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!
I have seen it. It is extremely common and I wondered if anyone else can see it.
Me too!
I understand you!
It is so weird! A certain marriage counselor I have met calls that kind of behavior a losing strategy and I agree!
I have learned that to avoid that weird mirror phenomenon I should tread more lightly. I have to become a better person but I have fewer friends. Another wise person I met taught at the college level, "You can have too many friends", which I think is true.
Only in your imagination......IMO only a fool could say that these are 'just accidents' of nature.
I think you worship the wrong parent.Credit where it is due...."Mother" nature has to have a "Father" to reproduce.
Common in what species? A few birds, reptiles and marine creatures?
What about the millions of other species that need male and female participation to reproduce?...including humans?
According to Wiki.....
"Parthenogenesis is seen to occur naturally in aphids, Daphnia, rotifers, nematodes and some other invertebrates, as well as in many plants. Among vertebrates, strict parthenogenesis is only known to occur in lizards, snakes,[33] birds[34] and sharks,[35] with fish, amphibians and reptiles exhibiting various forms of gynogenesis and hybridogenesis (an incomplete form of parthenogenesis).[36] The first all-female (unisexual) reproduction in vertebrates was described in the fish Poecilia formosa in 1932.[37] Since then at least 50 species of unisexual vertebrate have been described, including at least 20 fish, 25 lizards, a single snake species, frogs, and salamanders.[36] Other, usually sexual, species may occasionally reproduce parthenogenetically and Komodo dragons; the hammerhead and blacktip sharks are recent additions to the known list of spontaneous parthenogenetic vertebrates. As with all types of asexual reproduction, there are both costs (low genetic diversity and therefore susceptibility to adverse mutations that might occur) and benefits (reproduction without the need for a male) associated with parthenogenesis."
Parthenogenesis - Wikipedia
Doesn't look like much of an argument to me.
No-one said they are accidents. You have been told many, many times that natural selection is not an accidental process.
Attempted argument by analogy? In any case, good parents don't require worship.I think you worship the wrong parent.Credit where it is due...."Mother" nature has to have a "Father" to reproduce.
You are absolutely entitled to think so. Makes no difference to me. Let the music play on......
You will have wasted a hell of a lot of your time and life devoted to and perpetuating a falsehood.
Nothing, since we only go where the evidence goes.
You honestly believe nobody who disagrees with you ever thought about that?
But they aren't. They're naturally reproducing organisms.
Actually, it's YOU who has the flare for colour and design. Nature has no preference - it's the observer that has a purely aesthetic appreciation for it.
When rocks are blown into a hole by the wind such that only rocks of a certain size fall town to the bottom of the hole and other rocks get stuck, is that the wind or hole "intelligently determining" which rocks should be at the bottom of the hole? No. It's the same for evolution. The organisms that have mutations that are beneficial to reproduction and survivability will be more likely to pass on those genes to their children, thus resulting in it eventually influencing the overall allele frequency of a population. If you wish to believe an intelligence is behind this, go ahead, but you cannot argue that it is necessarily required without fundamentally misunderstanding how natural selection actually works.
Like when people allow their children to die for the sake of their beliefs?
Actually, that is false. The Christian system of forgiveness and salvation allows a person to be an incredibly rotten person throughout their entire life and still escape any kind of punishment by being saved at the end of it. Your doctrine specifically promotes the notion that punishment isn't always forthcoming because anyone can be saved through grace. It is a fundamentally unjust system of faith.
But if it was a falsehood, then obviously it wasn't THAT which made you a better person.
Then I am a better person than you, because I don't need a Creator, and I can accept that we are animals, and yet I am still more than capable of all of your virtues.
You've demonstrated no understanding of it to date.
Hard to be mad at something that you don't believe exists. Why is it that you struggle so much with the concept of people not believing what you believe?
A thing that doesn't exist offers nothing.
Then stop insinuating that hey haven't considered the bleeding obvious. I guarantee that I have thought longer and harder about my beliefs and the consequences of them than you have.
Or not, which is the more likely conclusion.
