• 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.

Design implies that the optimum, can be achieved, no matter what state the species is in

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by Gottservant, Oct 31, 2020.

  1. ...I would choose design, for originality

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. ...I would choose evolution, for contingency

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. ...I would be happy to subsist, for familiarity

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. ..it would be hard to maintain an ordinance, for developmentality

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. Gottservant

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

    +421
    Messianic
    Hi there,

    So it seems like forever, since I have set out to understand this, but now it is finally in sight. The advantage of design, is species wide. Why? Because design implies that the optimum for the species, can be achieved no matter what state the species is in. A newly conceived giraffe, is able to reach for the higher branches once born, simply because the nuance given to the newly conceived giraffe, takes into account, that branches that were once lower, are now higher - the only thing that has changed is the interpretation of the height aspect of the giraffe's design. The same goes for all other species, but for those whose design is contingent.

    For species whose design is contingent, for example predators, the availability of prey to the species, is something the species can hunt, on the assumption that design for its own sake, is outmoded - say because multiplying indefinitely detracts from the "ripeness" of the nuance passed on, in conjunction with information about the species' design. This contingency then applies a more aggressive evolution, on species that waste the opportunity, to grow in optimum ways around their design; the contingency that a species will struggle to perfect its optimum, simply enhances the efficacy of design, once the difference needed is found.

    This back and forth is able to continue, near indefinitely, because there is always more motive to be optimum, when contingent pressures are applied to the perfection of the result. It really isn't any more complicated, than you might think. Design simply enhances the optimum, whereever the optimum can be nuanced, moreso if it can be nuanced in relation to contingent pressures. The whole argument that a species has to fight it out, no matter how much they evolve: doesn't hold water. If a predator is not able to apply a contingent pressure, design ensures that the optimum will be spread, more easily and more lightly, as long as it is able to. Without design, this would just collapse.

    This requires diligence and application, but it is not undoable and for species that are only ever contingent, the loss against design, is pronounced. This is a resurrection of the idea of survival, to a designed degree, that where design is lost, to predation, yet it can come back in even more strength, if the accord between optimum and design is found.

    I leave it to you, to decide, whether you are on the side of contingency or design or the impasse between both (if you can simply subsist irrespective of both) - the test that Evolution poses to this ecology, is simpy that (in principle): a test of one's ability to understand design and contingency on it, is not trumped by anything short of extinction, as indeed the soul may transcend the impasse between species, to readvent (in principle) with greater nuance (to design) yet (a successful cat, may come back the soul of a rhinoceros, for example - not that the soul hunts a host, but that by design, accord can be found between them, for which greater optimum across species is achieveable).

    You could argue "optimum for optimum" as a justification of predation regardless of a particular design - but Creation as a whole, answers that the more pacified contention of designs in general, overcome the familiarity of contingent predation (in a specific case) - because specific predation is irrelevant, across numbers of optimums (as throwbacks to established optimums demonstrates).
     
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. Shemjaza

    Shemjaza Regular Member Supporter

    +2,436
    Australia
    Atheist
    Single
    AU-Greens
    You can't choose for something to be designed or not.

    And whether something is designed or not has no effect on whether optimum is achieved or is achievable.

    In the example of life, there isn't any generic test for design because even in the situation of there being evidence against design, it could still have been designed to look like it wasn't. (This makes the design hypothesis very difficult to demonstrate).
     
  3. Warden_of_the_Storm

    Warden_of_the_Storm Well-Known Member

    +4,025
    United Kingdom
    Deist
    Single
    If you want to argue for design, you have to first show that things are designed, by a designer.
     
  4. Gottservant

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

    +421
    Messianic
    I beg to differ.

    I think the argument, is that the designer gave what the designed needed, to live with or without the designer, as the designed chose.

    Your argument, one way or the other, is that the designed is purely "designed" in the imagination or that it is without imagination - thus putting it in the position that the optimum cannot be, whatever the state of the species may have been.

    EDIT: many words, which were a distraction, forgive me...

    [...]

    "If you are to further evolve, you will have to face the inevitable" - that much is true.

    I know better than to join you, in the development of your theory, until you say "blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord".
     
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2020
  5. Warden_of_the_Storm

    Warden_of_the_Storm Well-Known Member

    +4,025
    United Kingdom
    Deist
    Single
    Again, if you want to argue for a designer, you have to show that things are actually designed, and that there was a designer behind them.

    Just saying "I believe things are designed" is admittedly an actual claim, but if you don't actually back that claim with actual evidence for design, then you all you have is a claim. Nothing more.

    You talking about you theological beliefs is not evidence for design.
     
  6. Gottservant

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

    +421
    Messianic
    A perfect choice, is not uninspired.

    That is simply the point.

    If God is inspired, when no one else is: God is God.

    For everyone else, the choice is merely a choice.
     
  7. Warden_of_the_Storm

    Warden_of_the_Storm Well-Known Member

    +4,025
    United Kingdom
    Deist
    Single
    That's certainly a response to my comment, but not the right one.

    So, again, if you want to argue for a designer, you have to show that things are actually designed, and that there was a designer behind them.
     
  8. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE Supporter

    +41,043
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Will the blueprints suffice?

    Blue Letter Bible
     
  9. Gottservant

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

    +421
    Messianic
    God is God.

    The choice is irrelevant to Him.

    The proof of design is that it allows a species to be the optimum answer - to that choice - whatever the state of that species.

    You're saying "let God put Himself, in the picture", when as He said Himself that 'would not prove anything, to someone who already has those who conduct themselves like Him (Moses and the Prophets)'.

    Remember what they said to Jesus "if He is the Son, let God rescue Him" when that would not prove anything to people who have already seen the death of Moses and the Prophets and have not believed.
     
  10. Warden_of_the_Storm

    Warden_of_the_Storm Well-Known Member

    +4,025
    United Kingdom
    Deist
    Single
    The Bible is the claim, not the evidence.
     
  11. Warden_of_the_Storm

    Warden_of_the_Storm Well-Known Member

    +4,025
    United Kingdom
    Deist
    Single
    I'm just going to repeat myself on the very slim chance that this point gets through to you: if you want to argue for a designer, you have to show that things are actually designed, and that there was a designer behind them.
     
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 2
    • List
  12. pitabread

    pitabread Well-Known Member

    +10,632
    Canada
    Agnostic
    Private
    I'm wondering if OPs medical condition may make the processing of such information... difficult.
     
  13. Ophiolite

    Ophiolite Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

    +6,828
    United Kingdom
    Agnostic
    Private
    Given that the forum administration are seemingly negligent, IMO, in their duty of care for that member it would, perhaps, behove the rest of us to cease interacting with him.
     
Loading...