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

[Gottservant]

I think the problem of the matter, is that the exact means that a member of a species dies is somehow seen as final.

I would rather believe that further adaptations can be added to the seed of a dead individual, such that their return to the environment, is survivable.

If you died and someone brought you back with more adaptations than you had, you might survive after all?

The point of this thread is that with design, this process can be guided: the humbler can be more added to, because they effect a simpler design; the truer can finesse the exact selection pressure to respond to, because they create a quicker novelty (of design).

If you died and someone brought you back with more adaptations, you might survive after all?

 

[Shemjaza]

I think the problem of the matter, is that the exact means that a member of a species dies is somehow seen as final.

I would rather believe that further adaptations can be added to the seed of a dead individual, such that their return to the environment, is survivable.

If you died and someone brought you back with more adaptations than you had, you might survive after all?

The point of this thread is that with design, this process can be guided: the humbler can be more added to, because they effect a simpler design; the truer can finesse the exact selection pressure to respond to, because they create a quicker novelty (of design).

If living things were occasionally resurrected with improvements then this might be a point... but there's no evidence of this happening, so it's irrelevant.

 

[Gottservant]

If living things were occasionally resurrected with improvements then this might be a point... but there's no evidence of this happening, so it's irrelevant.

You mean you are not looking for evidence?

Jesus spoke of John the Baptist, as if he had once been Elijah.

Jesus met Elijah and Moses on the mountain.

Twice a voice spoke from Heaven, saying "this is my beloved Son, hear Him"

All these things point to a lasting reality, behind simple eventuation (things come back).

 

[Shemjaza]

You mean you are not looking for evidence?

Jesus spoke of John the Baptist, as if he had once been Elijah.

Jesus met Elijah and Moses on the mountain.

Twice a voice spoke from Heaven, saying "this is my beloved Son, hear Him"

All these things point to a lasting reality, behind simple eventuation (things come back).

But that in no way implies that plants and animals are randomly resurrected with improvements to pass on to their offspring, which is what you were implying.

 

[Gottservant]

But that in no way implies that plants and animals are randomly resurrected with improvements to pass on to their offspring, which is what you were implying.

Not in the sense by which they decide to cease to put hope in their particular species. If they want their offspring to give up faith in the Messiah, then the Messiah can't help them come back (from the parents perspective). But we know the Messiah and He promised that if we believe in Him, then death is not final.

If Death is not final, coming back is possible.

The problem for you, is that you think "I have to perfect all my adaptations differently" in order to justify a greater return as something else - you can (return - according to Jesus), just not without confessing sin, successfully.

This is what Buddhists call the endless cycle of life and Hindus call the effect of sin over generations and what some consider past lives, it is not a concept unique to Christianity (except that Christianity does not believe something can be done about it, in our own strength - whereas I think Evolution tries to imply that continual strength will one day be 'enough' strength).

Death is not final; it does not matter how much a past species has a hold on you, one day you will have the choice to revisit as a different you, a better you or a stronger you (evidentially hard).

 

[Gottservant]

If a species successfully reaches 'peak' Evolution, for a number of generations of the same adaptation - what does that mean is happening?

Like if the human eye reaches perception of 16.7 million colours and the species keeps reaching that maximum and passing on that maximum, what is happening?

 

[Shemjaza]

Not in the sense by which they decide to cease to put hope in their particular species. If they want their offspring to give up faith in the Messiah, then the Messiah can't help them come back (from the parents perspective). But we know the Messiah and He promised that if we believe in Him, then death is not final.

That has nothing to do with evolution.

If Death is not final, coming back is possible.

So, but there's no evidence in reality and not even any implication in scripture of resurrection being randomly applied to plants and animals for improvements.

The problem for you, is that you think "I have to perfect all my adaptations differently" in order to justify a greater return as something else - you can (return - according to Jesus), just not without confessing sin, successfully.

That is not what I think, because it is nonsense.

There is no evidence in reality or scripture that confessing sin and accepting Jesus has anything to do with your genetic fittness.

This is what Buddhists call the endless cycle of life and Hindus call the effect of sin over generations and what some consider past lives, it is not a concept unique to Christianity (except that Christianity does not believe something can be done about it, in our own strength - whereas I think Evolution tries to imply that continual strength will one day be 'enough' strength).

Gottservant, I beg you to stop talking about evolution. What you state have become lies. You have ignored people's attempts to explain that evolution is not about personal choices and that it is not a conscious force that makes decisions.

Your personal issues are tragic, but it really feels like you have to accept that you are not honestly and accuratly describing what the theory of evolution actually states.

Death is not final; it does not matter how much a past species has a hold on you, one day you will have the choice to revisit as a different you, a better you or a stronger you (evidentially hard).

But resurrection is not even in implication about improving your reproductive fitness, so it's irrelevant to the discussion about evolution.

 

[Shemjaza]

If a species successfully reaches 'peak' Evolution, for a number of generations of the same adaptation - what does that mean is happening?

All it means is that they are currently in tune with their environment.

It happens all the time. Crocodiles have changed somewhat in size and shape, but are a very similar structure to their ancestors who lived along side the dinosaurs.

 

[Gottservant]

If I die, without faith in the "resurrection", I cannot come back from there and be resurrected as anything.

That paints you as disingenuous, in ways that do not justify separating my critique from your theory.

I am fully prepared to believe in an Evolution, that has agency, accountability and responsibility - all things which Creation has, and justifies men on the basis of.

That you would come here, to a Christian site and ask members to leave, on the basis of part of a theory, which they (those Christians) only want to see make sense, is heinous!

It suits you to go without responsibility particularly, because you will not acknowledge the strength of the One that made every variation of a species possible on the basis of their freedom to evolve as they like!

When you have finished pretending you have some power to go back to slime and emerge again as something else, then the offer of redemption from your sins will stand - on the promise of the Son of God who died and rose again a completely new "Evolution", that we can copy Him in becoming.

Don't be afraid of the new evolution, embrace it!

 

[Gottservant]

All it means is that they are currently in tune with their environment.

It happens all the time. Crocodiles have changed somewhat in size and shape, but are a very similar structure to their ancestors who lived along side the dinosaurs.

What I can't understand is why you give 'evolving' a name, but being 'in tune' is just being 'in tune' - it doesn't go anywhere; when logic would suggest that that is precisely where you would want it to?

 

[Shemjaza]

If I die, without faith in the "resurrection", I cannot come back from there and be resurrected as anything.

Sure, but it's irrelivant to evolution.

That paints you as disingenuous, in ways that do not justify separating my critique from your theory.

Your critique has nothing to do with the theory, that's the problem.

Resurrection has nothing to do with reproductive fitness, so it has nothing to do with evolution.

I am fully prepared to believe in an Evolution, that has agency, accountability and responsibility - all things which Creation has, and justifies men on the basis of.

That is not evolution. It's completely different.

That you would come here, to a Christian site and ask members to leave, on the basis of part of a theory, which they (those Christians) only want to see make sense, is heinous!

I am not asking you to leave. I'm asking you to stop making blatantly and repeatedly false statement about evolution.

It suits you to go without responsibility particularly, because you will not acknowledge the strength of the One that made every variation of a species possible on the basis of their freedom to evolve as they like!

Evolution is not a choice, it's not about freedom or likes of any kind.

It's not even about a change occurring in an individual, which probably wouldn't even be relevant to evolution in the first place.

It's just statistical change on a population scale over multiple generations.

When you have finished pretending you have some power to go back to slime and emerge again as something else, then the offer of redemption from your sins will stand - on the promise of the Son of God who died and rose again a completely new "Evolution", that we can copy Him in becoming.

No on is pretending that and it doesn't even make sense.

Don't be afraid of the new evolution, embrace it!

If you want to talk about salvation, resurrection and others as personal change, feel free... it's a significant part of Christianity.

It is a lie to link it to how evolution works and I wish you would stop.

 

[Shemjaza]

What I can't understand is why you give 'evolving' a name, but being 'in tune' is just being 'in tune' - it doesn't go anywhere; when logic would suggest that that is precisely where you would want it to?

It just means that any small changes are not leading to any real advantages, so they don't change. It's not a choice, it's just the new variations are not thriving.

 

[Gottservant]

I think a simple way of putting it, is that I am saying 'God can still surprise me, as I am currently designed" (which is evidence that there is a design, for one thing) and you are saying "I know the theory behind Creation, I can't be surprised".

What scientists are discovering is that design is so complex, it is surprising whether you believe in Creation or the theory behind it!

You would have a point, if I was going into shock because of surprises, but I love the difference every surprise makes!

 

[Gottservant]

It just means that any small changes are not leading to any real advantages, so they don't change. It's not a choice, it's just the new variations are not thriving.

I want to "thrive".

 

[Gottservant]

Your critique has nothing to do with the theory, that's the problem.

Resurrection has nothing to do with reproductive fitness, so it has nothing to do with evolution.

If I die almost adapted enough - enough to survive a predator - and a parent takes a chance on the exact same person, even without adding or changing adaptations, there is a equinanimous chance that my previous death will be irrelevant: because I have come back from the dead.

I would say that defines 'Evolution', wouldn't you?

Exactly what is it, you say proves that someone who has evolved, will give up: because they have been alive already?

It is a lie to link it to how evolution works and I wish you would stop.

An association is not a lie, unless it insists on harm.

I am not insisting anything, but that - as you said - there might be a chance for me to "thrive".

 

[Shemjaza]

I want to "thrive".

Evolution is irrelevant to that. It's not a choice.

If I die almost adapted enough - enough to survive a predator - and a parent takes a chance on the exact same person, even without adding or changing adaptations, there is a equinanimous chance that my previous death will be irrelevant: because I have come back from the dead.

I would say that defines 'Evolution', wouldn't you?

No. It does not define evolution.

Neither evolution nor resurrection are choices as a mechanism to survive predators.

Exactly what is it, you say proves that someone who has evolved, will give up: because they have been alive already?

Individuals do not evolve, populations do. It's not about actions, choices or changes to individuals.

An association is not a lie, unless it insists on harm.

I am not insisting anything, but that - as you said - there might be a chance for me to "thrive".

It is absolutely a lie to describe a theory and those who accept it falsely. It's bearing false witness.

 

[Gottservant]

Evolution is irrelevant to that. It's not a choice.

But you had a choice, everyone had a choice - that's what the fight was over to begin with: "who's choice is it?"

No. It does not define evolution.

Yes, but if I come back from the dead, my "Evolution" is easier and lighter - for the sake of experience?

[...]

Individuals do not evolve, populations do. It's not about actions, choices or changes to individuals.

So if an entire population comes back from the dead and survives, then you will accept that this improves it's ongoing chances?

It is absolutely a lie to describe a theory and those who accept it falsely. It's bearing false witness.

I am just using the lexicon to improve my understanding of what you believe, if you can't handle that, I don't like your chances of surviving in the real world (I'm not saying you won't, I'm saying I wouldn't).

Yes, but if I come back from the dead, my "Evolution" is easier and lighter - for the sake of experience?

What do you call easier and lighter "Evolution"?

 

[Shemjaza]

But you had a choice, everyone had a choice - that's what the fight was over to begin with: "who's choice is it?"

We have choices, but evolution is not a choice. The statement "who's choice is it?" doesn't make sense.

It's like pointing to a tire and saying: "Who's going to drink the tire?". The answer is no one because you can't drink a tire.

Yes, but if I come back from the dead, my "Evolution" is easier and lighter - for the sake of experience?

No, because evolution is not a personal thing you posses and it can't be "easier and lighter" and it isn't changed by experience.

So if an entire population comes back from the dead and survives, then you will accept that this improves it's ongoing chances?

Yes, but as I've said there is nothing in reality or scripture that implies that plants and animals are spontaneously being resurrected en mass.

I am just using the lexicon to improve my understanding of what you believe, if you can't handle that, I don't like your chances of surviving in the real world (I'm not saying you won't, I'm saying I wouldn't).

I stand against lies. I've found it a good and moral way to live.

Your statements about evolution and the beliefs of those who accept it are false, and you've been told multiple times.

What do you call easier and lighter "Evolution"?

Nothing, that's an incoherent concept.

 

[Gottservant]

We have choices, but evolution is not a choice. The statement "who's choice is it?" doesn't make sense.

Don't shoot the messenger, that's all was said. In the beginning, choice was in dispute. Then God created Man and Man presumed the choice was his - we've been struggling with who should really have the most choice, ever since.

It's like pointing to a tire and saying: "Who's going to drink the tire?". The answer is no one because you can't drink a tire.

Yeah, but if you stew the tire, at least you realise what specifically is wrong with drinking it (it's not made of nutritious material).

No, because evolution is not a personal thing you posses and it can't be "easier and lighter" and it isn't changed by experience.

Then it's something you deify? That's the only alternative left?

I think you are sort of assuming that your Evolution is something only the child of a relationship has - whereas I see the capacity to act on Evolution, as something distributed among all members of a family.

Yes, but as I've said there is nothing in reality or scripture that implies that plants and animals are spontaneously being resurrected en mass.

"Yes"? Ok, that's something. But realistically it's not something that has to be en masse, if the trend is established - that's sort of the cardinal point of Evolution, "believe the trend".

I stand against lies. I've found it a good and moral way to live.

Your statements about evolution and the beliefs of those who accept it are false, and you've been told multiple times.

You'd be surprised what kind of life could live, if you were flexible about the truth - Evolution does not have a monopoly over the most open ended, most enduring or most surprising alternatives to perceptive living.

The statements I make about 'Evolution' are basically irrelevant, to what it is I want to learn about 'Evolution' by asking them. I come from a position of ignorance and have no desire to stay in it, but you keep making excuses for the particular manner in which you conduct yourself - as an Evolutionist - that confuses having a position of ignorance, for an expectation of ignorance.

If I keep dying and coming back to life, eventually it is going to dawn on me, what it is I am dying for? That's basically your point but in another context: "if I keep avoiding death and calling it (that avoidance) 'Evolution', eventually I will know what it is, that is threatening my Evolution?"

You might know what is threatening you, but unless you do something with what you know, knowing it won't save you?

Nothing, that's an incoherent concept.

You're basically saying "I'm not Jesus and neither is 'Evolution', go away". It really doesn't help.

 

[Shemjaza]

Don't shoot the messenger, that's all was said. In the beginning, choice was in dispute. Then God created Man and Man presumed the choice was his - we've been struggling with who should really have the most choice, ever since.

It doesn't matter what was a choice and who made a choice... evolution is still not a choice and not a personal attribute.

Yeah, but if you stew the tire, at least you realise what specifically is wrong with drinking it (it's not made of nutritious material).

How nutritious tire stew might be is irrelevant. You can't drink a tire as is, so the answer who who drinks it is always no one.

Then it's something you deify? That's the only alternative left?

I think you are sort of assuming that your Evolution is something only the child of a relationship has - whereas I see the capacity to act on Evolution, as something distributed among all members of a family.

No it is not something you deify, that is not the only alternative left.

No one has an evolution, because it is not a personal attribute.
It is not something you can act on either, because it is just a description of a process that is a consequence of reproduction and variation.

"Yes"? Ok, that's something. But realistically it's not something that has to be en masse, if the trend is established - that's sort of the cardinal point of Evolution, "believe the trend".

The ability to come back from the dead would be relivant to survival... but it has to happen on a statistical level to be relevant to evolution, and given that it doesn't seem to in reality or scripture, then it isn't relevant to evolution.

You'd be surprised what kind of life could live, if you were flexible about the truth - Evolution does not have a monopoly over the most open ended, most enduring or most surprising alternatives to perceptive living.

The truth is important.

And evolution is irrelevant to perceptive living, except as a field of scientific research.

Evolution is not a choice, it is not an attribute, it is not a philosophy of life.

The statements I make about 'Evolution' are basically irrelevant, to what it is I want to learn about 'Evolution' by asking them. I come from a position of ignorance and have no desire to stay in it, but you keep making excuses for the particular manner in which you conduct yourself - as an Evolutionist - that confuses having a position of ignorance, for an expectation of ignorance.

I'm not making excused for myself, I don't feel I have to.

You have had explanations offered to you and you have not learned. You have to take responsibility for learning when education is offered to you.

If I keep dying and coming back to life, eventually it is going to dawn on me, what it is I am dying for? That's basically your point but in another context: "if I keep avoiding death and calling it (that avoidance) 'Evolution', eventually I will know what it is, that is threatening my Evolution?"

You might know what is threatening you, but unless you do something with what you know, knowing it won't save you?

But you are not repeatedly dying and coming back to life so the implications don't really matter.

You're basically saying "I'm not Jesus and neither is 'Evolution', go away". It really doesn't help.

That's not exactly what I'm trying to say... but it is true anyway.

You ask a question, and I give an answer, and you refuse to accept the answer and ask again... that's rude and willfully ignorant.