The Pinnacle of Evolution

[joshua 1 9]

According to singularityhub Humans are not the Pinnacle of Evolution they are only a rung on the ladder. According to Theistic Evolution JESUS is the Pinnacle of Evolution. Also atheist evolution pretty much centers on the earth and actually having something to evolve. Theistic Evolution goes back to the Big Bang or the beginning of the Universe. They go so far as to say all of the universe revolves around mankind. That this was God's plan and purpose for all of creation and for that reason Jesus is the Pinnacle of Evolution. Jesus is the point where the Creator became a part of Creation. As Christians we believe that Jesus lived His life as an example for us to follow. Many people get confused and try to pattern their lives after the followers of Jesus. As a carpenter you do not use a copy of a copy for a pattern. You always have a master pattern or template and all of the copies are made directly from the master. This is pretty much the biggest mistake that the atheistic evolutionists make is they try to make a copy from a copy from a copy and that simply does not work. You have to have a master pattern to work with and that is Jesus. He sets the example for us to follow. That is why He is the Pinnacle of Evolution for Creator and Creation to become one.

I would speculate that some may argue there is no Pinnacle only co-dependency or co-evolution where you have symbiotic relationships. So they may argue against a pinnacle.

"Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple", Matt 4:5

"Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple". Matt 4:5

http://singularityhub.com/2014/07/2...on-and-consciousness-were-only-the-beginning/

 

[Hoghead1]

According to singularityhub Humans are not the Pinnacle of Evolution they are only a rung on the ladder. According to Theistic Evolution JESUS is the Pinnacle of Evolution. Also atheist evolution pretty much centers on the earth and actually having something to evolve. Theistic Evolution goes back to the Big Bang or the beginning of the Universe. They go so far as to say all of the universe revolves around mankind. That this was God's plan and purpose for all of creation and for that reason Jesus is the Pinnacle of Evolution. Jesus is the point where the Creator became a part of Creation. As Christians we believe that Jesus lived His life as an example for us to follow. Many people get confused and try to pattern their lives after the followers of Jesus. As a carpenter you do not use a copy of a copy for a pattern. You always have a master pattern or template and all of the copies are made directly from the master. This is pretty much the biggest mistake that the atheistic evolutionists make is they try to make a copy from a copy from a copy and that simply does not work. You have to have a master pattern to work with and that is Jesus. He sets the example for us to follow. That is why He is the Pinnacle of Evolution for Creator and Creation to become one.

I would speculate that some may argue there is no Pinnacle only co-dependency or co-evolution where you have symbiotic relationships. So they may argue against a pinnacle.

"Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple", Matt 4:5

"Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple". Matt 4:5

http://singularityhub.com/2014/07/2...on-and-consciousness-were-only-the-beginning/

I don't know where you are getting your information about theistic evolution, but you are way, way off base.

 

[SkyWriting]

According to Theistic Evolution JESUS is the Pinnacle of Evolution.

Source?

 

[Jimmy D]

According to singularityhub Humans are not the Pinnacle of Evolution they are only a rung on the ladder. According to Theistic Evolution JESUS is the Pinnacle of Evolution. Also atheist evolution pretty much centers on the earth and actually having something to evolve. Theistic Evolution goes back to the Big Bang or the beginning of the Universe. They go so far as to say all of the universe revolves around mankind. That this was God's plan and purpose for all of creation and for that reason Jesus is the Pinnacle of Evolution. Jesus is the point where the Creator became a part of Creation. As Christians we believe that Jesus lived His life as an example for us to follow. Many people get confused and try to pattern their lives after the followers of Jesus. As a carpenter you do not use a copy of a copy for a pattern. You always have a master pattern or template and all of the copies are made directly from the master. This is pretty much the biggest mistake that the atheistic evolutionists make is they try to make a copy from a copy from a copy and that simply does not work. You have to have a master pattern to work with and that is Jesus. He sets the example for us to follow. That is why He is the Pinnacle of Evolution for Creator and Creation to become one.

I would speculate that some may argue there is no Pinnacle only co-dependency or co-evolution where you have symbiotic relationships. So they may argue against a pinnacle.

"Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple", Matt 4:5

"Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple". Matt 4:5

http://singularityhub.com/2014/07/2...on-and-consciousness-were-only-the-beginning/

So you do believe in evolution? I'm confused.

 

[SkyWriting]

So you do believe in evolution? I'm confused.

Everyone believes in evolution.

There are some tiny parts/branches regarding origins that are
not universally accepted becuase all such things are faith based.

 

[joshua 1 9]

So you do believe in evolution? I'm confused.

I believe in Theistic Evolution, I obviously do not believe in Atheistic Evolution. Perhaps I should say I believe in my version of Evolution that does not mean I believe in your version of Evolution. Neil DeGrasse Tyson wants to know: "Where is the debate"? He considers discussion or debate a vital part of science. If there is no discussion then he feels that he has failed as an educator. So the discussion is an essential part of the educational process. According to Tyson when the discussion fails then you have failed as an educator.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Everyone believes in evolution.

There are some tiny parts/branches regarding origins that are
not universally accepted because all such things are faith based.

I am not sure how big or small our differences are but as far as I know everyone does believe. Even Kent Hovind who went to jail for 10 years for his beliefs, believes in Evolution. In fact Evolution is an essential part of his Ark / repopulate the earth theory. If we all believed the same thing then we would be minions. Science encourages independent thought. In Bible school we are taught that you can not teach truth, you can only help people to discover truth for themselves.

 

[Jimmy D]

I believe in Theistic Evolution, I obviously do not believe in Atheistic Evolution. Perhaps I should say I believe in my version of Evolution that does not mean I believe in your version of Evolution. Neil DeGrasse Tyson wants to know: "Where is the debate"? He considers discussion or debate a vital part of science. If there is no discussion then he feels that he has failed as an educator. So the discussion is an essential part of the educational process. According to Tyson when the discussion fails then you have failed as an educator.

Fair enough, I think that you have your own definition of theistic evolution that differs from the usual one though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution
Francis Collins describes theistic evolution as the position that "evolution is real, but that it was set in motion by God",[3] and characterizes it as accepting "that evolution occurred as biologists describe it, but under the direction of God".

Seeing as you don't believe that the accepted mechanisms of evolution occur it seems like an odd position to take.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Fair enough, I think that you have your own definition of theistic evolution that differs from the usual one though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution
Francis Collins describes theistic evolution as the position that "evolution is real, but that it was set in motion by God",[3] and characterizes it as accepting "that evolution occurred as biologists describe it, but under the direction of God".

Seeing as you don't believe that the accepted mechanisms of evolution occur it seems like an odd position to take.

Collins definition is fine for educational purposes. He has the authority not me. I could debate either side of the issue. He does not get into the details that much and he is still trying to figure it out and define it.

Seeing as you don't believe that the accepted mechanisms of evolution occur it seems like an odd position to take.

Collins said "it wasn't random to God" and that is the same thing I am saying. Even evolutionists like to point out that natural selection is not random and then they contradict themselves with their random mutation theory. For example, frameshift is deterministic not random, for them it is random and not deterministic. A deterministic model will thus always produce the same output from a given starting condition or initial state. Atheistic evolution like Gould believe that if you were to start at the beginning you would get different results. Evo-devo says that anywhere in the universe we will get the same results because the universe is governed by the same natural laws. So even though Gould gave us punctuated equilibrium, there was a price to pay because he tried to take away determinism. It looks like Eldridge disagreed with Gould on this one: Niles Eldredge said: "Mutations have definitive, determinism causes". Even Dawkin's says: "Mutations are caused by definite physical events; they don't just spontaneously happen". So clearly the random non deterministic model is a failure as it seems to have died along with Gould. This is why Max Planck said: "Science advances one funeral at a time."

"I believe God used the mechanism of evolution to achieve that goal. And while that may seem to us who are limited by this axis of time as a very long, drawn-out process, it wasn't long and drawn-out to God. And it wasn't random to God."
Read more at http://www.beliefnet.com/news/scien...cientific-adventures.aspx#UZkDDr2Fd85sivfP.99

 

[-57]

I am not sure how big or small our differences are but as far as I know everyone does believe. Even Kent Hovind who went to jail for 10 years for his beliefs, believes in Evolution. In fact Evolution is an essential part of his Ark / repopulate the earth theory. If we all believed the same thing then we would be minions. Science encourages independent thought. In Bible school we are taught that you can not teach truth, you can only help people to discover truth for themselves.

Hovind doesn't believe in descent with modification.

 

[Oafman]

I believe in Theistic Evolution, I obviously do not believe in Atheistic Evolution.

what's the difference?

 

[joshua 1 9]

what's the difference?

I just did a post on that, scroll up.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Hovind doesn't believe in descent with modification.

We all pick and choose. All I am saying is that he was willing to spend 10 years in jail for his beliefs. I am not saying that I agree with him. Are you willing to go to jail for 10 years for what you believe? Is this a carry over from the Hovind thread?

 

[-57]

what's the difference?

Atheistic evolutionism says no God was required to evolve mankind.

Theistic evolution says God used evolution to create man and the bible is incorrect in its description.

 

[Oafman]

Atheistic evolutionism says no God was required to evolve mankind.

Theistic evolution says God used evolution to create man and the bible is incorrect in its description.

But what is the practical difference between those? I guess one of them adds a 'why' to the 'how'. But the 'why' is not necessary, and is not addressed by evolution.

 

[Jimmy D]

Collins definition is fine for educational purposes. He has the authority not me. I could debate either side of the issue. He does not get into the details that much and he is still trying to figure it out and define it.



Collins said "it wasn't random to God" and that is the same thing I am saying. Even evolutionists like to point out that natural selection is not random and then they contradict themselves with their random mutation theory. For example, frameshift is deterministic not random, for them it is random and not deterministic. A deterministic model will thus always produce the same output from a given starting condition or initial state. Atheistic evolution like Gould believe that if you were to start at the beginning you would get different results. Evo-devo says that anywhere in the universe we will get the same results because the universe is governed by the same natural laws. So even though Gould gave us punctuated equilibrium, there was a price to pay because he tried to take away determinism. It looks like Eldridge disagreed with Gould on this one: Niles Eldredge said: "Mutations have definitive, determinism causes". Even Dawkin's says: "Mutations are caused by definite physical events; they don't just spontaneously happen". So clearly the random non deterministic model is a failure as it seems to have died along with Gould. This is why Max Planck said: "Science advances one funeral at a time."

"I believe God used the mechanism of evolution to achieve that goal. And while that may seem to us who are limited by this axis of time as a very long, drawn-out process, it wasn't long and drawn-out to God. And it wasn't random to God."
Read more at http://www.beliefnet.com/news/scien...cientific-adventures.aspx#UZkDDr2Fd85sivfP.99

Thanks for the answer. Maybe it's just me but I can't make sense of this post, it seems to wander around various topics without actually saying what you think.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that you do accept some of the processes of the TOE but believe it was directed by God? i.e Mutations are not random and the course of evolution leading to mankind was all planned from the start.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Thanks for the answer. Maybe it's just me but I can't make sense of this post, it seems to wander around various topics without actually saying what you think.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that you do accept some of the processes of the TOE but believe it was directed by God? i.e Mutations are not random and the course of evolution leading to mankind was all planned from the start.

It all comes down to ONE word: Determinism. So get a dictionary or do a google search and look up the meaning of that word. I understand it is difficult to understand the meaning of that word and it would take a whole book to explain it. The laws of the universe are very deterministic. Evolution is an attempt to understand natural laws. My point is that evolution is NOT random it is deterministic.

https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2007/11/19/evolution_is_deterministic.html

 

[-57]

But what is the practical difference between those? I guess one of them adds a 'why' to the 'how'. But the 'why' is not necessary, and is not addressed by evolution.

What is the practical difference between those? Not much.

 

[Jimmy D]

It all comes down to ONE word: Determinism. So get a dictionary or do a google search and look up the meaning of that word. I understand it is difficult to understand the meaning of that word and it would take a whole book to explain it. The laws of the universe are very deterministic. Evolution is an attempt to understand natural laws. My point is that evolution is NOT random it is deterministic.

https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2007/11/19/evolution_is_deterministic.html

Wikipedia has a whole page dedicated to determinism it has many meanings in different contexts, mostly philosophical. What do you mean by determinism in relation to evolution?

 

[Herman Hedning]

We all pick and choose. All I am saying is that he was willing to spend 10 years in jail for his beliefs. I am not saying that I agree with him. Are you willing to go to jail for 10 years for what you believe? Is this a carry over from the Hovind thread?

For a belief in not having to pay taxes? Nah. Didn't Jesus say "render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's ..."?