ecco Posted March 31, 2006 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 163 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/21/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted March 31, 2006 (edited) NewPilgrim: I know the grand purpose in life. Evolution, however, though it does not directly propose a grand purpose is founded on the continual need for procreation and survival, it suggests quite strongly that all life has a drive or a purpose to it and perhaps that purpose is to exist, but it still, to my mind, beggars the larger question on behalf of the unbeliever, if all life that we know of is geared up to its own continual existence, why should it be so? especially given the core-theme that the existence of the universe was a random and unprovoked event which came from nothing. Once again, you are equating evolution with Edited March 31, 2006 by ecco Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotJohn Posted April 1, 2006 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 24 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/14/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 06/05/1981 Author Share Posted April 1, 2006 I have just spent about an hour reading every post here, and I have another question for those of you who support evolution. Every single one of you has claimed that the genetic mutations that produce evolution are random, but then elsewhere claim that some species ceased to evolve because they found a "niche" and no longer had to. How can this be? Are they random or not? Also, ecco, you seem to be giving very little rational debate, and instead concentrating on maligning the character of us blind, foolish Christians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecco Posted April 1, 2006 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 163 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/21/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted April 1, 2006 ecco Belief in evolution and belief in a god are not mutually exclusive. Belief in evolution and a literal belief in Genesis are mutually exclusive. Probably one of the biggest lies of the Anti-evolution movement is to tie evolution to atheism. While it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecco Posted April 1, 2006 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 163 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/21/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted April 1, 2006 NotJohn: I have just spent about an hour reading every post here, and I have another question for those of you who support evolution. Every single one of you has claimed that the genetic mutations that produce evolution are random, but then elsewhere claim that some species ceased to evolve because they found a "niche" and no longer had to. How can this be? Are they random or not? Have I used the term random? Two children born of the same parents have many of the characteristics of both parents but are at the same time different. Is this random? Does it matter? Let Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justme7 Posted April 1, 2006 Group: Junior Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 94 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/31/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/28/1978 Share Posted April 1, 2006 As I was praying last night, a thought about evolution popped into my head. If those who feel they must deny the existence of God (in order to feel better about the anarchy in their hearts, I think) insist that evolution created life, and humans were formed over billions of years from single celled organisms (I'm sure we have all seen the diagrams...an amoeba becoming a jellyfish, becoming a fish, becoming an amphibian, etc. etc.), then whay are there still amoebas?? Why are there still fish? If every creature is always changing and evolving into a more efficient form, then why aren't there only people on this earth? That certainly makes no sense. seems like good reasoning to me. it was on this basis exactly that my heart disgarded the theory of evolution entirely. if men used to be monkeys, why then, are there monkeys still...who by the way do not seem to be turnining into men. that completely discredits the whole theory in my eyes. i suppose men will always try to explain away comfortably the things that are and have been so that they do not have to struggle with those things they cannot understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bread_of_Life Posted April 1, 2006 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 22 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 872 Content Per Day: 0.12 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/17/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/24/1981 Share Posted April 1, 2006 I never said it was a conspiracy, I prefer to call it a dilusion. Half life is still widely based on assumptions. No-one has study the decay of an atom over 10 million years, I refer you to my marathon runner. ewwwwwww! Please! Don't do physics badly around me! The determination of half life is certainly not based on assumptions, but rather on direct observation of the radioactivity of substances. Euurhghghghg, I can go through the maths of how it's done if you want, from activity to half life... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecco Posted April 1, 2006 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 163 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/21/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted April 1, 2006 justme7 seems like good reasoning to me. it was on this basis exactly that my heart disgarded the theory of evolution entirely. if men used to be monkeys, why then, are there monkeys still...who by the way do not seem to be turnining into men. that completely discredits the whole theory in my eyes. i suppose men will always try to explain away comfortably the things that are and have been so that they do not have to struggle with those things they cannot understand. But men didn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecco Posted April 1, 2006 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 163 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/21/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted April 1, 2006 (edited) HorizonEast: Okay Edited April 1, 2006 by ecco Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecco Posted April 1, 2006 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 163 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/21/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted April 1, 2006 ecco As you apparently know, Marcion rejected the use of the OT as part of Christian scripture. Had the Marcionite Christian church succeeded instead of the Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotJohn Posted April 2, 2006 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 24 Content Per Day: 0.00 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/14/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 06/05/1981 Author Share Posted April 2, 2006 NotJohn: I have just spent about an hour reading every post here, and I have another question for those of you who support evolution. Every single one of you has claimed that the genetic mutations that produce evolution are random, but then elsewhere claim that some species ceased to evolve because they found a "niche" and no longer had to. How can this be? Are they random or not? Have I used the term random? Two children born of the same parents have many of the characteristics of both parents but are at the same time different. Is this random? Does it matter? NotJohn: Also, ecco, you seem to be giving very little rational debate, and instead concentrating on maligning the character of us blind, foolish Christians. Sorry if I have offended anyone, that is not my intent. I didn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts