(March 20, 2016 at 2:36 pm)PerennialPhilosophy Wrote: Is evolution any less a miracle than Creationism? Time does not dictate the miraculous. If a wizard appeared in front of me, whether it took him one minute to fly upwards or 10 years I would not consider the act any less miraculous. This leads one to ask why would evolution be considered miraculous? The general consensus around miracles is that they have to defy the laws of nature. While the meaning of that definition is a good argument for another time, I am going to move forward defining miracle as something that goes against the laws of nature. The laws of nature are all interconnected and go back to the big bang. To further demonstrate what I mean by this, let's imagine we're trying to predict where the ball goes after I throw it. This depends on the weight of the ball, the force of my throw, the wind, and etc. etc. To understand these forces, we have to view them as interconnected processes and not isolated events. So, the force I put into the ball depends on what I have eaten, if I have worked out, etc. which all depends on the processes before it. The wind that blows the ball slightly to the left is only blowing that way because of the weather patterns that happened before it, which happened because of what materials and where the earth formed etc. So, lets start at the big bang. Immediately upon that explosion, the universe was doomed. Granted its going to take an inconceivable-to-our-fragile-minds amount of time, but still everything was meant to die. Albeit this, there is a natural propensity for life to keep on living. This is the root of evolution, that life is fighting against itself. On one hand the universe was made to die, on the other it was designed to live. This difference between how things are and how things strive to be is ultimately irrational. It's the ultimate paradox. So my question is, how do you reconcile life on one hand being designed to end and on the other hand being designed to keep going on?
Spoken by someone who has done little to no research on the history of worldwide religions. The narcissist thinks they were the first to come up with their myths. "Creation" stories existed long before Christianity or even the Hebrews. Even the much older Hindu religion has it's own creation myths.
Oh and also, Christianity isn't the only religion that either tries to debunk science, then when it can't tries to co opt science to point to their book. I have been debating on line for 15 years now. I run into Christians the most, but have also debated Muslims and Jews and Hindus and Buddhists.
The problem with all religions is that scientific method is a tool, a process, not a religion. Scientific method does not prop up the Bible, or Quran or Torah or Talmud, or the Hindu Vedas or Buddha. Scientific method is completely religion independent.
Evolution is fact. I am sorry that bothers you. Your lack of understanding of reality does not default to your old book of myth being true.
