Hi there,
So yes I am showing extreme caution at this point, because I am literally translating "I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father but by Me" into "change has to be actionable, targeted and reachievable; the exercise of Evolution can only be secured in the manner of this (principle)". Jesus, Father; Evolution, principle. The point in terms of Evolution, is for Evolution to be "secure", to exercise a 'secure principle'. The kickback from this, is that you have a resting mandate, to be principled, until you can further strengthen your Evolution. That is, instead of just letting Evolution "happen".
The problem is Evolutionists, insist that there is no process that creates Evolution, in the life of an individual - one day you will die and you will either die in the 'in' or the 'out' crowd. That needs to change: individuals can copy each other, can split the difference, can provoke a return - it is up to them. I find this frustrating - that Evolution doesn't even describe itself, in the manner of a dynamic, that might fail or succeed. Nothing is being tested. Copious amounts of time are being used as poly-filler for the cracks between one species and another. The reality is that Evolution is the least testable, of anything science would attempt to test and test again.
Typically what happens, is that I come up with a concept like this, and then, rather than argue until I am blue in the face, I come up with an 'exception' - something that points out, that if it were all in my favour, I would likely die of over-simplification. What's hard is that Evolution, is itself an over-simplification, that tries to justify being the only one - as if that's progress! I am a meditator by preference and (even) to meditate successfully, I need a testable concept, on which to focus my thoughts - I am not leading people up the garden path, in the hope that they capitulate to religion. Here, I have taken Jesus words, the words which made Him exclusive to any other and I have reexpressed them as Evolutionary constants and still I run into the same problem: neither Creation nor Evolution nor any other Neutrally defined romance can justify itself in the absence of the others. Created creatures need experience in fear, to differentiate their flock; Evolved beasts need exercise in territory, to refine their nose for the hunt and so on and so forth.
It's just intellectual suffocation is all it is: without a concept of rest, to punctuate the intellectual stress that thinking through "Evolution" is. It doesn't operate according to laws of logic, or reason - if it demands that something die, before it ventures an interpretation. That is back to square one, with the insult of sin to God in need of propitiation! Any other philosophy offers a motive or an intent of some kind, to drive its inquisition into the factors that are relevant to that philosophy - why is "Evolution" granted a reprieve?
So yes, if you want to offer a better use of scripture I would be happy to hear it - as it stands my hands are in the air!
So yes I am showing extreme caution at this point, because I am literally translating "I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father but by Me" into "change has to be actionable, targeted and reachievable; the exercise of Evolution can only be secured in the manner of this (principle)". Jesus, Father; Evolution, principle. The point in terms of Evolution, is for Evolution to be "secure", to exercise a 'secure principle'. The kickback from this, is that you have a resting mandate, to be principled, until you can further strengthen your Evolution. That is, instead of just letting Evolution "happen".
The problem is Evolutionists, insist that there is no process that creates Evolution, in the life of an individual - one day you will die and you will either die in the 'in' or the 'out' crowd. That needs to change: individuals can copy each other, can split the difference, can provoke a return - it is up to them. I find this frustrating - that Evolution doesn't even describe itself, in the manner of a dynamic, that might fail or succeed. Nothing is being tested. Copious amounts of time are being used as poly-filler for the cracks between one species and another. The reality is that Evolution is the least testable, of anything science would attempt to test and test again.
Typically what happens, is that I come up with a concept like this, and then, rather than argue until I am blue in the face, I come up with an 'exception' - something that points out, that if it were all in my favour, I would likely die of over-simplification. What's hard is that Evolution, is itself an over-simplification, that tries to justify being the only one - as if that's progress! I am a meditator by preference and (even) to meditate successfully, I need a testable concept, on which to focus my thoughts - I am not leading people up the garden path, in the hope that they capitulate to religion. Here, I have taken Jesus words, the words which made Him exclusive to any other and I have reexpressed them as Evolutionary constants and still I run into the same problem: neither Creation nor Evolution nor any other Neutrally defined romance can justify itself in the absence of the others. Created creatures need experience in fear, to differentiate their flock; Evolved beasts need exercise in territory, to refine their nose for the hunt and so on and so forth.
It's just intellectual suffocation is all it is: without a concept of rest, to punctuate the intellectual stress that thinking through "Evolution" is. It doesn't operate according to laws of logic, or reason - if it demands that something die, before it ventures an interpretation. That is back to square one, with the insult of sin to God in need of propitiation! Any other philosophy offers a motive or an intent of some kind, to drive its inquisition into the factors that are relevant to that philosophy - why is "Evolution" granted a reprieve?
So yes, if you want to offer a better use of scripture I would be happy to hear it - as it stands my hands are in the air!
