[Little Horn]

Originally Posted by ChrisV1

Also there is also good and evil. If we are just another one of the millions of species, how come we do not act purely on instinct as they do. Do you think that if we evolved from something such as a single celled organism that we would grasp the concept of good and evil that the Animal Kingdom has not? Animals will kill and hunt each other without remorse, they will have many mates but no attachment to any of them. Even the smartest animals in the worlds such as dolphins and pigs cannot grasp moral right and wrong. If all animals evolved, then how come they do not carry this moral asset?

This an incorrect statement. Penguins are just one of many species of animals that have the same mates for life. Also there have been studies that show the Chimpanzee are able to not only feel but express empathy to a fellow chimp who may have been injured or hurt in some way and to go out of their way to lessen the chimp's suffering. They form complex social structures taht consist of rules and regulation based off what is good for the clan. Is this so different than what we do? There was a long debate about morality without religion on here. I posted this in that thread but I want to post it again because I feel that it's relevant.

From Wikipedia

Evolutionary biologists start from the assumption that morality is a product of evolutionary forces.[citation needed] On this view, moral codes are ultimately founded on emotional instincts and intuitions that were selected for in the past because they aided survival and reproduction (inclusive fitness). The strength of the maternal bond is one example. Another is the Westermarck effect, seen as underpinning taboos against incest, which decreases the likelihood of inbreeding depression.

The phenomenon of 'reciprocity' in nature is seen by evolutionary biologists as one way to begin to understand human morality. Its function is typically to ensure a reliable supply of essential resources, especially for animals living in a habitat where food quantity or quality fluctuates unpredictably. For example, on any given night for vampire bats, some individuals fail to feed on prey while others consume a surplus of blood. Bats that have successfully fed then regurgitate part of their blood meal to save a conspecific from starvation. Since these animals live in close-knit groups over many years, an individual can count on other group members to return the favor on nights when it goes hungry (Wilkinson, 1984)

It has been convincingly demonstrated that chimpanzees show empathy for each other in a wide variety of contexts.[6] They also possess the ability to engage in deception, and a level of social 'politics'[7] prototypical of our own tendencies for gossip, and reputation management.

Christopher Boehm (1982) has hypothesized that the incremental development of moral complexity throughout hominid evolution was due to the increasing need to avoid disputes and injuries in moving to open savanna and developing stone weapons. Other theories are that increasing complexity was simply a correlate of increasing group size and brain size, and in particular the development of theory of mind abilities. Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion suggested that our morality is a result of our biological evolutionary history and that the Moral Zeitgeist helps describe how morality evolves from biological and cultural origins and evolves with time within a culture.

As far as Carbon dating goes... it's funny to see that religionists will cling to carbon dating when it's finding support common idea such as the dates of the certain religious codex but completely bash it when it contradicts what is held as truth (see Aegean island of Thera and how Carbon dating relates to proof of the destruction of Jericho and also see the Shroud of Turin).