If Evolution is true what is purpose of life?

[icebreaker]

I am not one to state facts proving creationism or evolution but I started to think about it on my level.

If evolution is true then I am here by chance and not made for any specific reason besides mabye to contiue my species. If it is true then I should be fearful of death beceause it is the end but then again I should careless because this life doesnt mean anything anyway.

I am born put into school and then I am told if I want a decent living then I must go to college so that I can work at a good job. After all my long hours of hard work and studying I eventually die with all the pointless things that I did but in the end had no meaning.

If I was an evolution scientiest and spent all my time trying to prove evolution then I would be trying to let others know that there is no reason for them to be here and that there life means nothing its just an accident or by chance.

Although salmon have a big purpose in the ecosystem etc.. would they do this if they could understand what they were doing? They migrate back up stream
to where they were born and reproduce and then eventially die. Not much of a life if you ask me.

If evolution is true why do we care about others. Why do we spend so much money through government etc.. to help people when in the end they really dont mean anything except hurt the enviroment etc... Why should I care about the people around me since we are here by chance and I really should only care about myself but then why do I even care about myself since it doesnt mean anything?

With Christianity atleast I have hope for what happens to me after death. I can experience great love and happiness helping others(yes even if you believe evolutionists can experience this) and understand that I was created for a specific purpose and by a God that greatly loves me. My life has great meaning. I dont have to fear what happens to me when I die.

I believe with all my heart that God is real but lets say for some reason none of it is real then I die just like the rest of the world and thats it.



Besides what is the purpose of life as an evolutionist? How have all the religions come along doesnt that show that something must have happened in the past or were they all just trying to figure out why they were here and that sounded the best? from an evolutionist understanding??

Thanks

 

[Ondoher]

I am not one to state facts proving creationism or evolution but I started to think about it on my level.

If evolution is true then I am here by chance and not made for any specific reason besides mabye to contiue my species. If it is true then I should be fearful of death beceause it is the end but then again I should careless because this life doesnt mean anything anyway.

I am born put into school and then I am told if I want a decent living then I must go to college so that I can work at a good job. After all my long hours of hard work and studying I eventually die with all the pointless things that I did but in the end had no meaning.

If I was an evolution scientiest and spent all my time trying to prove evolution then I would be trying to let others know that there is no reason for them to be here and that there life means nothing its just an accident or by chance.

Although salmon have a big purpose in the ecosystem etc.. would they do this if they could understand what they were doing? They migrate back up stream
to where they were born and reproduce and then eventially die. Not much of a life if you ask me.

If evolution is true why do we care about others. Why do we spend so much money through government etc.. to help people when in the end they really dont mean anything except hurt the enviroment etc... Why should I care about the people around me since we are here by chance and I really should only care about myself but then why do I even care about myself since it doesnt mean anything?

With Christianity atleast I have hope for what happens to me after death. I can experience great love and happiness helping others(yes even if you believe evolutionists can experience this) and understand that I was created for a specific purpose and by a God that greatly loves me. My life has great meaning. I dont have to fear what happens to me when I die.

I believe with all my heart that God is real but lets say for some reason none of it is real then I die just like the rest of the world and thats it.



Besides what is the purpose of life as an evolutionist? How have all the religions come along doesnt that show that something must have happened in the past or were they all just trying to figure out why they were here and that sounded the best? from an evolutionist understanding??

Thanks

This is my purpose in life:

Any questions?

 

[Mr. Ex Nihilo]

But he raises some interesting points. Perhaps what evolutio says is that it's a miracle we're alive. That could be seen by either an athiest or a person of faith.

 

[Freodin]

Sidenote: Evolution is not Atheism. You can believe in a meaningfull eternal life with God even if you think Evolution was the way he used to make life what it is today.

But what Euryale was so harshly pointing out, Evolution does simply not deal with the meaning of life.

Religions may ask: why are we here - Evolution simply asks: what happened so that we are here. It is about causes, not reasons.

But after all: what is "meaning"? Sooner or later, you will reach a point where the meaning of existence is existing.
Christians reach that point with Heaven and Eternity. Buddhists reach it in the existence of non-existence. Atheists may reach it in temporal existence now.

Personally I think that the question for a meaning of life is about as meaningful as asking after the colour of language.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Complete drivel. Nevertheless...

I am not one to state facts proving creationism or evolution but I started to think about it on my level.

Well, what exactly is "your level" and what makes it different from anyone else's?

If evolution is true then I am here by chance and not made for any specific reason besides mabye to contiue my species. If it is true then I should be fearful of death beceause it is the end but then again I should careless because this life doesnt mean anything anyway.

Sounds more like nihilism, not evolution.
Did you mean to click on the Philosophy forum?

I am born put into school and then I am told if I want a decent living then I must go to college so that I can work at a good job. After all my long hours of hard work and studying I eventually die with all the pointless things that I did but in the end had no meaning.

Maybe so, maybe no.
If that is the case, what are you going to do about it? Cry?

And what has this to do with evolution?

If I was an evolution scientiest and spent all my time trying to prove evolution then I would be trying to let others know that there is no reason for them to be here and that there life means nothing its just an accident or by chance.

If you were an evolution scientist, you'd most likely have a better understanding of evolution than this.

Although salmon have a big purpose in the ecosystem etc.. would they do this if they could understand what they were doing? They migrate back up stream
to where they were born and reproduce and then eventially die. Not much of a life if you ask me.

Notice the line break where it obviously doesn't belong; a telltale sign of a cut-and-paste job.

If evolution is true why do we care about others. Why do we spend so much money through government etc.. to help people when in the end they really dont mean anything except hurt the enviroment etc... Why should I care about the people around me since we are here by chance and I really should only care about myself but then why do I even care about myself since it doesnt mean anything?

If evolution is true (and every scrap of evidence we've discovered thus far says it is), then your questions here would be completely irrelevent.

With Christianity atleast I have hope for what happens to me after death. I can experience great love and happiness helping others(yes even if you believe evolutionists can experience this) and understand that I was created for a specific purpose and by a God that greatly loves me. My life has great meaning. I dont have to fear what happens to me when I die.

So be a Christian evolutionist and get the best of both worlds: Intellectual honesty AND hope for a utopian afterlife.

Geez, some people just don't see the simple answers...

I believe with all my heart that God is real but lets say for some reason none of it is real then I die just like the rest of the world and thats it.

You've got the first half of Pascal's Wager; might as well threaten us with hellfire and make it complete.

Besides what is the purpose of life as an evolutionist? How have all the religions come along doesnt that show that something must have happened in the past or were they all just trying to figure out why they were here and that sounded the best? from an evolutionist understanding??

The theory of evolution will not provide a meaning to your life.

Neither will Atomic theory, germ theory, the theory of gravity, or the theory of relativity.

Looks like you're going to have to find a meaning on your own.

I'm not worried; you sound like a bright boy; you'll come up with something.

Thanks

You're welcome.

 

[Mr. Ex Nihilo]

Totally pointless OP. This nonsense you posted has NOTHING to do with evolution.

Yet, sometimes the theory of evolution has led others away from faith rather violently.

For example, Trotsky was mesmerized by Charles Darwin's Origin of Species. He said: “Darwin stood for me like a mightly doorkeeper at the entrance to the temple of the universe.” He said that Darwin's ideas “intoxicated” him. And he could not understand in the slightest how belief in God could find room in the same head as belief in Darwin's ideas.

Russian dictator and revolutionist, Joseph Stalin, was studying at Tiflis Theological Seminary when he started to read the works of Charles Darwin. One of his friends later said in a book that when Stalin read Darwin he became an atheist. At the age of 19, Stalin was expelled from the theological seminary because of his revolutionary connections.

Of course, Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler endorsed a program in Germany to breed a superior race. The scheme was based on a horrific evolutionary theory called “eugenics” that was founded by Charles Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton. The idea of eugenics was to improve the human race using principles promoted in the theory of evolution.

Obviously, not all people are affected by the theory of evolution in this way. More to the point, the three examples I posted above seemed to be lose cannons well before they read the theory of evolution. These were evil men period (and, to be fair, I'm sure many could cite ways in which religion has sparked holocausts in their own right -- note: Africa, Germany, Ireland, etc..). However, I do beleive it is worthy of studying further to see if there is an inherent pattern observed with this theory.

 

[Smidlee]

But he raises some interesting points. Perhaps what evolutio says is that it's a miracle we're alive. That could be seen by either an athiest or a person of faith.

I agree he made some interesting points yet to be fair this could apply a lot more than just to evolution. In Ecclesiastes, Solomon cover this issue for all sides including religion and science. Some what like Jeopardy he first gives the response then the question?. Ecc1:2 " Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher,vanity of vanities; all is vanity. v3 " What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun?" ( notice the rest of the book is about dealing with this question. Often verses from Eccesiastes are taking out of context)

 

[Mr. Ex Nihilo]

I agree he made some interesting points yet to be fair this could apply a lot more than just to evolution.

I agree.

In Ecclesiastes, Solomon cover this issue for all sides including religion and science. Some what like Jeopardy he first gives the response then the question?. Ecc1:2 " Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher,vanity of vanities; all is vanity. v3 " What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun?" ( notice the rest of the book is about dealing with this question. Often verses from Eccesiastes are taking out of context)

Could you explain this further? I'm not sure how this relates to the application above (ie., ...apply a lot more than just to evolution.)

 

[Event Horizon]

I am not one to state facts proving creationism or evolution but I started to think about it on my level.

If evolution is true then I am here by chance

False. Evolution does not operate solely on chance.

and not made for any specific reason besides mabye to contiue my species. If it is true then I should be fearful of death beceause it is the end but then again I should careless because this life doesnt mean anything anyway.

Evolution has nothing to do with the afterlife. To point out the silliness of this statement replace "it" with gravity. Evolution also doesn't mean you shouldn't care about anything.

I am born put into school and then I am told if I want a decent living then I must go to college so that I can work at a good job. After all my long hours of hard work and studying I eventually die with all the pointless things that I did but in the end had no meaning.

Again, no relevance to evolution.

If I was an evolution scientiest and spent all my time trying to prove evolution then I would be trying to let others know that there is no reason for them to be here and that there life means nothing

What does that have to do with science or more specifically evolution?

its just an accident or by chance.

Again, not all by chance. That's a typical creationist misconception.

Although salmon have a big purpose in the ecosystem etc.. would they do this if they could understand what they were doing? They migrate back up stream
to where they were born and reproduce and then eventially die. Not much of a life if you ask me.

The point?

If evolution is true why do we care about others.

We are social animals. Think what it would be like if we didn't care about others and you'll have your answer.

Why do we spend so much money through government etc.. to help people when in the end they really dont mean anything except hurt the enviroment etc... Why should I care about the people around me since we are here by chance

People are born and concieved by chance all the time.

and I really should only care about myself but then why do I even care about myself since it doesnt mean anything?

The evolutionary benefit of caring is obvious. We wouldn't even have a fully functioning society today if we didn't.

With Christianity atleast I have hope for what happens to me after death.

I think you are operating on the assumption you must be an atheist to believe in evolution. That's, again, as insane as saying you must be an atheist to believe in gravity.

I can experience great love and happiness helping others(yes even if you believe evolutionists can experience this)

The majority of Christians realise evolution is a natural true process.

and understand that I was created for a specific purpose and by a God that greatly loves me. My life has great meaning. I dont have to fear what happens to me when I die.

I believe with all my heart that God is real but lets say for some reason none of it is real then I die just like the rest of the world and thats it.



Besides what is the purpose of life as an evolutionist?

Again, you are thinking only atheists believe in evolution. It isn't about religion or god or anything supernatural. It's all about studying evidence and coming to conclusion. Evolution and gravity are some of those conclusions. Most of the modern world believes in evolution (no matter what religion they belong to) and it has been a long accepted fact in the scientific community.

How have all the religions come along doesnt that show that something must have happened in the past or were they all just trying to figure out why they were here and that sounded the best?

They didn't have an answer nor the means to get one. "Goddidit" to every unanswered question back then was easily and fast while being the only answer they could come up with.

from an evolutionist understanding??

Thanks

You don't have many theistic evolutionistic friends do you?

 

[Freodin]

Yet, sometimes the theory of evolution has led others away from faith rather violently.

For example, Trotsky was mesmerized by Charles Darwin's Origin of Species. He said: “Darwin stood for me like a mightly doorkeeper at the entrance to the temple of the universe.” He said that Darwin's ideas “intoxicated” him. And he could not understand in the slightest how belief in God could find room in the same head as belief in Darwin's ideas.

Russian dictator and revolutionist, Joseph Stalin, was studying at Tiflis Theological Seminary when he started to read the works of Charles Darwin. One of his friends later said in a book that when Stalin read Darwin he became an atheist. At the age of 19, Stalin was expelled from the theological seminary because of his revolutionary connections.

Of course, Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler endorsed a program in Germany to breed a superior race. The scheme was based on a horrific evolutionary theory called “eugenics” that was founded by Charles Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton. The idea of eugenics was to improve the human race using principles promoted in the theory of evolution.

Obviously, not all people are affected by the theory of evolution in this way. More to the point, the three examples I posted above seemed to be lose cannons well before they read the theory of evolution. These were evil men period (and, to be fair, I'm sure many could cite ways in which religion has sparked holocausts in their own right -- note: Africa, Germany, Ireland, etc..). However, I do beleive it is worthy of studying further to see if there is an inherent pattern observed with this theory.

It is still irrelevant.
Evolution is a scientific theory. It tries to describe the way nature works. It is descriptive, not prescriptive. It does not tell us what we ought to do.

Now some people, on their search for a set of rules that tell them how they ought to live their lifes, might abuse this theory. This can lead to more or less "nice" systems - validity not questioned yet.

But it is abuse, not use.

The examples you cited - valid or not - can be used to debate the effects of the Theory of Evolution on society. They do nothing to show the truth of this theory, nor do they give insight into question that the scientific theory does not even try to answer.

This is the difference between the citing of Hitler in regard to Evolution, and, for example, the Crusades in regard to Christianity.
Evolution does not give you an "ought to". Any tries to have it do so is an abuse.
Christianity does give you an "ought to" - and that might lead to Crusades, forced conversions and inquisitorial burnings.

That should not be taken as an divisionary attack on Christianity - just as starter to consider which "inherent patterns" one should consider.

 

[Mr. Ex Nihilo]

It is still irrelevant.

I don't think 6,000,000 slaughtered Jewish people are irrelevant though. Neither are the 5,000,000 others...all of various ethnicities...

Evolution is a scientific theory. It tries to describe the way nature works. It is descriptive, not prescriptive. It does not tell us what we ought to do.

It does describe the way nature has acted for 4 billion years though. Certainly this perception of how "life" works could have some rather negative consequences.

Also, if it is only descriptive, not prescriptive, then why is God usually "excluded" from the investigation? Does not pure naturalism prescribe the exclusion of Deity?

Coming back to the point, I still think it's worthy of a serious study -- "study" -- not "condemnation".

Now some people, on their search for a set of rules that tell them how they ought to live their lifes, might abuse this theory. This can lead to more or less "nice" systems - validity not questioned yet.

But it is abuse, not use.

I agree it is an abuse.

However, I'd like to see some figures which analize the actions of leaders that had evolutionary principles as their base idealogy in contrast to those who had other base ideologies (including religous/evolution blends which would typify one like Hitler).

The examples you cited - valid or not - can be used to debate the effects of the Theory of Evolution on society.

But isn't society, at least according to the purely material athiest, a product of evolution?

They do nothing to show the truth of this theory, nor do they give insight into question that the scientific theory does not even try to answer.

Many late researchers, such as Gould or Simpson, have concluded that life basically amounts to meaningless chance and fortunate accidents. They are not shy in sharing these assertions -- or projecting them onto societies behavior either (especially note: Dawkins).

This is the difference between the citing of Hitler in regard to Evolution, and, for example, the Crusades in regard to Christianity.
Evolution does not give you an "ought to". Any tries to have it do so is an abuse.

So, is there a higher precedence for violence within leaders which espouse evolutionary principles than those leaders who do not?

I think this is a fairly simple question.

Christianity does give you an "ought to" - and that might lead to Crusades, forced conversions and inquisitorial burnings.

That should not be taken as an divisionary attack on Christianity - just as starter to consider which "inherent patterns" one should consider.

Why?

I think the above mentioned abuses by the Church demonstrate excellent examples as to why people don't want to beleive in God or religion. I think they have good right to reject the Church's teaching when flagrant violations of their own ethos are manifested.

I personally haven't chosen to do this. It caused me to examine this further and calls me to a stronger faith. However, I can't hold anyone accountable who did see this and rejected faith because of it. I consider mistakes like that my own fault and feel that the name of the Lord is often blasphemed because of the failures of believers like me. I'm not blaming anyone else here. This is the fault of my own faith and it needs to be corrected.

 

[Smidlee]

I agree.



Could you explain this further? I'm not sure how this relates to the application above (ie., ...apply a lot more than just to evolution.)

Isn't this statement scientific(according to human reasoning) correct in Ecclesiastes 2:14 " The wise man's eyes are in his head; but the fool walketh in darkness: and I myself perceived also that one even happeneth to them all. Then said I in my heart, As it happeneth to the fool, so it happen even to me; and why was I then more wise? Then I said in my heart, that this also is vanity." Also " a living dog is better than a dead lion." Also Solomon explains it doesn't pay to be too rightous since it's a good way of dying young ( many prophets was killed) yet not be too wicked either since this also end your life quicker.
Even Solomon tried find purpose of life though his children as Ondoher replied. While this is morally good to love your children and want the best for them , Solomon later realize this is also vanity since there is no guaranty they won't become fools. Ex. Surprisely some serial killers come out of normal homes.

 

[Randall McNally]

Yet, sometimes the theory of evolution has led others away from faith rather violently.

The ToE really can't do anything of the sort. If a person is looking to jettison faith, then the ToE can help him overcome doubts about non-creationist origins.

But I consider it absurd to think that religious faith is so simplistic as to be rended solely by origins science.

For example, Trotsky was mesmerized by Charles Darwin's Origin of Species. He said: “Darwin stood for me like a mightly doorkeeper at the entrance to the temple of the universe.” He said that Darwin's ideas “intoxicated” him. And he could not understand in the slightest how belief in God could find room in the same head as belief in Darwin's ideas.

Which strongly indicates how poorly Trotsky understood what he was reading and that the only thing he was after was validation, no matter how flimsy, of his ideology.

Russian dictator and revolutionist, Joseph Stalin, was studying at Tiflis Theological Seminary when he started to read the works of Charles Darwin. One of his friends later said in a book that when Stalin read Darwin he became an atheist. At the age of 19, Stalin was expelled from the theological seminary because of his revolutionary connections.

Of course, Stalin found genetics ideologically untenable, discovered Lamark, promoted Lysenko because of his blind devotion to Lamarkian interitance, and promptly dumped Soviet agriculture into a production black hole, from which it would take decades to emerge.

Of course, Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler endorsed a program in Germany to breed a superior race. The scheme was based on a horrific evolutionary theory called “eugenics” that was founded by Charles Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton. The idea of eugenics was to improve the human race using principles promoted in the theory of evolution.

Half-cousin. Erasmus Darwin was grandfather to both.

And, again, Hitler put his own genocidal spin on evolution. Galton's eugenics had nothing to do with systematically eliminating existing races or cultures.

Obviously, not all people are affected by the theory of evolution in this way. More to the point, the three examples I posted above seemed to be lose cannons well before they read the theory of evolution. These were evil men period (and, to be fair, I'm sure many could cite ways in which religion has sparked holocausts in their own right -- note: Africa, Germany, Ireland, etc..). However, I do beleive it is worthy of studying further to see if there is an inherent pattern observed with this theory.

Doesn't the fact that evolution is the most accepted diversity theory on the planet suggest that this "inherent pattern" is nothing of the sort? Conquerors and dictators past and present have also used religion and mysticism as foundations for their philosophies. Should we tentatively assume patterns in all these cases too?

 

[Freodin]

I don't think 6,000,000 slaughtered Jewish people are irrelevant though. Neither are the 5,000,000 others...all of various ethnicities...

It is irrelevant to the question at hand. A lot of these people were killed with gas. Does that make you ponder the effects of chemisty on society. Or do the people who were shot make you question physics?

It does describe the way nature has acted for 4 billion years though. Certainly this perception of how "life" works could have some rather negative consequences.

Yes, it could - but that would be the mentioned abuse. Perception is just that - perception.

Also, if it is only descriptive, not prescriptive, then why is God usually "excluded" from the investigation? Does not pure naturalism prescribe the exclusion of Deity?

Yes, pure naturalism would do so - but Evolution is natural science, not philosophical materialism.
As I said, it is purely descriptive. It describes what we observe. It does not deal with what is inobservable.

Coming back to the point, I still think it's worthy of a serious study -- "study" -- not "condemnation".

Again, yes, but these studies have already been done. It is known which misconceptions lead to the abuses of this theory.

I agree it is an abuse.

However, I'd like to see some figures which analize the actions of leaders that had evolutionary principles as their base idealogy in contrast to those who had other base ideologies (including religous/evolution blends which would typify one like Hitler).

It is still irrelevant to the question at hand. The question was "What would be the meaning of life, if (atheistic) Evolution was correct?".

So let us assume that (atheistic) Evolution is correct - and search for a meaning of life.
One might say that the meaning of life is now to kill all "inferior" races - but at a closer look, The Theory of Evolution does not say anything to these means.
One might say that all meaning of life is now void, because Evolution says our life is not eternal - but at a closer look, The Theory of Evolution does not say anything about eternity.

So, a comparison between theistic and atheistic mass-murderes would not give you any answer to the original question.

But to comment on you request: I don´t think such a comparison would even be possible, for it had also to take into account the technical possibilities of the people in question.

But isn't society, at least according to the purely material athiest, a product of evolution?

Yes - but it´s not a product of The Theory of Evolution. Society did not completely change because Darwin published his book.

Many late researchers, such as Gould or Simpson, have concluded that life basically amounts to meaningless chance and fortunate accidents. They are not shy in sharing these assertions -- or projecting them onto societies behavior either (especially note: Dawkins).

I´m not aware of these authors projecting their views on Evolution of societal behavior. They might use it to explain existent behaviours, but I cannot recall an instant where they used it to propose a behaviour.

So, is there a higher precedence for violence within leaders which espouse evolutionary principles than those leaders who do not?

I think this is a fairly simple question.

No, in fact it is a quite complicated question. "evolutionary principles" are not a well defined term, nor is it possible to attribute a certain behaviour to them.
Hitler, for example, had a certain theistic belief-system. Even if his Christianity is questionable, his belief in destiny and providence is evident.
So what did he base his actions on: more on his "evolutionary principles" or his "belief in his divinely ordained destiny"?

Why?

I think the above mentioned abuses by the Church demonstrate excellent examples as to why people don't want to beleive in God or religion. I think they have good right to reject the Church's teaching when flagrant violations of their own ethos are manifested.

I personally haven't chosen to do this. It caused me to examine this further and calls me to a stronger faith. However, I can't hold anyone accountable who did see this and rejected faith because of it. I consider mistakes like that my own fault and feel that the name of the Lord is often blasphemed because of the failures of believers like me. I'm not blaming anyone else here. This is the fault of my own faith and it needs to be corrected.

To phrase it in a simple way:
Christianity deals with the question of "how to live your life" - even if you get the wrong answers from it.
Evolution does not even try to deal with this question - if you get any answer from it, you have done something wrong.

 

[notto]

So, is there a higher precedence for violence within leaders which espouse evolutionary principles than those leaders who do not?

Name 3 evolutionary principles that any leader would espouse.

 

[Mr. Ex Nihilo]

Isn't this statement scientific(according to human reasoning) correct in Ecclesiastes 2:14 " The wise man's eyes are in his head; but the fool walketh in darkness: and I myself perceived also that one even happeneth to them all. Then said I in my heart, As it happeneth to the fool, so it happen even to me; and why was I then more wise? Then I said in my heart, that this also is vanity." Also " a living dog is better than a dead lion." Also Solomon explains it doesn't pay to be too rightous since it's a good way of dying young ( many prophets was killed) yet not be too wicked either since this also end your life quicker.

Sure, it happen to everybody. I've never said that.

Even Solomon tried find purpose of life though his children as Ondoher replied. While this is morally good to love your children and want the best for them , Solomon later realize this is also vanity since there is no guaranty they won't become fools.

And I have no problem with finding meaning in the lives of their children. Children are a gift from God regardless of what the person believes. This, in my opinion, is such a universal truth, that it applies across the spectrum of beliefs and philosophies.

Ex. Surprisely some serial killers come out of normal homes.

And, sadly, many people couldn't even tell the difference between what a serial killer does today and that of what happened to the Jews during the holocuast. The same could be said of things which happened to the Muslims under the Crusades in relaliation to their own Jihads they conducted (such as peircing people on a stake and letting them die slowly).

Coming back to the point, I thought that Solomon was basically saying without God everything is futile. Or, perhaps Jesus summed up Eccliastes entire meme best with "What good is it if you gain everything and then lose your own soul."

I'd still be interested in doing a statisitical analysis of the infleunce of evolution in comparrison to other philosophies. I'm not saying it would prove the "evolutionary science" wrong. I'm just curious to know more anout how it's influenced people.

 

[Asimov]

Despite this horridly misinformed OP, I'd like to know what exactly the point of life is if you're a Creationist?

Life is meaningless, because it's endless. You don't ever die, there is nothing special about it. Your loved ones? They'll be in heaven too, so you'll never not see them again. Life in the here and now is not precious, because it exists indefinitely.

 

[Mr. Ex Nihilo]

Despite this horridly misinformed OP, I'd like to know what exactly the point of life is if you're a Creationist?

But that question wasn't asked.

 

[Asimov]

But that question wasn't asked.

Yes...I know. That's why I'm asking it.

 

[Mr. Ex Nihilo]

The ToE really can't do anything of the sort. If a person is looking to jettison faith, then the ToE can help him overcome doubts about non-creationist origins.

But, yet I've seen people give up their faith because of it. Heck, there's people right here on this forum that are doing it.

But I consider it absurd to think that religious faith is so simplistic as to be rended solely by origins science.

Wellll...I have a bit more sympathy for others than you do. I don't think it absurd. I find it tragic. It happens often.

Which strongly indicates how poorly Trotsky understood what he was reading and that the only thing he was after was validation, no matter how flimsy, of his ideology.

Which came back to my point I already said. Stalin, Hitler and Trotsky were probably evil men to begin with. I said this already.

Of course, Stalin found genetics ideologically untenable, discovered Lamark, promoted Lysenko because of his blind devotion to Lamarkian interitance, and promptly dumped Soviet agriculture into a production black hole, from which it would take decades to emerge.

Yes he did do that didn't he. The poor Russians probably never new what hit them.

Half-cousin. Erasmus Darwin was grandfather to both.

-- my bad.

And, again, Hitler put his own genocidal spin on evolution. Galton's eugenics had nothing to do with systematically eliminating existing races or cultures.

But it was very easily carried over by Hitler.

Doesn't the fact that evolution is the most accepted diversity theory on the planet suggest that this "inherent pattern" is nothing of the sort? Conquerors and dictators past and present have also used religion and mysticism as foundations for their philosophies. Should we tentatively assume patterns in all these cases too?

Um...there have been more wars engaged in the last half-century than in much of man's previous history. I'm not blaming evolution. I'm just curious though and looking into it further.