If you are a non- believer, why be moral when no one is looking?

If you are a non- believer in, all that you do is being recorded in the heavens, why be moral when no one is looking?

If there are no records and no witness, why not do anything you want?


If no one sees you do it, then is it a deed not done?


If all of this is true, then why do we have a conscience, where did it come.


We are told in scriptures that our conscience is our natural way of doing God's will in the absence of his Law.

Views: 4080

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Well thought out response and I appreciate that you have not zinged me with a derogatory insult at the end. 

What you say is compelling. Even the statement hominid evolution is compelling.

My only quarm is the dearth of transitional forms in the paleontological record. The record shows species marvelously adapted for their environment punctuated throughout the paleontological record with no trace of how they got there. Case in point. A dolphin with its perfect hydrodynamical body and aquatic skin and a nostril at the top of it's head. I am not demanding. I just want to see a meager amount of transitional forms getting there. 

Then I suggest you need to expand your reading list.


First, the fossil record is littered with transitional forms. We haven't anywhere near all the species that existed because the odds of a dead life form becoming a fossil are very slim. Despite that we have found countless transitional fossils, but not all. 


I'm not going to research the dolphin question because it will run parallel with something I have (a good scientific theory will be predictive and evolution tells us that the but for the development of that skin, there would be no dolphins as we know them. Failure to adapt is why 99.99% of species that ever existed are now extinct).


You can see that carnivorous whales still have the multiple stomach structure of their land loving ancestors that were vegetarians. Multiple stomachs are for animals that eat difficult to digest foods like grasses, leaves and other vegetarian fare. If whales were designed as whales this is a serious flaw. It's not changed because an advantageous mutation, one that would enhance survival, has not occurred or at least not occurred at the right time and/or place.


Perhaps a correction to the stomach would be much more involved and require much more evolutionary time and machinations, while the nostril just has to move a bit higher and create some advantage to breathing, creating an advantage of other members, and favoring the higher placed nostril. This is much less involved than restructuring the stomachs into one.


If you're going to require seeing all transitional species before being convinced, you've got a lot of rocks to look under. 

It's also a trick question. If you present creationists with transitional fossils, they will resort to Zeno's paradox and demand a a new fossil between the one you presented and some other one. It's a gradual, ongoing process after all and not a series of stepping stones.

And with each one, the god of gaps grows ever smaller. 

I mean, the REAL fossil record is in our DNA. 

To actually fossil or tissue document evolution, we'd need to see a genetically related specimen from every generation of every species on the planet. 

A Noah's Ark, if you will. :)

That would take up a lot of room for preservation and study, though. So it's not really feasibly possible. 

Lucky we have that in an easy to read, digital format, though.

It's called Mitochondrial DNA. (MtDNA)

Some of us even carry Neanderthal DNA within us, too. 

(Because no, Creationists. We did not come from monkeys. We had a common ancestor. From that ancestor, many branches of primates appeared. Some were genetically closer to us than others at certain periods of evolutionary development and interbred. There are still monkeys on earth even after humans became the dominant species for the same reason that there are still Europeans even though some of us immigrated to the Americas.) 







The real world is so much richer, accessible and fascinating than the staid old religious dogmas. If you want to see the wonders of life you have only to look at it. Great post. Thanks

Michael, go read up on "punctuated evolution". 

Take a very good look at the stuff on the talkorigins site.  http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html


The fossil record is not very important in the modern collection of supports for the theory of modification by descent -  aka "the theory of evolution":  the scientific explanation of how the evolutionary process works to form a branching tree of species all derived from an original proto-life form.  These days the most important evidence comes from the genetic record and things like the global distribution of various blood types. 

The scientific theory would be extremely well supported in the entire absence of any fossil record.

Please, please, please get yourself a real science education in biology.


I just don't accept the premise that the mitchondrial DNA is sufficient. Also there are Haploid groups that exist in Europe 7000 years ago that have disappeared without a trace. So many species are gone with the demise of the Mega-fuana. In my worldview there have successive creations througnout the history of the earth. A different Adam name the animals of that world before it was destroyed by a catalclysm. I accept Cro-magnon as homo sapien-sapien of course, but a more robust, taller and on average a greater cranial capacity. Of course I can't call him a different species, but I will dare say that I don't believe that we are related because his haploid groups have only been speculated to have remnants in the Basque people of Europe.

I can't even continue to engage someone that doesn't accept the premise of MtDna as being sufficient evidence. 

I'm sorry. You've been civil and pretty cool so far...but there is a gap in our levels of biological knowledge that leaves me unable to engage  you. 

I'm actually a medical professional and currently continuing my education in this field. To dismiss MtDna is like...you are dismissing germ theory. (Theory. That's another important word you must understand before continuing any other debate on this website. But I digress..) 

Your basic understanding of science has to be so far skewed...I mean, everything from identifying MIA pilots by bone fragments after sixty years to well, the entire basics of all known genetic diseases to...

-I'm sorry. Did I misunderstand you? 

You do realize that pretty much all of basic science relies on our knowledge of MtDna...DNA in general. 

Like...you get that we've unraveled the human genome. You understand what that means?

Ok. Unless I'm misunderstanding you, we really can't continue. 

Please let me know if I have.

I was actually still enjoying this. 

Google Ambulocetus. In case your Latin isn't so hot, that means "walking whale." It's the ancestor of modern cetaceans, and as the name suggests, it was an semi-aquatic mammal with legs that could walk on dry land. Is that a good enough example of a transitional form, or are you going to move the goalposts again?

Oops, I see someone else already mention that.


Thanks Ron. Yes I am aware of Ambolocetus as a transitional form. Would be nice to see more, particularly the mutational dead ends that don't work since mutational dynamics are mindless. But since I ask for a meager amount, you have satisfied my criterion in the case of whales.

particularly the mutational dead ends that don't work

Ever heard of the neanderthals? pretty much an evolutionary dead end imo... probably plenty of other (better) examples but I'm sure other people will know them better than me.

 Neanderthal is a species not a dead end radiating from a established species.

That answer would have been to easy, if it were so,


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service