Where do morals come from?

[Jim]

Sakib, you're like a kid who has heard the answer that he wants to hear, and so covers his ears to avoid hearing any other possibility, lest it should disprove the former.

[Sakib]

Sakib, you're like a kid who has heard the answer that he wants to hear, and so covers his ears to avoid hearing any other possibility, lest it should disprove the former.

Rubbish. If something like evolution doesnt make sense that how is that covering my ears? I've heard many possibilities but they dont make sense to me. When the question is how? and why? and there's no answer, then it doesnt really make sense.

Why would i want to hear evolution is false? Why?

[Jim]

Friedrich Nietzsche wrote that one of the major prejudices concerning western philosophy was that philosophers would try, in their work, to make the world encompass their weltanschauung (... It's German), as opposed to presenting a theory that would fit the world. Go figure.

Your 'how?' is easily enough answerable by a comprehensive understanding of survival of the fittest. Have you ever read Origin of Species? I haven't, but right now I don't feel like I need to. You're the one with all the questions right now, maybe you would stand a better chance of having your questions answered by resorting to a base level; as opposed that is to consultation of your science text books, and books written by those that are pro-your view of creation and human development.

One of the hardest, but most important, things to comprehend in order to understand evolution in any way is the vastness of time, and just how old our planet is in terms of our own lives.

I can reconcile my own views with yours in as far as, yes!, I feel sure that evolution, if it happened at all, did happen for a reason, I cannot comprehend that we would have become, as humans, what we are now without some greater force, or higher power... , at work; but to dismiss evolution out of hand shows nothing more than childish naivity and an unwillingness to accept the facts that are there, in front of your eyes, if only you wanted to see them.

[Sakib]

Friedrich Nietzsche wrote that one of the major prejudices concerning western philosophy was that philosophers would try, in their work, to make the world encompass their weltanschauung (... It's German), as opposed to presenting a theory that would fit the world. Go figure.

Your 'how?' is easily enough answerable by a comprehensive understanding of survival of the fittest. Have you ever read On Species? I haven't, but right now I don't feel like I need to. You're the one with all the questions right now, maybe you would stand a better chance of having your questions answered by resorting to a base level; as opposed that is to consultation of your science text books, and books written by those that are pro-your view of creation and human development.

One of the hardest, but most important, things to comprehend in order to understand evolution in any way is the vastness of time, and just how old our planet is in terms of our own lives.

I can reconcile my own views with yours in as far as, yes!, I feel sure that evolution, if it happened at all, did happen for a reason, I cannot comprehend that we would have become, as humans, what we are now without some greater force, or higher power... , at work; but to dismiss evolution out of hand shows nothing more than naivity and an unwillingness to accept the facts that are there, in front of your eyes, if only you wanted to see them.

I do read the other views. I go to a school (well did, just left and finished my GCSEs) and they teach evolution and you have to know about Lamarck and Darwin and natural selection, Lamarck's theory of characteristics developing due to necessity, however i think that evolution is flawed. The Archaeoptryx for example (spelling may not be accurate) was supposed to be an ancestor for birds but it turned out it was a bird.

I can see the "facts" you are talking about but it's flawed and i think as logical as it sounds, evolution has holes and dont make sense. I understand if the alleles and genes are similar structure to other creatures but that doesnt support evolution as there;s no proof they evolved.

[Jim]

... As I said. GCSE teaching on evolution isn't exactly extensive. When I did it three years ago, you wouldn't have been expected to know any criticism of the theory. I doubt that has changed. Not over here in the UK, at least. As such you wouldn't have been expected to question it as a theory. GCSE's are little more than regurgitation, and it's one unit amongst [how many, six? 10? I have no idea], and that is in science alone!, never mind the other 8 subjects. So, as I said. If you want an extensive understanding of evolution, and a means to criticize it in more depth, then you will need to look further than your GCSE exam. As I [meant]. Origin of Species.

You can't afford to be broad. 

[Elrothiel]

The Archaeoptryx for example (spelling may not be accurate) was supposed to be an ancestor for birds but it turned out it was a bird.

Wrong. It wasn't ever supposed to be an ancestor for birds, it was the FIRST bird!! Pterodactyl was the true ancestors for birds, and that evolved and became Archeopteryx after many millions of years.

Have you been thinking that Pterodactyl and Archeopteryx were in the same era?

[Sakib]

... As I said. GCSE teaching on evolution isn't exactly extensive. When I did it three years ago, you wouldn't have been expected to know any criticism of the theory. I doubt that has changed. Not over here in the UK, at least. As such you wouldn't have been expected to question it as a theory. GCSE's are little more than regurgitation, and it's one unit amongst [how many, six? 10? I have no idea], and that is in science alone!, never mind the other 8 subjects. So, as I said. If you want an extensive understanding of evolution, and a means to criticize it in more depth, then you will need to look further than your GCSE exam. As I [meant]. Origin of Species.

You can't afford to be broad.?

actually, i'm taking biology A-LEVEL, the syllabus has changed dramatically over 3 years, it changes on a 2 yr basis and I do triple science so i get three separate sciences. I do look at other articles as well, mind u my biology teacher believes in evolution but i know its wasted 150 years in history and the fact that its non religious apparently cracks me up. Its pagan

[Ellroy]

Friedrich Nietzsche wrote that one of the major prejudices concerning western philosophy was that philosophers would try, in their work, to make the world encompass their weltanschauung (... It's German), as opposed to presenting a theory that would fit the world. Go figure.

Philosophers (especially lovers of Plato and Socrates) hate to hear this but I completely agree. Ever read Ptolemy? If ever there was an example of the above statement it is in his great work. Hell, Plato even suggests the above statement with the cave allegory in "The Republic" but then goes on and does the same thing he writes against.

[Sakib]

The Archaeoptryx for example (spelling may not be accurate) was supposed to be an ancestor for birds but it turned out it was a bird.

Wrong. It wasn't ever supposed to be an ancestor for birds, it was the FIRST bird!! Pterodactyl was the true ancestors for birds, and that evolved and became Archeopteryx after many millions of years.

Have you been thinking that Pterodactyl and Archeopteryx were in the same era?

not according to my source. and evolution didnt happen. And if it did how? None of it makes sense.

the quoted article was ancestor of bird was actual bird. The Pterodactyl could've just died and some other bird could've been created at a different time frame.