The Theory of Evolution is supported by the evidence.

[Danmac]

Remove the "nothing more than" and you're bang on.


Yep, all us atheists are selfish. You clearly know what you're talking about.

Seriously, just because we don't believe in your idea of a God does not mean we're selfish or self-obsessed. If anything, the fact that you use the idea of God to make yourself feel superior via "being created as a higher form of life" shows that your belief in a God is far more self-serving than our disbelief.

Love that is generated by affection is not love but selfish. Agape love that is self sacrificing is of God.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I suppose if we agree with macroevolution, then we also must agree that humans are nothing more than animals separated by time.

There is no such thing as "macroevolution". It is simply evolution over a larger scale of time. And yes, your conclusion is correct - man is nothing more than an animal that has become more highly evolved over time.

But if we agree that humans were created as a higher form of life than all other living creatures, then we must acknowledge a God.

So, creationism really is about God, and the very idea of Intelligent Design is nothing more than a ruse to disguise creationism. Got it.

But then the atheist would have to take issue with his or her own lack. Herein lies the problem. There is only room for one God in the life of an atheist and that would be self.

What "lack" do you speak of? Why would an atheist see a problem in rejecting the idea of creationism, rather than accepting evolution?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I believe that lies can possess an element of truth. How else could they be appealing to the serious seeker?

... and you demonstrate (quite clearly) that you are willing to accept an element of truth, as long as you don't have to truly examine your religious beliefs. Before you cross that line, you simply shut off any further investigation.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Love that is generated by affection is not love but selfish. Agape love that is self sacrificing is of God.

I fail to see any of your claim that "humans are a higher form of life" is anything like self-sacrifice. It's clearly a baseless assertion, and the only reason you have for making it is because you simply don't like the idea of being an animal - no different, fundamentally, to any other.

Well, maybe you need that. But I don't. I know we're animals - every one of us. Every other animal on the planet is merely a life form generated by a different population of our ancestors. And guess what? That thought has never made me selfish, deluded, dishonest, hateful or angry.

Admit it. The only reason you have for rejecting evolution is your selfish personal bias against being anything other than a "higher form of life" given the benefit of divine right purely by default. You're the one who is selfish, not us.

 

[DeitySlayer]

I suppose if we agree with macroevolution, then we also must agree that humans are nothing more than animals separated by time.

I think he's finally got it.

By the way, Danmac, applying terms like 'micro' and 'macro' evolution is incredibly stupid. All they describe is different timescales; the underlying mechanisms are the same. If you accept the first, you accept the second. Accepting the first and not the second is like claiming you can walk to your front gate but not to the bus stop.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Love that is generated by affection is not love but selfish.

What does that mean?

Agape love that is self sacrificing is of God.

That statement is both self serving and assumes it's own conclusion.

 

[painted wolf]

I cannot completely disagree with that. The Bible itself says that man was formed from the dust. I'm sure there is a more scientific term than dust, but that is the term the Bible uses. I don't think it is a coincidence that human kind is dependent upon things that come from the ground for sustenance. I do however take issue with the one common ancestor for all living creatures.

I don't think it's coincidence that humans are genetically closer to some animals than to others... and that this pattern holds up not only for other species but through time in the fossil record and so on. I can't fathom that God would give us all this evidence and the intelligence to find it only to have that evidence be fake, that would make God dishonest. And I don't think God was so lazy that he just used a cookie cutter DNA template to make all life.

Evolution says nothing about the soul of humanity, how it came to be or how it sets us apart from the rest of creation.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

I suppose if we agree with macroevolution, then we also must agree that humans are nothing more than animals separated by time.

Only in body... it says nothing about our souls.

But if we agree that humans were created as a higher form of life than all other living creatures, then we must acknowledge a God.

Or aliens... which even Intelligent Design advocates imply is possible.

But then the atheist would have to take issue with his or her own lack. Herein lies the problem. There is only room for one God in the life of an atheist and that would be self.

I'm not going to go into the motivations of atheists, I'm sure they will speak for themselves.

wa:do

 

[tarasan]

I don't think it's coincidence that humans are genetically closer to some animals than to others... and that this pattern holds up not only for other species but through time in the fossil record and so on. I can't fathom that God would give us all this evidence and the intelligence to find it only to have that evidence be fake, that would make God dishonest. And I don't think God was so lazy that he just used a cookie cutter DNA template to make all life.

Evolution says nothing about the soul of humanity, how it came to be or how it sets us apart from the rest of creation.

wa:do

well maybe our God is lazy.... and dishonest!

take that science!!! :areyoucra

 

[Danmac]

I fail to see any of your claim that "humans are a higher form of life" is anything like self-sacrifice. It's clearly a baseless assertion, and the only reason you have for making it is because you simply don't like the idea of being an animal - no different, fundamentally, to any other.

Well, maybe you need that. But I don't. I know we're animals - every one of us. Every other animal on the planet is merely a life form generated by a different population of our ancestors. And guess what? That thought has never made me selfish, deluded, dishonest, hateful or angry.

If human are animals then maybe we should prosecute anyone who kills an animal. Maybe we should arrest a pack of hyenas for stealing a carcass from a lion. Or maybe we should adopt the law of the animal kingdom. Every animal for himself. Do you think we should kill off humans in overpopulated areas and package the meat for market? Why not? After all were just animals. Why should humans have preeminence over the animal kingdom?

Admit it. The only reason you have for rejecting evolution is your selfish personal bias against being anything other than a "higher form of life" given the benefit of divine right purely by default. You're the one who is selfish, not us.

If I thought I was an animal I suppose I should act like one. Why is it that we want to throw those humans in jail who do act like animals?

 

[painted wolf]

If human are animals then maybe we should prosecute anyone who kills an animal. Maybe we should arrest a pack of hyenas for stealing a carcass from a lion. Or maybe we should adopt the law of the animal kingdom. Every animal for himself. Do you think we should kill off humans in overpopulated areas and package the meat for market? Why not? After all were just animals. Why should humans have preeminence over the animal kingdom?

You seem to have an odd notion what animals are like... All social animals have a set of moral rules that they obey, why should humans be any different?

wa:do

 

[DeitySlayer]

If human are animals then maybe we should prosecute anyone who kills an animal. ?

Humans are omnivores by nature. We evolved to eat meat. As long as the animal is killed humanely and for the purpose of consumption, I see no problem in this.

Or maybe we should adopt the law of the animal kingdom. Every animal for himself. Do you think we should kill off humans in overpopulated areas and package the meat for market? Why not?

Because we don't need to. There's more than enough resources to go round.

If I thought I was an animal I suppose I should act like one. Why is it that we want to throw those humans in jail who do act like animals

Animals do not act out of hate, revenge or religious motivation. They act for survival. We do not prosecute others who kill in self defense. We do not prosecute those who steal to live.

 

[Valjean]

Good point, Danmac. It's wrong for one species of ape to exploit other species or powerless members of his own.
"Act like animals?" You imply an ethologic homogeneity I'm unaware of.

 

[Valjean]

Humans are omnivores by nature. We evolved to eat meat. As long as the animal is killed humanely and for the purpose of consumption, I see no problem in this.

Yes, we evolved as omnivores, but, for some reason, we also developed concepts of right and wrong; of morality.

Where do you draw the line? We're overpopulated. A case could be made for harvesting 'non contributing' humans for food. It would benefit both society and the planet.

I assume everyone would take issue with this. But what principles would one cite to discredit it that would not also apply to animals?
Morality must be consistent.

 

[DeitySlayer]

Yes, we evolved as omnivores, but, for some reason, we also developed concepts of right and wrong; of morality.

Where do you draw the line? We're overpopulated. A case could be made for harvesting 'non contributing' humans for food. It would benefit both society and the planet.

I assume everyone would take issue with this. But what principles would one cite to discredit it that would not also apply to animals?
Morality must be consistent.

I believe that every human, by their sentience and ability to feel pain and emotion, is gifted with an innate right to life. Similarly with great apes, primates, cetaceans, elephants and certain bird species. I hold the belief that no sentient species should be killed in any other case than self defence.

We are overpopulated, but overpopulation poses a far less threat to humanity than the rampant destruction and degradation of the environment. Stopping this would benefit the planet far more.

 

[Valjean]

The 'rampant destruction and degradation of the environment' is a product of overpopulation.
I say eat 'em all!

 

[Gunfingers]

Wow, we're getting all Jonathan Swift up in here.

 

[DeitySlayer]

The 'rampant destruction and degradation of the environment' is a product of overpopulation.
I say eat 'em all!

It's a cycle which was started by the destruction and degradation. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, natural death kept the human population rising at a minimal rate. It was the mining of coal that drove population growth, which then drove further degradation to fuel the booming population, which drove further population growth...

But the initial 'leap' would not have occurred had human beings not ripped up the ground for coal and metal.

 

[painted wolf]

actually it was combination of factors...like sterile techniques, antibiotics and vaccines... modern farming practices and canning.
Fossil fuels didn't drive all of it.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

The 'rampant destruction and degradation of the environment' is a product of overpopulation.

not really... it's driven by the over consumption of a handful of powerful less populated nations. Bangladesh is more populated than the USA, yet the average American consumes more than ten times the resources as the average Bangladeshi.

I'll see if I can find the numbers if you are interested.

wa:do