stevestory
Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
This was all posted in a 7-minute period | Quote | 89
Bornagain77
March 22, 2021 at 3:59 am
To continue my refutation of Seversky’s fallacious belief that morality is completely subjective and illusory, from post 80 and 81.
It is interesting to note that Atheists unwittingly concede the existence of objective morality in one of the most commonly cited reasons from ‘elite’ Scientists for not believing in God, i.e. they unwittingly concede the existence of objective morality in their ‘argument from evil’
Elite Scientists Don’t Have Elite Reasons for Being Atheists – November 8, 2016
Excerpt: Dr. Jonathan Pararejasingham has compiled video of elite scientists and scholars to make the connection between atheism and science. Unfortunately for Pararejasingham, once you get past the self-identification of these scholars as non-believers, there is simply very little there to justify the belief in atheism.,,,
What I found was 50 elite scientists expressing their personal opinions, but none had some powerful argument or evidence to justify their opinions. In fact, most did not even cite a reason for thinking atheism was true.,,,
The few that did try to justify their atheism commonly appealed to God of the Gaps arguments (there is no need for God, therefore God does not exist) and the Argument from Evil (our bad world could not have come from an All Loving, All Powerful God). In other words, it is just as I thought it would be. Yes, most elite scientists and scholars are atheists. But their reasons for being atheists and agnostics are varied and often personal. And their typical arguments are rather common and shallow – god of the gaps and the existence of evil. It would seem clear that their expertise and elite status is simply not a causal factor behind their atheism.
Finally, it is also clear the militant atheism of Dawkins is a distinct minority view among these scholars.
https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2016.......theists
Again, In their ‘argument from evil’ the atheist is unwittingly conceding the existence of an objective moral standard to judge by. (the very thing that he denies the existence of).
As Dr. Michael Egnor stated, “Even to raise the problem of evil is to tacitly acknowledge transcendent standards, and thus to acknowledge God’s existence. From that starting point, theodicy begins. Theists have explored it profoundly. Atheists lack the standing even to ask the question.,,,”
The Universe Reflects a Mind – Michael Egnor – February 28, 2018
Excerpt: Goff argues that a Mind is manifest in the natural world, but he discounts the existence of God because of the problem of evil. Goff seriously misunderstands the problem of evil. Evil is an insoluble problem for atheists, because if there is no God, there is no objective standard by which evil and good can exist or can even be defined. If God does not exist, “good” and “evil” are merely human opinions. Yet we all know, as Kant observed, that some things are evil in themselves, and not merely as a matter of opinion. Even to raise the problem of evil is to tacitly acknowledge transcendent standards, and thus to acknowledge God’s existence. From that starting point, theodicy begins. Theists have explored it profoundly. Atheists lack the standing even to ask the question.,,,
https://evolutionnews.org/2018.......-a-mind
And as C.S. Lewis noted, “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line.”,,, “in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist — in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless — I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality — namely my idea of justice — was full of sense.”
“If a good God made the world why has it gone wrong? And for many years I simply refused to listen to the Christian answers to this question, because I kept on feeling “whatever you say, and however clever your arguments are, isn’t it much simpler and easier to say that the world was not made by any intelligent power? Aren’t all your arguments simply a complicated attempt to avoid the obvious?” But then that threw me back into another difficulty.
My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? . . . Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too — for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist — in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless — I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality — namely my idea of justice — was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning. ”
– C. S. Lewis
https://www.americamagazine.org/content....plicity
Remember, without God, morality simply does not exist for the atheist. As Richard Dawkins stated, atheists live in a world of “no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
“The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
– Dawkins
And yet atheists, in their ‘argument from evil’, are forced to act as if objective morality really does exist.
Specifically, in their argument from evil, atheists are forced to hold that “There exist a large number of horrible forms of evil and suffering for which we can see no greater purpose or compensating good.”
The Problem of Evil: Still A Strong Argument for Atheism – 2015
Excerpt:,,, the problem of evil, one of the main arguments against the existence of an all-good and all-knowing God.,,,
P1. There exist a large number of horrible forms of evil and suffering for which we can see no greater purpose or compensating good.
P2. If an all-powerful, all-good God existed, then such horrific, apparently purposeless evils would not exist.
C. Therefore, an all-powerful, all-good God does not exist.
https://thegodlesstheist.com/2015.......atheism
And yet this is, once again, a self defeating position for the atheist to be in.
Specifically on the one hand, Atheistic materialists, to be consistent in their Atheistic materialism, must hold that morality is completely subjective and illusory.
Atheism’s Odd Relationship with Morality By Rabbi Adam Jacobs – 2011
Excerpt: As Dr. Will Provine has said, “[as an atheist] you give up hope that there is an imminent morality … you can’t hope for there being any free will [and there is] … no ultimate foundation for ethics.”
– per Huffington post
And yet on the other hand, as David Wood puts it, “By declaring that suffering is evil, atheists have admitted that there is an objective moral standard by which we distinguish good and evil.”
Responding to the Argument From Evil: Three Approaches for the Theist – By David Wood
Excerpt: Interestingly enough, proponents of AE grant this premise in the course of their argument. By declaring that suffering is evil, atheists have admitted that there is an objective moral standard by which we distinguish good and evil. Amazingly, then, even as atheists make their case against the existence of God, they actually help us prove that God exists!,,,
https://www.namb.net/apologe....-theist
Thus, in their “Argument from Evil”, atheists have unwittingly conceded the existence of an objective moral standard to judge by and have, once again, refuted their very own worldview of Atheistic Materialism in the process.
Simply put, if good and evil really do exist, as the atheist must necessarily hold to be true in his argument from evil, then God necessarily exists also!
If Good and Evil Exist, God Exists: – Peter Kreeft – Prager University – video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....ujhwhNM
Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.
The Moral Argument – drcraigvideos – video
https://youtu.be/OxiAikE....U?t=276
90
Bornagain77
March 22, 2021 at 4:01 am
It is also interesting to note that the existence of objective morality, and therefore the existence of God, puts humans in quite a bind, morally speaking. Namely, all men fall short of moral perfection.
In fact, as the following video clearly illustrates at the 41:00 minute mark, even Mother Teresa, as saintly as she was, fell inherently short of the moral perfection that is required to meet God’s infinite moral perfection.
Top Ten Reasons We Know the New Testament is True – Frank Turek – video – November 2011
(41:00 minute mark – Despite what is commonly believed, of someone being ‘good enough’ to go to heaven, in reality both Mother Teresa and Hitler fall short of the moral perfection required to meet the perfection of God’s objective moral code)
https://mediacenter.saddleback.com/mc....2....c....2f
If not even Mother Teresa can be morally perfect before infinite goodness of that is inherent in God, then we have a very big moral problem on our hands.
Namely, there is an inherent infinite moral gap between God’s moral perfection and humanity’s moral imperfection.
Yet how does one possibly bridge that infinite moral gap between an infinitely holy and just God and a inherently morally imperfect human?
Other religions of the stress man’s ‘works’, not God’s grace, in order to somehow bridge that infinite moral gap.
Yet, finite man, all by his lonesome, bridging an infinite moral gap is clearly an exercise in utter futility.
Out of all religions in the world, only the grace inherent within Christianity, where God Himself, where Christ’s atoning sacrifice on the cross payed the price for our sins, realistically, and sufficiently, bridges the infinite moral gap that exists between God’s moral perfection and humanity’s inherent moral imperfection.
The unmerited grace of Christ bridging that infinite moral gap on the behalf of humanity is technically known as “propitiation”:
G.O.S.P.E.L. – (the grace of propitiation) poetry slam – video
https://vimeo.com/2096038....0960385
Moreover, Christianity, unlike all the other religions of the world, realistically takes the Atheist’s argument from evil head on in that “the reality of evil is absorbed into the deity, not dissolved into thin air, because God freely tastes the bitterness of the medicine as wounded healer, not distant doctor. Further, given the drastic nature of this solution, we begin to recognize that God takes the problem of evil more seriously than we could ever have taken it ourselves. ,,,”
The Problem of Evil by Benjamin D. Wiker – April 200
Excerpt: We still want to cry, Job-like, to those inscrutable depths, “Who are you to orchestrate everything around us puny and pitiable creatures, leaving us shuddering in the darkness, ignorant, blasted, and buffeted? It‘s all well and good to say, ‘Trust me! It‘ll all be made right in the end,‘ while you float unscathed above it all. Grinding poverty, hunger, thirst, frustration, rejection, toil, death of our loved ones, blood-sweating anxiety, excruciating pain, humiliation, torture, and finally a twisted and miserable annihilation — that‘s the meal we‘re served! You‘d sing a different tune if you were one of us and got a taste of your own medicine.”
What could we say against these depths if the answer we received was not an argument but an incarnation, a full and free submission by God to the very evils about which we complain? This submission would be a kind of token, a sign that evil is very real indeed, bringing the incarnate God blood-sweating anxiety, excruciating pain, humiliation, torture, and finally a twisted and miserable annihilation on the cross. As real as such evil is, however, the resurrection reveals that it is somehow mysteriously comprehended within the divine plan.
With the Incarnation, the reality of evil is absorbed into the deity, not dissolved into thin air, because God freely tastes the bitterness of the medicine as wounded healer, not distant doctor. Further, given the drastic nature of this solution, we begin to recognize that God takes the problem of evil more seriously than we could ever have taken it ourselves. ,,,
http://www.crisismagazine.com/.....em....of-evil
Verse and video
1 Peter 3:18
For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit,
Turin Shroud Hologram Reveals The Words “The Lamb”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....a1l8GAQ
91
Bornagain77
March 22, 2021 at 4:04 am
Seversky also falsely claimed that it is impossible “to derive moral prescriptions from our observations of material reality.”
Yet, the truth is that, although there is no way to develop a COMPLETE code of moral prescriptions from our observations of material reality, in reality we can, at least, discern a general outline of objective morality from our observations of material reality.
Remember, as I pointed out in post 80, “Altruistic behavior of any sort is simply completely antithetical to the entire Darwinian framework of ‘survival of the fittest’”.
“One general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.”
– Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species
And yet our observations of ‘material reality’ reveal a stunning array of ‘unexpected’ altruistic behavior at the must fundamental levels of biology and molecular biology.
In fact, Darwin himself offered this following ‘anti-altruism’ standard as a falsification criteria for his theory, “Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species”… and even stated that “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.”
“Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species; though throughout nature one species incessantly takes advantage of, and profits by, the structure of another. But natural selection can and does often produce structures for the direct injury of other species, as we see in the fang of the adder, and in the ovipositor of the ichneumon, by which its eggs are deposited in the living bodies of other insects. If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.”
– Charles Darwin – Origin of Species
And directly contrary to Charles Darwin’s claim that “Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species” or it would annihilate his theory, it is now known that, “in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as the modern versions of it.”
Plant Galls and Evolution
How More than Twelve Thousand1 Ugly Facts are Slaying a Beautiful Hypothesis: Darwinism2
Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig – 7 September 2017
Excerpt: in the case of the galls, in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as the modern versions of it. The galls are not ‘useful to the possessor’, the plants. There is no space for these phenomena in the world of “the selfish gene” (Dawkins). Moreover, the same conclusion appears to be true for thousands of angiosperm species producing deceptive flowers (in contrast to gall formations, now for the exclusive good of the plant species) – a topic which should be carefully treated in another paper.
http://www.weloennig.de/PlantGa....lls.pdf
Moreover, the falsification of the anti-altruistic thinking of Darwin’s ‘survival of the fittest’ goes even deeper than that. Much deeper.
If evolution by natural selection were actually the truth about how all life came to be on Earth then the only life that should be around should be extremely small organisms with the highest replication rate, and with the most ‘mutational firepower’, since only they, since they greatly outclass multi-cellular organism in terms of ‘reproductive success’ and ‘mutational firepower’, would be fittest to survive in the dog eat dog world where blind pitiless evolution ruled and only the fittest are allowed to survive. The logic of this is nicely summed up here in this Richard Dawkins’ video:
Richard Dawkins interview with a ‘Darwinian’ physician goes off track – video
Excerpt: “I am amazed, Richard, that what we call metazoans, multi-celled organisms, have actually been able to evolve, and the reason [for amazement] is that bacteria and viruses replicate so quickly — a few hours sometimes, they can reproduce themselves — that they can evolve very, very quickly. And we’re stuck with twenty years at least between generations. How is it that we resist infection when they can evolve so quickly to find ways around our defenses?”
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....6....31.html
In other words, since successful reproduction is all that really matters on a neo-Darwinian view of things, how can anything but successful, and highly efficient reproduction, be realistically ‘selected’ for?
Any other function besides successful reproduction, such as much slower sexual reproduction, sight, hearing, abstract thinking, and especially morally noble altruistic behavior, would be highly superfluous and even detrimental to the primary criteria of successful reproduction, and should, on a Darwinian view of things, be discarded, and/or ‘eaten’, by bacteria, as so much excess baggage since it obviously would slow down successful reproduction.
Darwin himself stated, “every single organic being around us may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase in numbers;”
“every single organic being around us may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase in numbers;”
– Charles Darwin – Origin of Species – pg. 66
The logic of natural selection is nicely and simply illustrated on the following graph:
The Logic of Natural Selection – graph
http://recticulatedgiraffe.wee.....35.jpg?308/....jpg....jpg?308
Moreover, directly contrary to this central ‘survival of the fittest’ assumption of Darwinian evolution, instead of eating us, time after time we find micro-organisms helping each other, and us, in ways that have nothing to with their own ‘survival of the fittest’’ concerns.
The following researchers said they were ‘banging our heads against the wall’ by the contradictory findings to Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ thinking that they had found. And they even went on to remark that, “Maybe Darwin’s presumption that the world may be dominated by competition is wrong.”
Doubting Darwin: Algae Findings Surprise Scientists – April 28, 2014
Excerpt: One of Charles Darwin’s hypotheses posits that closely related species will compete for food and other resources more strongly with one another than with distant relatives, because they occupy similar ecological niches. Most biologists long have accepted this to be true.
Thus, three researchers were more than a little shaken to find that their experiments on fresh water green algae failed to support Darwin’s theory — at least in one case.
“It was completely unexpected,” says Bradley Cardinale, associate professor in the University of Michigan’s school of natural resources & environment. “When we saw the results, we said ‘this can’t be.”‘ We sat there banging our heads against the wall. Darwin’s hypothesis has been with us for so long, how can it not be right?”
The researchers ,,,— were so uncomfortable with their results that they spent the next several months trying to disprove their own work. But the research held up.,,,
The scientists did not set out to disprove Darwin, but, in fact, to learn more about the genetic and ecological uniqueness of fresh water green algae so they could provide conservationists with useful data for decision-making. “We went into it assuming Darwin to be right, and expecting to come up with some real numbers for conservationists,” Cardinale says. “When we started coming up with numbers that showed he wasn’t right, we were completely baffled.”,,,
Darwin “was obsessed with competition,” Cardinale says. “He assumed the whole world was composed of species competing with each other, but we found that one-third of the species of algae we studied actually like each other. They don’t grow as well unless you put them with another species. It may be that nature has a heck of a lot more mutualisms than we ever expected.
“,,, Maybe Darwin’s presumption that the world may be dominated by competition is wrong.”
http://www.livescience.com/452........ts.html
As well, and again directly contrary to the central ‘survival of the fittest’ assumption of Darwinian evolution, we find that bacteria are also directly helping us survive in essential ways that have nothing to do with their own survival of the fittest concerns:
NIH Human Microbiome Project defines normal bacterial makeup of the body – June 13, 2012
Excerpt: Microbes inhabit just about every part of the human body, living on the skin, in the gut, and up the nose. Sometimes they cause sickness, but most of the time, microorganisms live in harmony with their human hosts, providing vital functions essential for human survival.
http://www.nih.gov/news.......-13.htm
We are living in a bacterial world, and it’s impacting us more than previously thought – February 15, 2013
Excerpt: We often associate bacteria with disease-causing “germs” or pathogens, and bacteria are responsible for many diseases, such as tuberculosis, bubonic plague, and MRSA infections. But bacteria do many good things, too, and the recent research underlines the fact that animal life would not be the same without them.,,,
I am,, convinced that the number of beneficial microbes, even very necessary microbes, is much, much greater than the number of pathogens.”
http://phys.org/news.......#ajTabs
Moreover, it is now known that “Microbial life can easily live without us; we, however, cannot survive without the global catalysis and environmental transformations it provides.”
The Microbial Engines That Drive Earth’s Biogeochemical Cycles – Paul G. Falkowski – 2008
Excerpt: Microbial life can easily live without us; we, however, cannot survive without the global catalysis and environmental transformations it provides.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v.....8....ype=pdf
– Paul G. Falkowski is Professor Geological Sciences at Rutgers
Darwin’s theory simply has no explanation for such altruistic behavior in microbial life and in fact such altruistic behavior is completely antithetical to the central assumption of ‘survival of the fittest’ that lays at the heart of Darwin’s theoretical framework.
92
Bornagain77
March 22, 2021 at 4:05 am
Moreover, the deeper we dive into molecular biology, the more problematic altruistic behavior becomes for the Darwinist.
Dawkins’ ‘selfish gene’ concept is more of less directly based on Darwin’s own ‘survival of the fittest’ thinking about competition. Yet genes are now found to be anything but selfish. Instead of being ‘selfish’, genes are now found to be existing in a holistic web of mutual interdependence and cooperation (the very antithesis of selfishness).
What If (Almost) Every Gene Affects (Almost) Everything? – JUN 16, 2017
Excerpt: If you told a modern geneticist that a complex trait—whether a physical characteristic like height or weight, or the risk of a disease like cancer or schizophrenia—was the work of just 15 genes, they’d probably laugh. It’s now thought that such traits are the work of thousands of genetic variants, working in concert. The vast majority of them have only tiny effects, but together, they can dramatically shape our bodies and our health. They’re weak individually, but powerful en masse.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science....ce....2
Theory Suggests That All Genes Affect Every Complex Trait – June 20, 2018
Excerpt: Mutations of a single gene are behind sickle cell anemia, for instance, and mutations in another are behind cystic fibrosis.
But unfortunately for those who like things simple, these conditions are the exceptions. The roots of many traits, from how tall you are to your susceptibility to schizophrenia, are far more tangled. In fact, they may be so complex that almost the entire genome may be involved in some way,,,
One very early genetic mapping study in 1999 suggested that “a large number of loci (perhaps > than 15)” might contribute to autism risk, recalled Jonathan Pritchard, now a geneticist at Stanford University. “That’s a lot!” he remembered thinking when the paper came out.
Over the years, however, what scientists might consider “a lot” in this context has quietly inflated. Last June, Pritchard and his Stanford colleagues Evan Boyle and Yang Li (now at the University of Chicago) published a paper about this in Cell that immediately sparked controversy, although it also had many people nodding in cautious agreement. The authors described what they called the “omnigenic” model of complex traits. Drawing on GWAS analyses of three diseases, they concluded that in the cell types that are relevant to a disease, it appears that not 15, not 100, but essentially all genes contribute to the condition. The authors suggested that for some traits, “multiple” loci could mean more than 100,000.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/omnigen....0180620
Gene Pleiotropy Roadblocks Evolution by Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D. – Dec. 8, 2016
Excerpt: Before the advent of modern molecular biology, scientists defined a gene as a single unit of inheritance. If a gene was found to influence multiple externally visible traits, it was said to be pleiotropic—a term first used in 1910.2 During this early period of genetic discovery, pleiotropy was considered to be quite rare because scientists assumed most genes only possessed a single function—a simplistic idea that remained popular throughout most of the 20th century. However, as our understanding of genetics grew through DNA science, it became clear that genes operate in complex interconnected networks. Furthermore, individual genes produce multiple variants of end products with different effects through a variety of intricate mechanisms.2,3 Taken together, these discoveries show that pleiotropy is a common feature of nearly every gene.,,,
The pleiotropy evolution problem is widely known among secular geneticists, but rarely discussed in the popular media. In this new research report, the authors state, “Many studies have provided evidence for the ability of pleiotropy to constrain gene evolution.”,,,
“Our study provided supportive evidence that pleiotropy constraints the evolution of transcription factors (Tfs).”,,,
The authors state, “We showed that highly pleiotropic genes are more likely to be associated with a disease phenotype.”,,,
http://www.icr.org/article........747
Such ‘holistic cooperation’ of every gene in an organism, as should be needless to say, is the exact polar opposite of being a ‘selfish gene’ as Richard Dawkins had falsely envisioned with his entire ‘selfish gene’ concept. (And should, if Darwinism were a normal science instead of being basically a religion for atheists, count as yet another direct, and powerful, falsification of Darwin’s theory).
In fact, on top of genes existing in a holistic web of mutual cooperation, the genetic responses of humans are also found to be designed in a very sophisticated way so as to differentiate between hedonic (selfish) and ‘noble’ (altruistic) moral happiness:
Human Cells Respond in Healthy, Unhealthy Ways to Different Kinds of Happiness – July 29, 2013
Excerpt: Human bodies recognize at the molecular level that not all happiness is created equal, responding in ways that can help or hinder physical health,,,
The sense of well-being derived from “a noble purpose” may provide cellular health benefits, whereas “simple self-gratification” may have negative effects, despite an overall perceived sense of happiness, researchers found.,,,
But if all happiness is created equal, and equally opposite to ill-being, then patterns of gene expression should be the same regardless of hedonic or eudaimonic well-being. Not so, found the researchers.
Eudaimonic well-being was, indeed, associated with a significant decrease in the stress-related CTRA gene expression profile. In contrast, hedonic well-being was associated with a significant increase in the CTRA profile. Their genomics-based analyses, the authors reported, reveal the hidden costs of purely hedonic well-being.,,
“We can make ourselves happy through simple pleasures, but those ‘empty calories’ don’t help us broaden our awareness or build our capacity in ways that benefit us physically,” she said. “At the cellular level, our bodies appear to respond better to a different kind of well-being, one based on a sense of connectedness and purpose.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.........952.htm
Given that Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ processes are grossly inadequate for explaining where even a single gene and/or protein came from, I consider the preceding finding of ‘morally noble’ gene networks to be yet another direct and powerful falsification of Darwin’s anti-altruistic ‘survival of the fittest’ theory.
Moreover on top of all that, if anything ever went against Darwin’s claim that “Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species”, it is the entire notion that a single cell can somehow become tens of trillions of cells that cooperate “exclusively for the good of other cells” in a single organism for the singular purpose of keeping that single organism alive.
If tens of trillions of cells acting in concert for the singular purpose of keeping an organism alive is not a shining example of altruistic behavior, then nothing ever will be an example of altruistic behavior.
One Body – animation – video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....q6eqEM4
Mathematician Alexander Tsiaras on Human Development: “It’s a Mystery, It’s Magic, It’s Divinity” – March 2012
Excerpt: ‘The magic of the mechanisms inside each genetic structure saying exactly where that nerve cell should go, the complexity of these, the mathematical models on how these things are indeed done, are beyond human comprehension. Even though I am a mathematician, I look at this with the marvel of how do these instruction sets not make these mistakes as they build what is us. It’s a mystery, it’s magic, it’s divinity.’
https://evolutionnews.org/2012.......ician_a
Thus, the existence of multicellular organisms themselves refutes Seversky’s claim that it is impossible to discern the existence of objective morality from ‘material reality’.
Although we might not be able to discern a entire moral code from our observations of ‘material reality’, we can, at least, rest assured, from our observations of biology and even our observations down into molecular biology itself, that life itself is thoroughly altruistic in its most fundamental nature, (indeed we would not even exist unless altruistic behavior was rampant in the molecular biology of our material bodies).
93
Bornagain77
March 22, 2021 at 4:06 am
One final note.
The following studies actually show that our moral intuition itself transcends space and time:
Specifically, in the following study, they found that subjects responded strongly to emotional images compared to neutral images, and that the emotional response occurred between a fraction of a second to several seconds BEFORE the image appeared
Quantum Consciousness – Time Flies Backwards? – Stuart Hameroff MD
Excerpt: Dean Radin and Dick Bierman have performed a number of experiments of emotional response in human subjects. The subjects view a computer screen on which appear (at randomly varying intervals) a series of images, some of which are emotionally neutral, and some of which are highly emotional (violent, sexual….). In Radin and Bierman’s early studies, skin conductance of a finger was used to measure physiological response They found that subjects responded strongly to emotional images compared to neutral images, and that the emotional response occurred between a fraction of a second to several seconds BEFORE the image appeared! Recently Professor Bierman (University of Amsterdam) repeated these experiments with subjects in an fMRI brain imager and found emotional responses in brain activity up to 4 seconds before the stimuli. Moreover he looked at raw data from other laboratories and found similar emotional responses before stimuli appeared.
http://www.quantumconsciousnes.....Flies.html/....es.....es.html
And in the following meta-analysis of 26 reports published between 1978 and 2010, the researchers found that your body can anticipate morally troubling situations between two and 10 seconds before it happens. And the authors go on to state that, “we can’t explain it using present-day (materialistic) understanding about how biology works; though explanations related to recent quantum biological findings could potentially make sense.”
Can Your Body Sense Future Events Without Any External Clue? (meta-analysis of 26 reports published between 1978 and 2010) – (Oct. 22, 2012)
Excerpt: “A person playing a video game at work while wearing headphones, for example, can’t hear when his or her boss is coming around the corner.
But our analysis suggests that if you were tuned into your body, you might be able to detect these anticipatory changes between two and 10 seconds beforehand,,,
This phenomenon is sometimes called “presentiment,” as in “sensing the future,” but Mossbridge said she and other researchers are not sure whether people are really sensing the future.
“I like to call the phenomenon ‘anomalous anticipatory activity,'” she said. “The phenomenon is anomalous, some scientists argue, because we can’t explain it using present-day understanding about how biology works; though explanations related to recent quantum biological findings could potentially make sense. It’s anticipatory because it seems to predict future physiological changes in response to an important event without any known clues, and it’s an activity because it consists of changes in the cardiopulmonary, skin and nervous systems.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.........342.htm
In short, Darwinian materialism is at a complete loss to explain the preceding findings, (indeed Darwinian materialism denies the existence of morality altogether), whereas Theism has no problem whatsoever explaining our ability to intuit morally troubling situations before they happen.
Namely, we have immaterial minds, (and souls), that are made in the ‘image of God’ and therefore it is ‘expected’ on Christian presuppositions that we would have some kind of ‘spooky’ moral intuition above and beyond what materialism can possibly explain.
Verse, quote and video
Romans 2: 14-15
(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)
“Yet our common moral knowledge is as real as arithmetic, and probably just as plain. Paradoxically, maddeningly, we appeal to it even to justify wrongdoing; rationalization is the homage paid by sin to guilty knowledge.”
– J. Budziszewski, What We Can’t Not Know: A Guide
Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – Part II – video
|
[URL=https://tinyurl.com/njxjz25....9]Linky
Edited by stevestory on Mar. 24 2021,13:24
|
