RE: Why do evolutionists protect endagered species???
April 4, 2012 at 5:47 pm
(This post was last modified: April 4, 2012 at 5:56 pm by elunico13.)
(April 4, 2012 at 3:56 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:(April 4, 2012 at 3:43 pm)elunico13 Wrote: Lots of contradictions here:
How does "natural selection" give us a duty to save endangered species?
I didn't make that claim. I did make the claim that in some cases, it is in our self-interest to do so (e.g. if the food chain collapses, it puts our future in jeopardy).
Quote:Is self-interest just a cover-up term for emotions? It seems to be so.
No, self-interest is self-interest, in terms of our potential for future survivability of our species.
Quote:How does evolution give justification for what is and isn't destructive behavior?
It doesn't claim to.
Pick a subject you know something about next time, please.
Let me be more specific than. Where do YOU find justification to decide what is and isn't destructive behavior?
(April 4, 2012 at 5:38 pm)Stimbo Wrote:(April 4, 2012 at 1:24 pm)elunico13 Wrote: By doing this they are contradicting their beliefs about natural selection, but so much time, money and effort goes into these projects. Could it be a reason contrary to what they believe? I think so.
All this is built on the presupposition that evolution is predicated on human actions. Natural selection is the dominant force propelling evolution in natural environments, not artifical recreations as in zoos. Any situation involving human intervention in species' survival is by definition the opposite of natural selection, except by way of the fact that humans are themselves the product of nature.
To assert that natural selection is a belief system of "evolutionists" is plain silly by itself, but to compound that with a triumphal claim that this belief must not be supportable because of all the money funnelled into saving endangered species is true tinfoil hat conspiracy territory. How about all the gravitationists spending vast sums of money so they can fly about in big metal birds? Could it be a reason contrary to what they believe? I think so.
Oh, and don't even get me started on the Big Bang. In fact, since it's nothing to do with evolution anyway, best not to mention it in this context at all.
I look forward to seeing none of this addressed in your reply.
Your fellow comrades have contradictory statements to yours. Are you all right???
James Holmes acted consistent with what evolution teaches. He evolved from an animal, and when he murdered those people, He acted like one. You can't say he's wrong since evolution made him that way.
