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

[Gottservant]

[...]
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.

I just take what I have seen in Jesus, and apply it to Evolution.

That's all.

I'm not making things up, I'm not changing what I believe and I'm not expecting you to understand why I would love discussing 'Evolution' for your eternal salvation's sake.

At some point, it is about belief and the crux of the matter is whether it saves you or not. For it to save you, you have to be aware of your conscience and its operation, in relation to something that doing nothing about, would be "sin".

See? Simple??

Jesus is the example: what Jesus wants you to do, is in question.

In faith, there is a good reason to verify your beliefs: the expression goes "one will chase a thousand and two shall chase ten thousand" - in other words, the more you agree with what someone else sees in their belief, the more power both of you have, together. That is my motive. I want "Evolution" to empower, and as you have said, it can do it "through thriving". The nuts and bolts of how it empowers, is where we are getting stuck.

If a species thrives, from one end of its life, to the other - what happens to it? It gets easier and lighter, meaning what?

I can't establish the strength of your theory, while my productivity is threatened - such that you have given no assurance that if I divulge what it is that gives me strength in God, you will not then turn and mock and goad and rubbish me, to the point that I no longer want to believe it?

 

[Shemjaza]

I just take what I have seen in Jesus, and apply it to Evolution.

That's all.

I'm not making things up, I'm not changing what I believe and I'm not expecting you to understand why I would love discussing 'Evolution' for your eternal salvation's sake.

At some point, it is about belief and the crux of the matter is whether it saves you or not. For it to save you, you have to be aware of your conscience and its operation, in relation to something that doing nothing about, would be "sin".

See? Simple??

Jesus is the example: what Jesus wants you to do, is in question.

In faith, there is a good reason to verify your beliefs: the expression goes "one will chase a thousand and two shall chase ten thousand" - in other words, the more you agree with what someone else sees in their belief, the more power both of you have, together. That is my motive. I want "Evolution" to empower, and as you have said, it can do it "through thriving". The nuts and bolts of how it empowers, is where we are getting stuck.

If a species thrives, from one end of its life, to the other - what happens to it? It gets easier and lighter, meaning what?

I can't establish the strength of your theory, while my productivity is threatened - such that you have given no assurance that if I divulge what it is that gives me strength in God, you will not then turn and mock and goad and rubbish me, to the point that I no longer want to believe it?

I honestly don't want to mock, goad or distress you.

But you can't use what you know, feel or have faith in about Jesus to understand evolution.

Evolution is a scientific conclusion from evidence in the physical world, that's it.

Evolution does not offer salvation.
Evolution does not explain sin.
Evolution does not offer immortality.
Evolution does not offer a personal relationship.
Evolution does not explain the origin of the universe.
Evolution doesn't even explain the origin of life.

Evolution is just a explanation about how life changes over multiple generations...

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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.

But that's biologically and scientifically impossible.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I just take what I have seen in Jesus, and apply it to Evolution.

Why? Why do you want to apply Christian theology and religious belief to a theory of biological science? What do you hope to achieve with such a thing?

 

[Gottservant]

I honestly don't want to mock, goad or distress you.

I know, I know: you think you have cornered 'Evolution', so when someone questions it, you feel like they are 'cornering you'.

But you can't use what you know, feel or have faith in about Jesus to understand evolution.

I myself, would leave this uncorrected: but Jesus behooves me, to point out, that Jesus is the only way to sustain anything in life - not only 'Evolution'.

Evolution is a scientific conclusion from evidence in the physical world, that's it.

Scientific theories, have implications - amputating study from reason, would be like taking a mad man's lobotomy.

Evolution does not offer salvation.
Evolution does not explain sin.
Evolution does not offer immortality.
Evolution does not offer a personal relationship.
Evolution does not explain the origin of the universe.
Evolution doesn't even explain the origin of life.

I don't critique flying, from a theological perspective - but I do use trying to fly on your own, as an example of a theological truth (the man that thinks he can fly without a parachute, is a fool).

On the other hand, if you tried to tell me you don't get inspiration for science, from talk about a fool, I would put it to you, that you think you are above being a fool, when you are not - being educated out of foolishness, is one of the primary ways of ensuring that our work (be it labour, or science or industry) is not for nothing (and that ignoring this, is equally foolish).

Evolution is just a explanation about how life changes over multiple generations...

Here, you are partially right, change over multiple generations does happen, the problem is it does not happen between typologically different generations. That's it. That's my one correction.

There is one mediator between man and God: Jesus, and there is one offer of Salvation: from Jesus Christ, to all kinds great and small. There is no condition, that man change first, before he can be accepted into subjugation unto the Lord. The one that says there is, is a liar.

I could tell you, I have found "an evolution" that will surpass all the others, but if I told you you had to develop that first, before anything else could happen: I would be a liar.

The problem is, when I am busy correcting you, that lies don't make for stronger "Evolutions", you yourself are stopping short of stipulating the meaning of "Evolution" as strongly as you could have done: you say "a proclivity to correct dangerous developments (mutations that could be adaptations), is enough to ensure lethal situations in the environment are resisted (by the species)" but you don't point out "that a member of a species, could equally take the death of one of the species to heart and produce offspring that learn from the death or alternatively do something completely new with the species and determine to share it (that more and more of the species, break with the past suffering, without that new thing)". That in essence, if you know what you are doing, is reprehensible.

And now that I have told you, that there is more to the story, you are duty bound, to warn others of ignoring it, at the very least!

Yet, even then, it would be better if you asked "what is the wisdom of believing in Evolution?" before you decided to correct those who are with you. Even if believing in Evolution "is wrong", there is always a caveat that it can be left that way - while people work out why it is tempting, for example.

 

[Gottservant]

But that's biologically and scientifically impossible.

Producing more seed, of the same kind - is impossible? Or adding to the later development of that seed, is impossible?

 

[Gottservant]

Why? Why do you want to apply Christian theology and religious belief to a theory of biological science? What do you hope to achieve with such a thing?

Fools, are everywhere - my friend.

The Day you rule out "foolishness" from Evolution, I will have a lot less to say, about how believable it was.

Unfortunately, you would rather defend "the species" as if it is impossible, that everyone be foolish, for the same reason?

 

[Gottservant]

I wonder if there is a mandate, for Evolutionists - that if an adaptation is a success, there is a moral duty to replicate it and perfect it?

EDIT: and share it?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Producing more seed, of the same kind - is impossible? Or adding to the later development of that seed, is impossible?

But something that is dead cannot be brought back to life in totality. It is impossible.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Fools, are everywhere - my friend.

The Day you rule out "foolishness" from Evolution, I will have a lot less to say, about how believable it was.

Unfortunately, you would rather defend "the species" as if it is impossible, that everyone be foolish, for the same reason?

You did not answer my question, so I'll repeat:
Why? Why do you want to apply Christian theology and religious belief to a theory of biological science? What do you hope to achieve with such a thing?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I wonder if there is a mandate, for Evolutionists - that if an adaptation is a success, there is a moral duty to replicate it and perfect it?

EDIT: and share it?

There is no mandate, nor is there a moral duty for anything related to evolution.

Evolution is not a creed to follow.
Evolution is merely a fact of biological science.

 

[Gottservant]

But something that is dead cannot be brought back to life in totality. It is impossible.

It may be dead as a creature, but still have life as a seed (in another body)?

 

[Gottservant]

You did not answer my question, so I'll repeat:
Why? Why do you want to apply Christian theology and religious belief to a theory of biological science? What do you hope to achieve with such a thing?

I thought I had answered you: I want to avoid fools.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It may be dead as a creature, but still have life as a seed (in another body)?

Only in the sense that a dead body can provide nutrient to the soil and allow new plant life to grow.
A dead body cannot become anything more than a dead body.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I thought I had answered you: I want to avoid fools.

Well, you're not doing a very good job because, I will be frank, each one of your posts are incredibly foolish.

 

[Gottservant]

There is no mandate, nor is there a moral duty for anything related to evolution.

Evolution is not a creed to follow.
Evolution is merely a fact of biological science.

So you have an adaptation, and you know it would help me, but you could let me die - and you would not regret it?

I think you are having me, on?

If Jesus had an adaptation, that He knew would save you from Hell, He would tell you, almost without a shadow of a doubt.

You somehow have the idea, that your singular faith in Evolution, is all that is asked - of you or of anyone? The word for that is almost unashamedly "naive"?

 

[Gottservant]

Only in the sense that a dead body can provide nutrient to the soil and allow new plant life to grow.
A dead body cannot become anything more than a dead body.

Except if it starts again, from another like seed?

You don't allow seeds to be similar? And you are not preposterously vain?

 

[Gottservant]

Well, you're not doing a very good job because, I will be frank, each one of your posts are incredibly foolish.

If you had given me the means to avoid foolishness from an Evolutionary perspective - we would not be having this conversation?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So you have an adaptation, and you know it would help me, but you could let me die - and you would not regret it?

I think you are having me, on?

If Jesus had an adaptation, that He knew would save you from Hell, He would tell you, almost without a shadow of a doubt.

You somehow have the idea, that your singular faith in Evolution, is all that is asked - of you or of anyone? The word for that is almost unashamedly "naive"?

The fact that you think that a single person's adaptation can be shared willingly in evolution shows that you are a fool and do not understand evolution.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Except if it starts again, from another like seed?

You don't allow seeds to be similar? And you are not preposterously vain?

A dead body is a dead body.
Dead is dead. It's life is done, it is finished, it is no more, it is deceased. Never to come to back to life.

You are a fool.