xBlackPantherx wrote:
You passing your "stronger" seed along is not evolution. Evolution is,
wikipedia wrote:
Natural selection, one of the processes that drives evolution, results from the difference in reproductive success between individuals in a population. If these traits increase the evolutionary fitness of the individuals that carry them, then those individuals will be more likely to survive and reproduce than other organisms in the population, thus passing more copies of those heritable traits on to the next generation. The corresponding decrease in fitness for deleterious traits results in their becoming rarer. In time, this can result in adaptation: the gradual accumulation of new traits (and the preservation of existing ones) that generally result in a population of organisms becoming better suited to its environment and ecological niche.
doublestuforeo wrote:
Of course natural selection is about passing on the best traits to your young... hence raping your girlfriend to pass on a more "powerful" seed, is basically saying "by killing you I am showing that I am more fit and will produce more desirable young." My original post was aggressive, because I was trying to take a strong position and start a good debate. Unfortunatly everyone pissed their pants and cryed about how mean I am to Atheists. I will try to re-word my post in a nice way so that you might understand better what I was trying to debate. Without God, it is clear that morals are created by man. As such, people and societies are all different. To me this would have to suggest that, without an omnipotent being that declares what is right and wrong, morals must be relative to different individuals and societies. As such, who are we to say that our version of morals is right? Do we have any grounds to truly say something is "right" or "wrong?"
I dont hate Atheists. Most of my friends are Atheists, and I once was also. However, I am starting to think that Atheists are the most insecure, whinny asses I have ever dealt with.
I guess my answer to all of this is...Survival of the fittest doesn't mean the most physically fit as I'm sure you know. God was created by man, (some even say god was created by THE man to keep the people in-line, which makes very much sence if you research it) and if morals are based on opinions, and everyone has a right to their opinion and opinions are created by man, then man has EVERY right to say something is right or wrong.
You can not have absolute freedom, because at that point, one person's freedoms will become subject to the freedoms that which belong to another.
The point is that, that applies to morals as well. You can only judge something if it does not conflict with a higher law/freedom. Killing someone is wrong, or unmoral, because it violates natural law,
Wikipedia wrote:
Natural law is a law whose content is set by nature, and that therefore has validity everywhere.
Declaration of Independence wrote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
If something violates these natural laws then it is said to be unmoral. Since Natural law is also referred to as Laws of Nature,
whose content is set by nature, and that therefore has validity everywhere.
then that has a basis for morals that every human being, man woman or child, has grounds to base their morals upon.