Are you sure you want to delete this post?
I hope the readership will allow me this "new thread" within ongoing discussion evolution and creationism.
The terms need to be clarified, defined, even analyzed.
GOD. Is God a "guy in the sky"? Why guy? If so, why white If in any way imaged, pictured, why so many Biblical passages (see my last week's posting( that God is invisible, cannot be seen, is a spirit, etc.??
If the CREATION is of such organized complexity (systemic comprehensivity) that it had to have been created by a human-ish super-being,
by what illogic is it assumed that a human-ish super-being could come into being without some prior process or "creator"? That "God" has always
been is an explanation of existence whereas (for example) "cyclic cosmic expansions and contractions" of periodicities of complexifications of
componentials (subatomic up to galactic, molecule to gene) is beyond the comprehension?? But a make-believe "construct" God isn't???
What does the term EVOLUTION mean? If, according to the "neoDarwinian Synthesis" if's a proliferation of life forms (species) originating from a single
cell . . . . and proceeding via the "mechanism" of genetic mutations (the minority "benign and selected to survive and be passed on -- the majority
being either neutral or deleterious thus not "selected" . . . and if these mutations are minor changes ("micro-mutations" -- any "saltations =
macro-mutations" assumed impossible) . . . . . and mutation thus somewhat a constant . . . . . . . how does one account for the astounding variance of the mind of homo sapiens from that of chimpanzee.
The mind of a creature is the outcome of its evolution? Or from whence otherwise?
The processing of the mind of a creature (neurological processing) is a from of animal behavior? Or from what else?
Such vast differential of the "behavior of comprehension" between two species but 1% of so genetically divergent should bring one to wonder
what we need to be further interpolating into what we term EVOLUTION beyond just random micro-mutation.
Is RANDOM (as in mutation) really random? Or is that a term we need to define more carefully -- as a generalization of phenomenology of such
complexity of within such termporal (time) restriction . . . . that we don't get the "picture of the organized paradigm" -- the actual systemic??
"Random" may be the statistial equivalent of viewing a pointallist or even watercolor artwork from the wrong distance (or other) perspective.
If evolution is driven by selected SURVIVAL only ("fitness and prolificity especially) should we not spend some time actually examining and establishing the "species robustness" evidenced and enacted by a symphony orchestra, a Broadway show, fine art, sculpture? One "explanation" I've heard is that such things are "peacock-tail" displays which represent attractions to females and thus "sexual selection" results and the artist or sculptor or musician or whomever is "selected" -- thus the art from of his "social evolution" selected.
Be that the case, BULLSHIT is highly selected.
If EVOLUTION and SURVIVAL are driven by the positive mutations (selected) but the overwhelming majority of alleles are assumed either neutral or
negative -- would not evolution thus be a self-extinctive process (think the statistics here).
If "Hollywoodish" appearance, especially "facial and other morphological symmetry" the foci of sexual selection (woman choosing mate) -- and
further, if prolificity of offspring is proportionate to "fitness" . . . . why is it that the greatest number of kids are being born in regions and to
races (and even in socio-economic sumps of anywhere) . . . . and the upper levels of (at least manifested) intellect and ability and creativity have so few kids?
If EVOLUTION is just a random (chance) process of change, selected to continue and further change -- to get to the REPLICATION OF THE UNIVERSE FROM MICROCOSM TO COSMIC AS THE SCOPE OF THE MENTAL PROCESS OF A SPECIES (man-- at least to get the idea of it all -- but
so many to be geniuses in the sciences of concern) . . . . . . ain't the whole story somehow.
At least to me. But then, maybe I'm one of the non-selected. Oh no-- and End Times a-comin soon
" . . . . but then again, maybe not" (and check that title out).
I'll be interested in any responses to the above -- if any of it's comprehensible.