Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The only purpose life has is survival, anything beyond that is supposition and philosophical/theistic grasping.
We don't deny science based on religious teachings as they have no place in science. It would be like denying evolution based on what I learned from reading Tolkien.
I have yet to see any debate against the validity of evolution other than a religious one. Bring us one creditable scientist that argues against evolution without using religion as a crutch or a starting point.
Life without purpose makes no sense to anybody with intelligence or life experience
No, it's fodder for more laughter. This guy is a creationist and is an Associate Professor of HISTORY. He has had his hand slapped for quote mining real scientists in some of his mindless articles. This article is a poorly written appeal to personal incredulity and demonstrates his lack of understanding of evolutionary theory. Here is one of his gems:
"The fossil record, with its lack of intermediate forms and its unchanging biota such as the coelacanth, falsifies evolution"
This is an embarrassing quote, even for a creationist. First off, it is a lie, and secondly, even if the statement were true, it would not falsify evolution. If he has falsifed evolution, why has he not collected a Nobel Prize for his discovery? He is an Idiot.
Life without purpose makes no sense to anybody with intelligence or life experience
Bull****. You can give life purpose, but life itself is the causation of purpose, not the other way around. There is no evidence that life has some sort of inherent "purpose" driving it.
Life without purpose makes no sense to anybody with intelligence or life experience
Anyone with intelligence, with or without life experience, can find purpose in their life without having to have one imposed by a supposed god. Why can't you?
All I can say is that when you think science is the be-all-and-end-all of everything, you miss everything else. Good luck to you all.
Yet no one here has been claiming any such thing so the above is just rhetoric designed to hide a retreat.
Science is merely a methodology... the best one we have so far... to help us uncover truths about our reality. No More. No Less. Your only issue with it seems to be that it fails at every turn to reinforce your religious agendas.
But I am aware of no one who things it is "everything". Subjectivity is a powerful thing in our species and many things are subjectively important to us... art, literature, life, freedom and much more... that have nothing to do with science.
But this is a thread about Evolution and the phrase "Just A Theory" and not about your personal anti science mantras and slogans. I am still awaiting some reply or acknowledgement to my attempting to school you on the meanings of certain terms in the discourse of science to see if this education can move forward from there.
Rationales for Our Existence, out of the woodwork for sure!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vansdad
Life without purpose makes no sense to anybody with intelligence or life experience
Ah, but who says it has to be your version of what life is about, or what it's purpose truly is? If it is ( as we scientists know now for a fact) just the uprising of a chance-driven but now semi-organized consequence of molecular and sub-atomic particles (and Higgs bosons, and even lesser-sized "things" for all we know...), then it's purpose, self-defined, is just to continue to exist.
As well, when we do indeed find life (and especially if it's in some as-yet-unimagined version and format...) on some other planet, or inbound on some meteorite that came from some far-flung corner of this large Universe, then we'll have inarguable confirmation that life can and did indeed arise on it's own through chaotic principles and good luck, not via any specific God figure, but rather, guided by simple molecular interaction. Stay tuned, Mars Rover fans!
So again, Why does it have to contain some anthropocentric glorification, some larger human-defined "Godly purpose"? As I often chide my old pal MysticPhd, "WHY"? Why is such self-serving definition necessary?
I'd suggest that your Christian-derived purposes are self-aggrandizing and self-supporting, that they exist primally and solely to build upon some imagined and, later, tightly embraced Greater Spiritual Prevarication, in order to foment some continued administrative position of authority and thus power. (See: The Taliban, etc. etc.)
I do indeed see the Evolved Purpose(s) in this life, and because of it, of that inherent but utterly simple built-in biological "logic" of the basic RNA and DNA molecules, complex life has arisen unaided. Even it has almost failed several times as well, due entirely to chaotic, chance-driven forces and cosmic encounters that far exceed the glorified and over-revved abilities of your entirely invented God to redirect them (else he'd have prevented some or all of those impacts we've experienced...).
Such is "life" per se. It will, or will not, continue to thrive or barely exist or go extinct on this planet. And that continuation is, for all intents, it's sole "purpose".
All I can say is that when you think science is the be-all-and-end-all of everything, you miss everything else. Good luck to you all.
What a thoughtless, intellectually immature and childish cop-out, VD, and what's even worse, you don't actually believe that line of pigeon guano, but just use it to run and hide, rather than admit your argument is full of holes.
The SM (The Scientific Method) is obviously a simple & utterly logical process and method, that has evolved (small "e"; don't get all hot & bothered) to provide as reliable and foolproof a means and internationally workable methodology to get the most accurate answers to our most pressing questions.
Then, when all the work is "in", it's reviewed by other professionals with a pretty much hard-core interest in subjecting it to the most rigorous but independent cross-examination and review that it can sustain.
Then, if it still passes muster, it's conservative findings are published (for the most part) so that others with naturally curious minds and an interest in the advancement of reliable knowlege, those whose minds are not stuck in "Neutral" or pre-biased that "all science is errant and biased", or that we scientists blindly think "...science is the be-all-and-end-all of everything" , can then make proper use of it's foundations for even more advancements.
Not so with religion, now is it? Nope! Christians want, no, they insist, on staying intellectually stagnant through literally centuries and millennia, fighting against all that is freshly discovered and most times of critical usefulness (lasers, radio emissions, space exploration, medicine, metallurgy, automotive engineering, geology and oil extraction, reading and writing, and on an on...)
All stuff that the church would have happily banned if it had it's way, which is also the way Christians purport would be best for us.
Huh! Well I'll be a monkey's Evolved uncle! A spherical earth that also circles the sun; whod'a thunk, huh? What's next? Proof that the earth is, in fact, 14B years old, and not just 6036 yrs since an Insta-Poofy "Creation"?
Wow! How can I stand the tension?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.