Morality! Thorn in Darwin's side or not?

WTF?Is this like declaring you won and leaving?

In evolution, there is no "higher"; there is no "perfection". There is only fitness for the current conditions.Apparently Satan has been giving you bad information.

"perfect" morality is relative. Different cultures will give you different answers of what is "perfect". e.g. Colbard probably isn't a vegetarian, and he thinks he has perfect morality, thus he thinks killing and eating animals is 100% moral and justified, and he thinks Colbard can't possibly be any more moral than he is. Yet, a Buddhist would see his merry meat eating ways as deeply flawed and immoral.Here's a theory: morality isn't about being nice. Moral rules are about group survival. This fits with the idea that ethics evolved to help communal animals survive and compete with other groups. So, what you would expect to see in biblical "moral" rules are expressly things that aid group cohesion and reproduction. Killing is bad in biblical morality, because it hurts the group, not because it's inherently bad. This is clear, because whenever there's a benefit to the group then killing is suddenly OK in the bible.You can kill gay people in the bible, that's moral. probably because gay people aren't producing babies, which is their duty, so you have the threat of death: pair up and produce kids, or else.you can kill rebellious children in the bible. This also acts as a deterrent to disobedient & antisocial behavior. Plus you can commit capital punishment on the real bad eggs.The other big abomination is eating shellfish. Well, shellfish are notorious for giving food poisoning, and this was way back before antibiotics, so yeah, again this is clearly about survival, but dressed up in a "morality" message. This is the most clearly silly one to say there's any possible "morality" angle about eating shellfish, but it's listed as an "abomination" next to homosexuality.

No, I'm not leaving, I'd miss getting hit by you.

A very good answer coming from your stance.

Thanks for the summarized intro that's good English.So if is relative for a group, it can also be relative for individuals, right?But in a group the majority tries to keep the rule. Let's hope we are not born into a baby burning cult, or in many cases let's hope we are not born female.If there is any morality in a society named so or considered to be so, then there must also be equal versions of immorality.History proves that there a lot of both.
If these values are just relative to culture and circumstance, and can be so diverse so as to actually contradict each ideal?It is vanity because all life is temporary, and what follows the death of one and their ideals, can be replaced by another.It is assumed by evolution that this will be an upward progress, not to be enjoyed by the predecessors - at all. A pointless existence. In the end you are nothing, forgotten, less than a howl in the wind. That is immoral don't you think?

The moral laws of God demand that whatever is given life, has it permanently, and should there be any disasters then provision should be made for its full recovery, without interfering with free choice.If you are alive, the justice of God ensures your eternal survival, unless that justice is scorned as of no value, because it may demand 'unwelcome' changes for the better.That puts life, love and morality on an equal plain with one law for all, whereas in evolution, its every man or group or nation to its own. And as we know there is no end in sight for that scenario, because even if an ideal global utopia is built (as it will be shortly), it could be over within a few years, due to mortality.Edited by Colbard, : shorten

Where are you getting your information about God from? Does he speak to you, or do you just make stuff up?

xEdited by NoNukes, : effing idiocy needs no response

No, upward progress is not assumed. I suppose that if someone believed all of existence was about them, then the fact that their culture continued to progress after their death would seem unfair. However such a belief would be irrational.

I am generally deaf to spiritual knowledge, so I have to get clues from the KJV, people, nature and life, and work on that.

Morals are rational. As rational as the predictability of physical laws.
And if that is true then it opens up the second scope by which to measure nature.Two perspectives of knowledge, the natural and the spiritual, and if understood correctly they agree.It is rational to expect life everlasting according to moral law, but irrational if there was no more life, as you said.Edited by Colbard, : add

I'm trying to imagine you getting a clue ... no, I'm not forming any sort of mental image here.

From what you have presented, only the natural can be said to be knowledge. The spiritual is based on belief which is the opposite of knowledge.

Knowledge if founded in facts and beliefs are founded in the mind.
The only time beliefs can be considered knowledge is when they are are in accordance to the truth.At least this is my take on it.