colbard writes:
Catsci writes:
Let's say we have two different people confronted with the same moral dilemma. I dunno, they stumble across an injured woman laying on the side of the road.
Person 1's immediate thoughts/instinct is to make sure the woman is okay and to help in any way they can.
Person 2's immediate thoughts/instinct is to capitalize on the situation and take her purse from her and steal her money.
Then they both think about it for a bit, and they both decide that they should help her.
Wouldn't you say that Person 1 is a more moral person than Person 2?
According to evolution neither are moral or immoral, and are both playing a role in the eventual survival of a fitter species. nice feelings are just hormonal responses which in the long run help the species or ruin it, depending on chance and circumstances alone.
Both are acting on inbred or accumulated behaviors, and neither can be held accountable for their actions, it is totally natural.
Can you
show us exactly who this
evolution entity is?
Can you
show us where you read or heard that any of what you said is actually a description of anything supported by the
Theory of Evolution.
According to colbard, if you went to school it was not when science was taught, and specifically not when evolutionary theory was taught. That is one thing that is clear from this thread, and the others where you have posted.
You are a sad example that sometimes education fails.
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy