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

Larniavc

Leading a blameless life
Jul 14, 2015
12,271
7,625
51
✟312,524.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
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.
Yes.

Would Jesus?
 
Upvote 0

Larniavc

Leading a blameless life
Jul 14, 2015
12,271
7,625
51
✟312,524.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
My point exactly that Evolution if it were true, would be able to develop a unified theory of Evolution.
A bit like how if Christianity was true you would have a unified theory of Christianity instead of the thousands of disparate theories currently in existence.
 
Upvote 0

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also
Supporter
Aug 3, 2006
11,380
704
45
✟276,687.00
Faith
Messianic
A bit like how if Christianity was true you would have a unified theory of Christianity instead of the thousands of disparate theories currently in existence.

Those divisions may or may not disappear, but their emerging and disappearing will certainly not stop there.
 
Upvote 0

Larniavc

Leading a blameless life
Jul 14, 2015
12,271
7,625
51
✟312,524.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Those divisions may or may not disappear, but their emerging and disappearing will certainly not stop there.
Then you admit that the point you made was nonsense.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,664
51,417
Guam
✟4,896,395.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
If you routinely removed all written theory - about 'Evolution' - from culture, it would reappear?
It would come right back, if it was only removed from written documentation, but not removed from the minds of those who know it.

However, there would be major differences.

Certainly Lamarckism wouldn't return as a viable theory.

The book, The Preservation of Favoured Races wouldn't return, as wouldn't many others.

So in short, evolution, on paper, would occupy only a fraction of our shelves as it once did.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gottservant
Upvote 0

Mr Laurier

Well-Known Member
Mar 26, 2021
1,141
366
57
Georgian Bay/Bruce Peninsula
✟31,584.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
It would come right back, if it was only removed from written documentation, but not removed from the minds of those who know it.

However, there would be major differences.

Certainly Lamarckism wouldn't return as a viable theory.

The book, The Preservation of Favoured Races wouldn't return, as wouldn't many others.

So in short, evolution, on paper, would occupy only a fraction of our shelves as it once did.
Still using that dishonest trick?
There is no such book. you are using a fragment of the SUBTITLE is the title, is a DELIBERATE attempt to create confusion, and to appeal to shame and fear.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,664
51,417
Guam
✟4,896,395.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Still using that dishonest trick?
There is no such book. you are using a fragment of the SUBTITLE is the title, is a DELIBERATE attempt to create confusion, and to appeal to shame and fear.
Don't they do it too? some just call it, "Origins."

So why can't I?

ETA: Glad you're back. I pray all went well.
 
Upvote 0

Tom 1

Optimistic sceptic
Supporter
Nov 13, 2017
12,212
12,526
Tarnaveni
✟818,769.00
Country
Romania
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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".

People are interested in how stuff works - evolution is part of how stuff works - if you managed to delete any reference to it someone would describe it again at some point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mr Laurier
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Mr Laurier

Well-Known Member
Mar 26, 2021
1,141
366
57
Georgian Bay/Bruce Peninsula
✟31,584.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Evolution is an observable process.
It was observed and documented long before a divinity student and old earth creationist named Charles Darwin set out to disprove it once and for all.
That same divinity student who went on to recognize it. And to figure out how it happens.
And he was not the only one working on it.
If Darwin had never been born, we would be talking about Wallace's theory of evolution.

If every book about biology was to be lost tomorrow, And we humans lost all knowledge of evolution...
... we would eventually re-discover it.
 
Upvote 0

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also
Supporter
Aug 3, 2006
11,380
704
45
✟276,687.00
Faith
Messianic
Evolution is an observable process.
It was observed and documented long before a divinity student and old earth creationist named Charles Darwin set out to disprove it once and for all.
That same divinity student who went on to recognize it. And to figure out how it happens.
And he was not the only one working on it.
If Darwin had never been born, we would be talking about Wallace's theory of evolution.

If every book about biology was to be lost tomorrow, And we humans lost all knowledge of evolution...
... we would eventually re-discover it.

Ok, but this is the point: would it be rediscovered in a way that justifies "Evolution"?

Like would people wait to see the human race develop into something else? Or would the old colloquialism "men improved on apes" reappear? Or would it become "men grew out of a fear of octopi"?

If it (Evolution) was rediscovered in exactly the same way, wouldn't that suggest "design"? Doesn't the fact that Wallace almost discovered "Evolution" point to design?
 
Upvote 0

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,200
3,819
45
✟917,196.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
Ok, but this is the point: would it be rediscovered in a way that justifies "Evolution"?

Yes, that's exactly what would happen.

Like would people wait to see the human race develop into something else? Or would the old colloquialism "men improved on apes" reappear? Or would it become "men grew out of a fear of octopi"?

The evidence would indicate that humans were a variation on apes that lived in Africa. Your statement "men grew out of a fear of octopi" doesn't really make any sense.

If it (Evolution) was rediscovered in exactly the same way, wouldn't that suggest "design"? Doesn't the fact that Wallace almost discovered "Evolution" point to design?
No it doesn't.

If something is true and has left evidence and two separate people look where it could be found, then they should find the same thing. That doesn't require any design.
 
Upvote 0

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also
Supporter
Aug 3, 2006
11,380
704
45
✟276,687.00
Faith
Messianic
Yes, that's exactly what would happen.

So the efficacy of any one term for "Evolution", is as great as any other?

Like Water intoxication, is also called water poisoning, hyperhydration, overhydration - if you discover water intoxication one way, you discover it all ways.

This - in itself - is not "Evolution", it applies to Evolution.

Are we clear?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,200
3,819
45
✟917,196.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
So the efficacy of any one term for "Evolution", is as great as any other?

Like Water intoxication, is also called water poisoning, hyperhydration, overhydration - if you discover water intoxication one way, you discover it all ways.

This - in itself - is not "Evolution", it applies to Evolution.

Are we clear?
Exactly.

Evolution is just the word in English that we apply to the concept, there's nothing special about the term.

It's a Latin word for unrolling that became an English word for changing that was later applied to a biological process and a scientific theory about that process.

A separate civilisation with no knowledge of our history would have a different word, but the concept would be based on the same evidence.
 
Upvote 0