Its a huge topic but in the zone of the ultimate arguments, that is the place where the final implication of every argument meet up with eachother, there evolution presupposes that there is no meaning to life, that there is no plan to life, no God, no holiness, no intelligence, no true reason for empathy or charity or good behaviour. Its fine to look at the world and observe that there are changes going on, that there seems to be a progress or at least variations leading somewhere. But its a problem to use that obeservation as a theory for the origin and ultimate destiny of life. Because such a theory would in fact be like saying "the destiny of life is in the hands of man".

The theory of evolution is a variation or implication of the taker way of thinking. How come the Nazis would favour darwinism for example? Is it only because of their social darwinism? No, it was also because a theory that can explain life as a random mutation is really the raison d'etre for one of those fascist buggers. It gives them the argument they need to foster an attitude of solidarity with your own kind, loyalty to the state and imperialism abroad.

Further implications of a theory like this is that it turns the world upside down, life is generated from dead matter. Ethics is generated from principles. Families are sustained by the government. And governments opposes other governments. And so forth. Instead of that what we see as matter comes from the creator making a world of rules for there to be life in. That ethics is a consequence of that we really have the same origin in the divine spark/life. That the government is actually sustained by families. And that governments is the voice of the people and the diplomatic connection with other governments.

What do you think seems the most unavoidable argument of these two; that the world and its living beings such as you and me were generated from a coincidence and random mutation, everything being a result of anarchy.

Or that the world and its living beings such as you and me, trees and oceans, is a hint towards that there is an inherent order to things and in that way things have an original design.

Ultimately, evolution is the theoretical description of a process that is observable in certain types of systems. 

Trying to use it as a basis for ethical action is about as useful as using stories writting in a place far away thousands of years ago (I.E. The Torah, The Bible, The Quran, The Anelects, etc).  The theory might point to some about the way we live, but people with ambitions to power will use it like anything else to justify their inhumane acts.

In terms of the implications of evolution about the ultimate origins of life: I find it pretty impressive that the complexity and diversity of life could rise up out of star dust that is held together by star light, just along some elegantly simple principles, no godhead needed.  On the other hand, I've always found it equally compelling to attribute the genius of a system like natural selection to a godhead; what could be a greater show of divine power than a system that makes itself more complex over time, is self limiting, but always promotes itself?

But what you are saying is that there is a divine command involved, only not in the way you believe how the abrahamic religions explain it or mean it. To think that matter is forming itself into life is a cruel and ridicolous concept. Its the lie that is so extreme that it seems to almost make sense just becayse it is so extreme. Think about it; look at the life around you, the sparks in the eyes of another person or animal, see the quality of this vibrant vitality there, the sensitivity, the intelligence, all the mysterious nature that you can only get to know closer by falling in love with someone. And all that unexplainable mystery is supposed to come from mud without ANY intelligent force WHATSOEVER. Thats all there is, mud. If that would be possible it would indeed be incredible, but only because of how silly it would be. Another implication is that this theory states that human beings are the only intelligent beings in existance. If human beings are the only intelligent ones, and their leaders the supremely intelligent ones, then whats to stop us from dominating the world? Since those of us who become leaders has to be the most intelligent of all, then we have no choice but to follow THEM right? There simply is nothing else, no other intelligence, no superior form of intelligence, only human intelligence. Dont you see the narrowmindedness this implicates?

While you think about that, think also about why there has never been found a single proof for how come there are no intermediary fossils. We know that bacteria isnt evolving, its changing within its own genepool, but it doesnt evolve. Evolution doesnt mean that things gradually change, it means that there is a mechanism for how come one species gets wings and another gets fins or legs. The philosophy of evolution is trying to tell us that life evolved, yet it cant even point to single instance where life truly evolved. It seems to make sense that there are gradual changes within a species over time due to various circumstances and sexual preferences, but a horse does not evolve into a monkey for example. According to the theory of evolution that would be possible, but its not at all what we mean by evolution. A bacteria does not evolve into a fish either. There are gaps between every instance of a new species and noone can show us what came before. Suddenly it was just there. The problem of this philosophy is that it cant explain itself, it can only paint a vidid picture in our imagination to as how it might happend. But there are so much lacking in evidence that the whole idea must be considered with scepticism. Evolutionists ofcource like to joke about creationists and their "God of the gaps" but they are the ones that has to explain why they are using a theory that contains nothing but gaps in it.

But I also understand the problem evolutionists have with understanding or accepting the creationists "bold" claims, and I think that is simply due to ignorance of religion. What is to say for example that time and space is moving along a horizontal axis just because it seems that way? The philosophy of evolution is ofcource structured entirely along a horisontal understanding of existance, and such a view is just taken for granted. The time factor is of the essence in the evolutionary theory, but it seems to have been forgotten. But if time does not move along a horisontal axis then evolution has no backbone because that view is what the theory is dependant upon.

I'm not saying there is or is not a divine hand in evolution, i'm saying I could accept either out come.  I don't know honestly how I would find out if either was truly the case.

Humans are not the only intellegent or sentient life on the planet, but we are the only intellegent life that is over-running the planet. 

Evolution says nothing about our leaders being smarter than the rest of the population, or any leader of any species. 

There are -lots- of intermediary fossils for lots of different life forms.  The human side is the most complete, and the most contested, because we pay the most attention to it.  The problem with using the fossil record is that it is nessicarily incomplete.  Since even the hardest portions organic bodies decay over time in the right conditions, you need to have an animal die in an environment that will preserve it to get a fossil from the animal.  This is a hit or miss proposition all the time, which is why the fossil record is spotty at best.

Evolution -DOES- mean things gradually change in response to environmental stress.  The main mechanism for this is change in gene frequency in the gene pool, with small help from mutation, geneflow, and genetic drift.  This is why bacteria -does- evolve.  The super resistant bacteria that you hear about are a product of evolution in a highly antiseptic environment.  Those bacteria that, by random chance, have a trait that allows them to survive in that environment will continue to multiply and spread their resistant genes while other non-resistant ones die.  This is called micro-evolution.

When micro-evolution continues to favor certain traits over the long term, resulting in a new species, this is called macro-evolution.   This is probably what you are thinking about when you talk about "Horses turning into Monkeys", but this process takes hundreds or thousands of generations of an animal population to happen.  If the organism in question has a very short generation gap... like say a day or an hour, than it is easy to see evolution in action, but if it is more like 20 years, than it starts moving into the realm of short term speculation.

What you can accept or not is not the issue here, Im talking about the implicit meaning to how things are being explained. Evolutionists, just as secularized people in general, are afraid to follow their thoughts to their ultimate conclusion. They do not care, or want to care, or dare to care, about the implications of their arguments.

When I talk with a secular person, or an evolutionist, the arguments are presented in a way that we are to presuppose that what is said is the only thing that is said - at all. That there are no implications of outcomes of their words or of their ideas, but that every argument is an isolated island without any connection to the mainland whatsoever, not even by the ocean floor.

But ofcource there is. There are no isolated islands and there are no isolated arguments. Everything we say carries with it an implicit meaning and "what it will mean in the end". We call that the POINT of an argument.

Whats the point of arguing for evolution then? Well, the implicit meaning is that there is no creator, that there really is no determining factors, that there is no purpose, and that there is no plan or salvation. So the point of arguing for evolution is to argue against creation. It is not a scientific theory, it is a philosophical argument. A nihilistic argument and it is using the "facts" of the "physical" universe to back it up, and yet it even fails to do that. Still its persuasive, because of its seeming simplicity.

The funny thing is that evolutionists dont agree that they are actually engaging in an argument. It is as if they do not understand the conditions under wich they are operating. And I see this constantly in people who talk rubbish. They do not see the conditions under wich they are labouring. They are therefore only arguing from their own subjective standpoint, and nothing else. They dont believe in evidence, they dont believe in reason, they only believe in what favours their own and themselves.

You remember how the taker mythology could use facts to tell us that human beings are meant to be the supreme rulers of the universe, and using the facts of the universe as evidence for this view. The theory of evolution is using the facts of the universe to support the view of atheism. Its not inherently biological research, it is an attempt of an explanation for how come there is life in the world and it is telling us the purpose to this life as well. If you say that life evolved from slime, you are also implicating that in essence, life is slime. And if life is slime, there are no objective values, instead its all a selfish game to get ahead. And convincing as this may seem, why must this view be accepted as truth? And why are alternative views banned in schools and other places? You tell me!

Wow this thread got skewed in the wrong direction. I am not an atheist or a theist myself. I am a life is magnificent and brutal let us make the best of it kind of guy. I do not care about Dawkins radical athesit side only his observations of nature. He may take pot shots at theists, but we all have bias. He even says he regrets the title of the book. This is in fact my only encounter with Dawkins and his work.

 The fact is no one knows 100 % exactly what happened at the beginning of time or the universe.

 Anyways the point from Dawkins book has nothing to do with creating morality based on evolution, but why creatures act the way they do. He gives examples of why civilized life is unsustainable and why animals travel in packs for example which can translate to why humans did so well as tribes. He breaks down a lot more then just humans.

We are obviously discussing different concepts of evolution.  Instead of waiting for you to re-assert your primary argument again, or me to attempt to explain the content of the theory you are pretending to talk about again, I am just going to end the conversation here.

Good Luck on your future ventures.

Interesting technique - dropping the conversation. What youre saying is in effect that since I dont agree with you, you are not gonna talk with me. You seem to say that it is wrong to want to convince someone. But I dont think so. If you could provide a reasonable argument I would listen. Its your role in a discussion/debate to convince, what else could it be about? So are you dropping this conversation because you dont think you can convince me, or because you dont want to be convinced by me? I want you to understand that we have different points of view. And I want you to understand that this is also completely natural and normal in a discussion. So ofcource I am asserting my points of view, but I do it for you. So that you can see better what I mean, so that you can know how to better convince me!

You are misconstruing my purpose and intent, as well as putting words in my mouth. Additionally, you are constructing me as a strawman, and than breaking down ideas and intentions that I do not have. 

This fallicious behavior alone is enough to drop this conversation. 

You shouldnt think of it as making a strawman out of you. You should consider yourself to have the opportunity to correct my misunderstanding of the topic. You have to defend your own point of view, because if you dont, you will mislead me into simply guessing for what you are saying and that wont help neither you nor me.