If selection pressure waned and waxed, such that the species started again: what'd you do better?

[Gottservant]

There are no sins in evolution because evolution is not a religious or moral system. It is an explanation of scientific fact.

If morality does not apply, you are being fed weakness, not strength (selah)

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If morality does not apply, you are being fed weakness, not strength (selah)

Yes, morality does not apply to evolution because evolution is simply the explanation of how life adapts on a biological level to its environment.
And from you, I'm being fed nonsense, codswallop and ignorance.

 

[Gottservant]

Yes, morality does not apply to evolution because evolution is simply the explanation of how life adapts on a biological level to its environment.
And from you, I'm being fed nonsense, codswallop and ignorance.

You honestly believe that someone who trusts in going the extra mile, is ultimately ignorant?

Yet you, who believe in Evolution, have every mile covered, do you?

Just stop for a minute and work out how many miles you have got, if you won't go an extra one??

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You honestly believe that someone who trusts in going the extra mile, is ultimately ignorant?

Yet you, who believe in Evolution, have every mile covered, do you?

Just stop for a minute and work out how many miles you have got, if you won't go an extra one??

Yes, you are ignorant because you ask ignorant and insipid questions that are definitely not about evolution or you just make up absolute rubbish about it.

No, I don't believe that evolution has every mile covered because I know that evolution is, get this, just a scientific descriptor for how life adapts to its environment, nothing more, nothing less, and if you can't understand that very simple fact then there's no helping you.

 

[Gottservant]

Typical avoidance of the question.

How many miles have you got, if you won't go an extra one?

Darwin can't help you on this one, his theory never developed to the point that those who were right (about it) got an advantage?

That's a big gap, you need to fill, don't you think??

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Typical avoidance of the question.

How many miles have you got, if you won't go an extra one?

Darwin can't help you on this one, his theory never developed to the point that those who were right (about it) got an advantage?

That's a big gap, you need to fill, don't you think??

I answered the question: No, I don't believe that evolution has every mile covered because I know that evolution is, get this, just a scientific descriptor for how life adapts to its environment, nothing more, nothing less, and if you can't understand that very simple fact then there's no helping you.

You put too much stock in evolution being something that it just simply isn't. It isn't a system of morals, it isn't a philosophy or a religious belief. It is just a scientific explanation of biological facts. How are you not understanding this?

 

[Gottservant]

So you can claim to have differences covered, but I can't claim to be evolving my understanding of "Evolution"?

Then I ask for something specific, and you quote me saying "Evolution doesn't try to cover every mile"?

I said that because there is more needed! Evolution should aim to have every mile covered! It should.

"Scientific" should include questions on repeatability, you are denying me on three fronts now (repeatability, miles, morality).

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So you can claim to have differences covered, but I can't claim to be evolving my understanding of "Evolution"?

Then I ask for something specific, and you quote me saying "Evolution doesn't try to cover every mile"?

I said that because there is more needed! Evolution should aim to have every mile covered! It should.

"Scientific" should include questions on repeatability, you are denying me on three fronts now (repeatability, miles, morality).

If you're going to respond to me, actually reply to the comment in question. It's getting annoying.

And I am telling you this again: evolution is only a description of the biological fact of how life adapts to its environment. Do you understand this? It doesn't need to talk about morality or philosophy or religion or what I should have for lunch tomorrow because it's not about those things!

And I'm not denying, it's just that you don't understand the topic or what other people are saying.

 

[Gottservant]

If you're going to respond to me, actually reply to the comment in question. It's getting annoying.

And I am telling you this again: evolution is only a description of the biological fact of how life adapts to its environment. Do you understand this? It doesn't need to talk about morality or philosophy or religion or what I should have for lunch tomorrow because it's not about those things!

And I'm not denying, it's just that you don't understand the topic or what other people are saying.

No no, you specifically said "It can't be repeated; it has no agent related features; and I would prefer to beg the negative".

You're basically saying "If God had to evolve, He wouldn't know how"?

Try to beat your own standard, if nothing else, cause what you're serving up is starting to smack of laziness, if not ineptitude.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No no, you specifically said "It can't be repeated; it has no agent related features; and I would prefer to beg the negative".

You're basically saying "If God had to evolve, He wouldn't know how"?

Try to beat your own standard, if nothing else, cause what you're serving up is starting to smack of laziness, if not ineptitude.

I said no such thing and I'd thank you to not put words in my mouth.

I know what I said, and anyone else can read what I said clear as day.

What also is clear as day is that you don't know anything about evolution and have no actual desire to learn anything about evolution either.

 

[Gottservant]

Adaptations cannot start all over

It doesn't need to talk about morality

I don't believe that evolution has every mile covered

All you.

As for my desire to learn, you would think a statement about how God would evolve, was a question of interest; I mean I will declare as much as you want me to that I am interested in God, whether He applies to Evolution or not.

Or does there need to be a population of Gods?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

All you.

As for my desire to learn, you would think a statement about how God would evolve, was a question of interest; I mean I will declare as much as you want me to that I am interested in God, whether He applies to Evolution or not.

Or does there need to be a population of Gods?

I see nothing about God in what I said, so you're lying about me talking about God. First point.

Second point: God is not a biological organism. He is a super-natural being who exists outside the laws of science, time and space. How can biological laws effect a being that exists outside of biology? They can't! So God is not effected by evolution.

 

[Gottservant]

God may have yet to be a biological organism, but it would be a mistake to think that meant He would never be?

More to the point, God not "effected" should be "not affected" (by Evolution).

God indwells those who He has created, so if Evolution applies to them, it applies to Him - that is what I am fundamentally interested in here.

You may need a population of believers, with God within them?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

God may have yet to be a biological organism, but it would be a mistake to think that meant He would never be?

More to the point, God not "effected" should be "not affected" (by Evolution).

God indwells those who He has created, so if Evolution applies to them, it applies to Him - that is what I am fundamentally interested in here.

You may need a population of believers, with God within them?

God is not a biological being. Evolution only effects biological beings. Ergo, God cannot evolve.
Do you understand this, please say yes or no.

 

[Gottservant]

God is not a biological being. Evolution only effects biological beings. Ergo, God cannot evolve.
Do you understand this, please say yes or no.

God has attributes.

Those attributes are improved upon.

Ergo, God is aware of the process behind a change in attributes (Evolution?)

The argument that He will never "evolve" is based on the assumption that one of His believers will never "give birth" to Him - fallacious!

Maybe what you are leaving out is "when" you are born, not "how", affects your Evolution?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

God has attributes.

Those attributes are improved upon.

Ergo, God is aware of the process behind a change in attributes (Evolution?)

The argument that He will never "evolve" is based on the assumption that one of His believers will never "give birth" to Him - fallacious!

Maybe what you are leaving out is "when" you are born, not "how", affects your Evolution?

God is not a biological being. Evolution only effects biological beings. Ergo, God cannot evolve.
Do you understand this, please say yes or no.

 

[Gottservant]

God is not a biological being. Evolution only effects biological beings. Ergo, God cannot evolve.
Do you understand this, please say yes or no.

God is going to be a biological being, in future. So 'no', I don't understand how God will be biological but not "Evolved".

You say you know about biology, tell me something about "God".

If you think there needs to be a population of believers with God 'in them', I think it's fairly safe to assume that there will be a said "population".

Your complaint sounds a lot like the objection that "Jesus stopped being (singularly) biological, so His Evolution was for nothing" - which is equally incredulous!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

God is going to be a biological being, in future. So 'no', I don't understand how God will be biological but not "Evolved".

You say you know about biology, tell me something about "God".

If you think there needs to be a population of believers with God 'in them', I think it's fairly safe to assume that there will be a said "population".

Your complaint sounds a lot like the objection that "Jesus stopped being (singularly) biological, so His Evolution was for nothing" - which is equally incredulous!

How is God a biological being? What characteristics does He have that show him to be a biological being?

 

[Gottservant]

How is God a biological being? What characteristics does He have that show him to be a biological being?

In future, He will have a body, like everybody else's.

That body will be resurrected.

Therefore, one would think it would make sense to say "God's Evolution, will be resurrected (and those with Him resurrected also)".

I think it's fair to add, that the meaning of "Evolution" will change, depending on how well God endures the time He has with a body (which He will do "perfectly"?)?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

In future, He will have a body, like everybody else's.

That body will be resurrected.

Therefore, one would think it would make sense to say "God's Evolution, will be resurrected (and those with Him resurrected also)".

I think it's fair to add, that the meaning of "Evolution" will change, depending on how well God endures the time He has with a body (which He will do "perfectly"?)?

I'm not talking about Jesus, I'm talking about God, The Father and the Holy Ghost. The God that came to Moses in the Burning Bush, who spoke to Noah about the Flood. How is that God biological?