Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pezz who wrote (375)	8/12/2000 2:16:23 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 28931

Before you go here don't you think that their should be some reason to believe there is god other than an emotional need to do so? I agree. I should have checked your belief system first. Poetic license, you know! On the other hand, people posit a lot of things in regards to evolutionary causes, without ever feeling the need to explain them. It is almost as though all change can simply be attributed to an evolutionary benefit, without the need for any structured argument. You must have noticed this yourself. I admit, I am no expert on evolution. Is it a force, or is it an agent? If it works for the benefit of some, does it not work for the detriment of others? Is the most successful end of all growth or progress already predetermined, and by what laws or by whom? Are the traits that are successfully evolving in humans that assist the weak and the poor of all species, the way natural selection and survival of the fittest have always operated? Or is being a weak and burdensome person different than being a weak flower? Why have humans evolved to help those that have no apparent value in an evolutionary context while flowers refuse to share any of their water unless it confers a benefit upon themselves? Evolutionists must always try to prove that a benefit is being conferred. Sometimes their answers make sense. Sometimes they seem awfully contrived. Certainly. evolution, or change, is a fact. And not a puzzling one. Life does happen. But don't you think that it sometimes rides too high a horse...like some other religions, for example... Why do evolved humans try to assist the survival of the rest of existence including inanimate resources, and including abstracts like beautiful paintings. If all these things are necessary to our survival, then what does that tell us about the nature of our beings? Why do we need to keep beauty in our lives anyway? We talk about feeding the spirit. Is that what it is? The Spartans used to leave imperfect babies on a hillside to die. Evolutionists would have called this conferring a benefit on the tribe. Modern man (in some countries) spend an inordinate amount of resources to insure that the weak survive. Evolutionists will have no problem answering that one because they are not subjected to the same rigorous requirements for proof as are most scientific disciplines. They will simply say that it confers an evolutionary benefit on the survival of the species that may or may not be known or understood within the limits of barriers imposed by our inabilities to prognosticate beyond the uncertainties of chance mutations that may or may not swing the evolutionary pole in its longterm direction, and hither and thither and you... Evolution: Force? Agent? Are the goals preordained? Why do millions of species (without thoughts, concepts or values)...continue to seek goals that only make rational sense to rational and thinking beings? A flower doesn't WANT to live, does it? It doesn't WANT anything, does it? Who or what is imposing this directive upon it? Why? Is evolution a force or an agent? Boy, asking questions is one heck of a lot easier than answering them! Thanks for listening!