral".
> So if "morality" is based on behavior, and animals display behavior that "we" consider moral, doesn't that make them moral at least at that moment?
> ...



I don't know if morality is action driven more than discernment.  For instance, morality can also be absence of action in certain cases.

Do animals display behavior which would be moral if a human did it, sure.  There are all kinds of ways we can link our behaviors to theirs.   For instance, I once brought up humans' appreciation for art as an example of our difference and Ambush posted a video of a painting elephant.  But, do we ever see animals making decisions because it is the apparent "right thing to do?"




WaltL1 said:


> Maybe its - can/do animals have morals vs. can/do animals act "morally"?



I think that's more the question.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 4, 2014)

Like dogs warning their owners when the house is on fire?
Or dogs staying with lost children until help arrives?
Dolphins that "save" swimmers and stranded boaters?
Right and wrong are human .
Survival dictates what action is chosen.
Humans label it right or wrong.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 4, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> I don't know if morality is action driven more than discernment.  For instance, morality can also be absence of action in certain cases.
> 
> Do animals display behavior which would be moral if a human did it, sure.  There are all kinds of ways we can link our behaviors to theirs.   For instance, I once brought up humans' appreciation for art as an example of our difference and Ambush posted a video of a painting elephant.  But, do we ever see animals making decisions because it is the apparent "right thing to do?"
> 
> ...





> There are all kinds of ways we can link our behaviors to theirs.


What's your thoughts on that as to why that is?


> But, do we ever see animals making decisions because it is the apparent "right thing to do?"


"Right thing to do" is a human concept based on human values, opinions etc so NO I don't believe "is this the right thing to do" ever enters their animal mind in terms of how we view it.


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 4, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Right and wrong are human .
> Survival dictates what action is chosen.
> Humans label it right or wrong.



If you believe that, why are we calling survival motivated actions of animals moral?

I heard a horrible story on the news on my way home tonight.....against my better judgement, I was listening to political talk radio on my evening commute instead of sports talk.  The story had no direct impact to me or my survival, but it still bothered me, a lot.  I don't know what causes that, and I don't know how we can find a link to survival of the fittest in order to eliminate the notion of human difference.

Who feeds the dog?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 4, 2014)

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,30198,00.html


----------



## bullethead (Nov 4, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> If you believe that, why are we calling survival motivated actions of animals moral?
> 
> I heard a horrible story on the news on my way home tonight.....against my better judgement, I was listening to political talk radio on my evening commute instead of sports talk.  The story had no direct impact to me or my survival, but it still bothered me, a lot.  I don't know what causes that, and I don't know how we can find a link to survival of the fittest in order to eliminate the notion of human difference.
> 
> Who feeds the dog?




Who feeds the dolphin?


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 4, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> What's your thoughts on that as to why that is?



We are anthropomorphic.  It's how we relate to anything.....such as somebody saying "the sea is angry!"  The sea ain't angry, the wind is blowing.



WaltL1 said:


> "Right thing to do" is a human concept based on human values, opinions etc so NO I don't believe "is this the right thing to do" ever enters their animal mind in terms of how we view it.



Then we found some common ground here.  I'm not sure what goes through an animals mind either.  I don't know why a dog mourns it's owner, even though I've seen 'em do it.  The better question is why do people mourn their dogs?  In most modern relationships, it is a one way dependency, and the dog represents a burden to the owner.  However, we somehow learn to enjoy the companionship of the critter.  That's the human element I see missing in nature.


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 4, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Who feeds the dolphin?



Ever been deap sea fishin? You will grow to hate them.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 4, 2014)

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/03/animal-minds/virginia-morell-text


----------



## bullethead (Nov 4, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Ever been deap sea fishin? You will grow to hate them.



I wonder how the saved humans knew the dolphins that saved them were hand fed ones?


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 4, 2014)

bullethead said:


> I wonder how the saved humans knew the dolphins that saved them were hand fed ones?



Did the dolphins know they were saving the humans?  Did the dolphins know they were humans?  Do dolphins know what drowning is, and what it causes?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 4, 2014)

2nd link I posted may clear that up.


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 5, 2014)

I will read the link and revisit the subject hopefully this evening.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 5, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> We are anthropomorphic.  It's how we relate to anything.....such as somebody saying "the sea is angry!"  The sea ain't angry, the wind is blowing.
> 
> 
> 
> Then we found some common ground here.  I'm not sure what goes through an animals mind either.  I don't know why a dog mourns it's owner, even though I've seen 'em do it.  The better question is why do people mourn their dogs?  In most modern relationships, it is a one way dependency, and the dog represents a burden to the owner.  However, we somehow learn to enjoy the companionship of the critter.  That's the human element I see missing in nature.





> and the dog represents a burden to the owner.  However, we somehow learn to enjoy the companionship of the critter.


I can personally introduce you to two cats who are best buddies now that fought every day in the beginning.
The new cat was a burden to the original cat however she somehow learned to enjoy the companionship of the critter.


> That's the human element I see missing in nature.


Maybe you are looking at it backwards. 
Maybe its - do you see nature in "human elements"?.


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 5, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> The new cat was a burden to the original cat however she somehow learned to enjoy the companionship of the critter.



My wife has two cats who seem fond of each other as well.  One of these cats is a total pain in the neck cat.  Spoiled, unfriendly, just a disaster of a creature......but, she is my wife's favorite of the two 

I don't see any evolutionary benefit in that.  And, I am not sure whether my wife's cats enjoy each other, or if they like how warm it is when they snuggle with each other.



WaltL1 said:


> Maybe you are looking at it backwards.
> Maybe its - do you see nature in "human elements"?.



I could be, but we seem to demonstrate these characteristics to a much greater extent.

I have avoided using some other natural examples, primarily because I know we will go down a rabbit hole of example/counter-example.  

But, to the link I promised I would read, there is some compelling stuff in there.  PAricularly the parrot making the tools.  However, if it wasn't natgeo, the author could never have gotten away with this:



> In that pool, at least for that moment, there was clearly a meeting of the minds.




Beyond that, I would only like to point out that dolphins do not patrol beaches in an effort to be there when a kid is in danger....they do so to catch the fish that live beyond the sandbar.  Humans hang out on the beach for social interaction and interaction with nature, purely selfish motives......and we have lifeguards where possible.   Examples of the human element in nature are rare, and open to interpretation.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 5, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> My wife has two cats who seem fond of each other as well.  One of these cats is a total pain in the neck cat.  Spoiled, unfriendly, just a disaster of a creature......but, she is my wife's favorite of the two
> 
> I don't see any evolutionary benefit in that.  And, I am not sure whether my wife's cats enjoy each other, or if they like how warm it is when they snuggle with each other.
> 
> ...





> However, if it wasn't natgeo, the author could never have gotten away with this:





> In that pool, at least for that moment, there was clearly a meeting of the minds.


What bothers you about that statement?


> Examples of the human element in nature are rare, and open to interpretation.


A possible explanation for that is "nature" came first and the human element evolved out of that. So you wouldn't see human elements in nature you would see nature in human elements. Which is why we are talking about similar human and animal behaviors.


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 6, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> What bothers you about that statement?



The words "was clearly."  If I told you I could see God's work clearly, y'all would jump all over it.



WaltL1 said:


> A possible explanation for that is "nature" came first and the human element evolved out of that. So you wouldn't see human elements in nature you would see nature in human elements. Which is why we are talking about similar human and animal behaviors.



Maybe so.  In order to view it that way, you have to believe we evolved to a level of awareness not achieved ever, across millions of species across millions of years.  I have read where this is attributed to the use of fire, but fire has been available the whole time and we still are the only ones to use it.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 6, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> The words "was clearly."  If I told you I could see God's work clearly, y'all would jump all over it.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe so.  In order to view it that way, you have to believe we evolved to a level of awareness not achieved ever, across millions of species across millions of years.  I have read where this is attributed to the use of fire, but fire has been available the whole time and we still are the only ones to use it.



What else is available the whole time that we do not use yet other animals use?

Fire set us apart just as things we do not use set other animals apart.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 6, 2014)

I would be very interested in an explanation that involves our use of fire outside of the evolution reason.


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 6, 2014)

bullethead said:


> What else is available the whole time that we do not use yet other animals use?



Are you asking about resources or physical features?

We can't grow wings, but we can build airplanes.  WE can't run fast, but we build vehicles for transport.  Those are physical limitations.  Fire is a resource that was available to every species to use.


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 6, 2014)

bullethead said:


> I would be very interested in an explanation that involves our use of fire outside of the evolution reason.



Explanation for why or how?


----------



## gemcgrew (Nov 6, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> My wife has two cats who seem fond of each other as well.  One of these cats is a total pain in the neck cat.  Spoiled, unfriendly, just a disaster of a creature......but, she is my wife's favorite of the two
> 
> I don't see any evolutionary benefit in that.  And, I am not sure whether my wife's cats enjoy each other, or if they like how warm it is when they snuggle with each other.


My nephew has a new respect for cats. 

http://www.gon.com/article.php?id=3950


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 6, 2014)

You back in Ga Gem?


----------



## JB0704 (Nov 6, 2014)

That's a good story.....did have a pack of neighbors dogs chase down a wounded deer in Cobb once.  That was a crazy story.....


----------



## bullethead (Nov 6, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> Are you asking about resources or physical features?
> 
> We can't grow wings, but we can build airplanes.  WE can't run fast, but we build vehicles for transport.  Those are physical limitations.  Fire is a resource that was available to every species to use.



So we can go all the way back 100 years for airplanes.
Maybe 150 years for vehicles.
Maybe 5,000 years for us using animals as transportation.
That leaves us with "modern humans" arriving about 190,000 years before that.
Throw in another 2.3 Million years between "Modern humans" and the the first Homo genus that includes the first humans.

Now when did fire start to make an impact??
http://discovermagazine.com/2013/ma...earliest-evidence-of-humans-cooking-with-fire.
It seems about 1 Million years ago humans found the need for fire for warmth and ultimately cooking.
That gives us over 1 Million years of humans NOT using fire, developing, and evolving to the point where they did use fire.

And WHY did fire make an impact??
As we evolved our brains evolved.
We use 20% of our protein intake to power our brains.
No other primate comes close to that, with the great apes using 1/3 less protein to power a brain almost 3 times bigger.
http://www.livescience.com/24875-meat-human-brain.html

The use of fire allowed us to develop the brain. As the brain developed we did not need huge jaws and large teeth to chew our raw food to get the calories and proteins needed to support that brain. We no longer needed powerful arms and legs to climb trees to avoid predators. We SLOWLY over time became the top predators because the increased meat intake due to the fact that it was cooked made it easier to eat and eat more of it made us smarter and then we made tools and everything else needed for our species to thrive and survive.
What you are not factoring in is the other predecessors, cousins, family tree branches that did not use fire and could not survive.



JB, you are taking a very narrow look at the big picture.
The earliest humans ALL had a vegetarian diet. Only the ones that were able to maintain a diet that was able to fuel the brain made it.
 Primates brains certainly advanced but in the ways that help their survival.

Koalas eat eucalyptus leaves. It is crucial to their survival.
Humans have access to eucalyptus leaves but we do not benefit from it like Koalas do.
Plants thrive on Carbon Dioxide to grow and develop. It is a readily available resource to everything else on the planet but Humans can't use it like plants use it.
Everything on this planet is dependent on something else for it survival and what works for some does not work for others.

Again on a short timeline your points are sort of valid.
Over 2.5 Million years the evidence shows how and why Fire benefited humans and why no other animals need it.
It can be narrowed down to animals that could not use fire even if they needed to, mammals with opposable thumbs and capability of harnessing fire, Primates/early Humans ability to use a natural fire or make a fire, and then the species who's needs matched the benefits and were able to use fire for security which in turn led to warmth which in turn led to social skills which in turn led to some food getting cooked which in turn led to more food being eaten which in turn led to our brains being utilized more, which needed more food, which made us adapt hunting skills which etc etc etc etc.....which led to us typing this out.


----------



## Israel (Nov 8, 2014)

bullethead said:


> So we can go all the way back 100 years for airplanes.
> Maybe 150 years for vehicles.
> Maybe 5,000 years for us using animals as transportation.
> That leaves us with "modern humans" arriving about 190,000 years before that.
> ...



Interesting.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 8, 2014)

Israel said:


> Interesting.



Probably interesting to you only when you have to interject  a deity into the mix.

I did not intend it or imply it.


----------



## Israel (Nov 9, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Probably interesting to you only when you have to interject  a deity into the mix.
> 
> I did not intend it or imply it.



Our intents and implications all fall before the only one whose purpose is established.

Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the LORD that will stand.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 9, 2014)

Israel said:


> Our intents and implications all fall before the only one whose purpose is established.
> 
> Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the LORD that will stand.


More unproven assertions based off of personal hopes.
One of these times take it to the next level and provide some evidence to corroborate your claims.


----------



## Israel (Nov 9, 2014)

Any man may simply keep trying to have his own way, the experiment is both verifiable and easily replicated.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 9, 2014)

Israel said:


> Any man may simply keep trying to have his own way, the experiment is both verifiable and easily replicated.



That part sure is.

It falls apart about the time you introduce your Lord claims.


----------



## Israel (Nov 9, 2014)

Patience


----------



## bullethead (Nov 9, 2014)

Israel said:


> Patience



Sad that your only offer applies to dead people. None of them around to help your claims either.


----------



## Israel (Nov 12, 2014)

Yes, the patience of the dead is indeed irrefutable.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 12, 2014)

Israel said:


> Yes, the patience of the dead is indeed irrefutable.



Yep. No God necessary


----------

