... I fundamentally can't draw a connection in stages between micro and macro Evolution.
Nowhere have you said, "being an insect, is part of the development, of becoming a human" - when, if Evolution were true, it would be the most natural inclusion of a land creature's development for higher functioning. In effect saying that humans did not go through a larval stage, is a denial of the greater Evolution, that Evolution should have made possible.
Even that humans did not emerge from larger fish spores, but actually became fish first, is spurious - where does Evolution chose a fish or wait like a crocodile: as though these things are self-evident candidates, for leaps and bounds of all sorts that will gradually be refined to a subset of the Evolution first believed possible?
There is a struggle here, to drag mankind from the slump God places him in, as if the right reason is somehow also the justification, as though men would have taken to the trees as birds, if they had really reached their full potential. This does not make sense; you are asking people to understand something, that does not make sense? Where is the corollary with functional stages of design, that Evolution can put to work? Where is the richly hard definition?
Richness does not come, by enticement.
Either show me that what I said is false, or show me how it is that one Evolution entices another Evolution - that is, to adopt a different Evolution, from the one believed to be progressively "sounder", as per response to selection pressures? You understand that right? That you will almost indefinitely be more proficient in survival, if you broaden your claim to historical lineage to that which agrees more with your actual lineage?
When the Creation story is told, it is not told to surprise people, but remind them. I wonder if perhaps in the process of heralding one greater process for all, you have forgotten what was most important: that the reason for the change in this life, is because of the life we can see in the One who lives forever? Is it too much to ask then, to ask you to be honest about the life you see in the process we can only assume would take forever?
I think perhaps I need to take my own advice and just stipulate once for all time, that I will not accept a process that has no end? Then let me do it: I will not keep the word of anyone that believes that the process they believe in will last forever. I know you will want to argue "you believe your God lasts forever", but actually what I believe is that my God however patiently is ready to "rest for all time" - there is a vast difference between trying to work indefinitely, and resting on the fruits of that work.
But seriously, going back to a point that I already made: does the giraffe try to convince the elephant, to grow a longer neck? Or does the monkey try to convince the whale, to come up for air longer? Answer, please.
Yes, answer.
Nowhere have you said, "being an insect, is part of the development, of becoming a human" - when, if Evolution were true, it would be the most natural inclusion of a land creature's development for higher functioning. In effect saying that humans did not go through a larval stage, is a denial of the greater Evolution, that Evolution should have made possible.
Even that humans did not emerge from larger fish spores, but actually became fish first, is spurious - where does Evolution chose a fish or wait like a crocodile: as though these things are self-evident candidates, for leaps and bounds of all sorts that will gradually be refined to a subset of the Evolution first believed possible?
There is a struggle here, to drag mankind from the slump God places him in, as if the right reason is somehow also the justification, as though men would have taken to the trees as birds, if they had really reached their full potential. This does not make sense; you are asking people to understand something, that does not make sense? Where is the corollary with functional stages of design, that Evolution can put to work? Where is the richly hard definition?
Richness does not come, by enticement.
Either show me that what I said is false, or show me how it is that one Evolution entices another Evolution - that is, to adopt a different Evolution, from the one believed to be progressively "sounder", as per response to selection pressures? You understand that right? That you will almost indefinitely be more proficient in survival, if you broaden your claim to historical lineage to that which agrees more with your actual lineage?
When the Creation story is told, it is not told to surprise people, but remind them. I wonder if perhaps in the process of heralding one greater process for all, you have forgotten what was most important: that the reason for the change in this life, is because of the life we can see in the One who lives forever? Is it too much to ask then, to ask you to be honest about the life you see in the process we can only assume would take forever?
I think perhaps I need to take my own advice and just stipulate once for all time, that I will not accept a process that has no end? Then let me do it: I will not keep the word of anyone that believes that the process they believe in will last forever. I know you will want to argue "you believe your God lasts forever", but actually what I believe is that my God however patiently is ready to "rest for all time" - there is a vast difference between trying to work indefinitely, and resting on the fruits of that work.
But seriously, going back to a point that I already made: does the giraffe try to convince the elephant, to grow a longer neck? Or does the monkey try to convince the whale, to come up for air longer? Answer, please.
Yes, answer.
