Evolution is DEscriptive not PREscriptive

[Gottservant]

No.

Evolution is a physical process and a scientific theory explaining that physical process.

Yes, but without subtext, you are basically "swearing" that it is true.

Biology isn't benign.

Benign: gentle and kindly. Not prescribing behaviour that is abject.

Jesus proscribing things is a different issue to evolution.

No its not! Every time you swear Evolution is true, you are prescribing learning Evolution - but not for virtuous reasons. Jesus on the other hand, had virtue and expressed it.

[...]

There isn't a such thing as a necessary change.

Yet if I say I want to believe in Evolution, you say "these are necessarily things you must now believe"

In fact historically many species do not adapt because they went extinct without any offspring.
[...]

Yet Jesus showed that a member of the species can come back and be believed by the entire species.

Stop trying to run rings around me, and concentrate on what you can do to evolve something like Salvation.

The longer you put it off, the less believable you become (selah).

 

[Shemjaza]

Yes, but without subtext, you are basically "swearing" that it is true.

It's a physical process or a scientific theory... not a speech or a novel. It doesn't have subtext.

Benign: gentle and kindly. Not prescribing behaviour that is abject.

Nature is not gentle and kindly. Tennyson described it as "Nature, red in tooth and claw".

No its not! Every time you swear Evolution is true, you are prescribing learning Evolution - but not for virtuous reasons. Jesus on the other hand, had virtue and expressed it.

Why or how someone promotes learning about evolution doesn't change evolution itself.

I think I am promoting evolution for virtuous reasons... I'm trying to stop the spread of falsehoods and lies.

Yet if I say I want to believe in Evolution, you say "these are necessarily things you must now believe"

None of which are "necessary changes".

Yet Jesus showed that a member of the species can come back and be believed by the entire species.

Choices, beliefs and individuals who don't reproduce are not relevant to the evolution of a species.

Stop trying to run rings around me, and concentrate on what you can do to evolve something like Salvation.

Evolution is a physical process that applies to species. It has nothing to do with salvation, choice, sin or afterlife.

The longer you put it off, the less believable you become (selah).

Scientific evidence is why I accept evolution... it is a fundamentally separate issue to salvation and religious beliefs.

 

[AV1611VET]

The Ten Commandments are prescriptive,

Some of them are proscriptive.

 

[AV1611VET]

Avoidance of the issue is not an honest response.

You're the one making an issue out of it; then expecting me to clear it up for you.

Good luck with that.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Ok, this is a first attempt: does Evolution prescribe "limiting rehashing past successes, in favour greater newer succession"?

Or wait, is that random? I can never tell when you mean what you say, it always seems to be about how wonderfully benign biology is?

Scripturally, Jesus prescribes not swearing by the hair on your head, because it can't be made white or black - that is definitely a prescription.

If Jesus says "don't swear" once, He means it for all time; so I guess Evolution would prescribe to "swear less" (that is even by those things that would be more effective, if swearing worked)?

You can see that prescribing swearing less, would ultimately save Evolution, from pressure to ignore what can't be adapted, at all?

Let me know if I have lost you, I'm trying to pick the most dependable prescription I can find - to help you get the surest adaptation, on the basis of what you "say" is 'necessary change'?

You wouldn't insist something be adapted, if you knew it could never be done, right?

And all you have is nonsense, as per usual.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yet Jesus showed that a member of the species can come back and be believed by the entire species.

And yet, the mere existence of a single human who does not believe that Jesus "came back" invalidates you claim. What about 5 billion that don't believe? (Lest you make a claim to the counter, to my chagrin, we are of the same species.)

 

[Gottservant]

And all you have is nonsense, as per usual.

No no, I can do this, I can! I just have to establish a truth, in relation to Evolution, from which I can extrapolate the prescription.

The truth is this: there is more science in the end, than there is in the beginning.

From this truth, we can prescribe: it is better to wait for science to be confirmed, than accept it on the grounds of its originality.

This prescription then, distinguishes science, from art.

That makes sense, right?

 

[Gottservant]

And yet, the mere existence of a single human who does not believe that Jesus "came back" invalidates you claim. What about 5 billion that don't believe? (Lest you make a claim to the counter, to my chagrin, we are of the same species.)

I said "can" not 'was'.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I said "can" not 'was'.

How do you demonstrate some thing can happen by not actually doing it.

You said: "Yet Jesus showed that a member of the species can come back and be believed by the entire species."

If Jesus *showed* that a member (of the human) species *can* come back *and* be believed by the *entire species*, how did he do that with out being believed by everyone?

"can" or "was" doesn't matter due to the nature of you claim. Both would require everyone to believe in his return. Perhaps, not everyone at all times, but certainly everyone at some instant in time would be required to meet this claim. Please try again.

 

[Gottservant]

How do you demonstrate some thing can happen by not actually doing it.

You said: "Yet Jesus showed that a member of the species can come back and be believed by the entire species."

If Jesus *showed* that a member (of the human) species *can* come back *and* be believed by the *entire species*, how did he do that with out being believed by everyone?

"can" or "was" doesn't matter due to the nature of you claim. Both would require everyone to believe in his return. Perhaps, not everyone at all times, but certainly everyone at some instant in time would be required to meet this claim. Please try again.

"Can" means it was possible, not being as 'was' means people hardened their heart (and didn't see it through).

The point is, the possibility has been established, it is only a matter of time, before people stop hardening their hearts.

Which brings us to the point: if Jesus can come back and be believed by the entire species, how does that affect Evolution, since the nearest alleles to Jesus get the preferential treatment mating-wise?

 

[Hans Blaster]

"Can" means it was possible, not being as 'was' means people hardened their heart (and didn't see it through).

The point is, the possibility has been established, it is only a matter of time, before people stop hardening their hearts.

Which brings us to the point: if Jesus can come back and be believed by the entire species, how does that affect Evolution, since the nearest alleles to Jesus get the preferential treatment mating-wise?

The key word in your original statement was "showed". Let's just chalk up on the list of things you don't understand: English.

How has the possibility of resurrection and full belief been established?

Why would Jesus or Jesus-belief or Jesus-return affect mating outcomes? What is an allele "nearest to Jesus?

(It's ~~good~~ to see you returning to your primary non-understanding of evolution. Sigh.)

 

[Gottservant]

The key word in your original statement was "showed". Let's just chalk up on the list of things you don't understand: English.

How has the possibility of resurrection and full belief been established?

Why would Jesus or Jesus-belief or Jesus-return affect mating outcomes? What is an allele "nearest to Jesus?

(It's ~~good~~ to see you returning to your primary non-understanding of evolution. Sigh.)

It's only necessary to demonstrate that the possibility be real, for the spirit of the principle to be "shown".

I could show you more, but you might have to wait a couple of millennia.

As for "alleles pointing to Jesus" those alleles point to the r factor for returnability - if something returns enough times in a row, Evolution necessarily favours the return of the best possible adaptations, for that creature? It is a heightened evolvability - not simply Evolution, but the best that Evolution can be...

 

[Hans Blaster]

It's only necessary to demonstrate that the possibility be real, for the spirit of the principle to be "shown".

That's not how evidence works.

I could show you more, but you might have to wait a couple of millennia.

I'll be dead long before a couple millennia pass.

As for "alleles pointing to Jesus" those alleles point to the r factor for returnability - if something returns enough times in a row, Evolution necessarily favours the return of the best possible adaptations, for that creature? It is a heightened evolvability - not simply Evolution, but the best that Evolution can be...

"returnability". You are making things up again.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No no, I can do this, I can! I just have to establish a truth, in relation to Evolution, from which I can extrapolate the prescription.

The truth is this: there is more science in the end, than there is in the beginning.

From this truth, we can prescribe: it is better to wait for science to be confirmed, than accept it on the grounds of its originality.

This prescription then, distinguishes science, from art.

That makes sense, right?

No, that's just nonsensical gibberish.