Direction of Evolution

[Endtime Survivors]

You are changing the meaning of purpose from earlier posts.

Nope.

Using your new definition, the purpose of evolution is to produce biodiversity and to weed out negative mutations. Therefore, using your new definition there is purpose in evolution.

It's annoying when people do that thing where they pretend something you've said agrees with their point, and they try to run with it... It just feels really cheap, and I know because I've done it before.

 

[Speedwell]

You and the Atheists, eh? Thick as thieves? XD

Right. I don't need to abandon my intellectual integrity to support my faith. I have nothing to fear from atheists, but I believe that the Christian faith has a good deal to fear from YECs.

 

[Endtime Survivors]

The term is used throughout science, and it doesn't carry the connotation of conscious choice.

But, evolution is the topic, not all of science. When evolutionists use words which denote meaning and purpose to describe a theory which inherently rejects intelligence and meaning, they are doing so dishonestly.

It would be like saying, "Hey, I lovingly kicked that guy in the face when he looked at me the wrong way. I'm sure he'll be happy that I've taught him a valuable lesson in manners by showing him all the care my boot has for his face".

 

[Jimmy D]

Sometimes I forget there are people in the world who don't know what it's like to be thirsty.

You seem to be saying that the purpose of weather systems is to provide us something to drink. Could you not equally say that the purpose of evolution is to allow life on Earth to diversify?

Edit: Just noticed LM said a similar thing (but more eloquently)

 

[Endtime Survivors]

Right. I don't need to abandon my intellectual integrity to support my faith. I have nothing to fear from atheists, but I believe that the Christian faith has a good deal to fear from YECs.

*Shrugs*

 

[Endtime Survivors]

You seem to be saying that the purpose of weather systems is to provide us something to drink.

And food, of course. Definitely.

Could you not equally say that the purpose of evolution is to allow life on Earth to diversify?

Sure, I could agree to that, but not on the condition that there is no intelligence behind it all. That would just be stubborn.

 

[Loudmouth]

Nope.

Yep. Using your new definition of purpose, evolution would have purpose from an atheistic point of view.

 

[Speedwell]

*Shrugs*

What should I feel about a sect of Christianity which does not let the truth stand in the way of apologetics?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Sure, I could agree to that, but not on the condition that there is no intelligence behind it all. That would just be stubborn.

Our food and air go down the same pipe part of the way, which allows choking to happen, and our reproductive organs and waste disposal are right next to each other. These are not smart design choices, nor are they necessary.

 

[Endtime Survivors]

These are not smart design choices, nor are they necessary.

*facepalm*

 

[Ophiolite]

*facepalm*

Why do you think they are necessary and smart choices? Remember, the world awaits your reply and posterity will judge you on it.

 

[Endtime Survivors]

Remember, the world awaits your reply

Ahh ha ha just when I was starting to forget how much the world hangs on my words, you had to go and remind me. >.<

But since you're also interested, I'll go ahead and give a response.

Our food and air go down the same pipe part of the way, which allows choking to happen, and our reproductive organs and waste disposal are right next to each other. These are not smart design choices, nor are they necessary.

I want you to use a bit of that rational logic that Atheists are apparently so famous for, and follow the logic to its inevitable conclusion.

Lets say that God does eliminate the problems you've listed. Then what? Surely, choking and placement of internal organs aren't the only problems. Perhaps, you'd make out a list of other problems for God to fix, and let's say he does fix them for you. At some point, you'd get to the end of the list and there would be no more problems for humans at all.

But, since a great deal of the world's problems involve people causing problems for one another, you'd end up with no one being able to cause problems anymore, and then where does that leave you? People unable to make any choice except the right choice, in every circumstance and situation. Congratulations on turning the human race into robots just because you feel indignant that God may expect you to actually confront, challenge, and solve problems rather than complain about them.

One of the leading causes of choking in children is hot dogs, which just happens to be a favorite food for many children. Its cylindrical shape and rounded ends make it a perfect throat plug. This is scientifically verifiable, proven, and repeatable evidence, but that doesn't stop manufacturers, grocery stores, or fast food retailers from profiting off the food. Poor God gets all the blame while humans get all the profit.

I don't get the impression that you care about choking. If I'm wrong about that, I'm fine to hear it, but at the moment it looks more like the only value you see in the argument is in how you can use it to make yourself feel better about your atheism. It's presented as an indictment against God rather than a genuine concern for people and that desire to smother any meaning or purpose behind learning and growing from the problems we face (rather than throwing a tantrum) will always stop you from appreciating just how petty the argument really is.

 

[Endtime Survivors]

What should I feel about a sect of Christianity which does not let the truth stand in the way of apologetics?

I don't think anyone is trying to tell you how to feel about anything. The point I made was that your arguments should be consistent. Don't use words like "control" or "violate" to describe a system which itself does not make any pretense at exercising control or having standards which could be violated.

 

[Ophiolite]

Ahh ha ha just when I was starting to forget how much the world hangs on my words, you had to go and remind me. >.<

But since you're also interested, I'll go ahead and give a response.



I want you to use a bit of that rational logic that Atheists are apparently so famous for, and follow the logic to its inevitable conclusion.

Lets say that God does eliminate the problems you've listed. Then what? Surely, choking and placement of internal organs aren't the only problems. Perhaps, you'd make out a list of other problems for God to fix, and let's say he does fix them for you. At some point, you'd get to the end of the list and there would be no more problems for humans at all.

But, since a great deal of the world's problems involve people causing problems for one another, you'd end up with no one being able to cause problems anymore, and then where does that leave you? People unable to make any choice except the right choice, in every circumstance and situation. Congratulations on turning the human race into robots just because you feel indignant that God may expect you to actually confront, challenge, and solve problems rather than complain about them.

One of the leading causes of choking in children is hot dogs, which just happens to be a favorite food for many children. Its cylindrical shape and rounded ends make it a perfect throat plug. This is scientifically verifiable, proven, and repeatable evidence, but that doesn't stop manufacturers, grocery stores, or fast food retailers from profiting off the food. Poor God gets all the blame while humans get all the profit.

I don't get the impression that you care about choking. If I'm wrong about that, I'm fine to hear it, but at the moment it looks more like the only value you see in the argument is in how you can use it to make yourself feel better about your atheism. It's presented as an indictment against God rather than a genuine concern for people and that desire to smother any meaning or purpose behind learning and growing from the problems we face (rather than throwing a tantrum) will always stop you from appreciating just how petty the argument really is.

I believe this is the second time I have found it necessary to point out to you that I am not an atheist.

I find your automatic association of evolutionary thinking with atheism offensive.

I find your disregard for the belief systems of others offensive.

I find your inability to pay heed to information provided you telling.

I find I shall be happier if I put you on ignore.

 

[Endtime Survivors]

I believe this is the second time I have found it necessary to point out to you that I am not an atheist.

Ahh, you're right. Sorry about that (again). It's just that...you sound like one. I'll try to keep it straight!

I find your automatic association of evolutionary thinking with atheism offensive.

Well, if I'm right, then that kind of automatic thinking would be beneficial, right? I mean, people spend life times training themselves to automatically think in right ways.

But, to clarify, the reason I so strongly associate evolution with Atheism is because they both teach the same basic, fundamental lesson; there is nor ever was, a God. It's not an unreasonable association, right?

SFS earlier said that he believed that God could be behind evolution. I countered that he could be right, but if that were the case it would still not be appropriate to call it evolution. It would be creation. You can still keep all the little fiddly bits regarding genomes etc, except instead of believing there was nothing behind all that complexity, you'd believe there was something. Creation.

I find your disregard for the belief systems of others offensive.

You're not alone. This forum is practically bursting with people who regard disagreement and disregard as synonyms.

I find your inability to pay heed to information provided you telling.

Ya know, I've always wondered what pay heed really means. Say it five times fast and you'll wonder if you're still speaking English.

I find I shall be happier if I put you on ignore.

Fair enough.

 

[Speedwell]

But, to clarify, the reason I so strongly associate evolution with Atheism is because they both teach the same basic, fundamental lesson; there is nor ever was, a God. It's not an unreasonable association, right?

No, it's just offensive slander.

SFS earlier said that he believed that God could be behind evolution. I countered that he could be right, but if that were the case it would still not be appropriate to call it evolution. It would be creation. You can still keep all the little fiddly bits regarding genomes etc, except instead of believing there was nothing behind all that complexity, you'd believe there was something. Creation.

You have never heard of theistic evolutionists?

 

[Endtime Survivors]

You have never heard of theistic evolutionists?

Errr, yeah of course I have. I'm saying it's a misnomer.

 

[Speedwell]

Errr, yeah of course I have. I'm saying it's a misnomer.

Only because you are trying to perpetrate the lie that the theory of evolution denies the existence of God.

The problem is, that the term "creationist" has been tainted by its association with Fundamentalist Protestantism and other Christians don't like to use it.

 

[Loudmouth]

But, since a great deal of the world's problems involve people causing problems for one another, you'd end up with no one being able to cause problems anymore, and then where does that leave you? People unable to make any choice except the right choice, in every circumstance and situation. Congratulations on turning the human race into robots just because you feel indignant that God may expect you to actually confront, challenge, and solve problems rather than complain about them.

What is heaven supposed to be like?

 

[bhsmte]

*Shrugs*

You do realize, a bunch of people disagree with you? Does it bother you?