I am stuck thinking I need to prove faith to Evolutionists, when the Bible says "they're deluded"

[Gottservant]

There is a verse toward the end of Luke (Luke 23:29) that speaks of Evolution, I think: it says "the time is coming when they will say blessed are those who are barren" (etc.). I think Evolution is a way of dismissing the importance of the child, in spiritual life - it champions never being able to ultimately tell: who is faithful, and who are they faithful for? Because 'you never know' what will become of a child, or how far someone will take the faith of a child - for what it is worth??

The point is, Jesus knew society would break down and He said "mourn for yourselves and for your children" - in other words, develop a strong spiritual connection with those whose faith you can trust - because the time is coming when the world will disregard what it is to you, that you have these things. This is what it is like: arguing with Evolutionsts. They simply refuse to identify with the integrity of the child, that is called "child" by both their parents? As if offering that the child abandon its (parent supported) faith, is somehow good or better for it??

"Mourn for yourselves and your children", is that too late for Evolutionists? Is there no way to assure that calling the child as evolved as it calls itself, will ensure that it takes up the strength of the 'Evolved Way'?? If you are mourning, surely you mourn for the one thing - if you are mourning for yourselves and your children, you are mourning for something that which will 'unite' them. This is like a partial 'mystery' to those that contemplate it: you cannot compensate for Creation, with trial and error - unless your gamble is ludicrously out of keep, with what can come by way of reward.

I think that is where I am starting to learn, that this world will not embrace any child that I ever have. My child will have to work with the world, over-reach the world and enmesh his stance against the world, that the way of it, not spoil his "innocence". There is just no power, in the faithlessness of men! Realistically would should be seeing this as a warning: a warning from Christ, no less!! I am praying that you understand this, that you "mourn for yourselves and your children" - as I have done for the rest of my life, to show you that this is the way.

Let me know, what wisdom in Jesus words, you have found (here).

 

[Brightmoon]

One of these days you’ll figure out that evolution just means that all of life shares a kinship. Sometimes that causes problems ,like fungal infections are hard to kill in animals because we’re so closely related. Sometimes that cousinship has benefits. Most 20th century Medical breakthroughs were based on common descent or natural selection : vaccines ,antibiotics ,advanced surgical techniques, transplants, prosthetics , cancer treatments, treatments for endocrine disorders like diabetes etc! It would be more beneficial to rail against the stupidity caused by science illiteracy and fight to minimize that

 

[The Barbarian]

I think Evolution is a way of dismissing the importance of the child, in spiritual life - it champions never being able to ultimately tell: who is faithful, and who are they faithful for? Because 'you never know' what will become of a child, or how far someone will take the faith of a child - for what it is worth??

That seems unusually bot-like, even for you. Like most stereotypes, there's a grain of truth in this one:

"Scratch a creationist,and you'll find a nihilist underneath."

 

[Gottservant]

Part of the problem, is a common context.

I want to say "Adaptation in Heaven is easy; even mutation in Hell is impossible" but its not a scientific argument; on the other hand I want to say "What if I was drugged? What difference would that make to Evolution?" - but it's whimsical and I wouldn't really know how to defend it?

What's worse, it feels like the longer I leave "Evolutionists" unchallenged, that faith becomes a laughing stock? Not that I care for myself, but how can we solve the world's problems - if the only thing "Evolutionists" take to heart, is self-centered accumulation of wealth?

I have established that Evolution has a functional "negative", I just wonder, can I advance a functional "positive" - that encourages selfless-centeredness? In the sense that adaptability is stronger, with a common root??

Part of me wants to say "I have limited Evolution", in the sense that I do not believe there will ever be a greater Evolution of mankind, but I don't want to lose sight of Evolutional "bloom" (the flourishing within context, of adapted survivability). Also this brings up "regrafting" from outdated Evolution, to more current Evolution, within a species (as it ages).

This last point, is patently not Evolution - that survivability can be increased by resetting standards, under which the variety of possible "Evolutions" are undertaken -- not so that Man may emerge the more changing, but so that Man keep from being more and more irrelevant (in principle). I suppose you see that there is a lifespan, for Mankind, that he cannot escape (but merely wrestle with - Lord be blessed, that He is our greatest chance of wrestling successfully!).

 

[Brightmoon]

You’ve just simply demonstrated that you just don’t understand science or evolution in particular .

 

[Gottservant]

You’ve just simply demonstrated that you just don’t understand science or evolution in particular .

I think its unfair for you to say so, without giving reasons.

But do I contend that you can't reason? no!

Even then, would I need to convince you of reason: when God gives us so many (reasons)? Again, no!

 

[Gottservant]

I am thinking of making the argument, that there is a difference between adapting and waiting for adaptation - that differs according to time.

The argument is basically "how do you know, that if you waited without mutating, you would not develop a much greater adaptation (than you would have if you did not 'wait')?"

The get out, for that, is basically: "I have already waited".

I don't know that that get out, is a total loss - but it doesn't seem to suggest that waiting more greatly should be the 'goal' of Evolution (even though it basically would be the one thing, that Evolution says is worth waiting for?)?

Maybe that's what the average person is waiting for... an Evolution that justifies itself???

 

[Gottservant]

This is exactly the thing I find so frustrating with Evolutionists: I can conceive of the human race starting with another foundation, but if I asked an Evolutionist "what foundation are you basing your claims on?" their answer would continue to be 'whatever the selection pressure says is the foundation'.

Like how do you call something you never know, a better foundation, than simply adapting as best you can, being the species you were.

Surely the species you were, leads to more survival, than backtracking to the cell and starting again, in almost every context?

It comes back to that thing...

I wouldn't marry you in a million years!

So you're saying there *is a chance*?!

The only real difference between an Evolutionist and this Fool, is that the Evolutionist says "It's been thousands of years, surely there is a small chance?!"

 

[Gottservant]

I think what I want to say is "beware the underdog"...

you might assume you have evolved and go from day to day without questioning it...

but the time will come when you've got no friends and none of those that would have thought of you have nothing to go on: and you will go into perpetual darkness

I don't want that to be me!

 

[Gottservant]

Probably the difficulty of the underdog, is that under or overdoing it - whatever Evolution's response to selection pressure is - will ultimately not facilitate the greatest number of works possible (a maximum survival, if you will). This position of strength - the balance of the selection pressure, as is acutely experienced - can't be forced to redefine the lesser strength of its existing faith.

What I'm saying is, if you already have faith, you really don't need Evolution - if you successively say less about Evolution, to the end: it will be assumed you were able to do your work, without it.

This is a bold step, but if there is no underdog, that's all you need to have settled, with whoever it is that still wants to claim it.

 

[Brightmoon]

I think its unfair for you to say so, without giving reasons.

But do I contend that you can't reason? no!

Even then, would I need to convince you of reason: when God gives us so many (reasons)? Again, no!

. Every single solitary post you make demonstrates that you don’t understand evolution . You have these ridiculous ideas about it. The biggest reason I know you don’t understand evolution is because you think its a religious issue

 

[Gottservant]

I have dreamed up an experiment, that I think might shed some light on what is thought to be happening, if we evolve:

Say I have a mutation in my right ear, that stops me from hearing "everything". Now say I shift the place of that mutation, to my left ear, all the while focussing on Evolution. What happens to the selection pressure, for which my response changed from right to left? You would say "those that were left handed, would respond better to the selection pressure being on the left"?

So now I am obliged to keep the mutation on the left, for the sake of left handers? That I help them? Or I am obliged to shift left handers back to right handers, along with the mutation, that I respond to the selection pressure with strength? Out of a need to survive?

On the one hand, my utility to the population is enough for me to survive, on the other hand, my strength is a better bet against selection pressures in general?

The whole time, i am considering this, my focus is on Evolution. What if, in general, I focussed on the Evolution of others? My utility to the population would be at maximum - and I would still merely survive?

What if existing selection pressures, no longer guarantee human evolution? Then it is dangerous to fall back on the idea that yielding to weakness will still produce strength?

I think we need to recognize that: that the window for macro-Evolution has passed? That selection pressure is now local to kind, only?

This has helped me think about it, at any rate. Maybe if you want to reply something, you can address what happens to Evolution, if selection is only local? Or what happens when a selection pressure is repeatedly reencountered?

 

[Brightmoon]

You still don’t understand evolution do you. Evolution happens with populations not individuals.

 

[Gottservant]

I have another thought (maybe I should try this on Evolutionists?):

Say you have the game of "hotter/colder" where you give different answers, as to whether someone is likely to find something. If I take that game, and I uncouple "hotter" from "colder", such that answers are no longer in agreement with where something is, the chance of finding it is close to zero. But now, consider this: what is it for Evolution, that if uncoupled, would lead to a zero level of survival of the theory?

I put it to you, that Evolutionists are not able to uncouple something that will nullify the theory, because the theory presumes a null level of resistance already. There is no telos, no goal, no object - Evolution is not a game that can be played with words, because it defies all of them. But what about the consequences? How do you develop "instinct" or "nuance" or "definitude"? These are important goals for anything that wants to survive - yet Evolution leaves no room for them to be discovered!

The reality is, I can play "hotter/colder" if I insert the one difference, that the object is Christ! Further or nearer to Christ, is a path not just to survival, but to flourishing life! If you want to be anything human, that is the way to follow it. If you take on the burden to discover Christ, in your life, your way will be clear, your truth "righteous" and you life abundant. It is not something that can't be decoupled, it is better than being coupled in the first place. If I successively return to Christ, what evolves, is a mastery of my own humanity and a greater friendship with those in the world, but not of it.

I wonder if you see this, the way I do? Am I hot or cold?

 

[Brightmoon]

Evolution happens because having a genetic code that can change slightly with each generation allows organisms to adapt to a slowly changing environment due to plate tectonics. America and Canada used to lie sideways across the equator . Do you think those tropical organisms still exist in modern day Canada ? Their descendants have evolved to cope with a colder climate or they went extinct. Religion and/or religious beliefs has nothing to do with this process

 

[Gottservant]

[...] . Do you think those tropical organisms still exist in modern day Canada ? Their descendants have evolved to cope with a colder climate or they went extinct.[...]

So to your understanding "cooler adaptations" were 'hot' and "hotter adaptations" were 'cold'? (where heat is close and cold is far away)

And it follows that if the climate changed again, the ones that died would come back? Or the ones that didn't die, would start again?

Or is it better that the whole lot go for another climate altogether (one that changes less)??

 

[Brightmoon]

The problem with global warming is that the climate is changing faster than organisms can cope with it . There have already been extinctions because the juveniles or eggs were killed off by the heat . As far as adapting to changed environments slowly , that’s what happened to polar bears . They evolved from grizzlies. They can still breed and get hybrids - grolars or pizzlies. But their behavior is different . Polar bears don’t normally eat plants or dig roots so the warmer climate is causing them to starve in areas where a grizzly would survive. It’s not just the white fur making them visible to prey on bare ground. Most other bears are more omnivorous.

 

[Gottservant]

It comes back to that thing...

I wouldn't marry you in a million years!

So you're saying there *is a chance*?!

The only real difference between an Evolutionist and this Fool, is that the Evolutionist says "It's been thousands of years, surely there is a small chance?!"

Or as I just now saw from Mark Twain:

It's easier to fool people, than to convince them that they have been fooled.

Or as I just now saw within the imagetic world:

Why are you cheering, Fry - you're not rich!

True, but someday I might be rich; and then people like me, had better watch their step!

 

[Gottservant]

Maybe I'm blowing this out of proportion, but it seems to me, that a fool told to wait a little longer, is always going to assume they know the truth, before they actually see it.

'False positive' that's what I'm talking about.

There is an innate 'false positive', that Evolutionists have not attempted to address (it's just assumed that a belief in Evolution, matches all the instances of that 'Evolution').

 

[Brightmoon]

There’s no evidence for separate creation . When you get some then we’ll talk about who’s a fool or not.