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

[The Barbarian]

A population of devils, evolves?

Read it again carefully. What about not having a body do you not understand?

Also your statement that the Devil does not have a body is incorrect, and insulting to the Devil?

Sorry, that's your addition to God's word.

 

[Gottservant]

Often, it does. In mammals, ribs, jaws, and other structures became less complex. On the other hand, brains and ears became more complex. All one can say is that evolution tends to increase fitness. Where that can be done by decreasing complexity, it does.

Your ears work much better than reptilian ones. So there, complexity made it better. Your jaws are stronger, being made of a single bone, so there a loss of complexity was an advantage.

No kidding.

As usual, God's way turns out to be better than yours.

You are on the verge of dictating terms to me, again.

How Evolution can be both more and less complex, is disingenuous, if you ask me: you are not setting out which is to be preferred at all.

If you really wanted to help, in the way I am trying to, you would explain what element of Evolution is faith, or perhaps vice versa - as I said you are on the verge of dictating terms to me, which I have already said I do not like, not least because you obfuscate the foundation (in Evolution). Something that in faith, faith is fit for.

 

[Gottservant]

Read it again carefully. What about not having a body do you not understand?

Sorry, that's your addition to God's word.

No where does the Bible state that Eve spoke to the serpent in spirit (alone).

You read me carefully: a population of devils, evolves,, in your opinion?

 

[The Barbarian]

No where does the Bible state that Eve spoke to the serpent in spirit (alone).

Nowhere does the Bible say that the talking serpent was the devil. Unless you believe that the devil is an animal eternally required to crawl on his belly and eat dust, it clearly was not the devil.

Genesis 3:14 And the Lord God said to the serpent: Because thou hast done this thing, thou art cursed among all cattle, and beasts of the earth: upon thy breast shalt thou go, and earth shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.

You read me carefully

But you did not read me carefully. Spirits, being non-biological, do not evolve.

 

[The Barbarian]

You are on the verge of dictating terms to me, again.

I'm just showing you some facts. As you see, sometimes fitness is improved by reducing complexity. Sometimes it's improved by increasing complexity. That's how it works in evolution. Compared to our amniote ancestors, our jaws and ribs are less complex; our ears and brains are more complex. Lots of other examples, if you need some more. If you'd like me to show you why each of these changes in complexity increased fitness, I'd be happy to do so. Would you like me to do that?

How Evolution can be both more and less complex, is disingenuous, if you ask me: you are not setting out which is to be preferred at all.

You're still under the delusion that complexity is a measure of fitness. It is not.

If you really wanted to help, in the way I am trying to, you would explain what element of Evolution is faith,

Evolution is a natural phenomenon, which is observed everywhere in living populations. You might as well ask me what part of thunderstorms is faith. If you're talking about evolutionary theory, which explains what we see, then I see no faith involved at all in the four points of Darwinian theory. Do you?

or perhaps vice versa - as I said you are on the verge of dictating terms to me, which I have already said I do not like,

You're entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts. Reality is sometimes inconvenient, but it is true. "Fitness", "complexity", and "evolution" have proper definitions, and if you don't use them as others do, then you'll be constantly running into walls.

not least because you obfuscate the foundation (in Evolution).

The foundation is Darwin's four points.

1. More are born than can live.

2. Every individual is slightly different than its parents.

3. Some of those differences affect the likelihood of the individual to live long enough to reproduce.

4. The favorable differences tend to increase in the population and the unfavorable ones tend to decrease, and the population changes over time, thereby.

Something that in faith, faith is fit for.

Each of those points is testable, and has been repeatedly verified. No need for faith in Darwinian theory.

 

[The Barbarian]

A population of devils, evolves?

Because devils are spirits, not biological organisms, they would not evolve. They may change in other ways, but lacking bodies, and biology, they cannot evolve.

Also your statement that the Devil does not have a body is incorrect, and insulting to the Devil?

Was Jesus insulting the Father, when he said a spirit has no body? He did tell us that the Father is a spirit. So was He insulting the Father?

 

[GenemZ]

A population of devils, evolves?

Please help me understand?

Also your statement that the Devil does not have a body is incorrect, and insulting to the Devil?

OK... I'll play your silly game.

Why should you care if Satan is insulted? As far as this planet is concerned, while on earth they have no bodies.

Show us one example in the Bible where Satan or demons while on earth have a manifested body? They used to have bodies before they fell. They had bodies they could manifest like the angels who remained with God.

In contrast. Angels can be manifested in physical bodies *on earth* as revealed in Scripture.

The penalty for the fallen angels was the loss of physical life in this material world. Just as mankind suffered the loss of spiritual life when we fell. We need to be born again for that reason!

Jesus could see Satan in the Temptation simply because of the Lord's spiritual perspicacity.

That is why demons seek to posses a physical body. Could they stuff their body into a person with a body? No! They have no body.

And? (here's the big one).... How could Satan enter Judas? If Satan has a *physical* body?

......

 

[Gottservant]

Nowhere does the Bible say that the talking serpent was the devil. Unless you believe that the devil is an animal eternally required to crawl on his belly and eat dust, it clearly was not the devil.

Genesis 3:14 And the Lord God said to the serpent: Because thou hast done this thing, thou art cursed among all cattle, and beasts of the earth: upon thy breast shalt thou go, and earth shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.



But you did not read me carefully. Spirits, being non-biological, do not evolve.

Fine, have it your way (I will check and ask why you had to have it your way, at a later point): why can devils not possess a population of bodies, and evolve?

 

[Gottservant]

I'm just showing you some facts.[...]

Evolution is a natural phenomenon, which is observed everywhere in living populations. You might as well ask me what part of thunderstorms is faith. If you're talking about evolutionary theory, which explains what we see, then I see no faith involved at all in the four points of Darwinian theory. Do you?

The initial charge of a lightning strike, is faith - it is a build up of potential energy that has not struck yet. Your point, reveals nothing but what I have already said.

You're entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.

I am not entitled to my own facts, because if I have a fact (and someone needs it) then I am obliged by faith, to share it. Again, you have made my point for me.

The foundation is Darwin's four points.
1. More are born than can live.

By which you mean "it is assumed everything will try to live, even in the face of death" which is not entirely accurate: by faith we commit to death, before it can remove our chances of resurrection.

2. Every individual is slightly different than its parents.

By which you could mean "every creature is compared to the strengths of its parents, with the expectation that it will follow in their footsteps".

3. Some of those differences affect the likelihood of the individual to live long enough to reproduce.

By which you could mean "some parents will anticipate coming selection pressures better than others, and will be the only ones that survive it - unless they share their perceptiveness with the species".

4. The favorable differences tend to increase in the population and the unfavorable ones tend to decrease, and the population changes over time, thereby.

By which you could mean, "over time, those that communicate their perceptiveness to the species more, will be selected for, regardless of specific adaptations (in principle)".

Hence Darwin's attempt to win over the argument of "Creation" without specifying specific adaptions to a given species - a conceit; one that may be justified, if optimism in a specific species is not demanded.

Each of those points is testable, and has been repeatedly verified. No need for faith in Darwinian theory.

As you can see I contest all your "points", on the basis of faith being able to unite the species of Earth, under one umbrella term: Creation.

Your point that faith in Darwinian theory is inferior to Darwinian theory, give or take faith - merely obfuscates that you do not have a specific expectation of said theory, even though without one, you cannot practice it (I therefore end your efforts, there, in Jesus' Name Amen).

 

[Gottservant]

OK... I'll play your silly game.

Why should you care if Satan is insulted? As far as this planet is concerned, while on earth they have no bodies.

If they have no bodies, what is it that they possess, when they possess someone?

 

[The Barbarian]

The initial charge of a lightning strike, is faith

No. It's just the potential between the cloud and something else. No faith required.

By which you mean "it is assumed everything will try to live, even in the face of death"

No. It merely says that not all that are born can live long enough to reproduce. And that's an observed fact.

By which you could mean "every creature is compared to the strengths of its parents, with the expectation that it will follow in their footsteps".

No, I merely mean that every creature will be slightly different than its parents. Again, directly observed.

By which you could mean "some parents will anticipate coming selection pressures better than others, and will be the only ones that survive it - unless they share their perceptiveness with the species".

No, I merely mean that some of those differences affect the likelihood of an organism surviving long enough to reproduce. Also directly observed. Anticipation has nothing to do with it.

By which you could mean, "over time, those that communicate their perceptiveness to the species more, will be selected for, regardless of specific adaptations (in principle)".

No, I mean that favorable differences will tend to accumulate in a population, and unfavorable ones will tend to become less common. Again, directly observed.

Hence Darwin's attempt to win over the argument of "Creation"

Darwin asserted that God created living things. You're arguing with a boogeyman in your head.

without specifying specific adaptions to a given species

He gave examples repeatedly in his book. Again, you're arguing with yourself, not with Darwin.

 

[Gottservant]

I think I nailed Evolution, with the thread "with the right selection pressure, we would see men come from apes again?"

Scientifically, they are expecting a resurgence - in faith we are expecting a revival.

It will be forever contrasted, that we could not come to an agreement (but I'm happy to benefit, if they get a resurgence from God - which is not hypocritical, its just discerning).

 

[Gottservant]

I think the problem for me, is that I think "if it can be conceptualized, it can be quantized".

Put it this way: if you were ready for Evolution to mean something, you would wait for a period of time, for it prove itself or manifest (so to speak) and then when you had enough evidence, you would believe it - or do something about it, or characterize it, or whatever Evolution asked you to do.

The problem is that Evolutionists are so busy decanting that Evolution is a "fact" that they don't have to do anything "for it" - as believers, we hold the words of God, so that when the appropriate opportunity arises, we can declare them: that is completely missing from Evolution...

That's the whole of the conundrum: I am ready to affirm the truths of Evolution, I just have never been given the opportunity to apply certain interpretations in certain circumstances - if Evolution was a phenomenon that could be explained, that much would be possible (even expected, to a certain degree).

 

[The Barbarian]

I think the problem for me, is that I think "if it can be conceptualized, it can be quantized".

You think the tooth fairy can be quanitized? Really? Would you show us?

Put it this way: if you were ready for Evolution to mean something, you would wait for a period of time, for it prove itself or manifest (so to speak)

That happens all the time around us. Did you forget what biological evolution is?

The problem is that Evolutionists are so busy decanting that Evolution is a "fact" that they don't have to do anything "for it"

That's the advantage of accepting reality. You don't have to make up anything. It's just there for anyone willing to see.

if Evolution was a phenomenon that could be explained, that much would be possible (even expected, to a certain degree).

It's a change in allele frequencies in a population over time. That is explained by recombination and mutation. Natural selection explains the direction it takes, if any.

 

[Gottservant]

Sorry, would say more, but I need a laugh.

(not at you).

Will get back to you...

 

[The Barbarian]

Since you say that my opinion doesn't matter, I am no interested in your content.

No one's opinion has any effect on reality whatever. If that's offensive, then you're in the wrong place.

 

[The Barbarian]

1. Generically- any change in a host or offspring (like if my mom had brown hair and I have blonde) is evolution.

No. Organisms don't evolve. Populations evolve. Hence the scientific definition: "A change in allele frequencies in a population over time."

2. what we mostly talk about here- called Darwinian Evolution or goo to you by way of teh zoo.

That's wrong, too. Darwinian evolution is merely "descent with modification." Nothing at all about the origin of life. Darwin just said that God created the first living things.

I believe in evolution, but Darwinian Evolution is a belief system that is untestable.

Here's the claims of Darwinian evolution, as Darwin put them:

1. More are born than can live.
2. Every organism is slightly different than its parents
3. Some of these differences affect the likelihood of surviving long enough to reproduce.
4. The useful differences tend to increase, and the harmful ones tend to decrease, and this leads to speciation.

Which of these do you think are not testable? We can then take a look and see?

Even Barbarian here with his example of alleles. first it has to be rules out that the new allele (information) was not a recessive trait that has come to be a dominant!

That would be a mutation. An allele that was formerly recessive could only become dominant by changing. A new mutation. Which would be a change in allele frequency in the population in which it happens.

that is part of Mendels LAw!

No. Mendel's law is not about mutation.

That is also why white parents who come from white parents who come from white parents and so on and so on for multiple generations can produce a jet black baby if an ancestor say 25 generations ago was black!

Extremely unlikely. It would require a chain of improbable mutations, or an extremely unlikely sorting of alleles at meiosis. The reverse is still extremely unlikely, but less so, since recessive alleles could exist unexpressed over several generations.

It has happened.

Show us that. Checkable sources.

 

[The Barbarian]

My personal opinion (if it is worth even a penny) is that most believers in the dogmas of evolutionism have never really thought in depth about their belief system. For if they pout them up to the light of verifiable proven science , they would know most of their creeds would crumble.

As you know, the four points of Darwinian theory have been demonstrated again and again. This is why some YE creationists feel the need to redefine "evolution" to avoid admitting that it's a fact.

It's just the way new species form. Even most creationist organizations now admit that much. Would you like to see that?

 

[Gottservant]

What about the idea that the selection pressure for ape to man, has now either: subsided or changed?

Would that help?

I feel like I am tracking elephant footprints here...

 

[Gottservant]

Maybe the selection pressure for ape to man, comes and goes, at random, producing something different every time?

That sounds a lot like my faith in God, coming and going - the difference being that God brings about something more and more coherent...

Actually, I am happy to vary around the one concept: man - no need to talk to me about blurring species boundaries at all!