Macroevolution, an unexplainable process

So what we have, are specific processes that correlate with intelligence that manifests intelligence. If you ask yourself "what does he mean by intelligence"? just look in the mirror, look around you, look how energy operates, look at creation where it is right now and ask yourself honestly how these processes occur without a mind.

.only the mounds of evidence that exists within the experiential world of spirituality! that have been proposing things that are true about the origins of existence for a long, long time. You can ignore spiritual sources because you favor a materialistic interpretation but don't claim there's no evidence. The evidence that correlates with the nature of consciousness and the soul are overwhelming, this evidence falls within the category of religion, spirituality and transcendental experience. You can minimize and label that evidence whatever you want, even dismiss it but it's there and it has been there.

Now moving beyond the evidence, there's still commonsense, logic and rationale. Since we know minds and processes go hand in hand Occam's Razor fits with Theism quite well so there's no real reason to assume or accept that there was no mind involved. At least not from the stance of commonsense and the available evidence.

I was actually indoctrinated as a child to believe that God created the earth 6k years ago like IlDiavolo likely was. 

When I lost my faith I wasn't really sure how like was created since I was only constantly told it was God and did not believe that explanation was accurate.

After a couple years I decided to make an effort to understand how life was created and read a single book on evolution.  The information is so varied and exact that it takes something like indoctrination/denial to disagree.

Probably because many years ago I may have tried to take the same position as he does.  What cured me is a simple question.  Why don't I apply the same standards of evidence to my faith that I do to everything else?  That was the beginning of the end of it.

llDiavolo is not a Christian

If you read my posts, evolution of embodiments fits just fine with Theism and a Creator.

look at how the environment was prepared, then came stars as heat and light sources as well as seeding the planet. Then you have the collection of galaxies and the formation of planets, isn't it ironic that planets are HOMES??

The problem, is asserting they take place without an intelligent conscious Being.

Why did you give up on spirituality just because you read a book on evolution?

the Creator who manipulates energy, particles and elements which we observe through things evolving and the isolation of energy to create form

we are dealing with existence that transcends the physical sense perception.

there certainly is an objective reality that transcends this one

spiritual faith is not just about believing in things for no reason and with no evidence

Faith is trust and confidence, and trust and confidence are developed. In order to have confidence and trust in something there must be reason, evidence and experience to do so

See and understand what is worth pursuing and ask questions here

argue anything I point out.

One doesn't have to accept 6 day creation to be a Theist, that's just a matter of individual interpretation.

Not all Theists assert or assume there was no process (evolution) involved. 

Why did you give up on spirituality just because you read a book on evolution? In order for there to be creation there must be a process of getting it there. When you study a secular source they are just looking at the physical side of things. They can't observe that it's the Creator who manipulates energy, particles and elements which we observe through things evolving and the isolation of energy to create form.

Why didn't you apply the same standards to your faith? as long as you fully comprehend the nature of Theism and spirituality everything else IS the same, but with spirituality we are dealing with existence that transcends the physical sense perception. What was your faith? if it was your beliefs that you no longer agree with you're not obligated or required to accept them, however you didn't have to give up on the whole idea and throw in the towel. You simply put your faith in what makes sense and what you can relate to. Not everything we are taught in religion is correct, but, there certainly is an objective reality that transcends this one. So spirituality, which is the process of learning who and what you truly are is well worth the pursuit. You just have to get with sources that know what they are talking about.

Just as a side note, spiritual faith is not just about believing in things for no reason and with no evidence, that plays no role in spirituality. Faith is trust and confidence, and trust and confidence are developed. In order to have confidence and trust in something there must be reason, evidence and experience to do so. So don't trick yourself, you were never required to believe in things you had no confidence and trust in. But change your beliefs, spirituality is an enormous arena, so don't just give up. See and understand what is worth pursuing and ask questions here.

And ignore the troll following me around

We're virtually programmed to listen to authority before the age of around 7. 

 Also the whole you can't reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into.

Change is possible.

Avoiding confirmation bias is possible.

It's just extremely hard.

Just imagine admitting you had an imaginary friend, actually a version of yourself that you have been talking to for years.  It takes a lot of time to admit that to yourself.

It is easier to write off theists as mentally ill but I doubt that is the case since I think they just have a severe lapse of judgement. 

While I don't think that all theists are mentally ill, religions certainly do draw the mentally ill to them. 

That's what we all do, so stop your complaining. Your lies and contradictions are being pointed out, that is what this forum is about. The real problem is that you hate others pointing out your lies and contradictions, so you throw hissy fits and complain of being harrassed. Of course, that's another obvious lie considering you post responses to me and the others you complain about. YOU are the actual troll here.

In which case you are no longer discussing evolution because the mechanism is defined in the Theory.

You don't believe that evolution occurred, you want to believe that a god created false evidence to fool mankind into believing evolution occurred, but it was god creating all along. Of course the bible from which your god originates informs you that this is simply untrue, your god tells you that he created all living things exactly as you see them today. Your speculations call your god a liar.

The evidence overwhelmed me even after a single book is what I am saying.  The observed facts and predicted side effects of the mechanisms involved.  Anyone who seriously makes these claims I would normally say they simply need to read a book or two.

You, however, are leaning on an argument that seems similar to a 'god/alien of the gaps' argument.  You are objecting perhaps more to abiogenesis or life before the first cell.  On this there is not a lot of great experimentation published.  Enough to convince myself particularly since, as Stronn pointed out.  There is no evidence that a mind intervened.  We know that from one cell humans can form in nine months via natural processes.  A self replicating molecule is entirely likely the original start.  From there it would just need environmental/selection pressures to change for the better.

There is no need at this point to point to a higher being to initiate this. 

I'm not pointing to any higher being. I'm just putting in the table all the possibilities as to how evolution could occur, which includes panspermia theory. I'm opened to several possibilities because, as I said, doubt is good and only idiots are absolutely sure. So, what I was trying to say in this topic is that natural selection and random mutation have ridiculous flaws to explain evolution, and scientists must rethink it in other way, considering other theories and viewpoints that also try to explain evolution.

Moreover, I don't think reading only a book would help you in understanding such a complex and controversial topic. This attitude only makes you have a myopic view of evolution. It's almost a religious attitude and this only book you've read your bible.

Just so you know, long time ago I've read a theory that stated cells have a sort of intelligent that give them abilities to do "things", like for example evolve for themselves. It was crazy, but possible.

You don't argue his arguments, neither mine.

I'm not religious, moron. You should know it. If I said "assume" it's because only the idiots are 100 per cent sure.

So, what I was trying to say in this topic is that natural selection and random mutation have ridiculous flaws to explain evolution, and scientists must rethink it in other way, considering other theories and viewpoints that also try to explain evolution.

only idiots are absolutely sure