more specious bullshit from you. you have absolutely not provided an scientific explanation. I am not sure if you are too troll or too ignorant to understand that qualitatively speaking... saying Natural Forces did it (without explaining what caused the natural forces to be the way they are) is the same as saying a Creator did it. Its abdication of the main responsibility of a scientist. To ask why? 2. Also, just to show how specious your argument is... since you have not explained the how or why of natural forces... one could argue that a Creator programmed the building blocks of evolution to have a drive for life. You could then say a Creator created the Natural forces to evolve into life. You can't rule that out since so far all of you have said is Natural Forces. In you follow the best current science it looks like there was not enough time for life to evolve from non life in our universe by random chance. Many scientists will tell you that our Natural forces have a drive for life in them. So how could our natural forces have a drive for life... It again comes back to Creator or Multiverse. But you are not capable of having a scientific discussion because you won't admit the former is possibility... so you have to bullshit your ass off.
Perhaps an even more important or critical issue would be the emotion, especially love emotion between male/female (covering same sex), of living animals including humans in particular. Saying and believing in merely chemical evolution and/or modern sciences, without considering the cause/surce of emotion, would be a bit too simplistic! imo
Just said again in my previous post for about the third time now. No cause. Nothing(literally) causes them. For example Quantum Mechanics explains how everyday atomic event stuff commonly occurs naturally, spontaneously, without cause. So it takes nothing to cause them - could that be any more clear...I don't think so. In line with the laws physics, the inevitable consequence of uncaused natural forces can be a universe. What you are not capable of is understanding there is no scientific discussion to be had by admitting the former is a possibility. It isn't even science.
You have to admit the power of the cause and effect paradigm. We're not really wired by evolution to see reality without it.
More waffle right definition in the context of right behavior "Right" "True or correct as a fact:I’m not sure I know the right answerher theories were proved right" http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/right
People believed the earth was flat and to them this was true, but the fact is (fact defined as truth) is the earth is a sphere. The truth hasn't changed the earth has always been round and always was, the peoples false belief of the earth being flat has changed and now corresponds with the truth.
Correct, you are posting waffle You are supposed to be defining the word morality not the words true or right. Here I'll do it for you from your source.. Morality 1 Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/morality That means morality is the outcome after a distinction has been made between what is right and true, and what is wrong and false. Repeating right is true and true is right won't cut it in any way but silly. Was it immoral to say the Earth was flat because it turned out not to be flat You said morality is based in truth and right. So how would not being true or right about the shape of the Earth make anything about that in any way immoral!? In fact, the Earth is not a sphere but an oblate spheroid. So does that fact make me moral because it is true and right , and you immoral because your description is in fact not true and wrong? Morality is not absolute. It is in fact, based on what is reasoned as right and true and accepted by society and culture(s). Reasoning the distinctions defines what's right and true. Nothing else. So please if you are going to carry on, do take your reasoning past the -right is true and true is right- of a 3 year old.
Nothing mere about chemical evolution and/or modern science. When considering the source of emotion, they are present at every turn. What would be simplistic in my opinion, would be to suggest things are there that aren't, for merely emotional reasons.
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion Emotion, in everyday speech, is any relatively brief conscious experience characterized by intense mental activity and a high degree of pleasure or displeasure.[1][2] Scientific discourse has drifted to other meanings and there is no consensus on a definition. ... Research on emotion has increased significantly over the past two decades with many fields contributing including psychology, neuroscience, endocrinology, medicine, history, sociology, and even computer science. The numerous theories that attempt to explain the origin, neurobiology, experience, and function of emotions have only fostered more intense research on this topic. Current areas of research in the concept of emotion include the development of materials that stimulate and elicit emotion. In addition PET scans and fMRI scans help study the affective processes in the brain.[7]" " Emotions Affection Anger Angst Anguish Annoyance Anxiety Apathy Arousal Awe Boredom Confidence Contempt Contentment Courage Curiosity Depression Desire Despair Disappointment Disgust Distrust Ecstasy Embarrassment Empathy Envy Euphoria Fear Frustration Gratitude Grief Guilt Happiness Hatred Hope Horror Hostility Humiliation Hysteria Interest Jealousy Loneliness Love Lust Outrage Panic Passion Pity Pleasure Pride Rage Regret Remorse Resentment Sadness Saudade Schadenfreude Self-confidence Shame Shock Shyness Sorrow Suffering Surprise Trust Wonder Worry "