Ok. So you can tell I haven't evolved but that my children have?
What changed between me and my children, that left them without a father?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yes, you are an individual, and you will not evolve.
But if you had children, and your children had children, and so did they, and so on for many generations, then little by little little changes would appear between the generations.
You can't judge the validity of an idea by how likeable it is.
You can't judge the validity of an idea by how likeable it is.
Apparently so.Ok. So you can tell I haven't evolved but that my children have?
They were evidently fathered by a "missing link" that is still missing.Gottservant said:What changed between me and my children, that left them without a father?
[...]
We call it "adaption."
[...]
And that means your children weren't "without a father" -- YOU are their father.
Amen!It gives me the sense that I can be for or against my children, such as improves their instinct for overcoming (as would survive better?).
Well Eric Harris certainly didn't mourn what he did, and that was certainly inappropriate.My understanding is that selection comes in three flavours: natural, appropriate and perceptive.
Natural, is an unmourned state.
Appropriate, is a measure of difference to that mourning.
Well Eric Harris certainly didn't mourn what he did, and that was certainly inappropriate.
That's the thing about evolution.
It's just a series of amoral reactions to stimuli that its host should be assigning moral judgments to.
The heart, for instance, is just an organ to pump blood.
Until Valentines Day, of course, when it becomes an icon of love.
I guess the question to put to the believers of Evolution again is:
What is it that you do for the sake of it?
For Evolution and the Honour of it? Or greater (which would be?)?
Not to take a tangent unnecessarily but I was thinking about Evolution and a question arose in my mind "what is it that Evolution does to be likeable?"
You may not like my choice of word, alternatively it could be "what is it that Evolution does to be liveable?"
The thing the faith does: is give a choice.
What about the Evolutionary importance of "Transference"?
Is it possible you expect your theory of Evolution to be reciprocated? But you haven't theorized it in the way that it can?
Ok. So you can tell I haven't evolved but that my children have?
What changed between me and my children, that left them without a father?
You seem to be suggesting that I have made a mistake, thinking how much I like Evolution made a change across the entire species.
I would suggest that if the entire species took me seriously, Evolution would change more not less.
I think actually (in hindsight) you are right: you can't completely judge the validity of an idea by how likeable it is, but (on the other hand, you are mistaken because) you can mostly.
Well Eric Harris certainly didn't mourn what he did, and that was certainly inappropriate.
That's the thing about evolution.
It's just a series of amoral reactions to stimuli that its host should be assigning moral judgments to.
The heart, for instance, is just an organ to pump blood.
Until Valentines Day, of course, when it becomes an icon of love.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?