[Aric2000]

But, but, but, don't you understand, evolution is godless, and if it can't answer those questions then it must be wrong.

THese debated become so laughable at times.

The bar is being raised by the creationists again, and it's a bar that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with science.

Science is not supposed to teach morality and love and beauty, although the beauty part is easy to understand.

If a person is considered beautiful, they are much more likely to procreate, and spread their genes, an ugly person has a much less chance of doing so. That probably had nothing to do with the question, but it sure makes sense to me.

[Stop Legal Plunder]

If a person is considered beautiful, they are much more likely to procreate, and spread their genes, an ugly person has a much less chance of doing so. That probably had nothing to do with the question, but it sure makes sense to me.

If you'll read my post again you'll see I ackowledged that evolution could explain the perception of beauty in members of the opposite sex. What evolution can't explain (because there is no connection to procreation or survival) is why other things, such as flowers, sunsets, mountains, trees, forests, oceans, beaches, etc. appear beautiful to people. Yet they are beautiful, sometimes achingly so.

[Dataman]

THese debated become so laughable at times.

I laughing.