God, in other words had nothing to do with it

This is so interesting. I really wish we could sit at a table with a glass of wine and talk about this.

In response to your comments, I think that, as usual, I have not expressed myself as I should.

Let me try to clarify:

DNA is now an established and accepted science. If you do not agree with this position, then I have no way to support my position.
It is the latest scientific DNA claim that all living beings are derived from the same, very first, single molecule creation, as it was originally created under whatever circumstances, billions of years ago.

God, in other words had nothing to do with it, unless you believe that he created the universe and let things take their course over billions of years. In the latter instance, I can comfortably respect this position, though I would personally have considerable difficulty in believing in this version of events.

I happen to belong to the theorists who believe that man is an animal. A wonderful, thinking, caring, compassionate, animal which is capable of producing the very best and the very worst that nature can produce, including saint like members like Albert Schweitzer, as well as members who are evil in the worst possible manner, like Hitler and other Nazis.

As any other belief, mine must of necessity be absolute, if it is to have any meaning, otherwise I would not have it, or give it any importance at all. It does not mean that I refuse to discuss other options or possibilities, but any such different options or possibilities must be convincing, if my simple mind is to accept them.

I believe that this might be the case with yourself as well. You believe in your ideas and put them forward for discussion because you believe in them. It does not mean that you are negatively dogmatic about them, as I like to be believe that I am not negatively dogmatic about my own ideas.

The phrase "negatively" dogmatic to my mind means someone who has made up his mind and refuses to change it, irrespective of any proof to the contrary. A positive dogmatist would then be someone who has an unshakable belief in the accuracy of his position, until proof OR REASONABLE ARGUMENT to the contrary is provided. In other words, You and I! :-))

I like to think that we both belong to the "positive dogmatist" group of thinkers, in the sense that our beliefs in various subjects are strong because we think about them before we formulate them, meaning that the strength of that belief is based on the fact that we took the trouble to think about it to the best of our ability. However, when someone comes along with a viewpoint which had previously escaped us for whatever reason, we are willing to rethink our position.

"Η εξελικτική μας πορεία " was what? Necessity has formulated our rules and regulations, which we eventually turned into laws, or, so important and crucial were they that we incorporated them into our genes....

What do I mean by that?

EXAMPLE 1: The need to hunt in groups in order to be safer and more effective against faster or stronger animals has created in our very genes the need for companionship. I just saw a documentary with someone who filmed himself in the wild over an extented period of time and who on day 32 started crying on camera because he did not have any human companionship.

EXAMPLE 2: Our need for human iteraction made it necessary to protect the weak from the strong, otherwise the strong would always get more, therefore we created laws which attempt to evenly distribute benefits.

I dont want to go on without your imput regarding the above, so I shall stop now before I become too boring. Let me know if I made myself more clear...

Dimitris

Albert Schweitzer:
"Until he extends his circle of compassion to include all living things, man will not himself find peace."
"I don't know what your destiny will be, but one thing I do know: the only ones among you who will be really happy are those who have sought and found how to serve."