Search results

I think its funny that the thing that works for everyone, doesn't work for the one that thought of it. No one dreams up work for others, thinking they themselves will have to do more again, whatever its value. No you want some things to work in one way, and others to work in a different way -...

Are you an agent? Yes. Then what are you amenable to? Words. Please. Don't stop communicating because its not the dogma you've already learned; one of the key benefits of talking with someone who sees things like "agency" missing, is that you get a chance to stretch yourself, what you believe...

No but a species has a pack formation, so it knows what is for the pack and what not. The longer you stay in the pack, the more like the pack you become. There is a word for trait and a word for communicate: they can. The more that change is predicted, the more the species can respond to...

Hi there, So this is the philosophical "glass half empty or glass half full" (see philosophy has its uses!): Ultimately greater humanoids could take over, or they could show us better? Where do you stand?

Just to add to this: what about the other direction? Why is preventing other species from developing humanoid characteristics not a valid survival strategy? Our survival is at risk, if we do not wipe out humanoid development in other species? Or we have reason to encourage humanoid...

Why is preventing other species from becoming "humanoid" not a valid survival strategy?

Sure, if we have developed a response to the selection pressures that were there - but now there are none - then Evolution is a moot point. We don't say Creation is a moot point, because we are always looking for ways to reinvigorate the word, in our hearts and minds (for example).

I have started to get the idea that Evolution is a calculated substitution of risk. A calculated substitution of risk, (opens more doors? no) impresses similar nuance. In other words, it creates a pack mentality (the similar nuances, are nuances of the pack).

Hi there, So my immediate reaction to this idea, was that it's not possible to evolve a fact. I admit that. You can change the context in which it is viewed or how its interpreted, but that fact itself remains the same. I recognise that. Once I recognised that, I started to think: "maybe the...

As soon as something is discovered: the scientists look to "why" and who else they can find. Has God not been saying "I know why", seek those who are with you?

That facts need a framework, is new to me. I think it's encouraging to think, that if our faith is a fact to God, God is able to give us a framework. God bless the framework, He gives the Church (knowing the Church's faith is a fact).

Those who are sealed of God, do not trouble themselves.

If you want to set standards to live by, you have to line it up with what people already believe, that's true.

If a member of the species reminds the species that the species needs to be amenable, is that not for the species to adapt? If the species as a whole, identifies that it can survive one way, or the other (whether with a certain area having some food, or a different area having a lot of food)...

Which is you trying to get me to be 'amenable' to a more cut and dried definition of "Evolution". Like I said "you might want to dispute agency, but there's no way you can dispute 'amenability'". Who made you policemen of a particular interpretation of Evolution? I don't police a particular...

Whose duty it is or responsibility it is, comes down the need for more righteousness or more time, respectively. Both of those things are addressed by the Silver Line (that partially right, most of the time, is moral). I think your interpretation was brilliant, and perceptive, but you seem to...

God pays the price of difference (like proof of concept, but in another sense more relevant to God). Whether He does that (in the process of) "meaning" that He is 'God', or not, is up to Him. If you said "because God is meaningless, He does not need to pay the price of difference" you could be...

Sadly there is scoffing, even in the Church. Our ideology is rife with expectations of purity, that men do not practice. But the Lord turns them away, that His Song not diminish.

You want to be careful about associating a negative with God - He will inevitably make it a positive. I think the individual has no meaning, to himself, and God creates Him anyway. That's very different from saying "God shares in the absence of meaning, with what He creates". You are close to...

You could also phrase it "not partially right, not most of the time, as a rule, is immoral".