"...unless you think it's only 6,000 years old"
I don't. I also have no problem with various projections as to Earth's age being millions of years older than 6,000 years.
Moving on to the last two responses:
"The arrogance of people of faith is amazing. they assume that people are doomed to eternal darkness just because they don't share their particular superstition.
"...it is only the believer, who assumes that the atheists and agnostics live in darkness, without hope, etc.
...and with all due respect...you both seem to have misinterpreted that the comment was made in the context
of this thread... (i.e. looking at whether life is derived from meteors, oceanic vents, lightening strikes into a pre-biotic soup, whatever)...compared to those @mbass400 held up in derision because they believe and have faith that life came about by intellegent design (represented by those "sitting in their monestaries reading superstitions").
In the context of the thread then, relevent to each of your own expressed beliefs and argumentations:
If (as one of you believes and the other "isn't sure") that there was no "God" involved in the creation of life (whether yours or a one-celled creature)..."life" then is nothing more than the result of random chance...then death offers no future except a return to the amino acids, proteins, RNA/DNA from which you were assembled.
That is the principle of Randomness and/or Chaos Theory.
Based upon your own expressions of what you believe in (and do not)...since there is no "God" involved in the creation of life...no "God" exists who chould promise something beyond organic death.
Thus to those such as yourselves it must by necessity (reflecting your beliefs) follow that there is
nothing ("darkness" in that context") beyond death except a return to the elements (even comparative to the "return to dust"
statement in Genesis of the Hebrew Text [which BTW also carries no promise or indication of anything beyond death which came later as developed]).
You misunderstood because you presumed a regious meaning in what I said. Simply stated, I didn't do that either by word or inference.
The purpose of the contrast I drew, was to address @mbass400's comment about "readers of superstitions" because they believe in the intellegent assembly of amino acids, proteins, RNA/DNA, etc., into "life", and those like them who hope for a future beyond physical death that includes continued cognitivity and identity. His comment derides al those who believe there is a more of a purpose to life than simply the random assembly of elements after the death of which there is nothing...a.k.a..."darkness".
The belief there is a purpose and intellegent design behind the development of life embody the principles of Determinism.
As already noted, both of you brought a religious-context to bear against my use of "darkness"...again something I did not intend nor do I think there is anything like that imputed in the words of what I wrote which were not intended in any sense of a religiously-based denunciation of some sort. Nothing of the kind was intended - just a contrast of what the difference in concept of what happens at death between those who describe themselves as "believers" (in a religious sense) and those who do describe themselves as non-believers."Better to be sitting in their monasteries with faith and hope in their hearts ... searching for knowledge about the promise of light at the end of life's journey...than to be sitting ... looking into the darkness ... with no faith and no hope that there is anything but darkness at the end of life's journey".
Perhaps if now you re-read my contrast of death equated to "darkness" (representive of the end of life without any continuation of cognitive ability) with its opposite as maintained by those who have "faith" in life beyond organic death that continues
cognituve ability..you will better understand my comment in its appropriate context.
Finally...as this has started to degenerate into why I don't usually participate in such forums...I intend to restrict my responses as much as contextually and topically possible to the theme of this thread. Along with that, I will most often not respond to comments that are derisive and pejorative, sarcastic, and/or belitting directed at all who believe in and hope for the fulfillment of promises they hold dear of life after death. I will instead be focusing upon the theories advanced by the scientific community of how life came to be (and which I am working on a little each day as I can) and whether or not they
are their own form of "myths"