Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 7L
As I have said and as you have not yet acknowledged, many cosmologists and planetary scientists also include it as a reasonable possibility, given the preponderance of evidence for intelligent life having come to be on its own in multiple instances is so astronomically low.
|
I'm aware of that, and have never said this hypothesis isn't a possibility. It's how micro-organisms could've come to earth, but we know that humans, tigers, iguanas, and oak trees have all evolved on earth, and that goes for ''intelligent life'' [definition?] in general.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 7L
Ask yourself why it is you have to label and judge either ideas or people as problematic. And then ask yourself that if someone is telling you that those labels and ideas are not what I've been speaking about at all (such as I have repeated said to you)...and BTW are neither accurate nor relevant as you have posited them to anyone but you LOL...then what do you get or receive from continuing to put something upon others which they do not accept for themselves? And which they have not been speaking to you about? It is, granted, one way to separate or self-define, by the act of defining yourself against others. But I would argue it is not a robust or liberating way to do so, because you are not able to apprehend others as they are when you only relate to others through the false or artificial constructs you create. You are not really telling me who I am. In fact, you are barely engaging with me and what I've actually said, at all. Instead, you are telling me who you are and you posit me as a straw man, regardless of what I say apparently  Additionally, the construct itself is artificial and limiting, even to your implicit goal of discussion religion v science (which is what I HAVE been talking about). |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 7L
So what does that gain for you?
If you really want to deal with me as I am, address the topic I HAVE been speaking to...which is intellectual honesty and paradigmatic growth and evolution within the scientific perspective, and within the human perspective more broadly. As well as within the individual's perspective.
That is where I find the topic interesting and that's what I've been speaking to. Not the dualisms you posit or construct, which are more for you and you alone, in your search to define (but perhaps also to limit) yourself as you see fit.
|
Please return to the topic at hand, 7L. It's about evolution, and not Altair.
It would be nice if you could discuss the topic and drop the stuff about me ''pacifying'' myself ''intellectually and emotionally'', lacking the ''water element'', and saying that things like justice and meaning are ''beneath'' me and that
I find them ''distasteful'', ''limiting myself'', seeking to ''define myself'' and what not.
None of this is true, and more importantly it is not relevant.
I am not important, the topic is. I kindly ask you to analyse/discuss the content, and not the person.
Let me try again... [since you joined the discussion later I will summarize]:
This concerns evolution by natural selection. Some people believe that there are ''missing links'', but they aren't there. Also, some have suggested that evolution can't explain variation in species [including humans], but actually it can.
I have explored the issues that arise when adding a supernatural component to life's journey on earth [again; I'm not talking about origins]. We find a sort of ''guided evolution'' back in some appeals to design. However..
No design or 'guided' meaning/purpose can be found in nature. Species aren't fixed or eternal and evolution is a natural phenomenon. There is no ''guide'', external or internal, that makes species think they should develop wings or have black fur. Natural selection is just that: natural. Variety in animals, plants, fungi, etc. is natural.
Of course, if evolution can be explained without a supernatural component [and it can] than it concludes that adding any other ''layers'' into the mix is simply not parsimonious.
It doesn't really matter where we look. We could look at our wisdom teeth, the consequences of the collision of the Americas, human skin colour, leopard fur, antibiotic resistance. There are natural explanations for natural phenomena.
Also, I am not creating a dichotomy between ''science and religion''. I have explored non-creationist spirituality. There are paths out there that lack creationism, and some don't reject evolution by natural selection.