-->
@ethang5
An interesting reference there, to the connection between Theism, obsession and compulsion. "Theism and other mental issues".
LOL.
I'm a theistic evolutionist.
Posts
Total:
137
-->
@Dynasty
Why do you think god would need to use evolution to modify anything? And what's the biblical support for the process, like where in the bible do you find something that leads you to this conclusion?
-->
@zedvictor4
An interesting reference there, to the connection between Theism, obsession and compulsion. "Theism and other mental issues".LOL.
Have you ever been a theist? I ask because I wanted to know if it feels anything like your obsession with me.
So, is there a connection?
-->
@Dynasty
Theism doesn't exist in the ToE.
-->
@Seth
Like homo and phobia?Two contradictory words used together is an oxymoron, the title is an oxymoron.
-->
@ethang5
Homo = same
Phobia = fear
How is that remotely oxymoronic? They're not opposites of each other.
-->
@ludofl3x
Homo ≠ Same
-->
@ethang5
What do you think that prefix means?
-->
@ludofl3x
The Greek root word it is from means "same". The English word "homo" means,
A homosexual man. Check the dictionary if you doubt it.
OKay, so you think "homo" means "homosexual". I'll try again.
Homo = gay person
Phobia = Fear
Still not oxymoronic.
-->
@Dynasty
if by evolution, you mean adaptive change, that is an observable phenomena, if, on the other hand you mean that evolution is a creative force, that is not what we see.
-->
@ethang5
I respond to posts that I find interesting.
So I must find your posts interesting.
And the previous post that I responded to, was something of a faux pas. Though I don't suppose for one minute that you would admit to it.
Have I ever been a theist?....Well, theism is a very broad term, but if you're asking have I ever had a firm belief in the existence of a supreme power, then the answer would definitely be no. Nonetheless I do accept that the existence of a supreme power is a valid hypothesis.
As for Abrahamic religions and other popular faiths......I have always regarded these as mythological pseudo-hypotheses..... It was how I was conditioned to think
-->
@zedvictor4
I respond to posts that I find interesting.So I must find your posts interesting
You and a ton of other people.
It was how I was conditioned to think...
I will share a truth with you, a person can rise above how they were conditioned to think, and become an original, Independent thinker.
Really.
-->
@ludofl3x
OKay, so you think "homo" means "homosexual".
No slick. Not I think, that IS the meaning in English. And I didn't set it that way.
I'll try again.
OK.
Homo = gay personPhobia = FearStill not oxymoronic.
Phobia doesn't mean fear.
-->
@ethang5
Hey, you're a popular guy then.
Truth also....We are all conditioned, it's unavoidable.....Basic operating data if you like....difficult to erase.
We can also think independently...acquire new data...assimilate...create, store and output new data sequences.
But the basics tend to persist.
-->
@zedvictor4
We are all conditioned, it's unavoidable.....
No, but it doesn't have to be crippling.
Basic operating data if you like....difficult to erase.
It need not be erased, simply controlled.
Acquiescing to "conditioning" is intellectually lazy. Every advancement of this world has been on the brute force of original, independent thinkers.
Another word for conditioning is instinct. Man can rise above and control instinct.
-->
@ethang5
Okay then phobia must mean heterosexual, is that correct? It would have to be for those two words (one of which is slang) to be oxymoronic.
-->
@ludofl3x
Okay then phobia must mean heterosexual, is that correct?
Nope.
Phobia means - an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something.
Homophobia is as logical as beingstabbedinthechestbyalunaticphobia.
How is it irrational to fear being stabbed in the chest? And how could such a fear be extreme?
Ever heard of genocidophobia? RapeOphobia? Terrophobia? You haven't. Know why? Because fear of genocide, or rape, or terror is not irrational.
Neither is homophobia. Homophobia is an irrational concept advanced by the loony left. Aversion to homosexuals is natural, and not a phobia.
Whatever your views are, we can agree the word is not oxymoronic in amy way shape or form
-->
@ronjs
What do you mean by "creative force" in this context?
-->
@ethang5
Conditioning and instinct are two wholly different things.
Instinct is inherent, whereas conditioning is acquired.
The brain and therefore the mass will function independently/instinctively without conscious input, basically that is life.
Conditioning is relative to evolved higher levels of consciousness. The brain takes on board new data as the mass develops.
In short, early years conditioning is what makes the difference between you and I and explains the fundamental differences in the way we think and the way we tend to formulate and output data sequences in a similar but slightly different way.
God probably is or God probably isn't, for example.
Independent thinking is the nature of wise man/woman and the evolution thereof. The ability to advance is relative to the intellectual capability of the individual and the ability of the group to cooperate.
Nonetheless, acquiescing to conditioning remains unavoidable, to even the most intellectually gifted individuals.
-->
@zedvictor4
I disagree, I and its clear you don't have children. You believe this because you are totally invested in your material mindset....early years conditioning is what makes the difference between you and I and explains the fundamental differences in the way we think and the way we tend to formulate and output data sequences in a similar but slightly different way.
...acquiescing to conditioning remains unavoidable, to even the most intellectually gifted individuals.
A quick glance at history proves you wrong. Acquiescing to conditioning is unavoidable, people escape it everyday.
It is intellectual laziness, and, from what I know about your IQ, below you.
-->
@secularmerlin
The ability to create, in order for something to change( evolve), it first has to exist. So, is evolution a force that is able to create everything?
-->
@ronjs
o one claims evolution "creates" in the way you briefly describe. It works with what's present. Think of it like a stream with a stone in it. The stream shapes the stone over a long period of time, but the stream didn't put the stone there. Your question seems more like where did the stone come from, which is a completely different proposition from "what makes the stone this shape." It can be difficult to disassociate the two, but they're definitely two different questions. Evolution deals with the diversity of life, not the origin of it.
-->
@ronjs
You are confusing the theory of evolution with the origin of life. The theory of evolution dies not claim to tell us where the first life came from it is only our best understanding of the process that began the moment there was any life and that led eventually to the diversity of species we see today.
-->
@Dynasty
you believe in evolution? can you give me an example of evolution which is not just adaptation?
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
can you give me an example of evolution which is not just adaptation?
Please define what you see as the difference between the two terms. Evolution is exactly adaptation.
-->
@secularmerlin
So then evolution cannot create anything, right?, including new species.
-->
@ronjs
Yes, evolution 'create' new species this usage of the word 'create.' It cannot create new LIFE. No one claims it can.
-->
@ludofl3x
from what I have read, evolution is a new/different organism or characteristic than the parent species, to become better, more complex, go up, de-evolve would be the opposite.
adaptation isn't even a question. the evidence of adaptation is plentiful and readily understandable and is caused by some outside force.
for anything to be considered scientifically true, it has to be something that can be duplicated. If evolution were true, wouldn't scientists be able to recreate the sequence of change that transformed monkeys into humans?
Evolution is unpredictable and arbitrary, while science is systematic—based on a preexisting system. And in a broader sense, it does not seem the universe could have created itself arbitrarily and still be completely, totally, and in every regard, systematic.
(maybe it's just not a needed word, it can't be defined differently than words that already exist?)