It's more important that a fact, be about a person - than a person, be about facts

Gottservant · May 11, 2019

Hi there,

So I just wanted to grasp the polarity of faith in Evolution, from a factual perspective.

As it is: it is more important that a fact, be about a person - than a person, be about facts.

In other words, at some point Evolution has to lay claim to faith, because facts alone are not enough to make theory important.

For example, if I espoused facts about someone all day and all night, eventually I would come to the conclusion that this person had an element of mystery about them.

I would not think they "evolved mystery".

Warden_of_the_Storm · May 11, 2019

... nope, that makes no sense.

DaisyDay · May 11, 2019

Evolution isn't a person. Facts are about more than a person, other matters besides a person.

lasthero · May 11, 2019

Your ability to write sentences that are grammatically correct and yet still make no sense is amazing.

AV1611VET · May 11, 2019

---SE---

Then why am I posting on the Internet?

Hans Blaster · May 11, 2019

AV1611VET said:
Then why am I posting on the Internet?

We're not really sure.

AV1611VET · May 11, 2019

Hans Blaster said:
We're not really sure.

I'm doing my part to fulfill the Great Commission:

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Kylie · May 11, 2019

AV1611VET said:
Then why am I posting on the Internet?

Hypocrisy?

Specifically, you pick and choose what parts of science you want and then denounce the rest.

AV1611VET · May 11, 2019

Kylie said:
Hypocrisy?

Specifically, you pick and choose what parts of science you want and then denounce the rest.

I'm sure you've seen my standards before:

1. Bible says X, science says Ø = go with X
2. Bible says X, science says X = go with X
3. Bible says X, science says Y = go with X
4. Bible says Ø, science says Y = go with Y
5. Bible says Ø, science says Ø = speculate

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances is the Bible to be contradicted.

Kylie · May 11, 2019

AV1611VET said:
I'm sure you've seen my standards before:

1. Bible says X, science says Ø = go with X
2. Bible says X, science says X = go with X
3. Bible says X, science says Y = go with X
4. Bible says Ø, science says Y = go with Y
5. Bible says Ø, science says Ø = speculate

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances is the Bible to be contradicted.

Oh yeah, I've seen it.

When reality disagrees with the Bible, you decide that reality's got it wrong.

Beats me how you think that's supposed to work.

(Also, what do you do when the thing that contradicts the Bible is the Bible itself?)

Speedwell · May 11, 2019

AV1611VET said:
I'm sure you've seen my standards before:

1. Bible says X, science says Ø = go with X
2. Bible says X, science says X = go with X
3. Bible says X, science says Y = go with X
4. Bible says Ø, science says Y = go with Y
5. Bible says Ø, science says Ø = speculate

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances is the Bible to be contradicted.

Yet you routinely and dishonestly attribute failures by engineers and managers to "scientists." Isn't that hypocritical?

AV1611VET · May 11, 2019

Speedwell said:
Yet you routinely and dishonestly attribute failures by engineers and managers to "scientists." Isn't that hypocritical?

I wouldn't know.

Every time I ask if an engineer can't be a scientist, people go 404.

Kylie · May 11, 2019

AV1611VET said:
I wouldn't know.

Every time I ask if an engineer can't be a scientist, people go 404.

Being an engineer is not the same as being a scientist.

A person can be an engineer and not be a scientist. A person can be a scientist and not be an engineer. A person can be both. A person can be neither.

It's like how I can be a pianist as well as a mother. People can be one, the other, both, or neither.

Not a difficult concept here.

Gottservant · May 13, 2019

I'm not sure adding to nonsense really drives the conversation forward.

I said "do not just add facts".

You said "I'd like to add that I think your writing nonsense, is a fact".

See the problem here?

Rather than leave the conversation in a ditch, I think constructively it would help if we did not just reconceptualize something that stubbornly leads to confusion (by which I mean "Evolution").

The whole point of the thread is that at some point you have to stop theorizing, and accept a degree of mystery.

There is no theory that can unite all the disparate life-forms of Gaia, for example - Gaia is the Earth Spirit, specifically which creatures is a mystery.
There is no theory that can unite the various degrees of gravity, for example - gravity is a force, a specific expression of that force in distinction to all others is a mystery.

See where I am going with this?

You might say something like this "there is no theory that can unite all the expressions of Evolution for example, Evolution is a connection to relevance, specifically how strong a connection is a mystery"

Easy, right?

You might say "but you are just adding fact to fact!" in principle, yes I am adding fact to fact, but I am doing so in the process of limiting how many facts are needed.

You are not required to change your theory, in order to limit the depth of which it is you investigate by it.

Gottservant · May 13, 2019

AV1611VET said:
I'm sure you've seen my standards before:

1. Bible says X, science says Ø = go with X
2. Bible says X, science says X = go with X
3. Bible says X, science says Y = go with X
4. Bible says Ø, science says Y = go with Y
5. Bible says Ø, science says Ø = speculate

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances is the Bible to be contradicted.

This is brilliant, AV116VET! It pays to test your faith against the ungodly, doesn't it (look at your table, for example)!?

Kylie · May 13, 2019

Gottservant said:
I'm not sure adding to nonsense really drives the conversation forward.

I said "do not just add facts".

You said "I'd like to add that I think your writing nonsense, is a fact".

See the problem here?

Rather than leave the conversation in a ditch, I think constructively it would help if we did not just reconceptualize something that stubbornly leads to confusion (by which I mean "Evolution").

The whole point of the thread is that at some point you have to stop theorizing, and accept a degree of mystery.

There is no theory that can unite all the disparate life-forms of Gaia, for example - Gaia is the Earth Spirit, specifically which creatures is a mystery.
There is no theory that can unite the various degrees of gravity, for example - gravity is a force, a specific expression of that force in distinction to all others is a mystery.

See where I am going with this?

You might say something like this "there is no theory that can unite all the expressions of Evolution for example, Evolution is a connection to relevance, specifically how strong a connection is a mystery"

Easy, right?

You might say "but you are just adding fact to fact!" in principle, yes I am adding fact to fact, but I am doing so in the process of limiting how many facts are needed.

You are not required to change your theory, in order to limit the depth of which it is you investigate by it.

I have no idea what you are trying to say...

Gottservant · May 13, 2019

I do not write what I do, believing every last word I use has meaning.

To summarize: to be believed, Evolution must be believed to have mystery.

We know that mystery on its own does not drive what it does (in this case: Evolution), but without defining it at the very least it can only be concluded that the object is amodal (lacking the capacity to differentiate one mode from another - for example, the mode of survival from the mode of rest from the mode of flourishing and so on).

AV1611VET · May 13, 2019

Gottservant said:
This is brilliant, AV116VET! It pays to test your faith against the ungodly, doesn't it (look at your table, for example)!?

God bless you, sir!

Warden_of_the_Storm · May 13, 2019

Gottservant said:
To summarize: to be believed, Evolution must be believed to have mystery.

Why?

lasthero · May 13, 2019

Gottservant said:
See where I am going with this?

No.

It's more important that a fact, be about a person - than a person, be about facts

God loves your words, may men love them also

Well-Known Member

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State

Newbie

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Rocket surgeon

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Defeater of Illogic

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Defeater of Illogic

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Defeater of Illogic

God loves your words, may men love them also

God loves your words, may men love them also

Defeater of Illogic

God loves your words, may men love them also

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Similar threads