Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
You fool, seeds aren't dead, at least the ones that actually germinate, they are the combination of two gametes that are just waiting for the right conditions. just as sexual reproduction in humans.
No your story is not complicated, but it also has nothing to do with biological evolution except that there is reproduction in it.
You are just making up your own meanings for words, since nobody else is you, this has become unintelligible.
The variation that nature selects from is mostly physical.
Whatever you learned it doesn't seem to have been biology.
It happened over the last 400 million years ago, we have a great deal more detail than anything you have ever offered, complaining we don't have a movie is just disingenuous.
And we are still sarcoptygerians and vertebrates and mammals and primates and apes and always will be until we go extinct.
I was explaining my sense of his argument, nothing to be sorry about. I've run out of patience so more power to you.
It's not meaningless, but it doesn't have the significance you seem to think it does because you are still stuck in Newtonian thinking. Space-time in general relativity is just a four-dimensional geometric object. The geometry in time-like directions is different in detail, but not in the fact that they are only directions through the manifold, cf. lines of longitude on the surface of the earth.
To a limited extent. That cannot overcome a basic genetic variation. An individual cannot, for example, change its colouring so as to be better camouflaged.
What!? Trying to redefine words again?
Nonsense.
It has been observed, and experiments have been done. You can also simulate natural selection on a computer and use it as a design methodology.
There have been multiple experiments that do demonstrate evolution, as you've been told before. And it is simply untrue that science and evidence is only based in experiments, anyway.
What's that got to do with it?
Have you reviewed the fossil evidence? Do you think the experts who have studied this for decades are just making it all up? Science, unlike the mythology you embrace, is based on observable, tested facts.
Of course. the equilibrium of evolution is punctuated by occasional rapid changes. The cause in this case seems pretty clear.
You forgot science. It demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that fish ancestors had reptilian, avian, and mammalian descendants.
That information is unavailable to you. You've been unable to learn it.
And you never will. That's what a faith-based confirmation bias does.
Those words were written to Leroy. He's the one discussing simultaneity in cause-effect relationships.
Sorry if I've offended you. I don't consider you stupid, but I do find your thinking to be chaotic.
I posted a definition of superstition. It doesn't include all religious belief. Just the unfalsifiable ones, like gods and afterlives.
I do it frequently. So do others including you. This is how we get new words and new meanings for familiar words. All one need do when coining a new word or phrase is define it for others. For example, the words disbelief and unbelief are generally interchangeable (synonymous), but I assign them different meanings in my thoughts, but when I write or speak them, I need to define them if I wish to be understood. Unbelief is the lack of a belief in an idea without calling it wrong. Disbelief works for that.
The opposite is correct. Communication requires that words, symbols, and even meaningful gestures are assigned mutually agreed upon meanings, which is semantics.
No, he didn't. He explained the origin diversity of life. I'm not aware that he ever referred to consciousness explicitly (I Googled "Darwin on consciousness" and got no answer).
It's possible. It's also highly unlikely. The only alternative to explain the evidence we have that robustly confirms that the theory is correct is a superhuman, deceptive, intelligent designer - say a race of superhuman extraterrestrials. That can't be ruled out, to consider it a serious alternative would be hold unreasonable doubt for the scientific theory.
Disagree. You might have included a few and your evidence for them if you think otherwise.
OK.
But I do know what they mean if they're written in English.
Disagree again. But you have difficulty getting from relevant evidence to sound conclusions, meaning that you can't tell what science is valid and what is not. You haven't been able to conclude that Darwin was correct, and so his ideas are superstition to you, but not to me and millions of others.
The universe appears to need no intelligent oversight to run day-to-day, not even anybody to wind the clockwork. And my world isn't chaotic. It's actually quite orderly and somewhat routine. Every morning begins with feeding the dogs followed by coffee with whipped cream with my wife (I always get up first) and every evening finishes on the terrace (enclosed with windows that open and screens) watching TV and sipping white wine as the sun goes down. In between, I play online bridge three mornings a week (T-Tu-Sa) and club bridge one morning (F) and one afternoon (T) a week. We have lunch or dinner out after club bridge, and Sunday mornings.
It is to me for reasons already given.
No. It looks like you didn't read it all, since you only quoted the first paragraph of my comment (italicized below). Here is the whole thing:
OK, but that's not what happens. The ball applies force then the sofa recedes. And you know that, which is how you were able to correctly call one the cause and the other the effect.