Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals.

You know this would also be true if God made them by magic, right? (Or if you can prove otherwise, this would prove the non-existence of God.) So this is not a point about evolution as such. We are much more than a little bit like bananas.

Are you suggesting that non-intelligently designed beings couldn't have such qualities? Surely you're not suggesting that your God would not be capable of imagination, planning, designing and constructing etc.? Perhaps it occurs to some of those atheists that intelligent design can't be a pre-requisite for the existence of intelligence. You seem to be arguing that it is. Bizarre.

Yes, and we both agree that they were wrong. I've said this several times now, you don't seem to be noticing. And yet we both agree that they were wrong. And if you asked 100 random people in the street, you'd get 100 similar responses. How can that be? It seems to me we have a way of deciding what's right and what's wrong. Perhaps you could ponder this one?What is the difference between mass murder and what consenting adults do when they love each other?I suggest the difference is that one is harmful to society and is therefore universally agreed to be wrong whilst the other is not and is merely the dogma of a religious cult. So when the dogma is no longer accepted by society, it's put aside as either irrelevant to the well-being of the people or actually harmful to them.

We are extreemly close in appearance, behaviour and etc. Our major divergence is our brain. We've had 7 million years to develop that. I think this is a question for you. The national genome research institute found that we share 60% of our genome with bananas and more with a fruit fly. Biology say this is because all life depends on similar processes and has evolved from common ancestors therefore organisms will have many points of smilarity in its DNA.You however, claim that humans are specially created. Why are we not 100% different from both apes and bananas? Why is there any similarity at all?

Well, that would be the conclusion from their theology. Their god is perfect and always does whatever is the absolute best. In any situation, there is one absolute best course of action. Ergo, their god has no free will, and planning would be a useless trait. It's not even clear whether their god is even a conscious being.

Okay, I'm trying to understand why being "just a collection" of atoms implies that we can't come up with our own meanings in life.I mean, it's like saying that all paintings are just collections of atoms so that one is just as good as the other. Or do fundamentalists need God to tell them which paintings are beautiful?

Hey man, the code for quoting is really easy. If you type: [qs]quotes are easy[/qs]or [quote]quotes are easy[/quote]Then it'll become: or

quote:

---

quotes are easy

---

Plus, you can use the Peek button at the bottom right to see what syntax I inputted into the text box to submit. Our minds are capable of both producing and experiencing meaning - regardless of how they came about. And I like tacos...What are you talking about?

There is usually a pretty easy test. Treat the offender as they treat others, and see if they like it. If you think you can decide who another person is allowed to love, then see how you like it when others decide who you are allowed to love. Why? The 50% is probably way misleading, but we are still eukaryotes, just like bananas are.

An argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy.

We have minds so we can determine what the meaning of our lives will be. Why is that such a problem for you?

How does someone bigger than you telling you what to do give your life meaning?If I make a child laugh by making a funny face, and I do that without being told to by someone bigger than me, why does that make my life meaningless?

Ha ha! I'm sure that you meant, "We have minds; therefore we can determine our own meanings."But the second time I read it, it somehow got interpreted in my mind as, "We were given minds for the purpose of determining our own meanings."Food for thought, theists!

Well, would you rather be like a battery hen, whose life has a purpose, or a hawk flying free on the wind with no-one to please but itself? Obviously the battery hen has a nobler destiny.

Thanks for the tip on using the quote system; it's different to what I'm used to.

We share 60% of our DNA with bananas and even more with fruit flys - this helps to understand why humans and chimps are so different despite them sharing 98.8% of their each other's DNA. And it means humans and chimps may not be anywhere nearly as closely related to each other as the 98.8% figure suggests - and evolutionists would have us believe.
Time and time again, if you chip away at many evolutionists' claims, you find that they are hollow and phoney - fake science concocted by con-men and charlatans.