Can you really say Evolution has no Meaning ?

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm

I don't think that's your decision to make even if you had answers worth listening to.

If you convince someone that we were created by random mutations without an intelligent designer, you are shoving them in a coffin of nihilism which has no purpose. There can be no purpose if all traces of consciousness will inevitably return to nothingness.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm

I don't think that's your decision to make even if you had answers worth listening to.

If you convince someone that we were created by random mutations without an intelligent designer, you are shoving them in a coffin of nihilism which has no purpose. There can be no purpose if all traces of consciousness will inevitably return to nothingness.

Purpose is a series of choices and consequences, not a destiny. As you said, part of the fun is figuring out what you should be and mastering that identity. But it's not written in the stars, it's a journey that can change destination at any time. Dying is irrelevant to that process, if anything death is a distraction from what is important about being alive. Evolution has never been about conquering death, as history clearly shows. The best conclusion you can hope for is to die honorably and that's a pretty solid philosophy to bet your soul on.

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: whereislogic

In effect, those who deny the purposeful intervention of a Creator attribute godlike powers to mindless molecules and natural forces.

Can you elaborate on the godlike powers part?

Things like 'inventing', 'making/creating', 'finding', 'selecting', 'intelligence', 'wisdom', 'foresight', and the ability to 'design' are attributed to nature, natural forces, evolution, mindless molecules, life in general (as in the popular phrase 'life finds a way', 'life found a way to evolve such and such molecular machinery or system of machinery', etc.) or individual organisms (when talking about mutations it has no selective, inventive or creative control over, mutations that it also didn't "find", mutations that also didn't 'make' or 'design' the molecular machinery found in living organisms).

All of these abilities require intelligence (and most require foresight as well) which mindless molecules and natural forces do not have. Even though sometimes attributes such as "wisdom" and "foresight" (more godlike powers) are attributed to evolution (see example further below).

Here's an example where the ability to "invent" is attributed to the process of "evolution":

...

Had evolution, in its boundless wisdom and foresight, simply satisfied itself with inventing prokaryotes, none of the things that torment Dr. Ward (or the rest of us) would have happened. ...

...

The implication in the context being that it 'invented' eukaryotes as well (cells with a nucleus as opposed to prokaryotes without a nucleus, i.e. evolution invented the system that functions with nuclei).

Source: The Tragedy of Eukaryote Evolution

Very good points.

A natural interpretation of evolution can't happen. How can anything natural or random just create separate parts tht just happen to be the right size, shape and that come together at the right angles to carry out different tasks?

It is part of the program [so programed] - What the program is, where it leads, and its purpose is for you to figure out.

God, the Creator, is a chicken's way out, at least as an answer - why would an almighty God reveal the goals [as of now] of a program, when the conceptual god is still writng it ??? -- You already know biological life is just that - As a living life form certain variables must be there - Again part of the program.

God also is an agnostic - He must question himself and what he creates -- Live with it, as it is very questionable whether questioning the creative process will change its' direction. - so science must rule even if there are limits as to what might be accomplished. !

I might ask if shifting biological life to a non-biological matrix or state of existence might be preferable

Think about it - Is it your biology that makes you who you are - Or do you have a so called soul that is transcendent

- Maybe God wants to tweak Evolution to another level of existence :

I think 'androids' are kind of cool - How about you ???

a reply to: AlienView

I read an article recently exploring the subject of androids or robots, particularly a story written by Karel Capek in early 19th century, and the relationship between creator and creation. There were two very interesting points raised: the robot industry inevitably develops humanity while the scientists & business types manufacturing them lose their humanity, and the robots inevitably reject the master relationship given enough time and experience.

How deliciously ironic to become god only for our technology to pronounce us corrupt and incompetent and essentially replace us as apex.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: AlienView

I read an article recently exploring the subject of androids or robots, particularly a story written by Karel Capek in early 19th century, and the relationship between creator and creation. There were two very interesting points raised: the robot industry inevitably develops humanity while the scientists & business types manufacturing them lose their humanity, and the robots inevitably reject the master relationship given enough time and experience.

How deliciously ironic to become god only for our technology to pronounce us corrupt and incompetent and essentially replace us as apex.

Heres one for you suppose in the future there is a race of androids who learned to time travel. They go back in time to create us so we can create them. so then who is the creator?

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: AlienView

I read an article recently exploring the subject of androids or robots, particularly a story written by Karel Capek in early 19th century, and the relationship between creator and creation. There were two very interesting points raised: the robot industry inevitably develops humanity while the scientists & business types manufacturing them lose their humanity, and the robots inevitably reject the master relationship given enough time and experience.

How deliciously ironic to become god only for our technology to pronounce us corrupt and incompetent and essentially replace us as apex.

Heres one for you suppose in the future there is a race of androids who learned to time travel. They go back in time to create us so we can create them. so then who is the creator?

So a reverse-Grandfather Paradox.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: AlienView

I read an article recently exploring the subject of androids or robots, particularly a story written by Karel Capek in early 19th century, and the relationship between creator and creation. There were two very interesting points raised: the robot industry inevitably develops humanity while the scientists & business types manufacturing them lose their humanity, and the robots inevitably reject the master relationship given enough time and experience.

How deliciously ironic to become god only for our technology to pronounce us corrupt and incompetent and essentially replace us as apex.

Heres one for you suppose in the future there is a race of androids who learned to time travel. They go back in time to create us so we can create them. so then who is the creator?

Interesting premise, but I would imagine androids have no need to engineer that kind of time loop because it's redundant. Once androids have an established industry humans are no longer relevant. Techno sapiens would have all the tools and information they need and they can use it much more efficiently than any human. We are a waste of resources.

Site coding error - Unknown source ?!?!

originally posted by: TzarChasm
The best conclusion you can hope for is to die honorably and that's a pretty solid philosophy to bet your soul on.

I would say that's getting close to the Truth. The fact that you can have an objective statement about purpose shows that this world and human beings are not a random accident.

a reply to: AlienView
Also - Just because biological beings [Humans] are aware of only biological life does not mean that biological life is the only type of life that exists - There may be numerous types of life in the Universe that Man can not perceive.

And the appearance of what man calls Evolution without any definition of purpose of meaning may be illusory.

If you don't really know what Evolution means, why assume it is happening ???
- For all the primitive Human knows it might instead be Devolution that is actually happening.

Humans making the assumption that they are a superior life form without defining exactly what that means is absurd.

A superior life form must have long term goals and objectives and should be able to prove that it is in fact evolving

originally posted by: AlienView

- For all the primitive Human knows it might instead be Devolution that is actually happening.

This is what happened according to the intelligent design model. Humans were in peaceful harmony with nature and their environment, but have since fallen into the Babylonian trap. Perhaps the last semblance we had of this were the nomadic native Americans, and even they had their unnatural tendencies

a reply to: cooperton

Since you seem to study this subject much

- Are there any theories, that you think are at least reasonable and at least plausible, that attempt to correlate Intelligent

Design with Evolution, like "Evolutionary Intelligent Design"

You see, maybe it was last year, and we had a post like this going - And again I came to the same summation

- That Evolution IS a form of Intelligent Design - Neither side of this debae seeems to likes that concept.

Deja vu. You two continuously start threads with no proof to your claims and the same conclusion is reached every time; nobody has proof that convinces the other side. Ad infinitum. What a fricking bore for everyone.

You two, but especially that Neoholographic guy, must absolutely love wasting your time. Anti-evolution threads outnumber evolution 3-to-1 and most are started by 3 people.

I'd love to know what motivates you ID people. What objective do you have? What possible advantage is there for you?

We believe in different things and we draw different conclusions from the evidence presented. Big fricking deal.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
Deja vu. You two continuously start threads with no proof to your claims and the same conclusion is reached every time; nobody has proof that convinces the other side. Ad infinitum. What a fricking bore for everyone.

You two, but especially that Neoholographic guy, must absolutely love wasting your time. Anti-evolution threads outnumber evolution 3-to-1 and most are started by 3 people.

I'd love to know what motivates you ID people. What objective do you have? What possible advantage is there for you?

We believe in different things and we draw different conclusions from the evidence presented. Big fricking deal.

Party pooper!:

a reply to: TerraLiga

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result".

Which makes me wonder why, on a large internet forum with many subjects and threads you TerraLiga'' would post here ???


If nothing else, this subject becomes an exercise in deductive and analytical thinking of interest to the people who
keep debating the subject.

- Perhaps you have not evolved far enough to understand this.

I could equally use the insanity argument against you, too. Can't you see this?

I see no deductive or analytical thinking on your side. I see insults and passive aggressive statements, like your last sentence.

The last time I visited was two years ago because of the monotonous thread topics, entrenched viewpoints, continuous sniping and insults. It's like time has stopped here and everything is exactly the same.

You're right, I'll leave it another couple years and see if the subject matter has evolved.

originally posted by: turbonium1
Party pooper!:

Sorry!

originally posted by: AlienView
- Are there any theories, that you think are at least reasonable and at least plausible, that attempt to correlate Intelligent
- That Evolution IS a form of Intelligent Design - Neither side of this debae seeems to likes that concept.

I think the problem with joining them together is they are fundamentally opposing theories. Evolution insists it all happened through random chance, whereas intelligent design supposed there was rational input as the source of creation.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
We believe in different things and we draw different conclusions from the evidence presented. Big fricking deal.

It may not seem to be a big deal for proponents of evolution, because such a belief insists that nothing matters anyway. Nihilism and evolutionary theory are tied hip-to-hip. The core notion of nihilism is that nothing matters. So big deal right? Not at all. If evolution is in fact wrong, and we are intelligently designed with a purpose, then being stuck believing evolutionary theory your whole life is perpetually steering you away from coming to terms with that purpose. Whereas if intelligent design is wrong, and we are just mutant accidents, then it doesn't matter anyway because all of our consciousness inevitably returns back to eternal nothingness.

I'd love to know what motivates you ID people. What objective do you have? What possible advantage is there for you?

I want to instill hope that there is a purpose and a progressive development for our soul. Evolutionary theory makes such an understanding very difficult. I want no money, no glory, no worldly gain; I simply want more souls to realize how truly magnificent they can be.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm
The best conclusion you can hope for is to die honorably and that's a pretty solid philosophy to bet your soul on.

I would say that's getting close to the Truth. The fact that you can have an objective statement about purpose shows that this world and human beings are not a random accident.

But that's not a fact. Purpose is not an objective statement.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

But that's not a fact. Purpose is not an objective statement.

Purpose: "the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists."

Purpose is the reason for our existence. If there is no reasonable input into the creation then there's no purpose. If our world was designed with reason, then there is purpose.