For reference, this is what was said:
And this is what was quoted
You don't understand appropriacy, or you would have made it simpler for me to understand.
If you don't have a standard that you are aiming for, how do you say "You are wrong"?
Yet we know from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the Garden of Eden, that everything has a standard - and we ignore it to our peril: if I die evolved without faith in God, are you going to resurrect me?
But I
do have a standard that I am aiming for: I wish for you to discuss the theory of evolution accurately and you repeatedly refuse to learn that you have made mistakes in your understanding.
If there is a God, then there is a right and wrong way of interpreting "Evolution".
God's existence doesn't change that.
Your interpretation is false. The theory of evolution has a meaning and even if Creation was true and evolution was not an accurate description of reality, your interpretation would still be false.
For example: "In the Star Wars movies Darth Vader is a former Jedi Knight who wears black suit." is an accurate statement despite Darth Vader not being real.
And I repent, if I have done something for Evolution the wrong way (I do not need to wallow in guilt, about misinterpreting what Evolution meant). Just as you should repent, if you have done something for Creation the wrong way (and not be frustrated that you did not have perfect faith, from the outset).
I don't care about repentance, I care that you repeatedly and willfully present false statements about evolution.
If I have misrepresented Creation in any way, I'd appreciate soeone informing me so that I didn't make that mistake again.
But you do need to believe in it, to know whether your will is in agreement with what it proposes your purpose should be.
I understand that this is a spiritual question, but if you don't address the spirit first, nothing you can do in your own strength, will profit you.
Unless you understand what something is you can't be able to believe it. If you have false information then your belief or disbelief apples to the false version not the actual matter at hand.
And I extrapolated from the evidence that Evolution is something that species can do, without changing from one into the other - but no one is interested, in part I think, because they have failed to awake their spirit, to the struggle that their species is in. If you had diverse ways of attempting to adapt, you would have evidence that your Evolution was changing over time. But now you say "our Evolution stays the same, regardless of the work we undertake" therefore your work continues to be inappropriate.
It is a process that occurs to species... species are not independent agents with decision making ability.
Evolution is not a choice or a decision nor is it a possession of either an individual or a species.
Monkeys climb trees and pick nits and fight over prowess of aggression, all things you can reason doing as a Man, in contexts where Man's knowledge has continued to grow.
Yet you say "no, if I built a house I would not put branches for swinging on, around it, because the time as monkey, that I posit was common to all of us, is now inappropriately out of context, for how I really really do, want to build a house". You can't understand how confusing that is?
It applies to all sorts of things, how we plan, socialise, build - the common thread between monkey survival and Man survival carries no tradition with it whatsoever. But independently there are traditions for both. That points to something else being behind the parallel the developments of both have evidenced.
A monkey and a human has a vastly different environment, history and behavior.
Millions of years of apes and early humans separate monkeys from humanity, so changes have occured.
You have never clearly described what and how this should be different.
The point remains the same "the evolution of a specific survival, is different than the optimum for that survival"
You are trying to pull the wool over my eyes, that if I take the cake I get a candy bar for free too - regardless of the fact that I can't eat the cake.
The point "the evolution of a specific survival, is different than the optimum for that survival" doesn't make sense in the context of evolution.
Neither "specific survival" nor "optimum for that survival" sensibly line up with any part of the theory of evolution.
Can you present a specific example of either?
