People are going to have to face the reality that there's NO GOD

[Damaged Eagle]

See what I mean? "Backtrack with your Gish Gallop".... that makes nonsense whatsoever. Snake oil.

It's what you've been doing all along.

And what you just did there, in your little con, was to conflate your dogma with the simple assertion of theism.

What dogma would that be?

The latter is the dogma of religion.

So now I'm a part of some religious faction... Which one would that be?

Proving god exists does not prove the body of your claims.

So now you're admitting that I've proven that God exits.

Thank you.

*****CHUCKLE*****

You were talking dogma, not theism.

Again... What dogma would that be?

Theism is about the existence of a god or gods, not direct claims about a god's actions or the will of gods.

Where have I stated anything about God's will?...Oh! I haven't. So quit your gish galloping around.

You were not arguing just the existence of God. Now you think you are.

Really????? Exactly where did I state that I'm God in all his/her magnificence? You really need to pay closer attention.

Let us know how your internal struggle plays out. God or "God+". Get your shit together.

My shit is together that's why I generally just flush it down the toilet for people like you to handle.

******CHUCKLE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

.
particularly during the period of early development where multiple life forms evolved more readily without transitional stages to produce the wide variety of species that evolved. it is the metaphysical that makes it possible, the cicada represents the metaphysical component for all evolutionary change.

"particularly during the period of early development where multiple life forms evolved more readily without transitional stages to produce the wide variety of species that evolved."

Without transitional stages? Sorry, but you just made that up. Bullshit alert.

Not bullshit. Get educated. Go look up "jumping genes" and "accelerated evolution". Don't be stuck in the 19th version of Evolution when you come to discuss how much "faith" one needs to believe in evolution without a LOT of "missing links"..

Those things don't skip "transitions" in the way he is obviously implying. And his claim of that being dominant or widespread is even more absurd.

Who's "he"? The lady that won the Nobel prize for transposons (to my knowledge) made no claims as to the prevalence of these transitions, but 30 years of subsequent work suggest they DO occur more than rarely and often in RAPID SUCCESSION. You got the basic view of missing 180 years of science since the "Darwinian evolution" --- glad I could help. The REST is up to you..

Ffirst, "he" is Breezewood, which should have been easy for you to figure out. Second, I clearly know more about this topic than you, as I use concepts in context and explain them, while you drop phrases you have found through Google into your whiny insults.

You, like Breezewood, tried to argue the absurd idea of "no transitions". You even misrepresented scientists and their work to attempt this. I would call you dishonest, but that would mean you actually understand the concepts you misrepresented. You do not.

I've seen very little science out of you during this discussion. Generally you're avoiding the science and simply bashing on any religious aspect that comes to light in this discussion. I don't generally keep up on the subject of biology but even I've heard of the theory of transposons and what they do. What you're accusing flacaltenn of is actually what you yourself are doing. Which is disingenuous at best

*****SMILE*****

 

[sakinago]

People are going to have to face the reality that there's no God. The odds of such developing out of thin space is nearly ZERO.

Sure, physics and chemistry takes some faith in the start but it most certainly explains everything since. Everything when using evidenced based science works together very well.

The first stars came around 12 or billion years ago to form the first galaxies.
Our star formed within our galaxy a little earlier then the earth as gravity had to develop the planets like earth. So earth about 4.3 billion years ago.
The first single celled life
The first muilti celled life
Land life
on up to humans is everything at odds with the 2,000 year old book. The book makes no sense and it is just a crock of shit.

That is reality.

Life formed in the oceans
The fossil record shows that man is only a few million years old as a "family" group and a few hundred thousand years old as a single species.
The sun came first in the case of our solar system
Then the planets
Then life
Then more advanced life in the oceans
Then life on land
Then after a few hundred million years humans come into the picture.

This is once again reality.

One is a fool if they attempt to put belief ahead of the facts and evidence.

Time to come to the conclusion that there probably isn't a god and you shouldn't force religion on other people...Those other people are more likely to be RIGHT.

Yea but all you listed is within space and time, which we don't even think our own universe is encompassing of all existence anymore...and a theoretical god can only be plausible outside of the realm of space and time and anything in existence itself. So basically you're stuck arguing the chicken and the egg conundrum, arguing on the side of the egg, when it's really not even a chicken and an egg argument, since a god (chicken) would need to be separate from its creation (egg). VS a chicken dependent on egg, dependent on chicken, dependent on egg, etc. In the case of God, god does not need "creation" in order to exist, it is the creator. And no matter what you believe, those who believe in god always have the unfair advantage of countering with "well that's the way god intended/made it," to whatever you have to say...and then further counter by saying why is there something rather than nothing. Now you can say just because there is, but that doesn't disprove god. Which makes me believe you haven't really thought this out for yourself, you just want to state that god isn't real and try to prove an unprovable (divide by zero) to make yourself feel better.

If you look at natural law philosophy (which is what our constitution is based on). It's based on the fact that if there is a god it clearly gave us free will for whatever, especially when it comes to believing or not believing in a god, which is why a government should be charged with allowing its people to live freely. So where would be the free will if you could in fact prove gods existence? How can you disprove an all powerful being outside of space, time, matter, or anything else beyond human comprehension...or in other words a creator of the universe cannot be bound by it's very same rules and limitations of its creation...

Either way, you cannot prove or disprove god. It's a choice you make for yourself. You can convince yourself one way or the other. That doesn't make you right, just means your trying to break down and simplify a complicated existence in the way you want it to be...but are you actually looking for understanding or comfort?

 

[Boss]

Ffirst, "he" is Breezewood, which should have been easy for you to figure out. Second, I clearly know more about this topic than you, as I use concepts in context and explain them, while you drop phrases you have found through Google into your whiny insults.

You, like Breezewood, tried to argue the absurd idea of "no transitions". You even misrepresented scientists and their work to attempt this. I would call you dishonest, but that would mean you actually understand the concepts you misrepresented. You do not.

That's funny because all I see you doing here is linking us to various theories and speculations which you proclaim as proven facts that can't be refuted. I don't really give two shits how smart you think you are-- I'll put my science credentials up against yours any day of the week and I bet I'll win. But this isn't a pissing contest about who can make the biggest online anonymous boast about how smart they are.

You've pretty much given up replying to me in this thread because I keep kicking that ass up one side and down the other but that's okay, I am used to know-it-all geniuses who bite off more than they can chew and then have to run hide from honest debate.

It's easy to proclaim that all fossils are transitional if you believe all living things are, and have been, in a constant state of transition. But you have not supported your premise. All you're doing is reinforcing your faith-based belief that all things are transitioning. When we state that you have no evidence of transitional fossils, it means that you have no examples of Genus taxon A in transition to Genus taxon B. There has never been an example of cross-genus evolution. All evolution we have evidence for is within the genus taxon of it's particular family. Brown owls are unable to camouflage themselves in the snow and avoid predators, so over time, lighter-colored owls fare better and tend to reproduce more lighter-colored owls. Over time, a new grey owl or white owl becomes as new species. But the owl never becomes a chicken!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Whenever you are debating science with a religious person who's answer is "God did it," why not just reply... "Well, of course God did it, but HOW?"

I've asked that question many times in many situation and ALWAYS get met with a defining silence. I'd love to hear how God did anything 'supernatural' (above and beyond the natural scientific explanation).

It's faith. The SAME FAITH you have to use when science tells you that all the MATTER, ENERGY of the universe was once concentrated in something smaller than a head of a pin at the Big Bang. Can they DESCRIBE how this happens? Have they OBSERVED it? Have they re-created it? Not really. It's a theory.

That's why scientists are USED to accepting the "best explanations" but OFTEN have to just shake their heads and take it on faith. That's the frustration of science as well.

"It's faith. The SAME FAITH you have to use when science tells you that all the MATTER, ENERGY of the universe was once concentrated in something smaller than a head of a pin at the Big Bang"

No it's not, that's ridiculous. For one, there is not a single person on the planet who asserts, with 100% certainty, that claim about the universe is true. Secondly, those who say it is possible or likely are operating from empirical evidence, not a bronze age set of legends or a brainwashing.

Science it the opposiite of faith. Stop tryong to drag science down into the murk of your faithy nonsense.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Ffirst, "he" is Breezewood, which should have been easy for you to figure out. Second, I clearly know more about this topic than you, as I use concepts in context and explain them, while you drop phrases you have found through Google into your whiny insults.

You, like Breezewood, tried to argue the absurd idea of "no transitions". You even misrepresented scientists and their work to attempt this. I would call you dishonest, but that would mean you actually understand the concepts you misrepresented. You do not.

That's funny because all I see you doing here is linking us to various theories and speculations which you proclaim as proven facts that can't be refuted. I don't really give two shits how smart you think you are-- I'll put my science credentials up against yours any day of the week and I bet I'll win. But this isn't a pissing contest about who can make the biggest online anonymous boast about how smart they are.

You've pretty much given up replying to me in this thread because I keep kicking that ass up one side and down the other but that's okay, I am used to know-it-all geniuses who bite off more than they can chew and then have to run hide from honest debate.

It's easy to proclaim that all fossils are transitional if you believe all living things are, and have been, in a constant state of transition. But you have not supported your premise. All you're doing is reinforcing your faith-based belief that all things are transitioning. When we state that you have no evidence of transitional fossils, it means that you have no examples of Genus taxon A in transition to Genus taxon B. There has never been an example of cross-genus evolution. All evolution we have evidence for is within the genus taxon of it's particular family. Brown owls are unable to camouflage themselves in the snow and avoid predators, so over time, lighter-colored owls fare better and tend to reproduce more lighter-colored owls. Over time, a new grey owl or white owl becomes as new species. But the owl never becomes a chicken!

"That's funny because all I see you doing here is linking us to various theories and speculations which you proclaim as proven facts that can't be refuted"

Shameless lie.

And who claims an owl becomes a chicken? Nobody. Another shameless lie to imply anyone does.

"All evolution we have evidence for is within the genus taxon of it's particular family"

Another shameless lie. What an absurd claim.

*I* haven't supported *my* premise?. It's not *my* premise, it's a scientific theory. And it is supported by mountains of mutually supportive evidence. If you don't understand it or the evidence for it, that's your problem, and nobody else's. And considering the lies and ridiculously false things you say about evolution, it is clear that you do not understand it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

See what I mean? "Backtrack with your Gish Gallop".... that makes nonsense whatsoever. Snake oil.

It's what you've been doing all along.

And what you just did there, in your little con, was to conflate your dogma with the simple assertion of theism.

What dogma would that be?

The latter is the dogma of religion.

So now I'm a part of some religious faction... Which one would that be?

Proving god exists does not prove the body of your claims.

So now you're admitting that I've proven that God exits.

Thank you.

*****CHUCKLE*****

You were talking dogma, not theism.

Again... What dogma would that be?

Theism is about the existence of a god or gods, not direct claims about a god's actions or the will of gods.

Where have I stated anything about God's will?...Oh! I haven't. So quit your gish galloping around.

You were not arguing just the existence of God. Now you think you are.

Really????? Exactly where did I state that I'm God in all his/her magnificence? You really need to pay closer attention.

Let us know how your internal struggle plays out. God or "God+". Get your shit together.

My shit is together that's why I generally just flush it down the toilet for people like you to handle.

******CHUCKLE*****

Yes, you were spouting dogma, not pure theism. Yes, that is religious dogma. "Now you think you are".... arguing theism, when that is not what you are doing. You were aguing dogma like creationism, and miracles. And, frankly, you suck at it.

 

[flacaltenn]

Whenever you are debating science with a religious person who's answer is "God did it," why not just reply... "Well, of course God did it, but HOW?"

I've asked that question many times in many situation and ALWAYS get met with a defining silence. I'd love to hear how God did anything 'supernatural' (above and beyond the natural scientific explanation).

It's faith. The SAME FAITH you have to use when science tells you that all the MATTER, ENERGY of the universe was once concentrated in something smaller than a head of a pin at the Big Bang. Can they DESCRIBE how this happens? Have they OBSERVED it? Have they re-created it? Not really. It's a theory.

That's why scientists are USED to accepting the "best explanations" but OFTEN have to just shake their heads and take it on faith. That's the frustration of science as well.

"It's faith. The SAME FAITH you have to use when science tells you that all the MATTER, ENERGY of the universe was once concentrated in something smaller than a head of a pin at the Big Bang"

No it's not, that's ridiculous. For one, there is not a single person on the planet who asserts, with 100% certainty, that claim about the universe is true. Secondly, those who say it is possible or likely are operating from empirical evidence, not a bronze age set of legends or a brainwashing.

Science it the opposiite of faith. Stop tryong to drag science down into the murk of your faithy nonsense.

Ask the man on the street what science says about the creation of the Universe. It's the "best" explanation. AND THEY believe it. Take it on faith. Taught that in school. Taught to WORSHIP SCIENCE -- like ScienceRocks. That's the measure.

The scientists have no conflict in accepting it on faith. Because no alternative explanation has challenged the various versions of the Big Bang.

Still waiting for you to lay out the Genesis 7 day story of creation and explain to me the sequence of events that show up in the Bible BEFORE "science was even a thing".

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Whenever you are debating science with a religious person who's answer is "God did it," why not just reply... "Well, of course God did it, but HOW?"

I've asked that question many times in many situation and ALWAYS get met with a defining silence. I'd love to hear how God did anything 'supernatural' (above and beyond the natural scientific explanation).

It's faith. The SAME FAITH you have to use when science tells you that all the MATTER, ENERGY of the universe was once concentrated in something smaller than a head of a pin at the Big Bang. Can they DESCRIBE how this happens? Have they OBSERVED it? Have they re-created it? Not really. It's a theory.

That's why scientists are USED to accepting the "best explanations" but OFTEN have to just shake their heads and take it on faith. That's the frustration of science as well.

"It's faith. The SAME FAITH you have to use when science tells you that all the MATTER, ENERGY of the universe was once concentrated in something smaller than a head of a pin at the Big Bang"

No it's not, that's ridiculous. For one, there is not a single person on the planet who asserts, with 100% certainty, that claim about the universe is true. Secondly, those who say it is possible or likely are operating from empirical evidence, not a bronze age set of legends or a brainwashing.

Science it the opposiite of faith. Stop tryong to drag science down into the murk of your faithy nonsense.

Ask the man on the street what science says about the creation of the Universe. It's the "best" explanation. AND THEY believe it. Take it on faith. Taught that in school. Taught to WORSHIP SCIENCE -- like ScienceRocks. That's the measure.

The scientists have no conflict in accepting it on faith. Because no alternative explanation has challenged the various versions of the Big Bang.

And if that man on the street declares it true with 100% certainty, or declares that scientists do the same, i would correct him, as would anyone who understands science or that topic. If you want to argue with your imaginary creations, go argue with them.

"Taught to worship science"

Deranged ramblings of a paranoid fool

 

[flacaltenn]

Whenever you are debating science with a religious person who's answer is "God did it," why not just reply... "Well, of course God did it, but HOW?"

I've asked that question many times in many situation and ALWAYS get met with a defining silence. I'd love to hear how God did anything 'supernatural' (above and beyond the natural scientific explanation).

It's faith. The SAME FAITH you have to use when science tells you that all the MATTER, ENERGY of the universe was once concentrated in something smaller than a head of a pin at the Big Bang. Can they DESCRIBE how this happens? Have they OBSERVED it? Have they re-created it? Not really. It's a theory.

That's why scientists are USED to accepting the "best explanations" but OFTEN have to just shake their heads and take it on faith. That's the frustration of science as well.

"It's faith. The SAME FAITH you have to use when science tells you that all the MATTER, ENERGY of the universe was once concentrated in something smaller than a head of a pin at the Big Bang"

No it's not, that's ridiculous. For one, there is not a single person on the planet who asserts, with 100% certainty, that claim about the universe is true. Secondly, those who say it is possible or likely are operating from empirical evidence, not a bronze age set of legends or a brainwashing.

Science it the opposiite of faith. Stop tryong to drag science down into the murk of your faithy nonsense.

Ask the man on the street what science says about the creation of the Universe. It's the "best" explanation. AND THEY believe it. Take it on faith. Taught that in school. Taught to WORSHIP SCIENCE -- like ScienceRocks. That's the measure.

The scientists have no conflict in accepting it on faith. Because no alternative explanation has challenged the various versions of the Big Bang.

And if that man on the street declares it true with 100% certainty, or declares that scientists do the same, i would correct him, as would anyone who understands science or that topic. If you want to argue with your imaginary creations, go argue with them.

"Taught to worship science"

Deranged ramblings of a paranoid fool

Would rather have LARGER #s of our American kids PRACTICING science rather than believing every hare-brained theory and edict and new paper is "gospel". But they're not. They only know -- like the OP -- that science and faith are incapable. And the impression they're left with -- is that science leads to solid almost infallible conclusions.

 

[flacaltenn]

Whenever you are debating science with a religious person who's answer is "God did it," why not just reply... "Well, of course God did it, but HOW?"

I've asked that question many times in many situation and ALWAYS get met with a defining silence. I'd love to hear how God did anything 'supernatural' (above and beyond the natural scientific explanation).

It's faith. The SAME FAITH you have to use when science tells you that all the MATTER, ENERGY of the universe was once concentrated in something smaller than a head of a pin at the Big Bang. Can they DESCRIBE how this happens? Have they OBSERVED it? Have they re-created it? Not really. It's a theory.

That's why scientists are USED to accepting the "best explanations" but OFTEN have to just shake their heads and take it on faith. That's the frustration of science as well.

"It's faith. The SAME FAITH you have to use when science tells you that all the MATTER, ENERGY of the universe was once concentrated in something smaller than a head of a pin at the Big Bang"

No it's not, that's ridiculous. For one, there is not a single person on the planet who asserts, with 100% certainty, that claim about the universe is true. Secondly, those who say it is possible or likely are operating from empirical evidence, not a bronze age set of legends or a brainwashing.

Science it the opposiite of faith. Stop tryong to drag science down into the murk of your faithy nonsense.

Ask the man on the street what science says about the creation of the Universe. It's the "best" explanation. AND THEY believe it. Take it on faith. Taught that in school. Taught to WORSHIP SCIENCE -- like ScienceRocks. That's the measure.

The scientists have no conflict in accepting it on faith. Because no alternative explanation has challenged the various versions of the Big Bang.

And if that man on the street declares it true with 100% certainty, or declares that scientists do the same, i would correct him, as would anyone who understands science or that topic. If you want to argue with your imaginary creations, go argue with them.

"Taught to worship science"

Deranged ramblings of a paranoid fool

How was the Universe created then? Do I need to organize a press gaggle for your reply??


It's OK to say --- we don't REALLY know. But here's our "best guess". How is that better than an alien life conspiracy story?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I've asked that question many times in many situation and ALWAYS get met with a defining silence. I'd love to hear how God did anything 'supernatural' (above and beyond the natural scientific explanation).

It's faith. The SAME FAITH you have to use when science tells you that all the MATTER, ENERGY of the universe was once concentrated in something smaller than a head of a pin at the Big Bang. Can they DESCRIBE how this happens? Have they OBSERVED it? Have they re-created it? Not really. It's a theory.

That's why scientists are USED to accepting the "best explanations" but OFTEN have to just shake their heads and take it on faith. That's the frustration of science as well.

"It's faith. The SAME FAITH you have to use when science tells you that all the MATTER, ENERGY of the universe was once concentrated in something smaller than a head of a pin at the Big Bang"

No it's not, that's ridiculous. For one, there is not a single person on the planet who asserts, with 100% certainty, that claim about the universe is true. Secondly, those who say it is possible or likely are operating from empirical evidence, not a bronze age set of legends or a brainwashing.

Science it the opposiite of faith. Stop tryong to drag science down into the murk of your faithy nonsense.

Ask the man on the street what science says about the creation of the Universe. It's the "best" explanation. AND THEY believe it. Take it on faith. Taught that in school. Taught to WORSHIP SCIENCE -- like ScienceRocks. That's the measure.

The scientists have no conflict in accepting it on faith. Because no alternative explanation has challenged the various versions of the Big Bang.

And if that man on the street declares it true with 100% certainty, or declares that scientists do the same, i would correct him, as would anyone who understands science or that topic. If you want to argue with your imaginary creations, go argue with them.

"Taught to worship science"

Deranged ramblings of a paranoid fool

Would rather have LARGER #s of our American kids PRACTICING science rather than believing every hare-brained theory and edict and new paper is "gospel". But they're not. They only know -- like the OP -- that science and faith are incapable. And the impression they're left with -- is that science leads to solid almost infallible conclusions.

Dude, you are just kind of making stuff up as you go. I was not taught by my schools or universities that way. I have two children...they are not taught that way. They are taught science in science class. If they want religious teaching, then I will have to send them to religious teaching. But anyone who says science and faith or religion are incimpatible is 100% correct, in that, while they may live alongside each other, there is no overlap. Faith and science are opposites.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I've asked that question many times in many situation and ALWAYS get met with a defining silence. I'd love to hear how God did anything 'supernatural' (above and beyond the natural scientific explanation).

It's faith. The SAME FAITH you have to use when science tells you that all the MATTER, ENERGY of the universe was once concentrated in something smaller than a head of a pin at the Big Bang. Can they DESCRIBE how this happens? Have they OBSERVED it? Have they re-created it? Not really. It's a theory.

That's why scientists are USED to accepting the "best explanations" but OFTEN have to just shake their heads and take it on faith. That's the frustration of science as well.

"It's faith. The SAME FAITH you have to use when science tells you that all the MATTER, ENERGY of the universe was once concentrated in something smaller than a head of a pin at the Big Bang"

No it's not, that's ridiculous. For one, there is not a single person on the planet who asserts, with 100% certainty, that claim about the universe is true. Secondly, those who say it is possible or likely are operating from empirical evidence, not a bronze age set of legends or a brainwashing.

Science it the opposiite of faith. Stop tryong to drag science down into the murk of your faithy nonsense.

Ask the man on the street what science says about the creation of the Universe. It's the "best" explanation. AND THEY believe it. Take it on faith. Taught that in school. Taught to WORSHIP SCIENCE -- like ScienceRocks. That's the measure.

The scientists have no conflict in accepting it on faith. Because no alternative explanation has challenged the various versions of the Big Bang.

And if that man on the street declares it true with 100% certainty, or declares that scientists do the same, i would correct him, as would anyone who understands science or that topic. If you want to argue with your imaginary creations, go argue with them.

"Taught to worship science"

Deranged ramblings of a paranoid fool

How was the Universe created then? Do I need to organize a press gaggle for your reply??


It's OK to say --- we don't REALLY know. But here's our "best guess". How is that better than an alien life conspiracy story?

That would be my answer, except I would mention "best guesses" (plural).

Hownis our best guess better than another hypothesis? Because it is more well supported by the evidence, and doesn't come with the baggage of unnecessary assumptions, like panspermia does. Were you for real with that question? I see what you are doing...the same, slow creep the poster named Boss does....trying to turn all theory into opinion, and equal opinion at that. Get that nonsense out of here. Peddle to someone else.

Hmm, not much for you to argue against, when you find your strawmen exist only in your mind.

 

[BreezeWood]

It takes far more "faith" to believe in evolution, than to believe in religion. .....

Evolution is a Fact

God is a theory

Not necessarily incompatible as the combatants make it out to be. In the years since Darwin, science has realized that "evolution" didn't muddle along at a snail's pace all the time. With all adaptations being based on survival. If that were true -- everything on the planet would have BIG TEETH and the ability to kill it's competition.

NOW we know that DNA is the key. And that expression of genes or the sequence of CATG is what moves evolution along. And we also know that is affected by cosmic rays, enviro stress, chemical exposure and rapid changes in climate. ALL of those things can be looked at by State Farm or Farmers as legal "acts of God". And during these periods, evolution moves quite quickly. Just as it does in the lab when you irradiate a jar of fruit flies.

It's NOT the Darwinian view anymore. It's a LOT more nuanced. And it allows for accelerated evolution where nobody should be expected to dig up a lot of "missing links". Because possibly -- there are none.

.

It's NOT the Darwinian view anymore. It's a LOT more nuanced. And it allows for accelerated evolution where nobody should be expected to dig up a lot of "missing links". Because possibly -- there are none.

- nobody should be expected to dig up a lot of "missing links". Because possibly -- there are none.


View attachment 152982

that is correct, evolution represents the metaphysical component of the CNS or the cell's composite purpose that either adjusts to its surroundings or simply augments itself for whatever reason to insure its surviveability and is a complete process when successful - the cicada example reconfigures its physical presence from one to another without interuption - this same process under certain circumstances can be used to change from one species to another without physical intermediary steps.

and just why the religious would object to recognizing the process allowing for speciation makes no sense as it confirms the metaphysical presence within the physiology of all beings.

This "complete metamorphosis" is a long PRODUCT of evolution, shared by a large fraction of ALL SPECIES on the planet. It's now believed that the butterfly/cicada type of metamorphosis is done by a type of cell present from the time of the egg. Not TOTALLY "gene expression" that aids this "secondary image" cell to trigger it's development. Sometimes fueling the new entity development by consuming the larval cells.

The basic DNA remains the same. It's the presence of the "image cells" that lay dormant until triggered that MAKE it literally a metaphysical display of natural complexity.

It's a two-fer. 2 beings in one. With a DESTINY to consume the other and emerge. If that ain't metaphysical territory -- I don't what what would be.

.

The basic DNA remains the same. It's the presence of the "image cells" that lay dormant until triggered that MAKE it literally a metaphysical display of natural complexity.

not clear what your post was conveying -

the metaphysical is the management in total for the complete process relating to all present physical properties involved. the programmer, Spirit of the being.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Yes, you were spouting dogma, not pure theism. Yes, that is religious dogma. "Now you think you are".... arguing theism, when that is not what you are doing. You were aguing dogma like creationism, and miracles. And, frankly, you suck at it.

Which religious dogma would that be?

You talk but you don't answer the question.

Is this more of your gish gallop where you attempt to astound us all with fast talk, condescending remarks about others, and no answer?

*****ROFLMAO*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Dude, you are just kind of making stuff up as you go. I was not taught by my schools or universities that way. I have two children...they are not taught that way. They are taught science in science class. If they want religious teaching, then I will have to send them to religious teaching. But anyone who says science and faith or religion are incimpatible is 100% correct, in that, while they may live alongside each other, there is no overlap. Faith and science are opposites.

No they're not.

I haven't seen you disprove anything I've posted. You run around calling it dogma and yet you won't answer the question of what dogma I've posted.

******CHUCKLE*****

 

[alang1216]

Again, like I said earlier, the word "supernatural" is something we created to define things that can't be explained by physical nature. Over the years, the things we once thought were "supernatural" phenomenon have been explained and they forever leave the realm of "supernatural" because we then have an explanation. So to say something is "supernatural" simply means you currently don't have a physical explanation. It doesn't mean there isn't one... just that you don't currently have one. In a sense, is that not the exact same thing as relying on "God did it" as a placeholder for explanation?

No matter what the natural world turns out to be, if God created it he is not a part of it, hence supernatural. If he is part of it he has given up control and is subject to its limitations and is no longer all-powerful, omniscient, etc.

 

[alang1216]

Whenever you are debating science with a religious person who's answer is "God did it," why not just reply... "Well, of course God did it, but HOW?"

I've asked that question many times in many situation and ALWAYS get met with a defining silence. I'd love to hear how God did anything 'supernatural' (above and beyond the natural scientific explanation).

It's faith. The SAME FAITH you have to use when science tells you that all the MATTER, ENERGY of the universe was once concentrated in something smaller than a head of a pin at the Big Bang. Can they DESCRIBE how this happens? Have they OBSERVED it? Have they re-created it? Not really. It's a theory.

That's why scientists are USED to accepting the "best explanations" but OFTEN have to just shake their heads and take it on faith. That's the frustration of science as well.

There is a fundamental difference between faith and science and it is evidence. There is evidence for the big bang. There is NO evidence for the God of the Bible outside of the Bible, faith is required. There is nothing in science that I could not verify for myself if I had the time, resources, and intellect. Faith cannot be verified by definition.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

It would appear that nothing would not make for RNA, and proteins, considering they both need each other to exist.

On the other hand, if God exists, what created God?

Truth is there is no satisfying answers.

That's why I'm agnostic, or a skeptic.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

I'd actually lean towards the Universe being God, that here's the Universe that's a imperfect, but organized thing, just like us, and everything else in the Universe.

What if the Universe it's self has some kind of consciousness, or plan?

Even the Stars behave like Life, they're born from Nebulae, they supernova to create new Nebulae.

Is that like a God?

Is it like a God that everything we touch is transformed by our actions?

If we cut down, or plant a tree, are we playing a bit of our God ourselves?