We're working here in an area where Science peters out and Intuition takes over
Maybe in your mind.
Science has developed a very good theory about evolution that all facts and evidence fits and nothing refutes.
Yes I agree, and I accept it absolutely. I simply speculate there's still more to it once we better understand the Big Picture
We use it every day in medicine, agriculture and exploration for minerals (you may not believe it but its true).
Of coure it's true. As an erstwhile rockhound I see it happening today. My aspect of its appreciation doesn't conflict with evolution in any manner whatever
In fact I see the entire cycling of the Universe as one of evolution, from the infinitely massive, dense particle of zero dimension through the Big Bang, the Big Expansion with its attendant evolution of mater and Man, the Cooling Dispersal, The Quiet Reversal, the Big Crunch, then back to the Tiny Massive Particle; ad infinitum
If there werent such a robust theory in action, then perhaps your "intuition" may have room.you just have to spend more time in understanding it
I've always thought I understand it in general terms if not all the technical detail. My intuition accepts it absolutely. My critics merely misinterpret my position
Though I can't understand why hereabout it's considered such a threat
Why should anyone just lend a hand at promoting more ignorance.
Man, hope you don't mean me. I'm for enlightenment of all sorts.
If you wish to join the anti-evolutionists of the A2K crowd, you would probably be welcomed .
Of course I don't, unless as an Associate Member but With Reservations. But I'd like to present a sort of "alternative" that might, if somewhat haltingly, satisfy at least part of both camps
Just remember, they havent yet presented one piece of evidence in support of their "belief system".
Like I said we're in an area where Science trails off. Just as you, I question the anthropomorphic aspects of "their belief system" except as symbolism
You seem to want to understand things but you always avoid the obvious data that explains it.
Not at all. Where have I taken issue, eg, with evolution
I would not, for one, spend time making up (kinda) ridiculous queries as to whether evolution is valid,
I recall having fielded no such query
youre probably not gonna get support for your stance.
I get the feeling hereabout that I'll get little support no matter what my stance
Then, to top it off, you wonder why your stance isnt embraced by others.
My "stance" is interpreted as an argument contrary to "their" position. But it's not, it hopefully incorporates apparently conflicting points of view
its really not science thats settled by a debate. There are these biological facts that get in your way
I dispute none of these biological facts
I merely maintain--forgive any repetition--presently discouraged by semantic if not logical blockages, factors of a wider scope under consideration by the apodictical existential pantheist will eventually underlay a kind of consolidation
…in a sense maintining that a concept yet unstated as underlying the intuitive, largely subconscious hope that there's something more to the Entire Megillah than the dreary, meaningless, random bouncing of particles off one another, ending in the dispersal of objects and particles approaching absolute zero while accelerating apart forever, might be more clearly demonstrated in terms yet to be invented
The problem as I see it is a kind of dualism where ultimately only "one side" prevails, as in freewill v determinism…that whether or not She creates anything, or even exists, will be relegated to mere semantic concern
In short we hen't yet developed language adequate to the task of representing the all-encompassing non-dualistic
On the other hand, alas, maybe I'm just fullovit