[mastequilla]

Suppose he is right. Suppose people evolved directly from animals and that the only thing that separates us is self-realization. Suppose he is right that there was no divine creation, then it stands to reason that he would argue that life is ultimately pointless and that upon our deaths we merely cease to exist.

If that's the case, then why would he protest creationism so forcefully? What does he care? He will soon cease to exist and at some point in the future the entire earth will dissolve into a firey ball of flame, wiping out all his efforts.

Has he not faced up to this dilema?

[js1138]

If that's the case, then why would he protest creationism so forcefully? What does he care?

We all do what we gotta do.

[js1138]

I am curious, though. Is there some rule that truth has to correspond to our wishes?

[PatrickHenry]

Suppose he is right that there was no divine creation, then it stands to reason that he would argue that life is ultimately pointless and that upon our deaths we merely cease to exist.

I know a lot of people who, because of the evidence, accept the theory of evolution. But I don't know any of them who conclude that therefore their lives are pointless. I assume you think there's some kind of logical connection, but I don't see it at all. Why do you say that evolution must result in such a belief?

[MacDorcha]

you point out any interesting view. if man strives to be happy, according to "function" and the geometric models, shouldn't our very being vibrate with Truth? in this case, why would anyone renounce purpose, if they can ever state that something must have a physical reason to exist?

wouldn't this, if trully believed, lead to scientists shooting themselves in fits of depression?

our very brains are strewn with thoughts of "meaning"

why would that be if meaning is temporary, yet we are formed of things that must have "meaning"?