• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.

Another thought experiment: if the need to survive (tnts) becomes the need to anything (tntx)...

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by Gottservant, Sep 26, 2020.

  1. As close to 0% as is enough

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. 20%

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. 30%

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. 50%

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  5. 100%

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  6. !50% maybe more

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. Gottservant

    Gottservant God loves your words, may men love them also Supporter

    +415
    Messianic
    Hi there,

    So yeah I am a little unsure, what exactly I am taking for foundation, here, but I want to experiment in some way - that makes the nature of selection pressure, clearer (if not complete)? The point of the experiment, is to see if changing perceived selection pressures, is something that registers with existing theory (the existing theory of Evolution). Like if you took an acronym and changed its loaded value, by a single point of definition - so that it could be identified as like another acronym, but not complete like another acronym (the Evolutionary test, then, being "is it Evolutionarily complete?" and if so in what way?)

    So if you take "the need to survive" (tnts) and "the need to anything" (tntx) there will be a number of answers that give a positive to tnts - simply because a minimal answer is hard to get wrong (we may imagine); on the other hand, a greater number of answers may give a positive to tntx, because it is not necessary to "know" you are 'surviving' in order to "survive well". There is a subtler subtext to tntx here also, because anything can include "survival" it is just not limited to it. There is also a subtler subtext to tnts, because the more you try to be ready for anything, the more difficult it becomes to just 'survive'. Fundamentally, what is needed, is a matrix, that makes these options clear and in a way that does not bias a particular answer.

    The problem is that you cannot have both, without short-changing one or the other. Choosing tnts is immediate; choosing tntx is ultimately almost as immediate, but has the added advantage that tntx can be shared in a way, that it is almost impossible for 'tnts' to be - at least in any added sense, that tntx is designed to cope with. And that is precisely the term I wanted to elucidate, with this discussion: design. If a creature is able to load their design with an expectation of tntx, even the slightest self-control can become a great advantage - tnts, undercuts some of what it is to live, with the simple notion of survival, but given negative Evolution, is far more loaded with unnecessary overheads: tntx justifies a far greater pecentage of life, than surviving, which it has to be noted it satisfies more and more, the more design is pushed. The only real obstacle, is starting at zero and discounting the difference, in favour of an under-realizing tntx minus tnts.

    I hope that has given you food for thought: "am I believing tnts, because I think there is something special about survival?" or "am I believing tntx, because I think at the very worst, it can't be tntx minus tnts for nothing? I will basically survive tnts anyway, if tntx does not work out?" This then, is the reversal, that explains why so much of creation, does not choose to be predatorial, but by the same token, does not seem to be able to prevent predators cropping up where they do: tnts minus tnts is randomly fitter at being tnts minus tntx, being the notion that reverting to survival was always the goal - albeit not without s or x being somewhere that tnt cannot be. There is just no mistaking this, the subduction of Evolution's "evolvables" can be presumed to be the undercurrent of life, when x of tntx suffers a slow death - until it can communicate tnt tnt tntx tnt for the sake of more life through tnts, without losing x: it is a constant battle.

    This constant battle is one that constantly shifts. There is no ultimate Evolution; only a back and forth, that can never ultimately adapt more than is written in its genome for the sake and purpose of a need that it cannot deny. The whole crucible of the thing, is that Jesus suffered not knowing how His Cross would end, He just knew that in some way: it would keep ending! That is the beginning of the puzzle, that welcomes life to be life, s or x, such that the greater good, comes about by the greater embrace - of all that we attempt to do with those two short steps, from need due 'to', to due with or without "to": that tnts and tntx act in faith (for tntx to be less tntx, if ignorant of tnts; but neither tnts presuming everything tnts before considering partly tntx, at least some of the time).

    In all our discussions of Evolution vs Creation, this is continually prevalent: people simply do not want to think through the entire consequence of one side or the other, before they repent that they are not keeping their own side, with the fervour that was seemingly there to do so. It does take repentance - the better the Evolution, the better the repentance; the better Creation, the better the repentance. Mastering this is key, since we need to have these conversations, before we are going to have the conversions that we really think are necessary or at least ultimately a little sufficient.

    I hope you are good at weighing either side, at the end of this.
     
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. SkyWriting

    SkyWriting The Librarian Supporter

    +6,748
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others
    Agreed.
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  3. Brightmoon

    Brightmoon Apes and humans are all in family Hominidae.

    +4,614
    United States
    Episcopalian
    Single
    US-Others
    Errrrrr, whut?
     
  4. Brightmoon

    Brightmoon Apes and humans are all in family Hominidae.

    +4,614
    United States
    Episcopalian
    Single
    US-Others
    Everything will try to survive . It’s the reason you or any other animal feels hungry ! Plants roots will grow to find more nutrients fungi will send out rootlike extensions and unicellular organisms will try to move
     
  5. Grumman Tomcat

    Grumman Tomcat ✈The LORD is my Pilot ⚓ Staff Member Administrator CF Staff Trainer Supporter

    +7,207
    United States
    Calvinist
    Married
    US-Republican
    ADMIN HAT ON
    [​IMG]
    ADMIN HAT OFF
     
  6. The IbanezerScrooge

    The IbanezerScrooge I can't believe what I'm hearing...

    785
    +1,087
    United States
    Atheist
    Private
    US-Democrat
    Dude... STAAHHHPPP!
     
Loading...