Ravus said:

I didn't say no purpose in life; I said no purpose in evolution. The process of evolution is the process of some organisms dying and others surviving simply based on the mutations in their genetics. Do you think a process like this has a purpose that is to bring awareness and consciousness to life? That cannot be logically valid, because it is the organisms dying that form the process itself, unless you believe that organisms kill themselves off just to make future life more conscious or aware than it currently is.

---

No, evolution is for those living, not for those dying or allready dead:)

Quote:

I don't know whether life always forms consciousness and awareness, because as of now there is no scientific way to test that. It isn't unlikely that life evolving in a similar environment to earth will form more and more complex nervous systems in order to respond to the environment in a more sophisticated manner, but whether this would always lead to self-consciousness or whatnot is extremely debatable. The conditions on earth were very unique to form Homo sapiens sapiens in its modern form.

---

I hear you. You say, evolution only brings self aware consciousness to humans, because they are the best adapted organism here on earth ?
I have to chew on that a bit
That would include our cause to deprive other lifeforms from that evolutionary step ?

Maybe it is the opposite and we are here to help other lifeforms to master this step and then learn from each other on perspectives of universe through communication
At least I more like this 'idea'

Diploid said:

Edit: I think it would be fair to say, though, that the designerless claim is more conjecture than theory but it's arrived at by a careful analysis of the available evidence and the intuition of those whose life work is the study of this evidence. Because of this, it's fair to lend it more weight than mere conjecture.

---

Quote:

There is no evidence that evolution isn't simply the most efficient method for achieving whatever it is the end of goal of the design is.

---

Quote:

Since we don't know the tools and methods that a potential designer may have had access too, nor the end goal, it is impossible to say anything about the nature of the designer.

---

Quote:

It's sad how closed-minded you become, and how quickly.

---

Quote:

This isn't about right or wrong, it's about possibilities. Stop trying to shove everyone into the "creationist" box.

---

Well yes, okay, you're right, it IS possible that there is a flying spaghetti monster after all. Silly me!

With respect, I'm not trying to shove anyone in any sort of box. I'm merely responding to what you said. If you feel as though you're in a box, perhaps you put yourself there?

Quote:

For all we know, life on earth, the process of evolution, could be a source of entertainment for an Intelligent Designer.

---

Quote:

This existence might be someone's equivalent of pay-per-view boxing. Create the conditions necessary for life, and treat yourself to a multi-billion year slugfest.

---

Quote:

I'm not saying that's what's going on, but we can't prove that it isn't.

---

Quote:

All the facts about evolution by natural selection don't matter if a Designer's process IS natural selection.

---

Quote:

You're assuming, for whatever reason, that randomized survival of the fittest cannot achieve some cosmic goal.

---

Quote:

PS - You REALLY need to take some time and understand people who are truly religious. It may make you feel superior to lable them as "insecure" or "doubtful", but that doesn't make it true.

---

Quote:

Many people who are truly religious just believe that the world is beautiful enough to be worshipped, that it is a work of art which should be appreciated like any other.

---