Originally posted by amannionYes but the phrase "the unseen hand of natural selection" is another way of saying the "unseen hand of the Supreme Spiritual Creative Principle"
No, not an accident - natural selection. To call evolution accidental is both mistaken and idiotic.
And we all know its the "Supreme Spiritual Creative Principle".... at work giving us life, not the other fabricated fairy tale.
Originally posted by vishvahetuEdit: "And we all know its the "Supreme Spiritual Creative Principle".... at work giving us life, not the other fabricated fairy tale."
Yes but the phrase "the unseen hand of natural selection" is another way of saying the "unseen hand of the Supreme Spiritual Creative Principle"
And we all know its the "Supreme Spiritual Creative Principle".... at work giving us life, not the other fabricated fairy tale.
How and by which means did you came to, say, "know" it?
😵
Originally posted by vishvahetuThat's just popular writers trying to be creative and poetic. There's nothing directing natural selection - no unseen hand. It's just a (this'll please Freaky) process.
Yes but the phrase "the unseen hand of natural selection" is another way of saying the "unseen hand of the Supreme Spiritual Creative Principle"
And we all know its the "Supreme Spiritual Creative Principle".... at work giving us life, not the other fabricated fairy tale.
Originally posted by amannionUnfortunately, many people misinterpret what is really meant with poetic language or metaphors. For example, when Einstein said, "I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice.", which is often paraphrased as, "God does not play dice."
That's just popular writers trying to be creative and poetic. There's nothing directing natural selection - no unseen hand. It's just a (this'll please Freaky) process.
This was in reference to strange things happening in quantum mechanics. God being a metaphor for nature.
This has often been interpreted to mean that Einstein ended up believing in a creator.
Originally posted by vishvahetu“...Your take on it is flawed, because dead matter cannot organize itself, ...”
To Andrew Hamilton
Your take on it is flawed, because dead matter cannot organize itself, and science has ignored the spiritual creative principle at work, because their dishonest.
I wouldnt mind so much if they agreed that their is something remarkable going on in all the complexity of life, but they are keeping to the belief that dead matter is a ...[text shortened]... w, that can then give man milk, cheese, yogurt,cream,butter, ghee....what a wonderfull accident.
How do you know this?
Laboratory experiments have shown that simple organic compounds like those that would have been produced in the early Earth can, under the right conditions, self-assemble into more complex and organised structures (such as microsphere ).
Also, to help you understand why the modern complexity of cells does not pose a scientific problem, take a read of the messages in the film on:
http://wn.com/Abiogenesis
(but you might want to turn the sound down because the music on the video is a real irritation) .
There are also some very informative videos there that explain how abiogenesis probably actually occurred and mentions the fact it could have occurred with the help of RNA that doesn't need enzymes or any protein to self-replicate.
There is also proof shown on the videos of how lifeless molecules can self-organise and form complex cell structures.
1 edit
Originally posted by vishvahetu“...Why should cells combine themselves to the point of giving us a cow, that can then give man milk, cheese, yogurt,cream,butter, ghee....what a wonderfull accident. ...”
To Andrew Hamilton
Your take on it is flawed, because dead matter cannot organize itself, and science has ignored the spiritual creative principle at work, because their dishonest.
I wouldnt mind so much if they agreed that their is something remarkable going on in all the complexity of life, but they are keeping to the belief that dead matter is a ...[text shortened]... w, that can then give man milk, cheese, yogurt,cream,butter, ghee....what a wonderfull accident.
As amannion pointed out, it was no accident but natural selection. Also, cows didn’t evolve to give us milk but to give their young milk -the same is true for other mammals.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonCows didn't evolve, they where designed by the Supreme Spiritual Intelligence, and they where designed to give man milk....and you cannot see this because your atheistic beliefs blind you.
“...Why should cells combine themselves to the point of giving us a cow, that can then give man milk, cheese, yogurt,cream,butter, ghee....what a wonderfull accident. ...”
As amannion pointed out, it was no accident but natural selection. Also, cows didn’t evolve to give us milk but to give their young milk -the same is true for other mammals.
Originally posted by vishvahetuand if their calfs get some leftover milk, that is ok.
Cows didn't evolve, they where designed by the Supreme Spiritual Intelligence, and they where designed to give man milk....and you cannot see this because your atheistic beliefs blind you.
i do hope you are being sarcastic. otherwise you just might be the most insane person on the internet.
Originally posted by lauseyhumans were designed to give other humans milk. we are superior. we got a good deal with the supreme spiritual intelligence. we don't have to share our milk with any other species and many other mammals must give us their milk as a tribute.
Were humans designed to give cows milk?
P.S. This is a rhetorical question.
