If you do not purge the old, how can the new take hold?

[Gottservant]

Hi there,

So, the fuller text I wanted to write was "If you do not purge the old, how can the new take hold? If you do not make allowances for the new, where can the new find root??"

Jesus said two things: one, no one puts new wine in old skins and no one going to war does not first weigh up whether he will win (and if not, he sends a delegation of peace).

Expanding on this, we may have confidence: that newer Evolution will not succeed, unless the appropriate cocoon is ready for the change; moreover: that newest Evolution will not be recognized, if things like play and fledgling instinct are not accommodated - by which the young may age well.

These things are both set out in Jesus' word and in Wisdom, as has been stipulated here - we do not need to question the progression of these values unnecessarily, simply because what we have is Word and that word is true. They are true words, for any species in principle.

Now you might say "well, I haven't got time for a cocoon", well you haven't got time to evolve. Or you might say "when I have young I will think about it", do you really have that long?

Neutrality secures newness - if you are still sitting on the fence, it may be that the fence comes to define you; word empowers word - if you don't think you need to state your better intentions, with Evolution, you may be about to miss on the whole principle.

Darwin, did not invent Evolution because he thought it would homogenize the faith of his day, yet everyone is saying "look, here, I am faithful, partially" Fool! Do you not think that the difference that could be asked of you will one day hold you to account? Darwin did not entreat the faith at his deathbed because he believed the better account would be had with a contest, he believed he was beyond contest, as that he said "God does not want us to suffer" (paraphrase) Raca! The Lord says we will all suffer and be pained.

This is the moment, you wait for: that you have had faith to the end. Don't suppose that if your beliefs have been unchanged throughout, that you will have "favour".

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What 'newer Evolution'?
There is no 'newer' or 'older' evolution. There is just evolution.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

This would be marginally more appropriate for the Creation vs Evolution forum, but your posts really just sound like preaching so I think they are only marginally appropriate for this whole section of the board. Just because you mention evolution or science doesn't make the topic of your post discussions about those things. Your posts are steeped in christian theology so seem more appropriate for a forum for that type of discussion.

 

[Larniavc]

Wrong thread for this.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Darwin didn't 'invent' evolution. He explained it.

 

[Tanj]

Might be time to go back on your medication mate.

 

[Gottservant]

Might be time to go back on your medication mate.

My inability to read the emotions in my words and my need of medication to ensure the connections between them don't go awry, actually have nothing to do with each other - but thanks for pointing out one of the dangers of believing Evolution, the same way, for too long.

 

[Gottservant]

What 'newer Evolution'?
There is no 'newer' or 'older' evolution. There is just evolution.

Alright: you are saying "Evolution is inert" (something that is neither new or old is "inert").

If Evolution is inert, what happens when something collides with it? Does that thing become inert too, or is Evolution repositioned somewhere else?

I think if you were really smart, you would say "Evolution is partially inert, along a trajectory that does not allow for speculation above that for species in general" - then you would be affirming by Evolution that the species' commonality was something that could be drawn together, not simply exerted.

If that is what you mean, I am all for it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Alright: you are saying "Evolution is inert" (something that is neither new or old is "inert").

If Evolution is inert, what happens when something collides with it? Does that thing become inert too, or is Evolution repositioned somewhere else?

I think if you were really smart, you would say "Evolution is partially inert, along a trajectory that does not allow for speculation above that for species in general" - then you would be affirming by Evolution that the species' commonality was something that could be drawn together, not simply exerted.

If that is what you mean, I am all for it.

No, evolution is not inert. Inert means incapable of moving.
Evolution does not move, but evolution is always occurring. It is a constant process that is always happening to every species of every animal on the planet all the time.

You need to stop pretending you're smart about evolution when you obviously don't know squat.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Evolution does not move, but evolution is always occurring. It is a constant process that is always happening to every species of every animal on the planet all the time.

It's just not detectable.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It's just not detectable.

Only to those who don't bother to look.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Only to those who don't bother to look.

Not all of us own a microscope.

 

[Ophiolite]

Not all of us own a microscope.

Don't you get tired of making bad excuses?

 

[Gottservant]

No, evolution is not inert. Inert means incapable of moving.
Evolution does not move, but evolution is always occurring. It is a constant process that is always happening to every species of every animal on the planet all the time.

You need to stop pretending you're smart about evolution when you obviously don't know squat.

Stop pretending, I'm smart: you've really got something there - thanks for sharing.

 

[Gottservant]

I think I need clarification on something here: is Darwin more or less dead? Now that he's died believing in Evolution?

I mean its a fair call if I have faith in someone coming back from the dead, that maybe it applies to others, right?

 

[Gottservant]

Another thing: what was "Evolution" meant to be, before it became 'evolution'?

Can you give me some kind of indication as to what it is? Like is it a physical property of some kind?

 

[Gottservant]

I think what may be ailing me a little, is that there are many ways for things to survive? That there isn't just a fittest, but degrees of a variety of fitness' - with the question of who is fittest changing dynamically from moment to moment?

You can't just say "this is how X evolves": under the same conditions something even more expressive of the genome could develop?

 

[Gottservant]

This is what it is, in principle: if we took back Evolution, from every single species and started again, would we call the total possible change from that point on "Evolution"? I don't think we would?

We would say "let's try partial Evolution, partial design" or something to that effect?

 

[Gottservant]

There is more advantage in Evolution serving design, in principle, than there are adaptations that can be done without, in greater principle, for the sake of one evolution or another.

 

[Gottservant]

I think where things get confused is that Evolution starts with the premise "everything is advantageous, nothing is dead" - in other words, Creation is actually an uninhibited state that rolls down the hill from there.

Whereas, if you said "somethings were advantageous, and most were better dead" - you would have a Creation that resisted Evolution, and that merely nominally conceeded to the greater persuasion of Evolution when more speciation was possible.

Thus you would have greater fluctuation of speciation, guided by how much a given design's possibilities were exhausted - Evolution just does not exhaust design, without prompting from design. I actually pointed this out and got no real response: that there is greater design possible because of Creation, untapped by Evolution offering least resistance.