re: #544 rondeldon

1. The point is not the specific animal, but that we descended from some lower life form by chance. Therefore we I have no more objective meaning or purpose than what we descended from based on survival of the fittest.

2. Not only is mute, but if evolution is true than there is no objective meaning to my life. Objectively our lives my life can’t mean anything more than maggots.

3. Yes, science is mute of morality and evolutionist can only subjectively try to create morality, but what makes your creation of morality superior to the pedophile? (That is self evident to me. I am sorry that it is not to you).

4. Yeah, it is, but the teaching of evolution still has logical consequences. (Any truth has logical consequences, but not all are imagined).

5. Well you should explain how life ultimately came from inanimate stuff? (There are plenty of very solid theories on that and you may well live to see them proven. There could be more than one method. However, that by itself says nothing about how the process went afterwards, which is all that evolution explains)

6. Yes, which is the problem. Based on evolution there is not objective morality. One bag of chemicals has not right to say what another bag of chemicals does is wrong. Is it morally wrong when a male liion enters a pride and kills all the babies of a another male? (Are you aware of the distinction between what we call sentient life and non sentient life?)