You set off right away asking me to imagine this and that, and then end by saying, "what was being described in the link ... [is] ... WITHOUT the need for any imaginary 'intelligent designer'." So, whatever you, and I suppose, I imagine could happen in a petri dish or some swamp is the reality? Just not an "Intelligent Designer", by which I suppose you mean God? I see. Can't happen. Imagine this could happen and that could happen or this and that could happen but not because God did it? I see. You're suppose to here be the scientist, not me, I'm not interested in your daydreams or what you want me to imagine. If you have the evidence, I'd consider it. You make it sound simple enough, so do it. How do you know other bugs killed them? You haven't shown otherwise either. This is all very interesting, however. Any links for any of it?
Occam's razor did you think wandered off to another field Of course I have shown that mutations exist - and sometimes confer different traits to organism. This refutes the claim that mutations do not confer different traits to an organism. A claim that is patent nonsense on steroids. Have you never heard of mutations ? https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/evolution6.htm Here is some info on plasmids https://www.nature.com/scitable/definition/plasmid-plasmids-28/
Moving the GOALPOSTS again? My original post contained the Scientific EVIDENCE and this is how you responded to it; So I gave you a SIMPLIFIED ANALYSIS without any quotes as you requested. Now you reject what you asked for and instead ask me to provide the exact same evidence that was in my original post. The Scientific Evidence shows that there is no "irreducible complexity" when it comes to the EVOLUTION of the eye. Since the bogus concept of "irreducible complexity" is the keystone of the bogus "intelligent design" MUTATION of "creation science" it has FAILED when the SCIENTIFIC METHOD was applied. That is how Science works. 1. There is no "irreducible complexity" as demonstrated above. 2. "Intelligent design" is an evolutionary MUTATION of "creation science" per the EVIDENCE discovered during the Dover, PA court case. 3. The Supreme Court has RULED that "creation science" is RELIGION and not science.
I thought that was a pretty good description concerning how food competition and competition for avoiding risk of being eaten create an environment that would encourage ever improving detection of light. I'm not sure what your concern could be about that. Let's remember that intelligent design is religion. And, science has no way of accepting or evaluating religion. So, you shouldn't be too upset that science doesn't provide a religious "solution".
false, religion bridges the gap between the natural and supernatural. If you believe you should not eat pork, science will document people dying from eating pork, later to confirm 'religion' was correct, because the pork was infested with bugs. There is no rule what so ever that restricts religion to the supernatural, unless of course you wish to argue that not eating pork is not part of a 'religion'?
When a religious person makes an observation about the natural world and that observation ends up being correct, that's not the same thing as their religion being correct.
Lol - here you are again with you misunderstandings! Nothing I said would suggest a limit to your religion. You can do/say/believe anything you want wrt your religion. I'm just pointing out that from the point of view of science, there is no bridge. There is a hard line. If something supernatural is included, it isn't science. Period. This isn't debatable. It comes directly from the definition of scietific method. So for example, ID includes a supernatural element - so it is religion, not science. This does not even mean that ID is wrong. It means that it isn't science. That's all.
Not me! You! Ah but you in fact DID! Of course it forces me to correct the error, religion is not limitrf to the supernatural, and in many cases purely natural, like not eating pork which is fully capable of being evaluated by science. You people constantly throw the word religion around inappropriately and out of context. Had you said supernatural instead of religion Id have remained silent. And, science has no way of accepting or evaluating the supernatural.
In the case of eating pork i t most certainly is. Unless of course you mean their religion as a whole, but I doubt you would actually mean it that way would you?
I absolutely did not give ANY limits on religion. NONE! And, I've posted to you MANY times that science can not accept or evaluate the supernatural - which includes any religion that has any element that is supernatural - such as a god, a incorporeal intelligence, or whatever.
sure YOU DID! By your inappropriate substitution of the word religion for supernatural you limited religion to supernatural which does not include the natural that science legitimately examines. Religion exists in regard to BOTH the natural and supernatural realms. Please refrain from inane bluffs, you know full well they do not work with me.
Indeed, they are as relentless as the cockroach. They do have their uses though. Try as they may, they will one day have to concede to the ultimate Truth: All is One Then, and only then, will they make true progress, as they will have finally caught up with what the ancients have always known. It will never be absolutely understood, known, or isolated, for it is the irreducible, fundamental 'stuff' that forms ALL things because it is THE very existence of ALL. The Self can never know it-self absolutely, for it can never escape it-self. There is only the experience of Self...by which the Self becomes self-aware. It would appear so, but then we might ask, what's the opposite of 'grass'...or 'car'...or 'house'...or 'elephant'...or 'music'...or 'salty'...etc? Rather than 'opposites', it's more useful to think in terms of X and non-X (absence of X). For example, it is because of the absence of light that we can sense light. Likewise, we can sense the absence of light because of light. We may call the absence of light another name like 'dark'...but it's still the absence of light. Alternatively, one can use dark (as the absence of 'light') VS the absence of dark (as 'light'). Suppose a God created a universe with inhabitants in which everything in that universe was yellow in color. The inhabitants would be unable to distinguish anything as a 'color', so there'd be no awareness/existence of color for them. We can discern a shade or hue of gray because of the absence of that shade or hue of grey. We can see a tree because surrounding the tree exists the absense of that tree. You get the idea. So X exists by virtue of non-X. And non-X exists by virtue of X. The object can be observed because the observer is not the object. I'm not too comfortable with the term 'evolution' though. If All is One, there's no destination or end goal to 'evolve' towards. All is as it can/will ever be. As the saying goes, there's nothing new under the Sun...there's nothing to 'know'...there's nothing to 'learn'. I view 'changes' that appear 'evolutionary' in nature as the manifestation of an eternal state/journey of 'remembering'. What we think we're learning or know has always been known. (You may note in NDE's, many have reported that they experienced a state of having 'infinite knowing'.) In our lives we feel we are lacking in something, and so it is this condition of perceived 'deprivation' (which is really 'amnesia') that compels us to seek out truth. This compulsion, then, propels us onto an eternal journey of infinite meandering paths. All the while...ALL is, and always has been, ABSOLUTE PERFECTION. Not putting the blame on ET's for anything. Just that we can't assume all ET's will have OUR best interest in mind. It may be too tempting for a negative-oriented ET race to 'play God' with a less advanced species. Humans have long been seduced by this temptation themselves, and which has brought great suffering. You're speaking of some of the more colorful trappings of the material experience that have taken on its own religious movement. Must we try to be God-like when we came here to experience what it's like to NOT be God-like? Of what purpose is there to strive to be what we already are? Can you be more than you already are? Can you be less? Well, you can experience what it's like to feel like you're 'less'. Should we try to out-do or dominate one another when we're all the same? The homeless beggar is as special as is the CEO of a multinational corporation as is the Tibetan Lama meditating in a mountaintop cave. None can possess any-thing, but only partake in an experience. Besides, of what benefit is there to be restricted to only one kind of life? Would not the Self wish to experience it all? We 'create' with the choices we make in each moment, using the mind as a rudder to steer our ship through a sea of infinite experiences. All is One, so there's no time...so why be in a rush? Take one life-time, or take a million life-times before you decide to take the 'higher path'. It doesn't matter. No one is better or lesser than another. Just enjoy yourself, be true to yourself, try not to get TOO attached to the dramas of this impermanent reality, and try to view others as fellow playmates in this wonderful make-believe world of which we created for ourselves. Remember, we are both the Dreamer and the Dream. Regarding 'more souls', I'd say the number of souls is fixed...but infinite in number. Try to wrap your head around that one!
I posit that the Earth was created last Thursday, and everything was made to look old, if people were made with memories to think that they had an entire life.
Oic. But, when I say supernatural I'm not talking about the natural part of someone's religion. Seriously, I am not limiting your religion. What I have said is focused on limiting what is SCIENCE. Unlike religion, science (scientific method) has a single agreed definition the world over. We can talk about what science is NOT. And, it is the supernatural part of religion that is outside the range of science - that science has absolutely nothing to say about. The part where science says "I don't know". Religion doesn't need the critique of science. The fact that there is at least a part of your religion that science has nothing to say about can not be seen by you as a problem. If science has to say "I don't know" that isn't a hit on your religion, is it?
Yes, I referred to religion. I also referred to the supernatural, some of which is usually included in religion. What's your point? Many many times I've said what is in your big red version of my post.
No surprise; Derideo_Te likes this. ABOVE is the whole post, NOPE NO SUPERNATURAL IN THE ABOVE POST! some people apparently dont give a flying **** about their credibility! As I continue to point out it is inappropriate to substitute religion when referring to the supernatural or deity worship. and this is not about what you said several posts AFTER I corrected you.
No it is not religion. "Science has no way of accepting or evaluating religion" is a very good point, and underscores the limitations of science, being like using a saw to hammer a nail. You, however, can accept or evaluate religion, and since you probably have, why don't you address religion outside of the purview of science, which you admit is not possible.
It's appropriate to use "religion" when referring to religion and "supernatural" when referring to the supernatural. I see no excuse for you being confused, but if you have a question, I'll probably go ahead and answer it.
ID depends on a supernatural intelligence diddling evolution. Science does not include the possibility of a supernatural intelligence. The definition of scientific method precludes that. My view: Our best understanding is that this universe expanded from a shockingly small size and at a stupendous rate. We don't have the technology for examining what came earlier. But, we do have evidence of this event from two separate sources that confirm this cosmology. That expansion rate has changed - slowing way down, and now actually increasing. On this planet, life began by a process for which we have clues, but not solid evidence. From that first life, evolution gave us plants and animals that can be found in the fossil record as well as observed around us. Humans are one species of the fauna of this planet. There you go!!!
Caveat emptor AKA buyer beware! If those who are so skeptical of science applied even a shred of that same skepticism to their own religious beliefs there would be no more of those believers. Addressing religion on it's own means that religion needs to stand on it's own merits and not merely as an alternative to anything else. Weighing the pros and cons of religion it boils down to people doing good things for others because they were TOLD that they MUST and doing a bad things to others because they were TOLD that they MUST. IOW's no critical thinking is allowed in religion because that negates the fallacy upon which it is based which is essentially the reason for the buyer to be wary of what is being offered. Give up living your own life and instead do the "will" of some imaginary "creator" and PAY for the "privilege" of doing so with a significant portion of your earnings and when you are DEAD you will be "rewarded". There is no evidence that ANYONE has ever collected on this snake oil "reward". None whatsoever! Religion is anathema to critical thinking which is why it finds itself at odds with Science. But that is NOT Science's problem. Evaluating religion on it's own merits results in something that fails to deliver on what it promises and for that reason alone everyone should be wary of what religion is selling. It has been Science that has uplifted mankind through education and knowledge. Religion has suppressed education and knowledge because that would give buyers reasons to be wary. That alone should be a big red flag when it comes to religion.
Yeh! Especially einee weenee worshippers, they think time and space actually curves and c is a speed limit DUH! LMAO as I have explained to you its not appropriate to use the word religion to refer to supernatural. They are 2 different things. You should stop embarrassing yourself since we ALL know that if science cannot examine it as you explained there exists only one choice 'supernatural', you meant it no other way, trying to dazzle us with bullshit?
It’s ****ing hilarious when you claim to have disproven Einstein and the entire field of physics. Lol Uh, yes it is.
