mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Back to playing silly games, I see
Like your reasoned argument.
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!
Back to playing silly games, I see
Our perceptions of the universe may be objective or subjective, but the operation of the universe is unaffected by this.Yeah, learn to do this, which is a part of how the universe works in combination of the objective and subjective. Or don't.
Our perceptions of the universe may be objective or subjective, but the operation of the universe is unaffected by this.
That's not at all what he said or implied.So we are not a part of the universe? Then where are we?
Cool word games, bro.So we are not a part of the universe? Then where are we?
That's not at all what he said or implied.
Cool word games, bro.
Still stuck in that strawman I see. Eventhough 2 people now brought it to your attention - 1 of them being @tas8831 himself, the very person you are strawmanning...The universe is not just everything outside humans as the light and so on coming to humans. That is a form of dualism.
Subjective and objective are also part of the universe. I am tired of the map and the territory. If the map is not in the territory, then where is the map?
Where are scientists if not in the universe and a part of how the universe of the universe operates?
Cut out the dualism!
Still stuck in that strawman I see. Eventhough 2 people now brought it to your attention - 1 of them being @tas8831 himself, the very person you are strawmanning...
I guess that means that you don't care about arguing a strawman and just like to argue.
The troll hypothesis, seems to be gaining more supporting evidence with every post you make.
I don't need a reasoned argument to point out a strawman.And you still haven't answered with reasoned arguments.
Essentially Explain concept of Evolution "if valid" preceding Creationism
Evolution takes place through 3 processes over time.
1. Random mutation
2. Genetic drift
3. Natural selection
It's a common belief that evolution is, "coincidental randomness, and changes within living / non living and organic / non organic material, over time," that is one element of the theory of evolution but not the actual theory.
If you want to understand evolution you will have to read up about it and engage in the learning process.
I recommend this book to start you out. learning involves reflection and effort, don't forget that in this process.
Evolution: A Very Short Introduction - Very Short Introductions
The only thing that needs some explanation, because of the common misunderstanding of what constitutes 'randomness.' The reality is in nature the only thing that is observed to be random is the outcome of individual cause and effect events within a possibly alternatives constrained by natural laws and natural processes. The overall chain cause and effect events in nature are not random. The pattern over time likewise limited by natural laws and processes is fractal, but not random.
This needs to be clarified because many critics of abiogenesis and evolution interpret 'randomness' is anything goes, and nature alone is some sort of unpredictable chaos.
In what way is evolution fractal? Can you please give an example of this. In eukaryotic evolution, for example, cells have non-fractal differences, especially in the differences between multicellular organisms.
Random mutation is one element of evolution, that was my point to the OP. We could debate whether the random mutation is truly random but I fear it would become pedantic and miss the wider point: evolution happens due to multiple factors, not just random mutation.
I think that to accept and believe in the evolution of life, one must deny creation and ignore it. (unless one mutilates all meaning of the bible to try and conform to manscience)Essentially Explain concept of Evolution "if valid" preceding Creationism.
If you do not deny there was a real Eve created by God from a bone of a man, then how could we have descended from the same ancestors as flatworms?"to accept and believe in the evolution of life, one must deny creation and ignore it." I disagree.
There are many, many people of faith who believe in God and believe that God had a hand in creation, but emphatically do not view Genesis as a science or history book.
Apostasy is common.I am a mainstream Christian (ELCA Lutheran, raised Catholic) who believes in God and believes that he had a hand in creation, and also accepts the scientific evidence supporting evolution and deep time. Within mainstream Christianity (e.g., the Reformation denominations and Catholic and Anglican/Episcopalian), I believe this is the overwhelmingly common position.
As to the existence of God and the divinity of Jesus, that is a matter of faith. Science, which researches the natural cosmos, cannot study, confirm, or deny his existence. As Carl Sagan said about life on other planets, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
I believe it is an abomination for YECs to deny the faith of the great majority of Christians and assert that evolution is an atheistic "belief."
They are correct, we need to choose whom we will believe. If God be God then believe Him. They have the honesty to realize that the bible makes certain claims about creation. Such as that Eve was the first woman and mother of us all.And it equally wrong for atheists who accept scientific evidence for evolution and deep time to assert that those who agree must also set aside belief in God.
Yes, I recognize that there are many religious and many perceptions of God. "We see through a glass, darkly."