-->
@IlDiavolo
And, let's be clear here, I have the same userid as I did on ddo, yet you pretended to be someone else when you joined here. How childish is that.
Macroevolution, an unexplainable process
Posts
Total:
210
-->
@Goldtop
No, you don't. You had two usernames on DDO, first "Danjereuse" and after you got banned for being a troll you created another one with your actual name Goldtop.
I've never been banned, oldy. The fact that I use another username doesn't mean anything.
-->
@IlDiavolo
As we can see, you can never stop lying. I was never banned, my account was hacked, I reported it to the admins who said I needed to create another account. Feel free to engage the admins on ddo and ask themself, then you can stfu.No, you don't. You had two usernames on DDO, first "Danjereuse" and after you got banned for being a troll you created another one with your actual name Goldtop.
The fact that I use another username doesn't mean anything.
Sure, Arch. Lol.
-->
@Goldtop
It doesn't matter how you justify your banning on DDO. It was clear to me that you were banned because your profile said so.
And I will ask you to stop making off topic since you havent yet contributed anything to this thread. So if you have nothing to say about the matter at hand I kindly invite you to fvck off.
You're lying again. What is with you creationist Christians that you can never tell the truth. Oh yes, you have no concept of what is true.It doesn't matter how you justify your banning on DDO. It was clear to me that you were banned because your profile said so.
you havent yet contributed anything to this thread.
Since you created this thread, you have offered in it nothing but lies, ignorance and denial of fact. Since, others have brains that work, they can clearly see all of that and have responded to you in kind. Funny, how you can't even understand that.
-->
@Goldtop
Hahahahaha. You're a troll, old man, that is for sure.
ROFL
-->
@IlDiavolo
Yet, I proved you wrong again, which isn't very hard to do. This entire thread is a monument to that. You've been blowing smoke about refuting evolution for a long time, but unfortunately for you, several here have shown you don't even know what you're talking about. That was made evident back at ddo. So, your laughing is quite ironic considering how much you've humiliated yourself here.
-->
@IlDiavolo
It's useless to explain the differences between microevolution and macroevolution
Useless indeed. Evolutionary biology, the science of genetics and paleontology do not even make a distinction between the two. There is just the process of evolution which has been independently confirmed by a number of unconnected individuals, scholastic organizations and scientific disciplines.
-->
@secularmerlin
There is just the process of evolution which has been independently confirmed by a number of unconnected individuals, scholastic organizations and scientific disciplines.
SM is correct. This is a minimal brainer for those who seek truth.
..."Evolution in real time.
...Since 1988, Richard Lenski has watched E. coli bacteria multiply through 59,000 generations, a span that has allowed him to observe evolution in real time. He also found that one of the 12 bacterial lines he has maintained has developed into what he believes is a new species.....
..."
Seeing “Evolution in Real Time”: Mice Blend in to Survive
...By watching a population of deer mice shift in the span of a single generation, scientists have captured evolution in action, connecting genes to survival in the wild."...
-->
@Titanium
One doesn't have to accept 6 day creation to be a Theist
I realize this but I skipped this step.
Why? what do you mean by that? I know you were taught that but the point I'm making is that it's not necessary even in religious squares. So....you're allowed to discard anything that you disagree with and so the reason for rejecting Theism based on the study of evolution is also not necessary. There's many Theists who understand creation is a process and that process includes the evolution of matter and forms. You don't have to go from a 6 day Creationist to a materialist atheist lol, where's the middle ground?
I've watched people slowly lean away from the most absurd claims to the horrendous commands god issues but it wasn't like that for me.
Not sure I understand what this has to do with what I wrote. Perhaps you could give me an example of what you mean here.
Not all Theists assert or assume there was no process (evolution) involved.
Yes, I was of the fundamentalist variety
But, there's still many aspects left in spirituality for you to experience and explore.
I have been exposed to a variety of this type of moderate apologetics since I am still very interested in faith and how it originates and affects our society.
You can call it apologetics but I just call it commonsense. You seem to draw an imaginary line between faith and the study of evolution and while you are certainly allowed to do that, again it's not necessary. There isn't just faith and then evolution, the two can be compatible because they focus on entirely different aspects of our observation. Again, faith isn't just beliefs, it's a spiritual element consisting of trust and confidence and even a Theist might not have any faith. Faith is an action, it allows the user to overcome obstacles in their life so this idea of believing in things for no reason and with zero evidence is a misconception and plays no role in spirituality.
I tentatively accept ideas about the self, consciousness etc proposed by eastern religions and they do line up with the current understanding of the brain. I practice mindfulness on a regular basis
Excellent, so what's the problem?? if you accept it, then you know the nature of consciousness, which is the same as the soul, which opposes materialism......which manifests in form by the Creator. Consciousness is neither created or destroyed, energy exists because conscious activity exists. One before the other. The average materialist has everything arse backwards, inanimate matter can never produce conscious beings, the process of evolving forms is aided by intelligence....that's why it produces intelligence.
If there you can be both spiritual and a methodological naturalist I am that.
Well unfortunately that is impossible, because spirituality is the practice and observation of the reality that transcends the physical sense perception. And because it's an objective reality it has to be acknowledged for it to have any influence on you. Otherwise it's just a meaningless term. You can be methodological and spiritual, but not a materialist or an atheist and spiritual because the two terms are conflicting. They are conflicting because spirituality is intertwined with the realization of the Creator, there is a purpose/cultivation and journey of the soul. You have to eventually lay down these types of limiting mindsets and beliefs if you wish to fully embrace spirituality because what you accept is what your potential will be. The nature of consciousness is truly unlimited and materialism is at the lowest level of knowledge and understanding, it's like looking at the effects of things and never understanding the cause of them therefore your experience will always be on that same level.
Yes, things that no one can observe I don't believe in. If you observe god in your personal life so did I. If you pray and read your bible and experience god in every aspect of your life I did too. I now call that confirmation bias and the bliss of mindfulness in your life.
Maybe your own beliefs at the time were confirmation bias (because maybe they were immature, having no experiential grounding), however if you are observing and examining spirituality from an objective, rational viewpoint then that is not necessary. Again, I find it funny that Theistic beliefs always get labeled "conformation bias" when in reality it applies the same way with materialism and naturalism. Now the only difference is that you filter everything through a materialist worldview and answer to a materialistic based study......which is LIMITED. So the only thing you really did was limit yourself and your experiences. You could have examined religion and spirituality objectively at any point and any time, which is what my main point has been. You didn't have to hold conflicting or absurd beliefs as a Theist, you didn't need to use confirmation bias either, all that was on you not Theism.
-->
@Titanium
Continued...
Prayer studies would be a good start to confirm a god and they have all failed.
Not at all, because prayer studies would be inconsistent as they show. That's due to prayer being a personal, individual element, and this is where faith plays its role. Faith (trust and confidence) is what powers prayer to make it effectual, so it's a personal manifestation and either a person has it or they don't, either a person has much or little. So yes, I'm claiming effectiveness does not come through God but the individual and this can be easily seen by Jesus of the Gospels and His teachings about faith and what it's purpose is. Ye of little faith!! a little faith can move mountains (obstacles) but not if the person has none.
Prayer also depends on lifestyle, effective prayer has to correlate with how a person lives their life. In other words someone can't slap their kid around one week then expect prayer to work the next, not how this works at all and so studies of prayer are obviously going to be inconsistent.
You are claiming that god intervened in reality, particularly evolution and that can be observed by science.
I'm not sure if the word intervene is appropriate because God didn't come between anything to alter a course of events, rather the process and course of events began because the Creator caused them.
Is that the end or do you believe god intervenes in your life?
I believe a person can have different experiences on varying states of consciousness. If a person is in line with principles they have the ability to channel those higher conscious frequencies and energy into this world. God doesn't "intervene", rather has access through every channel of awareness and so it's not an intervention, the Creator is everywhere at all times. But if an individual wants to manifest the Divine or a higher level of energy on earth they have to channel that.... You ARE the channel of the Divine and like any conduit it depends upon what you are capable of channeling.
If so that is intervention into the natural world which could be observed by science.
Not at all, because we are not dealing with physical objects or matter so there is no medium for science to examine the source of activity even if they observed it, science is limited to the natural world and while it can observe effects of spirituality it has no way to confirm it. All we can see from the physical perception is an inconsistent effect of things, if they happen. However, as conscious beings we don't have to be controlled or restricted to one observation. We have the potential to experience the full scope of consciousness and all that it implies, but we are the ones who control our own input and output.
Where is your evidence for that?
There's evidence of spiritual and transcendent experiences everywhere and in abundance. So much so, it's hard to even know where to start. But fortunately it's there.
I see that you're claiming you apply the same standard of evidence required when you make all other belief decisions to your faith.
Not my faith, stop saying that. I know you are using the term that way but for me it's not applicable, faith and beliefs are not the same thing. Faith doesn't even come into the equation until trust and confidence have been established. Faith follows beliefs but they are two distinct elements with different roles. Beliefs are acquired through commonsense, logic, rationale, evidence and observations.....faith comes into play when a person becomes confident in what they believe, see the difference there?
I do not believe that is possible and my faith ended quickly when I was honestly able to do that.
That's why I decided to respond to your post, because you are wrong on this one, it IS possible to use the same standards that you do everything else as long as you fully understand the nature of spirituality and what correlates with that nature. There's much more dynamics involved in Theism. After that everything is the very same......there is no altering of standards before you accept something. It still has to make sense, be logical, follow rationally and have evidence!
You may have accepted the study of evolution and that may have contradicted your personal beliefs but that's why I am here to say Theism and evolution are compatible, and that's because there is a process of creation.
-->
@Titanium
Continued...
It took a few years to get honest with myself and involved separating myself from the constant affirmation of a church. I was a fundamentalist evangelical christian for many years and changing brought more suffering than I thought possible so I can understand why people are hesitant to undertake the task.
Do you understand the difference between what your parents urged you to believe and the reality of what actually exists in spirituality? and that what your parents urged you to believe is not all there is to Theism?? if you do understand that, then maybe you will start to see why you still can hold Theistic beliefs while understanding evolution. Fundamentalism is precisely that, it's limited by only one approach and one set of ideas and beliefs. BUT, it's not necessary to be a fundamentalist to be spiritual or accept Theism.
The good news is that you don't always have to be destined to be agnostic or an atheist, you can still experience the objective reality of spirituality.....while embracing evolution. However you can't just blow it off and ignore it, at some point you must get involved and participate.
A lot of people get discouraged because of their childhood experience of religion but just because they never connected with it doesn't mean it's all bogus. This goes back to what I'm saying about spirituality and faith not being just about beliefs, you want to get to a place where you have knowledge from experience. Without my own observations and experiences I would have nothing to pursue, nothing to articulate, nothing to connect with and this is where many people left off with their interest in Theism.
Ok, what reasons and evidence establish your faith?
I could never explain that in a single sentence. My beliefs are formed through a lifetime of observations and examinations. I could give you examples, but there is no single answer and a single answer might not be that convincing anyways. There's so many angles that apply to my beliefs it's not even funny there's a lot we could discuss about that. The best way I could put it is that my beliefs are a culmination of experience and study.
But again, what establishes my "faith" is what I'm confident in, so first comes sorting and reasoning through beliefs and then comes faith to anchor that belief. Remember that order because it has become a major misconception, faith isn't applicable until you have solid trust in something... so just believing in things is not faith at all, having confidence is what faith means and confidence comes through all the things I've been telling you here....experiential knowledge and commonsense.
Sorry about the delay in my response, if you plan on commenting back maybe we should try and condense this since it's all kind of the same topic and theme.
-->
@Titanium
I will respond later but honestly several years ago I approached the evolution topic completely undecided as an adult. The evidence was so compelling that I was immediately sold.
Maybe it's because evolution is true, but what were you sold on? that evolution took place or a materialistic/atheistic worldview? two different things there buddy.
It's hard to think that faith is not the key element in resistance to what is perhaps one of the most well established theories in science.
If only you knew how incorrect that statement is. Perhaps you could say fundamentalism in some religious squares refuse to accept established theories but that doesn't apply to faith at all, unless of course you believe that faith is just a collection of beliefs. Hopefully, after all I said about faith you won't accept that idea anymore. To make matters more clear, a person can have faith in evolution.
Simply no good reason to believe there was outside intervention at any point.
That's an interpretation, not a fact. The distinction I've been trying to convey for you.
I take great pains to be objective and I likely understand faith based positions more than many I see on this site.
I would rather you understand what faith actually means and what it is for lol.
I am saying that I think your faith impacts your view of evolution and likely everything but that's just at a glance. Would you say this is true?
Well do you remember what I wrote about interpretations? remember that what science puts forward is a neutral study, meaning that what we interpret from that study is up for personal interpretation. Would you agree that is true? again my faith has no part in this, first I interpret the propositions and evidence available.....then I have faith in it when it makes sense to me, so my faith is not impacting anything, rather my faith comes after I have evaluated everything and I fully trust it. See how that works? faith doesn't influence what I accept or believe, but when I accept it and trust it, then I can place faith in it. You have to get that order of operation right first.
-->
@EtrnlVw
again my faith has no part in this, first I interpret the propositions and evidence available.....then I have faith in it when it makes sense to me, so my faith is not impacting anything, rather my faith comes after I have evaluated everything and I fully trust it.
What way are you interpreting the propositions and evidence?
Please be brief and specific.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
What way are you interpreting the propositions and evidence?
I've explained that, if you go back to my original response and follow it from there everything should be clear, very clear. I'm claiming that processes are the result of intelligence, AKA the Creator as well as the evidence available (regarding consciousness) is suggestive/supportive of spirituality (NDE's/OBE's).
Please be brief and specific.
The interpretation comes through logic and rationale, the evidence comes through what correlates with that specific nature. This goes into the experiential world of religion and the vast arena of spirituality.
-->
@EtrnlVw
The interpretation comes through logic and rationale, the evidence comes through what correlates with that specific nature. This goes into the experiential world of religion and the vast arena of spirituality.
This does not help me.
What type of logic?
What do you mean by rationale?
the evidence comes through what correlates with that specific nature.
Are you saying you find evidence to what you already believe in?
Lets say I give you X evidence to something. I don't want a depends instead would like to know the process of how you say this evidence is true or false.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
This does not help me.
What are you trying to get help with? certainly regarding spirituality there's nothing I CAN'T help you with. It's just a matter of articulating your questions.
What type of logic?
Lol, "reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles", "a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning".
When dealing with spirituality none of that changes. Logic stays the same in evaluating.
What do you mean by rationale?
Things that makes sense.
the evidence comes through what correlates with that specific nature.
Are you saying you find evidence to what you already believe in?
No, not at all. I find evidence in what already exists. That which correlates with the same nature. For example with spirituality, evidence is in tune with testimonials as opposed to physical based evidence.
Lets say I give you X evidence to something. I don't want a depends instead would like to know the process of how you say this evidence is true or false.
Not sure what you are asking for here, perhaps an example would work....one way I confirm evidence is through cross examination but I'm not sure that answers your question.
-->
@EtrnlVw
Things that makes sense.
Tell me something that makes sense.
For example with spirituality, evidence is in tune with testimonials as opposed to physical based evidence.
So basically you are saying there is proof that this one person experienced something to do with spirituality.
Do you have a science paper to support an anecdote like this?
one way I confirm evidence is through cross examination but I'm not sure that answers your question.
Cross-examination of spirituality?
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Tell me something that makes sense.
Wow, that's like asking me to tell you something that makes sense in mathematics or anatomy/chemistry....something that makes sense in spirituality is the nature of consciousness, the soul and our universe. All these things tie into a Creator. Long story short...
For example with spirituality, evidence is in tune with testimonials as opposed to physical based evidence.
So basically you are saying there is proof that this one person experienced something to do with spirituality.
No, there are MANY "proofs" not just one. That changes things obviously, even though there is a fallacy of popularity it is suggestive evidence in this conversation so it's applicable.
Do you have a science paper to support an anecdote like this?
Haha, this makes me wonder if you've paid attention to anything I wrote and the nature thereof. Science is incompatible with the nature of spirituality, as it studies something entirely different.
one way I confirm evidence is through cross examination but I'm not sure that answers your question.
Cross-examination of spirituality?
Yes, cross examination.
-->
@EtrnlVw
No, there are MANY "proofs" not just one.
So many anecdotes?
Haha, this makes me wonder if you've paid attention to anything I wrote and the nature thereof. Science is incompatible with the nature of spirituality, as it studies something entirely different.one way I confirm evidence is through cross examination but I'm not sure that answers your question.
I find this a simply you pick data that suit your narrative and leave out that doesn't. If spirituality was real science would see the observable evidence in our brains to justify a conclusion. Science is based on observable evidence. Spirituality I am sure occurs in the brain therefore science should be able to see brain patterns that cause such a reaction. I'll take it you are not able to find observable brain data to prove the existence of "spirituality"?
Yes, cross examination.
I find this a simple cherry-picking. You find data that suites you and disregard anything else. If you go off on anecdotes as evidence then take this anecdote. I have never had spiritual a encounter. Am I wrong? Are you wrong? What happens with this new anecdote?
-->
@TheRealNihilist
So many anecdotes?
Soo many testimonials.
I find this a simply you pick data that suit your narrative and leave out that doesn't.
Thanks for the opinion, but without an illustration I'm afraid it's nothing more than an assumption. We don't have any use for assumption though, perhaps try again?
If spirituality was real science would see the observable evidence in our brains to justify a conclusion.
No sir, because science is only capable of examining the cause of things from a material perspective, in other words the material side of existence. It has no way of examining or articulating things outside it's domain. As I explained, when dealing with spirituality we are moving away from the physical sense perception.
The only thing science is capable of observing is activity in the brain, they don't know what creates your conscious awareness and that's where spirituality picks up the ball.
Science is based on observable evidence.
Sure but so is spirituality in its own field of expertise. Look up the definition of science and see if it contradicts anything I've said here. Science observes a different nature than spirituality.
Spirituality I am sure occurs in the brain therefore science should be able to see brain patterns that cause such a reaction. I'll take it you are not able to find observable brain data to prove the existence of "spirituality"?
Brain activity occurs because you are occupying the physical body. But just like electricity and energy consciousness exists independent of forms.
Yes, cross examination.
I find this a simple cherry-picking.
And I find your conclusions cherry picking, who's right lol?
You find data that suites you and disregard anything else.
Wrong and how immature of you to suggest that. Oh well that's what I expect from a debate forum anyways.
If you go off on anecdotes as evidence then take this anecdote. I have never had spiritual a encounter. Am I wrong? Are you wrong? What happens with this new anecdote?
You have to acknowledge the nature of spirituality, if you do anything else at least do that. You can label experiences anecdotes but they are first hand encounters. They can then be used for cross referencing.
-->
@EtrnlVw
they don't know what creates your conscious awareness and that's where spirituality picks up the ball.
In other words that is the only place where such an idea can fester? Where we have no idea what actually occurs so that you can carry on with your conspiracy theories?
Science observes a different nature than spirituality.
So why isn't their professionals dedicated to spirituality and learning what occurs in the conscious instead of people like you who look at anecdotes? Do you know a professional in the field?
But just like electricity and energy consciousness exists independent of forms.
So you are making the claim spirituality has no attachment to the physical world?
And I find your conclusions cherry picking, who's right lol?
How am I cherry-picking? I am fairly looking at what you said instead of representing the bad or the good instead I am making statements about what you said.
Wrong and how immature of you to suggest that. Oh well that's what I expect from a debate forum anyways.
Says the person who is talking about something in which there has been very little known about it.
You have to acknowledge the nature of spirituality, if you do anything else at least do that. You can label experiences anecdotes but they are first hand encounters. They can then be used for cross referencing.
Why are these anecdotes not applying to strict rules of validity valid?
If there are strict rules of validity what are they? If they don't conform to what you believe is it wrong?
-->
@TheRealNihilist
they don't know what creates your conscious awareness and that's where spirituality picks up the ball.
In other words that is the only place where such an idea can fester?
Lol or the only medium that can reach that experience or answer the hard questions? which is more likely, that ideas are "festering" or being articulated because of its known nature? I'm sure you can't answer that intelligently without making yourself look like a biased troll.
Where we have no idea what actually occurs so that you can carry on with your conspiracy theories?
No conspiracies, actually spirituality has been articulated for ages, and now we have the speculation of materialism...hmmmm, which one is the conspiracy??
Science observes a different nature than spirituality.
So why isn't their professionals dedicated to spirituality and learning what occurs in the conscious instead of people like you who look at anecdotes? Do you know a professional in the field?
Are you serious?? People like me "who look at anecdotes" are the same who are looking at spirituality from a professional viewpoint, what are you talking about? are you talking out your arse??? yes there are many professionals of the field. If you want my recommendation I have several sources.
But just like electricity and energy consciousness exists independent of forms.
So you are making the claim spirituality has no attachment to the physical world?
Wrong, its experiences transcend the physical world while also including the physical sense perception. However, the physical world and the physical sense perception is not the only experience. Spirituality is the observation that reaches beyond those material perceptions.
And I find your conclusions cherry picking, who's right lol?
How am I cherry-picking? I am fairly looking at what you said instead of representing the bad or the good instead I am making statements about what you said.
I am making statements about what you said as well, how is my conclusions cherry picking if yours is not??
Wrong and how immature of you to suggest that. Oh well that's what I expect from a debate forum anyways.
Says the person who is talking about something in which there has been very little known about it.
How ignorant of you to suggest, since spirituality and the nature of our existence has been known for ages.
You have to acknowledge the nature of spirituality, if you do anything else at least do that. You can label experiences anecdotes but they are first hand encounters. They can then be used for cross referencing.
Why are these anecdotes not applying to strict rules of validity valid?
Why are these testimonials not applied to strict rules of validity?? considering they are included as evidence??
If there are strict rules of validity what are they? If they don't conform to what you believe is it wrong?
I supplied the dynamics involved and the nature. I'm not saying that testimonial evidence is what should convince you, rather the abundance of evidence should suggest to you that there is an objective reality that transcends the physical sense perception. If it's not convincing for you, fine. If I'm to reject it though, I'd have to erase my own experience and evidence that suggests it so. I wouldn't do that because I'm intellectually honest.
-->
@EtrnlVw
which is more likely, that ideas are "festering" or being articulated because of its known nature?
That is the only place where you can fester your ideas and people can take you seriously since there isn't an academic requirement to making claims about "spirituality".
No conspiracies, actually spirituality has been articulated for ages, and now we have the speculation of materialism...hmmmm, which one is the conspiracy??
Still a conspiracy. You have to provide me no proof of this yet you say there is enough data to cross-examine it. If you can cross-examine it where is your initial data that your a cross-examining?
yes there are many professionals of the field. If you want my recommendation I have several sources.
Yes I would like a source. I don't see the point of you typing out this source without giving me a source and a professional names.
Wrong, its experiences transcend the physical world while also including the physical sense perception. However, the physical world and the physical sense perception is not the only experience. Spirituality is the observation that reaches beyond those material perceptions.
So why can't science see what starts such an experience in the physical world in order to find the physical element that causes it?
I am making statements about what you said as well, how is my conclusions cherry picking if yours is not??
I was saying you are cherry-picking data. That would be an assumption but more than likely the way you have evidence by me simply saying I don't have "spirituality" would either mean there is an exception to your anecdotes or you completely disregard. Which one do you pick?
How ignorant of you to suggest, since spirituality and the nature of our existence has been known for ages.You have to acknowledge the nature of spirituality, if you do anything else at least do that. You can label experiences anecdotes but they are first hand encounters. They can then be used for cross referencing.
I am waiting on this "proof" and a professional instead of someone like yourself.
Why are these testimonials not applied to strict rules of validity?? considering they are included as evidence??
Who is the one who in the context of spirituality measures anecdotes about the non-physical world?
I supplied the dynamics involved and the nature. I'm not saying that testimonial evidence is what should convince you, rather the abundance of evidence should suggest to you that there is an objective reality that transcends the physical sense perception. If it's not convincing for you, fine. If I'm to reject it though, I'd have to erase my own experience and evidence that suggests it so. I wouldn't do that because I'm intellectually honest.
I would like to see this abundance of evidence cross-examined by a professional in this field.
-->
@IlDiavolo
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.
The issue here, as I pointed out a while back, and you haven’t seemed particularly interesting in addressing, is that the majority of your issues with random mutation are grossly naive oversimplificafions or misrepresentations of how you think evolution works, or grossly misrepresent the nature of the explanation.
At the start here, I pointed out some of these fundamental and basic errors in the way you understand evolution and macro evolution - and they absolutely are errors in your understanding - and you have simply denied that they are errors and continued to make the same repeated and faulty claims throughout.
In reality, there aren’t really any substantial flaws if you understand the principles of random mutations. These includes the vagaries of both the varying types of mutations and the impact that they can have in particular expression or protein structure - or if you have a basic grasp of the tennets of how common gene expression, splice variants and regulation mechanism that are easily changed have on the overall development of an organism.
in reality, the actual complexity of the science, and the incredible depth of what we know, and what we have gleaned about our own evolution Is not even close to being described by your misrepresentative “drunk-history” style science.
In reality, macro evolution is simply the evolution above the species level - at a point where there are either pre of play zygotic barriers to reproduction and the gene pools can no longer be brought back together.
What your talking about is not macro evolution, but the evolution of large scale structural change above the species, genus, family and to a degree even the class level; the number of these types of major change are relatively few and far between - and almost all supported by transitional fossil evidence - all of which were famously predicted by evolution.
So quite frankly, you give every appearance of someone who simply doesn’t want to understand evolution, by fixating on a misrepresentative straw man of what you think it is.
@et
How ignorant of you to suggest, since spirituality and the nature of our existence has been known for ages.
And nobody agrees with your version which is understandable because your version only exists in your imagination.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
That is the only place where you can fester your ideas and people can take you seriously since there isn't an academic requirement to making claims about "spirituality".
Wow these are big mature responses, I'll stop here because we don't need anymore irate members. I'm not festering my ideas omar, whatever you are but obviously you think of your own opinions highly. That's not why I joined this site, I joined to engage in topics, answer questions I find interesting and help promote the growing of this place. If you think participating in topics in a debate forum is "festering my ideas" perhaps you shouldn't be in a forum where people ask questions and create topics to challenge differing views. If my posts offend you maybe you should grow up and realize when you come to a public forum you will see a wide range of worldviews, beliefs and knowledge. Learn some respect first and you may get answers to your antagonistic posts other wise get your academic butt outa here.
-->
@EtrnlVw
Why? what do you mean by that? I know you were taught that but the point I'm making is that it's not necessary even in religious squares.
There are several middle ground typical positions. Again, my belief in evolution occurred about 3 years after my lapse in a belief in God. It did not cause me to be an atheist. Applying the same standards of evidence I applied to everything else led me to a lack of belief in God.
Not sure I understand what this has to do with what I wrote.Not all Theists assert or assume there was no process (evolution) involved.
I mean I understand that many fundamentalist christians slowly reject the most absurd miracles and ideas in the bible becoming more and more reasonable rather than taking a few weeks of honesty and concluding there was likely no God as it happened for me.
But, there's still many aspects left in spirituality for you to experience and explore.
Yes, for me prayer worship in reality is just meditation when looked at objectively. A daily walk with God equals mindfulness. I would call that spiritual because it is exactly and produces the same results in me as avid religious practice did for so many years. Therefore I call it spiritual because it is the same practice with more truth.
You seem to draw an imaginary line between faith and the study of evolution and while you are certainly allowed to do that, again it's not necessary. There isn't just faith and then evolution, the two can be compatible because they focus on entirely different aspects of our observation. Again, faith isn't just beliefs, it's a spiritual element consisting of trust and confidence and even a Theist might not have any faith. Faith is an action, it allows the user to overcome obstacles in their life
The line is clear for me. I apply the best level of skepticism I can to evolution and God. I've concluded that evolution occurred and is occurring and that there is no reason to concluded that a creator exists or that a powerful being interfered.
I understand the role of faith but lets not make an equivocation fallacy. I have faith in individuals that they will behave as they have in the past. I have no observations with respect to a god and have concluded that any communication was due to a confirmation bias or just positive self talk. There was never a God to observe to develop a faith in.
Excellent, so what's the problem?? if you accept it, then you know the nature of consciousness, which is the same as the soul, which opposes materialism...inanimate matter can never produce conscious beings
You've asserted that matter cannot create consciousness. We observe the creation of an egg and sperm from atoms to molecules based on predictable, energetically efficient reactions. Then we observe these cells grow over nine months to form a brain that produces the effect of consciousness.
There is no reason to suspect that consciousness is completely separate from the observable, natural, physical process that creates the effect. We know for certain that inanimate matter creates it. we can observe virtually every natural reaction amongst matter that creates our biological computer.
Well unfortunately that is impossible, because spirituality is the practice and observation of the reality that transcends the physical sense perception. And because it's an objective reality it has to be acknowledged for it to have any influence on you. Otherwise it's just a meaningless term. You can be methodological and spiritual, but not a materialist or an atheist and spiritual because the two terms are conflicting.
If you would like to define me as separate and opposed to your world view by definition you can. What I'm telling you is that the well being created by my secular practice is the same as my religious practice except that I have been more successful in attaining what I would have called 'spiritual' before now.
If you want to define spiritual as something that is not material you have a large burden of proof to establish that this exists. No one has ever been able to.
Maybe your own beliefs at the time were confirmation bias (because maybe they were immature, having no experiential grounding), however if you are observing and examining spirituality from an objective, rational viewpoint then that is not necessary. Again, I find it funny that Theistic beliefs always get labeled "conformation bias" when in reality it applies the same way with materialism and naturalism.
Materialists can prove that the natural exists so they say that it does exist. They cannot prove that a supernatural exists so they say that they have not reason to believe that such a thing exists.
How is this view exercising confirmation bias and what better way to view the natural and supernatural could they adopt?
-->
@EtrnlVw
Your response is complete absurd. For one I gave more statements to tell me about how you are logical in your spirituality but you avoided all of them. This makes me to believe that you are not here for what you think are like what you said here "That's not why I joined this site, I joined to engage in topics". Problem here is that I gave you statements for to simply give me evidence of a professional in this field, cross-examination and how there are strict principles of validity in spirituality but you only target this statement:
That is the only place where you can fester your ideas and people can take you seriously since there isn't an academic requirement to making claims about "spirituality".
You are not here to tell me how you got to that point instead you are basically here to have your positions justified by supposed attacks to your stance. So basically you are here to confirm your biases not actually give people a way to understand your stance. If that was the case you would have addressed my other claims that were about understanding how you got to the point spirituality was true.