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!
Sorry, more trans and homophobia. Individuals do not evolve. Populations do. An individual that does not reproduce, but yet still supports the population as a whole does aid in the survival of the population. Homosexuality may be the result.of positive traits that help the population as a whole. That may be why the behavior is widespread across so many different species.
Only thing your friend gets right is spelling
And by contradicting yourself you show that you still do not even understand what the word "evolve" means. Nor did your post have anything to do with my correction. Oh my on my. I see that you are still a master of being fractally wrong.
Agreed that Genesis and the invention of the Abrahamic god have done mankind net harm, but I find value in the myths of Genesis. They're a study in psychology. Why does this creation account have a calendar in it? Why did this god need six days to create, and why did it need to rest thereafter? These seem to be qualities beneath a tri-omni god. And why a commandment to obey the Sabbath? Who benefits?
You're correct to expect nothing to change, because you don't change, and you don't believe what you are told. You've been told repeatedly that your science is wrong and your use of language vague, but it is you ignoring "every single point" like that made to you. I don't think that will ever change since none of the words spoken to you on that matter to date have had any discernible impact on your posting.
Religion invented the concept of sin, which is defined as a violation of God's law, which defines it as immoral and worthy of punishment.
Secular society uses different language. Human beings decide what is immoral for themselves, and human laws also define what behavior is acceptable and what will punished, but there is no supernaturalism or deity there, and the word sin doesn't apply.
Not in my moral code, and not in secular law. Acts can be immoral and/or illegal, but to use the word sin here is to use it metaphorically, not literally, and is this a different definition.
That's what Darwin found - animals unafraid of him.
There's an example of a vague and unintelligible claim. I don't know what you mean by science (you say it's dependent on experiment, so it can't what the scientific community means by the term), nor what you mean by metaphysics, so there's no reply possible to that comment except that I don't know what you mean.
Another term from Abrahamic religion (and maybe other traditions) like sin describing a universal principle in conflict with another called good, represented by God and Satan. I don't use that word for that reason. Malice will suffice and implies nothing more than ill will arising from a human mind.
Another unanswerable comment. I still don't know what you are calling consciousness, but it can't be what the majority mean by the word, because most life lacks consciousness. How would consciousness be selected for in a tree? What competitive advantage does that tree have over an unconscious one?
Through reason applied to evidence. Experiment isn't always possible when observation is. Moon science began when man first began observing the moon, but the experimental part had to wait for man to develop the technology to get experiments to the moon such as the laser reflector and to return moon rocks to earth for analysis.
This is teleology. Nothing in nature is known to try to do anything until consciousness and volition arise.
That's the theory of evolution with the teleologic element added. Remove that and you have the science, which is supported by the same evidence you claim supports your claim.
You should know the answer to that. They're reading AND reviewing them, and the reviews all look alike. The consensus is that your knowledge of science is lacking and your use of language vague
No. Humans are still subjected to Darwinian natural selection even if he can select artificially, as with developing biological or nuclear weapons. Man is demonstrating his increasing biological unfitness in his present condition as he marches toward imminent destruction of the biosphere through artifice (developing weapons, cooking the planet) and his choices (artificial selection), and if they continue, nature will select against them in Darwinian fashion soon enough.
That's wrong and undermines your credibility when discussing science. What a scientific theory needs is to be falsifiable and to have sufficient supporting evidence to be considered correct beyond reasonable doubt, which ideally includes confirmed, otherwise unlikely predictions. Evolutionary theory is supported by many such predictions being demonstrated correct as well as the absence of falsifying finds after over a century-and-a-half.
But there is. And I did address the point. You won't let yourself understand buy your refuted your own post.
OK. And I told you how I use the word.
Is that what you think happened? I don't. I didn't argue that your definition was wrong or mine right, nor did I try to change the meaning of your words.
OK again. What's your point? Do you think somebody thinks you don't believe that?
You once used the word to describe the collision of galaxies.
I disagree. I've only gotten unsubstantiated claims from you, often in ambiguous language meaning that I don't know what's being claimed much less demonstrated to be correct. Your "logic," which I haven't seen written out explicitly, cannot be standard logic if you think it justifies your beliefs.
OK. That's the way I feel about theology, which assumes the existence of gods. I just don't agree with you concerning Darwin and his theory. The theory is correct beyond reasonable doubt and is still standing unchallenged except by creationists, who have no standing in a scientific discussion about evolution unless they're also scientists like the now professionally disgraced Behe, where they are an irrelevant minority.
I've already given you my response to that, and it had no impact. The problem is on your end. You only think you substantiate your arguments. Others disagree. You only think you are being disregarded. You are being disagreed with, not disregarded.
It's not.
Maybe you shouldn't use language so casually. I still don't have a definition of sudden from you, just an example of suddenness - colliding galaxies, and of course whatever you mean about speciation being sudden. Is that also from the perspective of the evolution of galaxies? If that's what sudden means to you, then OK.
Disagree, but we've been through this, and it also had no impact on your subsequent posting. Galileo examined the heavens and noted it's contradictions with Christian cosmology, including craters on the moon and moons orbiting Jupiter. That was science that changed the world, and nary an experiment involved. Sorry, amigo, but I just falsified your claim again.
Here's a post I put in on another site attempting the same thing;This is how I feel on these threads at times. How do I get through? What words can I write that will lead to the equivalent of "Watah?" coming from you? What if anything would get you to do that search and produce that hypothesis you insist doesn't exist so I can say, "Yes, Leroy, yes!" Maybe nothing can do that, but I simply can't believe that - not yet.
Imagine how thrilled her teacher was. My motive is exactly the same - constructive and beneficent. But you have to participate actively to break analogous ground, meaning engage the arguments and other comments made to you as if they might have some merit.
The problem is that one cannot forcibly hold the persons hand in the water. Or perhaps more appropriate for some, we cannot hold their heads under water.OK. That's the way I feel about theology, which assumes the existence of gods. I just don't agree with you concerning Darwin and his theory. The theory is correct beyond reasonable doubt and is still standing unchallenged except by creationists, who have no standing in a scientific discussion about evolution unless they're also scientists like the now professionally disgraced Behe, where they are an irrelevant minority.
I've already given you my response to that, and it had no impact. The problem is on your end. You only think you substantiate your arguments. Others disagree. You only think you are being disregarded. You are being disagreed with, not disregarded.
You don't even try to meet your critics part way. Your posting is indistinguishable from before you heard those criticisms and read advice on what to do about it. You shouldn't expect anything to change before you do.
It's not.
Maybe you shouldn't use language so casually. I still don't have a definition of sudden from you, just an example of suddenness - colliding galaxies, and of course whatever you mean about speciation being sudden. Is that also from the perspective of the evolution of galaxies? If that's what sudden means to you, then OK.
Disagree, but we've been through this, and it also had no impact on your subsequent posting. Galileo examined the heavens and noted it's contradictions with Christian cosmology, including craters on the moon and moons orbiting Jupiter. That was science that changed the world, and nary an experiment involved. Sorry, amigo, but I just falsified your claim again.
But you don't engage at that level. You won't try to falsify my argument or even address it. If you're true to your posting history, you'll either write nothing or write something that doesn't contradict my argument, then make the same already rebutted statement again down the road, and then complain that nobody reads your arguments but instead quibble over semantics. It's a non-starter. It guarantees that you will nothing will ever change for you here unless YOU do first. You know the old chestnut about insanity being expecting different results from identical behavior.
Can you break out of that? All you need to do is test new approaches and adapt according to your experiences. Now THAT'S experimental science (trial-and-error, empiricism). I recommend it for you as a friend and hopeful benefactor to you. Imagine how thrilled I'd be to see you breakout of that cocoon.
This is from an earlier thread written to somebody else who I simply could never get through to:
Did you ever see the movie The Miracle Worker about a woman trying to teach a deaf and blind girl about words? The girl didn't know about them. I vaguely remember the teacher signing water over and over as she poured water on the girls hands, and then the epiphany as the little girl finally catches on, smiles in wonder, and in her deaf speech, says "Watah?" "Yes, Helen, yes!" Here are the frustration, the lesson, and the epiphany. Annie got through! :This is how I feel on these threads at times. How do I get through? What words can I write that will lead to the equivalent of "Watah?" coming from you? What if anything would get you to do that search and produce that hypothesis you insist doesn't exist so I can say, "Yes, Leroy, yes!" Maybe nothing can do that, but I simply can't believe that - not yet.
Imagine how thrilled her teacher was. My motive is exactly the same - constructive and beneficent. But you have to participate actively to break analogous ground, meaning engage the arguments and other comments made to you as if they might have some merit.
Still operating from a deep ignorant misunderstanding of what "fit" means in evolutionary science, I see.