|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 30, 2014 23:08:46 GMT -5
I think Jessie was using "tongue in cheek" in his remark.
Bert isn't that interesting, confused maybe, not interesting.
Ouch!!!! A little mean, don't you think? I would tend to think that we are all 'interesting', including Bert. And sometimes we are ALL a little "confused" at times, -MYSELF included!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 1, 2014 0:00:21 GMT -5
I think Jessie was using "tongue in cheek" in his remark.
Bert isn't that interesting, confused maybe, not interesting.
No it wasn't tongue in cheek. Bert operates on a different level from everyone else here. These kinds of discussions are like a lion playing with a mouse for him. I'm surprised more people don't see that. A few things stand out as very impressive, 1) the incredible database of knowledge he has. 2) His ability to engage in meaty conversations like this without getting emotionally involved like others do - that is plain to see. 3) he does original thinking, he doesn't simply parrot ideas. 4) he never comes across as feeling threatened by the conversation or having his posts criticized critiqued. Along with that he doesn't belittle or attack people directly as is so common here - he concentrates on content and ideas. I'm kind of surprised anyone is willing to take him on. He reminds me of my dad, when he talks it's so obvious he's thought it though. So if you disagree you better have your all ducks in a row. I do disagree with Bert about macro evolution, probably because I'm more of a philosopher than a scientist. More accurately a philosopher who's created things - like John Galt in a small way. I don't believe life as we know it created itself - no matter how much time you add to the equation. The helicopter pad Bert built for the workers would have never happened if Bert hadn't done it! Yeah I know there's an evolutionist argument against that idea, they can believe it if they want. As I said, Jesse, I respect your reasoning, so I went back & took a look at Bert's posts.
Indeed Bert often does use critical thinking & logical reasoning at times, especially his recent posts on Nathan's ideas.
However, on his review of Dawkins book, The God Delusion, -he is simply picking Dawkins apart without attempting to really understand what Dawkins is saying.
Emotional or not, he is really giving an very biased view of the book.
It has been quite awhile since I read the book but I know he isn't doing the book or Dawkins justice.
He is obviously looking at it from the standpoint of being a Christian, which is his right, but he isn't even trying to look at any differing evidence from Dawkins. Is his view also possibly from being a 2x2?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2014 0:02:36 GMT -5
Do you think only so-called "2x2's" defend the idea of God? My own objections would be shared by many others.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 1, 2014 0:19:36 GMT -5
Do you think only so-called "2x2's" defend the idea of God? My own objections would be shared by many others. OF course NOT "only so-called "2x2's" defend(?) the idea of God! " However, it is not a matter of anyone "defending" the idea of a god, -but rather their trying rationalize that there is a god!
It doesn't matter how many people "defend" an idea, if it isn't true, it still isn't true!
Their believing it doesn't make it true.
You keep accusing Dawkins of using a "strawman" fallacy.
When you say, "My own objections would be shared by many others," you use the "Bandwagon Fallacy" (Argument only appealing because of growing popularity) or the fallacy that if "majority believes something is true, therefore it must true."
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 1, 2014 1:57:47 GMT -5
Snow, I have examined the options and for me, they just don't add up. I need a lot more faith to believe in evolution than I do in the Creator God. A lot more. *Like* I grew up hearing my dad say that a few times. Believe me if there would have been a way to argue it us kids would have! But there is no argument... I like the simple condensed thoughts, like the guy who told me about a conversation with other drivers over radios while driving trucks in the Bakken oil field. They were discussing religion, and an atheist started spouting off about there being no God etc. All it took to shut him up was my friend saying, "I never heard of anything good happening from a bomb going off." Pretty much says it all. Oh I know my friend is "ignorant" of the "fact" evolution will conveniently not concern itself with the origin of life question. Jesse I find it "interesting" that when we atheists talk we are labeled as "spouting off."
Also, Can you explain what this sentence meant? "I never heard of anything good happening from a bomb going off." Maybe I'm just a dumb atheist but I don't understand what that was suppose to mean & why it should "shut up" the atheist.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 1, 2014 2:36:32 GMT -5
Evolution can be slow, and it can be fast. Just 20 generations for one lizard --- www.sciencenews.org/blog/wild-things/invasion-drives-quick-evolution-lizard-feetSometimes a lucky genetic change can deliver a new species in a single generation, particularly if it happens in the "hox genes" which control the body shape. I am reminded of something I read years ago, a Christian and someone from another faith were talking Christian - "My God created all things!" Second party - "My God created all things to create themselves." I dispute what I read some evolutionists say about there being no "progress" in evolution, it being random and it can even go backwards But FOR SOME classes of life clearly the evolution has been directional, ie vertebrates. And as for a "goal"in evolution - that's the realm of theology and philosophy. ---------------------------- What do you mean that some evolutionists say, "there being no "progress" in evolution?"
Evolution has NOT been directional.
We are only seeing the end results. We don't see the many results that didn't survive & dropped by the wayside, except in some cases of fossils remains we can see those that didn't make it.
As for a "goal" in evolution - NO, It isn't in the realm of theology and philosophy. It is still in the realm of biology.
The only goal in evolution is the goal for biological survival.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Dec 1, 2014 3:11:22 GMT -5
Emotional or not, he is really giving an very biased view of the book.
It has been quite awhile since I read the book but I know he isn't doing the book or Dawkins justice.
He is obviously looking at it from the standpoint of being a Christian, which is his right, but he isn't even trying to look at any differing evidence from Dawkins.
Is his view also possibly from being a 2x2?
And Dawkins isn't biased? Evidence about what from Dawkins? IMO 2x2 isn't a factor. Unless someone wants to accept something weird like 2x2s are brainwashed to not read books and if they do to automatically not believe them. Jesse I find it "interesting" that when we atheists talk we are labeled as "spouting off."
Also, Can you explain what this sentence meant? "I never heard of anything good happening from a bomb going off." Maybe I'm just a dumb atheist but I don't understand what that was suppose to mean & why it should "shut up" the atheist.
Was it you on the radio? Boy you get around! Obviously not all atheists are spouty. The guy on the radio in that conversation was. He wanted everyone to know he was right and that anyone who didn't agree was wrong. The bomb is the big bang, the atheist's equalivant of God. One British atheist explained it to me this way, he had a 156 IQ so he must have been right; Void, big bang, evolution, life as we know it, death, return to the void.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2014 5:58:09 GMT -5
Quote - "The bomb is the big bang, the atheist's equalivant of God. One British atheist explained it to me this way, he had a 156 IQ so he must have been right; Void, big bang, evolution, life as we know it, death, return to the void."
The problem with this idea is that "something" has to "explode" in a given "time" and a given "place." None of these attributes are available in the "void." In "outer space" there is "space", ie distance, dimensions etc. Plus there's a vacuum, energy, radiation, gamma rays, hydrogen atoms etc.. The "void" this guy is speaking of is a void beyond comprehension. And beyond science, too. You can't have a Big Bang in a "void."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2014 6:06:53 GMT -5
Quote - "What do you mean that some evolutionists say, "there being no "progress" in evolution?" Evolution has NOT been directional. We are only seeing the end results. We don't see the many results that didn't survive & dropped by the wayside, except in some cases of fossils remains we can see those that didn't make it. As for a "goal" in evolution - NO, It isn't in the realm of theology and philosophy. It is still in the realm of biology. The only goal in evolution is the goal for biological survival."
I am aware of the argument. I take it as a no-brainer that if I disagree with something in science then it is me who is wrong. But... having said that - there DOES seem to be a "direction" to evolution. Take a look at the evolution of the tetrapods - fish to amphibian to reptile to mammals or birds. I see a direction there as the LEADING EDGE of this clade is becoming increasingly advanced, ie look at the rise of the Homonids and Homo sapien.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2014 6:09:14 GMT -5
The theory of evolution imprisons its believers, like cons serving a life term. They've got nothing but time, time, time!
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Dec 1, 2014 6:28:56 GMT -5
Evolution can be slow, and it can be fast. Just 20 generations for one lizard --- www.sciencenews.org/blog/wild-things/invasion-drives-quick-evolution-lizard-feetSometimes a lucky genetic change can deliver a new species in a single generation, particularly if it happens in the "hox genes" which control the body shape. I am reminded of something I read years ago, a Christian and someone from another faith were talking Christian - "My God created all things!" Second party - "My God created all things to create themselves." I dispute what I read some evolutionists say about there being no "progress" in evolution, it being random and it can even go backwards. But FOR SOME classes of life clearly the evolution has been directional, ie vertebrates. And as for a "goal" in evolution - that's the realm of theology and philosophy.I think Dawkins does a decent job of dealing with the notion of "Non-overlapping Magesteria." (NOMA) I tend to agree with the assertion that NOMA is driven by the lack of scientific evidence of God, and that if any scientific evidence were to be found, theologians would quickly drop NOMA. Science has more and more to say about human impulses and behavior and has started delving into the scientific underpinnings of human morality. The pattern I see is that religion and science "do not overlap" until science encroaches and the theologians scramble to adjust. I do not need a theologian or philosopher to imagine the possibility that there is no point and no particular "goal" behind our existence or behind the existence the universe. (Can the experience of being alive, here and now, not be enough?) Human Beings are wired to look for patterns and to imagine cause and effect. The "success" of writings such as The Prophecies by Nostradamus rests on the human "ability" (compulsion?!) to manufacture a "fit" between the prophecies and some more modern event or events. In my opinion, the "success" of the Biblical prophecies is no different.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Dec 1, 2014 6:47:01 GMT -5
Snow, I have examined the options and for me, they just don't add up. I need a lot more faith to believe in evolution than I do in the Creator God. A lot more. *Like* I grew up hearing my dad say that a few times. Believe me if there would have been a way to argue it us kids would have! But there is no argument... I like the simple condensed thoughts, like the guy who told me about a conversation with other drivers over radios while driving trucks in the Bakken oil field. They were discussing religion, and an atheist started spouting off about there being no God etc. All it took to shut him up was my friend saying, "I never heard of anything good happening from a bomb going off." Pretty much says it all. Well, no, it doesn't. Maybe it "says it all" for you! A discussion of evolution can be taken separately from questions about how life originated. Just like a discussion of countless other subjects can be taken separately from questions about how life originated. Questions about how life originated are not ignored, it's another part of the puzzle.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2014 6:54:53 GMT -5
Quote - "I think Dawkins does a decent job of dealing with the notion of "Non-overlapping Magesteria." (NOMA) I tend to agree with the assertion that NOMA is driven by the lack of scientific evidence of God, and that if any scientific evidence were to be found, theologians would quickly drop NOMA. Science has more and more to say about human impulses and behavior and has started delving into the scientific underpinnings of human morality. The pattern I see is that religion and science "do not overlap" until science encroaches and the theologians scramble to adjust.
I do not need a theologian or philosopher to imagine the possibility that there is no point and no particular "goal" behind our existence or behind the existence the universe. (Can the experience of being alive, here and now, not be enough?)"
I take the opposite point of view that there IS a NOMA. Saying there's a lack of evidence for God, therefor there's no NOMA is a classic circular argument. There's no evidence for God because God exists outside this Magesterium. Yes, there's all sorts of human impulses etc.. The bible acknowledges these CONSTANTLY. In fact if you read the various stories about brothers, ie Isaac and Ishmael, or Jacob and Essau, these are metaphors for the duality of our nature - that which is of the flesh, and that which is of the spirit. The Big Danger with evolution ALONE is that people increasingly take their behavioral standards from the natural world. One group of theologians, for instance, were shown footage of bonobos to "show" them how "natural" human sexuality is. As if the bible wasn't aware of this! And that's not all - where do you go after doing it bonobo-style? How about chimp violence, animal infanticide etc..
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Dec 1, 2014 7:01:46 GMT -5
This thread shouldn't be about evolution on its own. It's about Dawkins' book and the existence of God. Evolution of ideas is fine - that "meme" thing is just an hypothesis at this stage, but it has a grainy plausibility. This comes down to what I believe is the "Truth" okay? I believe that most of the ideas presented in the bible are overly and covertly dismissed by most religious people. Dawkins talks about the "milksop" Jesus of the Victorian era, for example - if there's a "meme" floating around here it's that Jesus is the gorgeous hunk of a guy who loves the kids, feeds the hungry, seeks world peace and heals the sick. Period. The Jesus of the bible, warts and all, is bypassed. The assertions you made about Dawkins, evolution, and Genesis haven't been resolved. Any thoughts about how the fruit trees bearing seeds in the Genesis account were able to develop, and reproduce during the period of time before the creation of organisms that help with pollination? I think the commonly accepted thought in the scientific community is that plants that need help with pollination and the pollinators co-evolved.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2014 7:07:24 GMT -5
Oh okay... Without going back into my own notes. The Genesis account is symbolic of what plausibly happened. If it says there were plants, and then animals - that doesn't mean there were no pollinators. It means that plants came first (I am getting tired...) Advanced pollinating plants came a lot later, and animals were quite advanced by the time this happened. And in any case, some of the days are out of sequence in Genesis.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Dec 1, 2014 7:22:49 GMT -5
Quote - " I think Dawkins does a decent job of dealing with the notion of "Non-overlapping Magesteria." (NOMA) I tend to agree with the assertion that NOMA is driven by the lack of scientific evidence of God, and that if any scientific evidence were to be found, theologians would quickly drop NOMA. Science has more and more to say about human impulses and behavior and has started delving into the scientific underpinnings of human morality. The pattern I see is that religion and science "do not overlap" until science encroaches and the theologians scramble to adjust.
I do not need a theologian or philosopher to imagine the possibility that there is no point and no particular "goal" behind our existence or behind the existence the universe. (Can the experience of being alive, here and now, not be enough?)"I take the opposite point of view that there IS a NOMA. Saying there's a lack of evidence for God, therefor there's no NOMA is a classic circular argument. Too bad I didn't make that argument! So they say! Apparently unicorns do, too! Of course! The Bible is written by human beings who are preoccupied with human beings, and the stories reflect human behavior. The God of the Bible reflects human impulses and behaviors as well...at times some of the worst human impulses and behaviors, imo.
There are interesting evolution-based hypotheses about how bonobos and chimps ended up with such different behavioral traits. The theories have nothing to do with eating forbidden fruit in an idyllic garden. We are human beings, not bonobos or chimps. We seem to share behavioral traits with both. The three species have remarkably similar genomes.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Dec 1, 2014 7:24:30 GMT -5
Oh okay... Without going back into my own notes. The Genesis account is symbolic of what plausibly happened. If it says there were plants, and then animals - that doesn't mean there were no pollinators. It means that plants came first (I am getting tired...) Advanced pollinating plants came a lot later, and animals were quite advanced by the time this happened. And in any case, some of the days are out of sequence in Genesis. Genesis makes specific reference to fruit trees. I am not aware of the possibility of fruit trees that are not advanced pollinating plants. You really lambasted Dawkins and suggested he hadn't read the bible....now you are backpedaling and suggesting the Bible is mixed up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2014 7:31:33 GMT -5
It says "In the beginning God made the heaven and the Earth" Thus God is OUTSIDE the heaven and Earth. And in Revelations it states that the heavens, the Earth and time itself will be done away with. Dawkins says that any God must be within this system, the bible states it is outside, ie NOMA. Dawkins makes a hatchet job on NOMA, and having dispensed with it TO HIS OWN SATISFACTION, then seeks to "disprove" any God can exist WITHIN space and time. I am not satisfied with his ability to argue this point, let alone the existence or not of any NOMA.
IMO this gene comparison stuff is mythic. We can be 99% chimp genome, but we are far from being 99% chimp! (be AMAZING if someone has the guts to create a living Neanderthal from their genome!) How close are we to daffodils in gene percentage? 80%?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2014 7:39:52 GMT -5
Quote - "Genesis makes specific reference to fruit trees. I am not aware of the possibility of fruit trees that are not advanced pollinating plants. You really lambasted Dawkins and suggested he hadn't read the bible....now you are backpedaling and suggesting the Bible is mixed up."
Again, Genesis account is symbolic. Some might criticize Revelations because it says "to the seven churches in Asia." In fact there were a lot more churches, some even mentioned in the same bible. Seven was symbolic. It is up to the reader to decide just what is, and what isn't, symbolic. I have the owner of the Dawkins book here beside me - she believes the entire account of Jesus is symbolic (ie the man never existed, but his story is one for all mankind.) I like what an archaeologist said about the bible, "Once everyone believed all of the bible. Then they believed none of the bible. Now we take a more nuanced approach - the bible is not history, but it isn't myth either."
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Dec 1, 2014 8:28:34 GMT -5
It says "In the beginning God made the heaven and the Earth" Thus God is OUTSIDE the heaven and Earth. To arrive at the idea of NOMA, one must start with the assumption that God exists. If one does not assume that God exists, the concept of NOMA makes no more sense than the concept of God. From my pov, NOMA is a construct of believers in God to protect their beliefs. I must wait until later to respond to other elements of your post. Cheers to you, too, Bert.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2014 10:28:36 GMT -5
The following link more or less explains my position on the matter. I cannot see how a true follower of Jesus could think otherwise. However, I am only a mere, created being. Please ignore the authors. Consider the message. realtruth.org/articles/101126-001-science.html
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 1, 2014 10:31:53 GMT -5
Quote - "The bomb is the big bang, the atheist's equalivant of God. One British atheist explained it to me this way, he had a 156 IQ so he must have been right; Void, big bang, evolution, life as we know it, death, return to the void." Being an atheist only means the speaker does not believe in a deity or deities. The atheist could well have been a well trained ballroom dancer who had little knowledge of the current big bang theory. This all seems to be twisted, convoluted, and crazy because the big bang was not an explosion in space or in a void. The statements you are relating only serve to highlight the ignorance of the speaker regarding the current theory of the big bang. It is difficult to discuss the ideas when one party is talking about the current theory regarding the big bang and the other is discussing some other ideas that no one has ever promoted. This is like the crazy argument often used against evolution that if a tornado blows through a junk yard the result will not be a 747. It only illustrates the lack of understanding of the current theory of evolution.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Dec 1, 2014 10:47:54 GMT -5
Evolution can be slow, and it can be fast. Just 20 generations for one lizard --- www.sciencenews.org/blog/wild-things/invasion-drives-quick-evolution-lizard-feetSometimes a lucky genetic change can deliver a new species in a single generation, particularly if it happens in the "hox genes" which control the body shape. I am reminded of something I read years ago, a Christian and someone from another faith were talking Christian - "My God created all things!" Second party - "My God created all things to create themselves." I dispute what I read some evolutionists say about there being no "progress" in evolution, it being random and it can even go backwards But FOR SOME classes of life clearly the evolution has been directional, ie vertebrates. And as for a "goal"in evolution - that's the realm of theology and philosophy. ---------------------------- What do you mean that some evolutionists say, "there being no "progress" in evolution?"
Evolution has NOT been directional.
We are only seeing the end results. We don't see the many results that didn't survive & dropped by the wayside, except in some cases of fossils remains we can see those that didn't make it.
As for a "goal" in evolution - NO, It isn't in the realm of theology and philosophy. It is still in the realm of biology.
The only goal in evolution is the goal for biological survival.
I would say that survival is more of an accidental consequence of evolution than a goal. It is not clear to me that we human beings will survive our "cleverness" (think nuclear warfare capabilities) and our propensity for waging war.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 1, 2014 11:54:08 GMT -5
I would say that survival is more of an accidental consequence of evolution than a goal. It is not clear to me that we human beings will survive our "cleverness" (think nuclear warfare capabilities) and our propensity for waging war. I would say that evolutionary change that does not lead to an increase in the probability of survival will not last very long. Now if humans could quickly develop nuclear hardened skin we might have a chance of competing with co ckroaches in the event of nuclear war! Nuclear events may not be that much of a problem in the long term. In and around Chernobyl there were few seriously deformed wild animals. It should also be noted that there were no zombies!! Any mutant animals born in the wild usually die or are killed and devoured before they can be discovered. In any case, the rule is that the fittest survive and this is the case in Chernobyl. Large mammals abound.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Dec 1, 2014 12:20:17 GMT -5
I would say that survival is more of an accidental consequence of evolution than a goal. It is not clear to me that we human beings will survive our "cleverness" (think nuclear warfare capabilities) and our propensity for waging war. I would say that evolutionary change that does not lead to an increase in the probability of survival will not last very long. Like he said... ♪♪"Christmas is coming!"♪♬ Good to know!
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 1, 2014 13:05:30 GMT -5
Firstly the nature of God. We hold that Jesus epitomizes God. He said this himself. Re Big Bang: the Genesis account could go back so many iterations, ie the Earth was molten rock The earth was a coagulation of particles The earth was a belt of dust The earth was the remnants of a super-nova The earth remnants inside the super-nova formed from hydrogen The hydrogen came from the Big Bang The Big Bang was a singularity in membrane space Membrane space formed from a multi-dimensional.... (whatever) HOW MANY ITERATIONS ARE THERE IN REALITY? WHAT LEVEL OF EDUCATION WOULD YOU NEED TO GRASP THEM, GIVEN THAT FROM ABOUT THE 1920'S WE STOPPED BEING ABLE TO GRASP THE NATURE OF UNIVERSE (RELATIVITY, QUANTUM ETC..) IMO the bible just answers one question, "Where did everything we see come from?" and it answers this from a human perspective. Belts of dust, rotating inside an Einsteinian gravitational well, around a new star don't cut it. I am content with the Hebrew God. This is the God we can call upon to have a personal experience. Hindu gods (all 33,000,000 deities!) are beliefs no different than what the biblical pagans followed. And... Hindu deities are amazingly human, even with beastly forms or multiple arms. There are a multiple of gods in Hinduism, but one supreme God. The trinity tries to make Jesus more accessible just like the lessor gods of Hinduism tries to do this for their adherents. People don't relate as well to a supreme being as they do to one that has the qualities of both man and god, or even 'beast' and god. The Hebrew God has plenty of human characteristics. He is jealous, easily angered, to be feared for his wrath etc. All these would be human qualities. Christianity has many beliefs that are very pagan in origin. I still don't understand how anyone can say their God is the right one though. I can see lots of people may think they have chosen the right one, that is evident. I just don't see it as being possibly true.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 1, 2014 13:17:37 GMT -5
Quote - "The bomb is the big bang, the atheist's equalivant of God. One British atheist explained it to me this way, he had a 156 IQ so he must have been right; Void, big bang, evolution, life as we know it, death, return to the void." The problem with this idea is that "something" has to "explode" in a given "time" and a given "place." None of these attributes are available in the "void." In "outer space" there is "space", ie distance, dimensions etc. Plus there's a vacuum, energy, radiation, gamma rays, hydrogen atoms etc.. The "void" this guy is speaking of is a void beyond comprehension. And beyond science, too. You can't have a Big Bang in a "void."I don't think there ever has been a void. We know that energy cannot be created or destroyed. It has always existed if that is true, and always will. The only thing that can happen if for it to be transformed. The existence of dark energy and matter is interesting and I am enjoying learning about it and how it was discovered. There is so much to discover and I don't really think we give existence much credit by just attributing everything that exists to a God that creates it all but doesn't give an explanation for how that God came into existence. jmt
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 1, 2014 13:22:28 GMT -5
The theory of evolution imprisons its believers, like cons serving a life term. They've got nothing but time, time, time! The Theory of evolution explains so much Ram. Bert obviously has a working understanding of it. He still tries to attribute it to the bible and the Hebrew God, but really, there is no way to do that. Evolution has no direction really. It's just how the various mutations work best in the survival business. Dinosaurs evolution worked well until it didn't. Humanity could very easily go that way too. If we last long enough, we will become extinct unless we find a way to get off earth and into a different galaxy with a younger sun. Speaking of nothing but time, what do you think your eternity is? Even an eternity of a good thing would become hell I'm sure.
|
|