Well your [sic] wrong again, Evolution has been tested and observed and repeated. There is evidence of this everywhere on this planet and every second of these [sic] planet.
No, Im not. Youre not even able to differentiate between true evolutionary ideas and the Naturalistic philosophy masquerading as such. Explain to me how man could have possibly observed that he is the result of blind chance, time, and natural forces. Show me how this has been tested and repeated.
No it doesn't tear down someones [sic] self-image. It just proofs that people are still living in the middle-ages [sic], thinking that man is the center of the galaxy and universe. and [sic] that everything moves around man and earth.
You are going from one extreme to the other. No where in scripture does it say that man is the center of the Universe. If anything, the emphasis is on how great God is, not how great man is. Youre also omitting the fact that atheistic/naturalistic evolution tears man down to the same value of an infectious virus, or a paramecium (a one-celled creature with no brain), since there is no objective basis to say that complex organisms are better than primitive ones, or that life is even better than death. Ive said this numerous times before.
And are to scared to die.
Im not, and Im sure I can say the same for a great number of my friends. The atheist, however, has good reason to fear death (since he thinks his entire existence will vanish all at once at the moment of death).
Its that people are so scared of dieing and losing there family and ever seening [sic] anyone ever again so they created a GOD that takes you when you die and you live forever and see all your family again.
This assertion has no basis what so ever, and is nothing but pure bias. I dont even know why you wasted your time in typing it up.
To bad that GOD doesn't exist lol grow up and get a life.
Need I say more about the condescending tone of the general atheist? Thank you for vindicating me. I rest my case.
there is no other purpose other than to survive that is the way life works, life procreates and moves on and does it forever.
So then Im correct, but you just dont want to flat out say it. Even then, you failed to answer the hidden question I pointed out: Why survive? You cant answer. You have no reason to survive, you have no meaning, you have no worth, you have no purpose, and no direction but to ultimately die. I find it difficult to believe that such thoughts are not found as depressing among the general population. That was my entire point.
Yes we are superior after millions of years of evolution we have a right to be. Afterall [sic] we all the only ones that survived. And you asked Why survive well there is alot [sic] of answers to that, but mine is to explorer, and live on.
You have no basis to say youre superior due to the fact that youre alive, since that presupposes that life is better than death. You have no basis to stand on in order to say that from an atheistic point of view (since no ultimate standard exists). And so you have no reason to think youre superior, and thus no reason to feel good about yourself (if you could possibly do so in overlooking the facts that you are without any real worth, direction, purpose, meaning, etc). And you never did answer the question Why survive.
1.man created god so that we could be at the center of the universe.
2.Man got smart enough to understand that god isn't real.
3.Man became god.
4.Some people have a problem understanding science so they will just say its impossible.
5.Science becomes god.
All youre doing now is begging the question and posting out of pure bias instead of backing up your words with reason, and as such, there is no reason to listen to you.
Let us assume, just for a laugh, that the article Jedi quoted to start this thread is correct...
Just for a laugh? Sigh, and people wonder where I get this idea that atheists are often condescending (Especially when one titles himself Professional Scoffer).
However, let us also assume, because we must, that evolutionary theory is the product of scientific observation, and not just some naturalistic philosophy cooked up by a bunch of atheists.
The notions behind the article are not scientifically based. You must realize this. The idea that man is nothing more than a product of blind chance, time, and natural forces and has come this far from primordial soup and has no real meaning, purpose, or direction is
not science.
Can we really afford to toss aside the ToE, just because Carlson and Decker have "proven" that it is psychologically unhealthy?
I simply point out what atheistic/naturalistic evolution says man is, and how it crushes the sense of worth/value/meaning a man generally sees himself as having. I have never said it cant be true, because of this, or anything of that nature.
Then do our personal feelings and need for happiness decide truth instead? Is a theory automatically discounted because it's unpleasant?
No, and I never said otherwise. Re-read my posts and youll see this to be true.
The facts of evolution (that which has been observed and tested) are clear.
You mean the facts of man being nothing more than evolved pond scum from inorganic matter, being a product of blind chance and meaningless natural forces with no direction, purpose, worth, or meaning have been observed and tested? I don t think so.
Call it microevolution if you must.
Microevolution seems to be amongst one of the only strong holds for evolution, since thats immediately where the majority of evolutionists run to in order to find support for their hypothesis that all life emerged from blind evolutionary processes.
If a species can make small changes over a short period of time, why not major changes over a massive period of time? Call it macroevolution.
Because you run into systematic change, and the problem of interdependent parts. You cant keep changing one little piece at a time, no matter whats being changed, and expect the entire system to keep working. This concept wont work on a vehicle, and thats far less complex than even the simplest biological organism.
You sound like you're trying to justify *your* faith, rather than actually make commentary on someone else's.
I would find that hard to do when stating what someone elses belief says to be true.
I have friends and family I enjoy spending time with. There are things I enjoy doing (primarily expressing myself creatively). I enjoy marveling at the wonders of the world, and try, as best I can, to understand them. I have hopes, dreams, and goals for my life.
Thats great, but it doesnt change the fact that atheistic/naturalistic evolution says you are worthless, meaningless, with no purpose or direction. Not to mention that you really dont have hope, dreams, and goals, since those things are nothing but chemical reflexes in your brain (according to atheism/naturalism).
*sigh* The Nazis practiced artificial selection, not natural selection. Learn the difference.
Whats the difference between the Nazis (the strong) taking out the weak (the Jews), and the examples we see in more primitive nature? Its still nothing more than the strong dominating over the weak (and taking over the weaks territory as a result). Not to mention that, without any objective basis of morality, you cant say that the Holocaust was even wrong.
Do you even know what Jihad means?
A holy war to defend Islam.
I suggest learning a little more about the Islamic faith (some world politics wouldn't hurt, either).
Nice attempt at a slam without any reason to back your words up.
(FYI, the Bible talks a lot about killing, you know).
Doing a little research on the people the Hebrews attacked, youll find its them attacking their oppressors (Just like if the Jews had fought back against the Nazis).
As I said, I've found meaning in my life. Just because you can't understand that, doesn't undermine my own personal self worth.
And you have yet to explain how. How do you have meaning? Its nonsensical to expect others to understand how you have meaning when you cant even explain how. According to naturalistic/atheistic evolution, meaning does not exist (neither does love, courage, hope, compassion, and so on, since all of these are mere chemical reflexes within your brain).
The universe will never entropy because it is not a closed system.
Youd have some problem with the first law of Thermodynamics, then (Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Meaning theres no more new energy being inputted into the Universe, and so its a closed system).
Npetreley would have us believe we are nothing more than sheep whose only existance [sic] is to worship and serve a supreme being. Forget reason, forget science, forget advancement - for they mean nothing.
Um, no. Do you know nothing of Christianity? We are told in 1 Peter to be able to give a reason for the hope that we have. Not to mention that the Fathers of modern science believed in God (So I guess believing/revering God doesnt make you an automatic science hater).
However, nothing says that humanity can't stop that from happening.
The first law of Thermodynamics stops him dead in his tracks in clearly stating that energy cannot be created. The amount of useful energy is running out, and once thats gone, its over. Humans would also have to figure out how to overcome this before the sands of time run out. He doesnt have forever.
