• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

If you routinely removed all written theory - about 'Evolution' - from culture, it would reappear?

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by Gottservant, Apr 2, 2021.

  1. Gottservant

    Gottservant God loves your words, may men love them also Supporter

    +477
    Messianic
    Hi there,

    So this is quite an obscure question, really, but there is something really disturbing about 'Evolution' as a theory. Actually there are a number of things that are disturbing, but the picture that has developed for me, has started to point in one particular direction: that Evolution itself is untested by its own standard. That standard, is the standard of appearance. To be specific, Evolution - if it were removed from living memory - would be thought to reappear, exactly the same, every single time it was forgotten. Why? Because the arbitrary abstract rules of Evolution, are that knowledge of Evolution is "science" and that "science" is singularly interpreted no matter the object, as the most universally accurate description, of its function.

    But how can this be? If Evolution is true, it will be different every time it reappears, on the basis of mutations, or the same, on the basis of selection pressures! Do you see the problem, it is not possible to backwards engineer the same theory, on the basis of evidence, which it is duplicitous about. What we have discovered, is the Telephone Game - the game where people try to communicate the truth they have heard to someone else, necessarily altering it along the way. People don't communicate more (in the Telephone Game), the more they know about Evolution, they are just as bad as everybody else. They have tested this. For Evolution to mean anything, it has to raise the bar of adaptability - how it does that while old memories of spurious conjectures about Man coming from subordinate species are in place, how would you know? And how long would improving Evolution with "Evolution" last, we should also be interested in?

    The short of it, is simply this: Evolution is derivative of the observation that species differ, on the basis of alternatives that are unique to their genome - the more it interferes, without correction, the less sense its adaptations make. Like a chameleon that keeps its old disguise, in a new environment or a spider that tries to make its web on drugs, Evolution keeps us from interpreting the truest path, until we start to bring that interpretation around to the real limits and precursors of the design we want to keep, not discard. While Evolution must be in play, for Design to work, Design does not need to hand over the reigns to something that doesn't answer on terms it begins in - this is disingenuous.

    No, Evolution needs to exercise a Dead Sea Scrolls test - will it reappear, if we forget about it, or alternatively "what can we do about Evolution now, to speed up the recognition of the things that drive it?" If understanding Evolution is "quickened" that is a massive selection pressure advantage, one that might make Evolution interperable to the layman and give him the psychological sanction to ensure that he is indeed passing on his best, to the next generation - in all those things that Evolution currently just calls "expedient"? The Scriptures have passed the Dead Sea Scrolls test, everything revealed was found to confirm what was already trusted - over and over again! This test was not carried out in spite of "Evolution", it was objectively in favour of the given compilation of the Bible.

    So, a choice is needed. Is it thought that Evolution as it stands now, is based on the veracity of a response to mutation, or is it as it stands now, founded on a response to selection pressure? And how would this change, if the test were done again? Do you suppose that it would cease to be new? Or do you suppose it would be more effective if it was fragmented? Or should it have been a choice between initial and belated Evolution, to begin with? And we will discover this divided interpretation has strength, the more? What is the routine exercise of fitness that is necessary, to keep Evolution alive, if it turns out that culturally there is not enough truth in it, for people to believe consistently from Age to Age? The Words of Jesus already pass that test, they are so worded that no meaning is lost, if the interpretation is of the letter - the Telephone Game does not diminish their veracity. Does Evolution desire this? If so, how is it going to get it?

    I trust you will think about a small part of this and steer me towards an Evolution, the interpretation of which, you are confident.
     
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. Occams Barber

    Occams Barber Newbie Supporter

    +4,429
    Australia
    Atheist
    Divorced
    We're way ahead of you Gotty.

    Down at Evolution Headquarters we stayed up all night and photocopied all the Evolution stuff.

    Then we photocopied the photocopies.^_^

    It's too late Mon Ami. :clap:

    OB
     
  3. Ponderous Curmudgeon

    Ponderous Curmudgeon Active Member

    286
    +126
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Divorced
    If we removed all references to the theory of gravity, things would still fall down. Likewise nothing would change without the Theory of Evolution. Evolution like gravity is not something that we have control over.

    Evolution 101 https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01 Start here, evolution is not an individual choice, it is something that happens to populations.
     
  4. Gottservant

    Gottservant God loves your words, may men love them also Supporter

    +477
    Messianic
    I think that is a fair example, in response to what I said.

    However, I also think that unlike Gravity, Evolution would not simply be "rediscovered" - a key aspect of its novelty, is simply not there: it does not effective change deliberately.

    If I know there is "gravity" and I see a hill, how I interpret gravity in relation to that hill, affects where on the hill I would stand, depending on what I or God wants me to do.

    Without agency, as part of the equation, it appears to me, that Evolution simply invites people to do nothing. There is nothing about the viability of a population, that happens without interoperable constants. A small window of change, is open to each stage in a population's development - if they are wasted on over-eating or under-exercising or ignoring warnings, that population will die, in the same way a predator with a more strident regimen of fasting, exercising and interpreting warnings will take advantage of that population.

    "I am prepared to accept my interpretation may be dated," is what both of us should have been prepared to say - I can see the point and communicate it, but I wonder if you are able to undertake to reinterpret your theory, in a more equitable way.

    How much you rely on the species, to alert you to danger (like predation), is not down to chance, the species is as a whole "afraid" of danger. That being the case, what evolves, is mateship around the best response to danger, this necessarily includes the range of responses in principle from the beginning of a single design. You have left design entirely out of the equation. If Evolution were discovered again, I think what would be discovered is a mechanism that leverages design at precisely the point that the most intense response to danger is the most viably diverse. Can you understand that? Can you understand that a mate wants choices, if they are to mate?

    What do you think mating rituals are for, if there is no Evolutionary pretext for adaptability that itself is "evolved"?

    No, you need to redress the fact that you don't interpolate the preferred Evolution, in the name of simple Attraction - because Design already facilitates a scope of interpretation, that applies productive principles, to itself.
     
  5. Warden_of_the_Storm

    Warden_of_the_Storm Well-Known Member

    +4,357
    United Kingdom
    Deist
    Single
    Just because you remove all written things about the theory of evolution, that does not mean that evolution is not a fact of science.

    Funnily enough, this did remind me that, throughout history, people found ways to combat scurvy but kept forgetting it until it was rediscovered.
     
  6. Gottservant

    Gottservant God loves your words, may men love them also Supporter

    +477
    Messianic
    So Evolution is as real as 'scurvy'?
     
  7. High Fidelity

    High Fidelity Well-Known Member Supporter

    +8,715
    United Kingdom
    Baptist
    Private
    The same could be said for Christianity, or any faith.

    Evolution is observable, it would reappear precisely as it always was.
     
  8. Warden_of_the_Storm

    Warden_of_the_Storm Well-Known Member

    +4,357
    United Kingdom
    Deist
    Single
    Yes it is. And why did you put scurvy in inverted commas? You do know what scurvy is, right?
     
  9. SelfSim

    SelfSim A non "-ist"

    +1,018
    Humanist
    Private
    It would be difficult to imagine humans living without beliefs.

    Life's objectively useful definitions usually include evolvability .. but I'm pretty sure those definitions would instantly change to accomodate non-repeatability, should cases of that show up for some reason.
     
  10. Gottservant

    Gottservant God loves your words, may men love them also Supporter

    +477
    Messianic
    Yes, but precisely why would a theory about Evolution, not necessarily evolve (subsequent discovering)?

    There is a reason to believe, that Jesus would say the same things again, if we lost our record of it - He said them because He loved us.

    You're not saying "we love people that struggle to believe 'Evolution'" so there is no reason to think anyone would bother with your theory?

    I'm not trying to be "mean".
     
  11. Gottservant

    Gottservant God loves your words, may men love them also Supporter

    +477
    Messianic
    Vitamin C deficiency, if I recall.

    Not that discovering it, stops vitamin C in your body running out, but you do in a practical way know what to do if you have got it.

    I don't really know what I would do if my Evolution was low, celebrate probably.
     
  12. Warden_of_the_Storm

    Warden_of_the_Storm Well-Known Member

    +4,357
    United Kingdom
    Deist
    Single
    It's not discovering scurvy that people kept forgetting and rediscovering, it was ways to combat it that kept getting forgotten and rediscovered.

    And no, you can't have a 'low evolution', that's just nonsense and a clear indicator that, as I have said numerous time, that you need to make the attempt to actually learn about evolution.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  13. Shemjaza

    Shemjaza Regular Member Supporter

    +2,702
    Australia
    Atheist
    Single
    AU-Greens
    Evolution is a theory about how life changes. There is no reason to assume that the theory itself would change like the subjects of the theory.

    If all scientific knowledge was lost, but in the future people started to study the world in a systematic then they would rediscover biology and eventually rediscover evolution.

    The evidence would still be there to be found.
     
  14. Shemjaza

    Shemjaza Regular Member Supporter

    +2,702
    Australia
    Atheist
    Single
    AU-Greens
    There's no such thing having a low evolution, because individuals do not have an evolution.

    It's a process that applies to species.
     
  15. Gottservant

    Gottservant God loves your words, may men love them also Supporter

    +477
    Messianic
    Sort of like why discovering the quantum scale definitions of energy, will not change the discovery of said energy in the first place (but will simply add to the overall knowledge base).

    My point exactly that Evolution if it were true, would be able to develop a unified theory of Evolution.

    Saying you believe it is possible, however, requires a foundation, something which Evolutionists have been reluctant to say leaves very little room for subjective interpretation of the importance being moral about which Evolution you pursue.
     
  16. Gottservant

    Gottservant God loves your words, may men love them also Supporter

    +477
    Messianic
    Yes, but would evidence amount to a nominal theory of Evolution, version two, or a unified theory of Evolution, with thousands of possible interpretations?
     
  17. Warden_of_the_Storm

    Warden_of_the_Storm Well-Known Member

    +4,357
    United Kingdom
    Deist
    Single
    Considering that the modern theory of evolution is quite a bit different to the theory of evolution that Darwin put forward in his day... yes, it would.
    You clearly don't know how science works.
     
  18. Shemjaza

    Shemjaza Regular Member Supporter

    +2,702
    Australia
    Atheist
    Single
    AU-Greens
    Subtle differences of focus possibly... but since the discovery of how genetic heritage worked the broad strokes of evolution have remained pretty static. That would simply happen again.
     
  19. Shemjaza

    Shemjaza Regular Member Supporter

    +2,702
    Australia
    Atheist
    Single
    AU-Greens
    Genetic inheritance and mutation are the foundation you are looking for.
     
  20. SelfSim

    SelfSim A non "-ist"

    +1,018
    Humanist
    Private
    :confused:
     
Loading...