spring wrote:
Well, it looked like you were a religionist of some kind because you said you don't think the theory of evolution is an established theory. It is and only the religious fanatics/fundamentalists (and uneducated/uninformed people) who pooh-pooh the theory, and I didn't think you were in the latter group, but now I don't know.
That is just it, I do think of it as a thoery. no more no less...
its not only religious fanatics that have issue with us comming from rocks
There are many huge holes in the theory. There have been many hoaxes pawned off as science so some researcher could get his name in a book. There are two ways of looking at things (at least two) most of the time. Most people arn't after the truth but they are trying to make the facts fit their theory. This is a conflict of interest. Since I stopped trying to force facts to fit my view I have been ablel to see a lot of holes in things I blieve and am more open to admiting I'm wrong.
My whole point is evolutino is a thoery. if you believe this then we have no disagreement.
How is it that one species can give birth to another? Most people have been lead to believe that genetic mutations start this. My problem with that is that there has never been an example given of a beneficial mutation that would make one fitter to survive.
Every thing you say (Spring) as defence of eveolution is your side. There is another side as well as the truth. What I mean is most arguments have three sides...and the truth is usually somewhere in the middle. I have seen read old studies that based the age of something on layers. They said the layers where years, only to find out later that the layers where just caused by hot and cold climate changes. Radiometric dating assumes that conditinos have always been the same. I think at one point the atmosphere was radically differnet.
These are just a few examples of things that people on the other side of the argument believe. some of these people would call people like you naive, at the same time you imply they are naive with their blind faith.
I don't want to start a pointless debate about if evolution (I mean creation of new species) is real, it wouldn't convice many people and I don't think you or I would change our views, so it would waslte ou time. I just want to say that it isn't fair to start posting 'facts' when their is no one to give a rebuttle. I'm not that person... I don't have the time or energy to participate in a full fair debate. I just felt like you where demeaning anyone who opposed you. I dont' know if you can agree with this but I think niether you nor I really know for sure how life started and came to its present condition. There are way too many unknows.
If I came across aggressive when I said you consider people who belive differently 'dillusional' then I oppologize. But just for the record, do you consider people who believe in creation dillusional? Im' not accusing just asking. The reason I said that, is because it seemed that way to me.
A person who believes in creationism is doing so out of faith, and not out of scientifical proof. I might believe that God created me exactly the way I am, and that I did not evolve from less complex life forms and so on; however, one must realize that this is not a belief that is supported by science, just like believing that the universe centers around Earth is not supported by science.
Each person has a right to believe whatever he or she wants, but that does not mean that all ideas are supported by science. There is a consensus within contemporary Biology based on the scientifical method, that evolution is a process that can be viewed as a tree with a vast system of branches spreading in every direction (this model has come to replace the somwhat biased ladder). Humans can be represented as one such branch, and have gone through each stage leading up to that branch. Obviously this is a controversial idea among religious people holding on to certain beliefs involving God as a creator and so on, but to say that the idea is controversial from a strictly scientifical standpoint would be a vast exaggeration I am afraid.
Again - everyone has a right to believe whatever he or she wants, but I do not think that neglecting results that are collected through the scientifical method would be a wise idea. I am not saying that this is something you are trying to do, johndela1 - however, this is certainly a general problem within the creationist camp, from my experience.
I'm saying that you could argue that evolutin isn't fully supported by real science. You may not personally agree with that agrument. I am free to judge the eviidence towards the 'proof' of evolution. I have seen many many debates for and against evolution and currently do not believe that we came from rocks.
The 'scientific proof' as many put isnt' univerally accepted by all scientists in the same way (if at all, in some cases)
There are big jumps made that is why it is called the *theory* of evolution. You choose to believe it others dont', it can't be proven absoutly; it is a theory.
It's just not fair to say evolution is sciense creationism isn't. There are many scientists who believe that the 'facts' point toward something other then evolution. Just as there are many who believe the 'facts' poing toward evoltuion. Both sides (in many cases) use some science to get these views, but both sides absoulty use faith to make the statement that they know how life began. The bottom line is we have many scientficly gathered data, and some of us interpret them and extrapolate differently.
Haha, what with all the discussion and arguing that has gone down in this thread, it is kind of sad to establish that Oscar's picture is the one thing that has made most sense so far.
The meaning of life is much to ambiguous of a question to really take seriously.
Define 'meaning'
Define 'life'
I'm surprised no one has brought up the existential philosophy, that 'existence' is a precursor to 'essence', which pretty much means that an individual creates it's own purpose. Since the purpose of whatever created us (our mother's egg, and our father's sperm) has been accomplished, really we're just left to do whatever we want.
People always confuse the MOL question with 'why are we here', which is much more simple. We're here because our parents had sex (how naughty of them).
Also, the concept of 'purpose', or 'meaning', is relative. When a person (or animal, or plant) has a purpose, it is always to accomplish an objective. Of course there is a purpose for accomplishing said objective, which is to. . . etc.
Put another way, what is the purpose of the bacteria that grew under my armpit after I wore the same sweater and didn't shower for a month; (if you are asking the meaning of life, you include all life forms, so stinky armpit bacteria counts).
We know why it is there, moisture buildup in a dark warm environment; I guess there was bacteria in our sweat to begin with?
So is it's 'purpose' to smell bad and stop me from getting girls' phone numbers? Or is it's purpose to stop be from getting boys' phone numbers? Or maybe it's purpose is to build a time machine and travel to the distant future, and give the future people a map which will help them find a superior bronze alloy.
In that case, the bacteria is not likely to accomplish it's meaning. You could say it is destined to fail. And what if it does fail? What are the consequences; really no different than if that had not been it's purpose; either way the people in the future are not getting that map.
"the purpose is not to disengage from the physical universe. the purpose is to manifest the essence of what you are so completely that you are an aspect of the creation of the physical universe."
Well, I believe that the problem of this question is the word "the".
"The" inclines that there exist an universal meaning of life. And if there exist a universal meaning there must be a universal god. It's clear that if there exist a universal meaning of life, not everybody got the message (Otherwise this topic should have been much shorter... ) I believe that if there exist a universal meaning of life, there must be something like a universal god. And since I don't believe in a universal god, I don't believe in an universal meaning of life.
I think everyone have to give their own meaning to life.
