I just want to think out loud, where I'm at least less likely to be criticized

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also
Supporter
Aug 3, 2006
11,380
704
45
✟276,687.00
Faith
Messianic
Hi,

So I have actually made great ground debating Evolutionists recently. I showed that predators are likely to cooperate and that mutations destroy themselves and that selection pressures are likely to activate multiple adaptations. The problem is that all of this just amounts to arguing for the value of trying to survival, not actually winning the struggle to survive once and for all. Now in a sense I can never show this, because Evolution will always cause the flesh to become strong and the spirit will never take hold of the flesh to destroy it. But I remain convinced that there is a way to frame the argument as a glass half full debate.

In times past describing the debate as a glass half full has taken the route of pointing to all the massive amount of coincidences necessary to perfect life and saying "how could this be, by any other means than a god?" but I think there must be a structural argument. As I see it there is some sort of interaction between a selection pressure and the soul which isn't clear. The standard argument is that everything dies and selection pressure chooses what it likes from what's left, but this divorces agency from the population thus in turn invalidating the need of Jesus to give any choice between Heaven and Hell, at least as far as this life is concerned, which not only isn't fair, it's wrong! The fact is that death of the soul initially causes an organism to reproduce faster, because the fear of death is so powerful, whether you face it or not. That means that selection will favour those organisms that brave the fear of death, at least a little.

What is clear however, is that you cannot do this all the time, so either Evolution will instinctively destroy itself, or those that face death more than others will prove stronger than the rest without trying, hence failing the survival test. Now you might think "so everything will be afraid" but that is the problem, creatures that live in fear don't flourish and nothing that can't flourish survives. So it is a zero-sum game as long as you are playing survival of the fittest against all other principles OR you acknowledge that there is a God that can discern between death worth facing and death not. Either way Evolution loses. It is in a sense an argument in favour of permanent loss.

An argument in favour of permanent loss, defines gain as something ambiguous in order to quicken most of the end.

I suppose in the end, it is a matter of whether Evolution truly survives.
 

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟899,962.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Hi,

So I have actually made great ground debating Evolutionists recently. I showed that predators are likely to cooperate and that mutations destroy themselves and that selection pressures are likely to activate multiple adaptations. The problem is that all of this just amounts to arguing for the value of trying to survival, not actually winning the struggle to survive once and for all. Now in a sense I can never show this, because Evolution will always cause the flesh to become strong and the spirit will never take hold of the flesh to destroy it. But I remain convinced that there is a way to frame the argument as a glass half full debate.

In times past describing the debate as a glass half full has taken the route of pointing to all the massive amount of coincidences necessary to perfect life and saying "how could this be, by any other means than a god?" but I think there must be a structural argument.

That ship has sailed -- blind faith evolutionism lost it.

The "funny just so coincidence" story telling of evolutionist came to a crashing halt with the cosmological constant. There is a video by two world renowned scientists where they admit to the duplicity among evolutionists when it comes to ignoring inconvenient facts that point to intelligent design.

"What we Still don't know" --

It is 45 minutes long - but fun to watch. Especially when they admit that "observations in nature" directed them inescapably to a conclusion in favor of intelligent design so they had to either ignore the evidence or "imagine" an extreme unobservable set of 10^500 other entire fictional universes to escape it!!

What We Still Don't Know: "Are We Real?" - YouTube
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟899,962.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
You will enjoy it - these two atheists (and a few of their friends) explain their dilemma and talk about how happy they are required to be - that pure-imagination is their only "scientific solution" to escaping actual observations in nature.
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,499
Milwaukee
✟410,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
So I have actually made great ground debating Evolutionists recently.

Evolution is mostly correct. There is a very small and mostly useless segment of the theory that deals with theories about ancient events. There is no money or benefit to humanity in theories about old dead species, but a few manage to tell entertaining stories and keep a job.

Most of evolution is about what actually happens in DNA and what we can do to help humanity with our findings.

Nothing practical comes from ideas about origins, so most people who rave about it are unemployed.
 
Upvote 0