TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
You just did some shallow reading (likely from a dubious source?) and think you know better then scientists who spend a lifetime studying this stuff in detail?
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
You just did some shallow reading (likely from a dubious source?) and think you know better then scientists who spend a lifetime studying this stuff in detail?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Nobody said anything even only remotely close to that.
You should respond to what people actually say instead of what you imagine them to say.
It will make up for more honest discussion and who knows, you actually might learn something.
You don't have to "believe" science.
But at least do an effort to actually know what the science says instead of misrepresenting it.
If it's "so wrong", then surely you have no need to misrepresent it and you should be able to argue against it without misrepresenting it, right?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
As said previously, it's a genetic fact.
Not some hypothesis or even theory. It's a genetic and biological fact.
Just as it is a fact that our ancestors were (and we ourselves are) mammals.
It's as verified as can be through DNA testing.
It's sufficient in court to prove that someone is your kid or brother or whatever. It's sufficient also to determine ancestry among species.
Then why are you here trying to discuss it?
How could you possibly know that if you never learn anything about it?
If something is right or wrong, is determined by its own merits - not by your alternative beliefs.
I believe in evidence.
Funny also how you have already confirmed my prediction from my first post in this thread...
Your only "argument" against evolution, is that you already believe something else.
Figured as much. So cliché, so predictable.
I guess we're done here. After all, you just admitted that you will refuse to learn anything about evolution. Which means that you're simply going to continue misrepresenting it while not caring about being wrong.
Discussion with someone with an attitude like that, is a complete waste of energy.
Intellectually dishonest, and proud of it.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Why can't humans find their way in a pitch black dark cave, but bats can?
Neolithic human's selectively evolve popcorn and other corn varieties from a distinctly separate species Teosinte that was barely edible.
Audie
Veteran Member
It was over by 1860.
leroy
Well-Known Member
Intelligence is unlikely to evolve, so perhaps we are the only intelligent being in the universe.
Evolution tells us we might be the only intelligent life in the universe
Your overt self inflicted ignorance of science based on an ancient religious agenda.
No, evolution tells us how intelligence evolved over time.
ecco
Veteran Member
OK. Make an intelligent comment and let's debate.
osgart
Nothing my eye, Something for sure
Evolution as explained will provide the purely mechanistic workings of nature in regards to life. However it will not explain the purposes we see in nature that emerge over time. It relegates the purposes to some arbitrary happening. The conclusion many draw is that life purposelessly invents novelty through random variation and natural selection. That utterly disregards the purposes seen in nature.
The naturalist wants to reduce everything to purely physical happenings without much explanation for the purposes inherent in living creatures.
I don't see the point in going round and round about arguing that creative purpose exists in nature. Either you see the simple evidence of it or you dismiss it as unintentional functions that arise gradually from complexity.
It's not a terribly deep discussion. See it or don't. I feel completely justified in seeing the creative purposes in nature. And in seeing purposes in nature I derive that there are intrinsic qualities to being alive that defy physical description.
Why bash heads over it? Apparently the religious and spiritual majority of people is seen as a threat to secular life. So many secular people have a great big commitment on RF to attack spirituality and convert people to a purely scientific thought process spearheaded by the naturalist, materialist narrative.
The naturalist wants to reduce everything to purely physical happenings without much explanation for the purposes inherent in living creatures.
I don't see the point in going round and round about arguing that creative purpose exists in nature. Either you see the simple evidence of it or you dismiss it as unintentional functions that arise gradually from complexity.
It's not a terribly deep discussion. See it or don't. I feel completely justified in seeing the creative purposes in nature. And in seeing purposes in nature I derive that there are intrinsic qualities to being alive that defy physical description.
Why bash heads over it? Apparently the religious and spiritual majority of people is seen as a threat to secular life. So many secular people have a great big commitment on RF to attack spirituality and convert people to a purely scientific thought process spearheaded by the naturalist, materialist narrative.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
What supposed purposes are you talking about? Perhaps you see purposes where none exist.
And you do not seem to understand the concept of evidence. If you cannot lay it out clearly it is not evidence. It is only confirmation bias.
osgart
Nothing my eye, Something for sure
For one purpose is memory that serves reason and understanding that serves appreciations, actions and survival. Another is that the body is meant to act on the environment. Intelligence is a purpose to survive and explore the environment. Another is the seat of emotions; the heart that is meant to appreciate and care about experiences and relationships. Self awareness serves purposes. Eyes serve purposes. Ears serve purposes. Purposes abound in animals, especially humans. Everything life is meant to survive and appreciate, to learn, and to grow. And it all works together in a coherent fashion. Why is life coherently functional?
I enjoy the fact that these purposes exist, and I'm glad for it but that doesn't make it bias. I can easily say naturalism is confirmation bias.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, those are not "purposes". In fact some of them are just wrong. The heart has nothing to do with emotion. What you posted was mostly word salad.
For example the evolution of the eye is well understood. It is an organ that works, but it had no driving "purpose" for its evolution. It was merely a reaction to environmental pressures.
Audie
Veteran Member
This is basically nothing but self indulgence,
elevating how you just happen to feel to
top importance.
Last edited:
Audie
Veteran Member
The human eye is a goofy design with
many weaknesses.
The squid has a more sensible design.
osgart
Nothing my eye, Something for sure
Heart in the spiritual sense. Not the organ.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Then no purpose at all. Got it.
osgart
Nothing my eye, Something for sure
Am I speaking in an alien language or something. None of what I said is nonsensical.
I understand it simply.
Environmental pressures alone produce things fine. But they don't produce the eye which has the purpose of seeing the environment.
I realize you understand the mechanics of the eye. Environmental pressures alone can't account for the fact that it exists with purpose. To see.
You are taking a purely physical process and attributing its ingeniousness to environmental pressures alone.
No eye had to ever exist. It's constructed. If a mindless process was the only thing working all you would get is garbled complexity, no eye.
It's far from perfect but it has obvious purpose. To see.
Body plans are not a mindless natural, inevitable result. That is your bias talking. Body plans are intentional constructs. Thus the word plan.
I don't need to understand its detailed workings to understand its function and purpose.