How do I "stimulate", my Evolution? I can be stimulated to embrace the theory, but what next?

[Shemjaza]

You can see the parallel, right?

The problem is that Gottservant's methods completely skips:
Research topic area
Test with experiment
Analyze data

This makes the rest of the steps fall apart due to them being disconnected from any science or even theology.

 

[Frank Robert]

The problem is that Gottservant's methods completely skips:
Research topic area
Test with experiment
Analyze data

This makes the rest of the steps fall apart due to them being disconnected from any science or even theology.

I agree, he can not think beyound his belief. I don't hold much hope for him but an image bypasses the critical mind and there is a slight possibility that it could spark a bit of curiosity.

 

[Jamdoc]

Do you really believe that an all powerful deity would judge a human on whether he/she affirms evolution or not?
That reminds me of the American Native American Indian trickster characters. My favorite is Kokopelli, trickster God and fertility deity.

​

View attachment 311109​

Romans 1 again,
the start of that spiral is not affirming God as creator.

 

[Frank Robert]

Romans 1 again,
the start of that spiral is not affirming God as creator.

It appears that you not aware of the many who affirm God and still manage to be devout Christians.

My suggestion, take some time and learn about devout Christians who affirm evoluiton such as Kenneth Miller. Dr. Miller is a cell biologist and molecular biologist, currently Professor of Biology and Royce Family Professor for Teaching Excellence at Brown University

He is a recipient of the Laetare Medal from Notre Dame University and St. Albert Award from the Society of Catholic Scientists. He is the author of the popular books Finding Darwin's God (A Scientist's Search for Common Ground between God and Evolution), and Only a Theory (Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul). His latest book, The Human Instinct (How we Evolved to Have Reason, Consciousness, and Free Will) was published in 2018 by Simon and Schuster.

Since 2016, Miller has been listed on the Board of Directors of the National Center for Science Education. In 2017 he became the president.

 

[Jamdoc]

It appears that you not aware of the many who affirm God and still manage to be devout Christians.

My suggestion, take some time and learn about devout Christians who affirm evoluiton such as Kenneth Miller. Dr. Miller is a cell biologist and molecular biologist, currently Professor of Biology and Royce Family Professor for Teaching Excellence at Brown University

He is a recipient of the Laetare Medal from Notre Dame University and St. Albert Award from the Society of Catholic Scientists. He is the author of the popular books Finding Darwin's God (A Scientist's Search for Common Ground between God and Evolution), and Only a Theory (Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul). His latest book, The Human Instinct (How we Evolved to Have Reason, Consciousness, and Free Will) was published in 2018 by Simon and Schuster.

Since 2016, Miller has been listed on the Board of Directors of the National Center for Science Education. In 2017 he became the president.

For animal evolution yes, and I agree with that much to a degree.
But humans? That's where you do come into a direct confrontation with the bible, and have to allegorize it because taking the bible as written, which includes humans being a special creation not just an evolved animal, with particular reasons for it including the fall, incarnation, and redemption, is incompatible with being an evolved ape.
Whereas other animals evolving is not wholly incompatible because of imprecise terms like "kind" and language like "and the earth brought forth"
that same language is not used in human creation though so that wiggle room does not exist. It becomes a direct conflict.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Romans 1 again,
the start of that spiral is not affirming God as creator.

Are you talking about my creators. I know how that happened, but I don't really want to think about it.

 

[Gottservant]

You can see the parallel, right?

You are talking about fact. Facts can be contradicted.

I am talking about truth. Truth lasts almost forever.

Not that I don't do experiments - I check for ammonia in my Mum's fish tank, for example - just that cleaning the fish tank, doesn't tell me a lot about when to trust fact and when not.

It's like the Karate Kid; you can wax on and wax off all you like, but until the teacher puts the blocking movement into view, you'll never see the point to waxing the teacher's car.

 

[Gottservant]

It could mean either lift up or exalt. It's unclear what selah means.

From the link you gave: "an instruction on the reading of the text, with the meaning of "stop and listen." "

 

[Hans Blaster]

You are talking about fact. Facts can be contradicted.

I am talking about truth. Truth lasts almost forever.

Not that I don't do experiments - I check for ammonia in my Mum's fish tank, for example - just that cleaning the fish tank, doesn't tell me a lot about when to trust fact and when not.

It's like the Karate Kid; you can wax on and wax off all you like, but until the teacher puts the blocking movement into view, you'll never see the point to waxing the teacher's car.

This makes less sense then your normal (nonsensical) posts.

 

[Gottservant]

Buddhists have a practice where - if you have a problem with over-eating - you focus on eating revolting and old food.

I suppose if you were vulnerable to diabetes, you could meditate on bland and moldy sugar.

These things both help you survive and can change the instinct of your children before they are born?

 

[AV1611VET]

Buddhists have a practice where - if you have a problem with over-eating - you focus on eating revolting and old food.

I suppose if you were vulnerable to diabetes, you could meditate on bland and moldy sugar.

These things both help you survive and can change the instinct of your children before they are born?

Kinda like electroshock therapy to stop smoking?

 

[Gottservant]

The problem is that Gottservant's methods completely skips:
Research topic area
Test with experiment
Analyze data

This makes the rest of the steps fall apart due to them being disconnected from any science or even theology.

question: could hope increase?
Research: layman's conjecture
hypothesis: kept to a minimum
Experiment: thought experiment
analyze data: questioning which beliefs encourage faith the most
conclusion: theories are not wrong, if their utility can help practice

 

[Hans Blaster]

question: could hope increase?
Research: layman's conjecture
hypothesis: kept to a minimum
Experiment: thought experiment
analyze data: questioning which beliefs encourage faith the most
conclusion: theories are not wrong, if their utility can help practice

That's not how science works. (selah)

See attached meme. (seleh)

 

[Gottservant]

Kinda like electroshock therapy to stop smoking?

Exactly, you would think something as violent as that would be a warning to future generations - not just to avoid shock, but to avoid smoking.

That's sort of my point, instinct about selection pressure can be trained, dead things can be brought to life and events that will be relevant to survival, can be foretold.

Evolutions aren't against these things, they would just prefer a gradual glacier of change that can be easily studied.

 

[Gottservant]

That's sort of my point [...] events that will be relevant to survival, can be foretold.

This is Biblical actually:

Produce your cause, saith the LORD; bring forth your strong reasons, saith the King of Jacob. Let them bring them forth, and shew us what shall happen: let them shew the former things, what they be, that we may consider them, and know the latter end of them; or declare us things for to come. Shew the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that ye are gods: yea, do good, or do evil, that we may be dismayed, and behold it together.

 

[Shemjaza]

question: could hope increase?
Research: layman's conjecture
hypothesis: kept to a minimum
Experiment: thought experiment
analyze data: questioning which beliefs encourage faith the most
conclusion: theories are not wrong, if their utility can help practice

The significant problem is that you communicate as if you want communication and to understand others beliefs... then completely ignore any attempt by people to communicate with you.

A devotion only to personal hope and faith is your own decision... but when you publicly phrase your personal disconnected intuitions as earnest attempt to understand and communicate with others then you are being deceptive and obnoxious.

 

[Freodin]

The significant problem is that you communicate as if you want communication and to understand others beliefs... then completely ignore any attempt by people to communicate with you.

A devotion only to personal hope and faith is your own decision... but when you publicly phrase your personal disconnected intuitions as earnest attempt to understand and communicate with others then you are being deceptive and obnoxious.

That's why I stopped talking to him.

I'm still undecided whether he is unable or unwilling to have a two-way communication... but the result is the same: he isn't talking with you, just at you. Just look at one of his favorite phrases: "So you are saying..." He's holding both sides of the dialogue at once, and only using your parts as scrapyards to plug some hooks from.
Combine this with his, ehm, peculiar approach to grammar, reason and understanding... and it's just pointless.

The best that might come from people taking part in his many threads is that others might learn from it. But considering that the majority of us seem to think "What the heck is he even talking about?", this is quite doubtful

 

[Frank Robert]

You are talking about fact. Facts can be contradicted.

I am talking about truth. Truth lasts almost forever.

Not that I don't do experiments - I check for ammonia in my Mum's fish tank, for example - just that cleaning the fish tank, doesn't tell me a lot about when to trust fact and when not.

It's like the Karate Kid; you can wax on and wax off all you like, but until the teacher puts the blocking movement into view, you'll never see the point to waxing the teacher's car.

A scientific fact is the result of a repeatable careful observation or measurement (by experimentation or other means), also called empirical evidence.

I think you missed the repeatable part.

BTW, It is evident that you are the one that constantly waxes on and off. Since you made the analogy perhaps we should call you KK.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

From the link you gave: "an instruction on the reading of the text, with the meaning of "stop and listen." "

So why did you not just say 'stop and listen'?

 

[Mr Laurier]

Hey if you can use it to proclaim there is no God and no judgement, then I can proclaim salvation and that there is judgement.

Big "If".
Nobody uses evolution to proclaim that there is no goD.
Nobody uses evolution to proclaim that there is no judgement.