"In His Name, the Gentiles will trust" - what will "Evolutionist Gentiles" trust in Him?

[Gottservant]

And we have today's winner. He made it so simple. We don't have to theorize endlessly. Just follow Him and do what He said.

And scientists will be the first to tell you that science is not a source of values, ethics, or morals. You might was well look for values in plumbing. Science can't have rules like that. Fortunately, scientists can.

The truth for me, is that faith avoids obfuscation and science determines the probable.

From this, I deduce that both faith and science have something to say about the truth - the faith more, the science "enough".

Without confusing this then, I do not attempt to limit faith or science, in order to make one work with the other.

The thing to avoid, is a science of obfuscation - which is what I think Evolutionists are doing, when they say there is no religion in science - and the way to keep, is a faith of probabilities - which is what Creationists are doing, when they determine not to lose sight of the point of the Revelation of God.

 

[The Barbarian]

The thing to avoid, is a science of obfuscation - which is what I think Evolutionists are doing, when they say there is no religion in science

Rather, there are no values in science, no ethics, no guide to conduct. We may learn things in science that inform us of moral questions, but science itself has nothing like that.

There is, in science, as there is in religion, a search for the numinous. In either case, if we knew it all, the division would fall away and we'd only see creation.

But we won't know it all until He shows us. This is what "evolutionists" (by which you seem to mean "scientists") are telling you when they point out that science is methodologically naturalistic.

 

[Gottservant]

Rather, there are no values in science, no ethics, no guide to conduct. We may learn things in science that inform us of moral questions, but science itself has nothing like that.

There is, in science, as there is in religion, a search for the numinous. In either case, if we knew it all, the division would fall away and we'd only see creation.

But we won't know it all until He shows us. This is what "evolutionists" (by which you seem to mean "scientists") are telling you when they point out that science is methodologically naturalistic.

To me what you are saying just sounds like obfuscation.

You want the science to be probable, to the point that you call it numinous.

But faith you put off, for another day.

I'm interested in what you mean by "division would fall away": in faith we have the concept of "changing" in the blink of an eye - into what we are supposed to be.

 

[The Barbarian]

To me what you are saying just sounds like obfuscation.

You want the science to be probable, to the point that you call it numinous.

No. I'm pointing out that the search for truth in nature also is a search for that ur-principle. Sometimes, it gets so obvious that we start talking about it in terms of religion. Einstein's "Der Alte", for example. Or the "God particle."

But faith you put off, for another day.

So long as you think that one can't do science and have faith in God, you will continue to delude yourself.

I'm interested in what you mean by "division would fall away"

Nature is His creation, and a miracle itself. It's just that He made it completely consistent and orderly, in a way that lets us understand it to a degree we understand no other miracle. If we got to the bottom of nature, to what it really is, there would be no division between nature and the supernatural.

 

[Gottservant]

I think something that bears weight is the difference, between evolving "something" and evolving "what was asked".

Evolutionists, don't have a concept of "what was asked".

That means they end up in Hell, while believers and people who trust the faith, do not.

 

[The Barbarian]

I think something that bears weight is the difference, between evolving "something" and evolving "what was asked".

If you have to be vague and evasive to defend your new doctrines, that should tell you something.

Evolutionists, don't have a concept of "what was asked".

That's wrong, too. For example I showed you what it was Jesus asked of you in order to be saved. For some reason, you're not willing to accept.

That means they end up in Hell, while believers and people who trust the faith, do not.

If you put your faith in Him, instead of trusting man's doctrines, you'd be assured of salvation. Do it.

 

[Gottservant]

I think what Evolutionists want, is a "resurgence".

That is, "other" observable contexts, in which Evolution at least partially applies.

I'm not sure that that would satisfy them, however - which makes interacting with them as they were, a waste.

 

[The Barbarian]

I think what Evolutionists want, is a "resurgence".

What scientists want is to learn about the reality we have around us. You're projecting, again.

That is, "other" observable contexts, in which Evolution at least partially applies.

I don't know a single biologist who thinks like that. Even the few of them who are creationists don't think like that. You're projecting.

I'm not sure that that would satisfy them, however - which makes interacting with them as they were, a waste.

So long as you shut your eyes and stuff up your ears and shout, it's a waste for you.

 

[Gottservant]

What scientists want is to learn about the reality we have around us. You're projecting, again.

You don't think Evolutionists would be glad to see "Evolutional theory" back in vogue, factually? That stinks a bit.

I don't know a single biologist who thinks like that. Even the few of them who are creationists don't think like that. You're projecting.

The Bible teaches that someone who finds something of great worth to them, will do anything to secure it.

In any case, projecting is not wrong, if the way you do it is open to further interpretation.

So long as you shut your eyes and stuff up your ears and shout, it's a waste for you.

You're not listening: it's a waste for God.
God removes that which is a waste for both of us, but if I have the upper hand and I give it to God, then it is not a waste for God.
In other words, your confidence in the flesh, will undo you (not me).

 

[The Barbarian]

In other words, your confidence in the flesh, will undo you (not me).

Here's some advice for you from a fellow YE creationist...

Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough.
Dr. Todd Wood
The truth about evolution

Give up your idol, and you'll be better off for it.

 

[Gottservant]

Here's some advice for you from a fellow YE creationist...

Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough.
Dr. Todd Wood
The truth about evolution

Give up your idol, and you'll be better off for it.

The point being, you can hate me for my faith in Evolution - I refuse to be loved (for it)!

How else can I take up my cross, for Jesus? Just pandering to Evolution's mores? No!

I hate to break it to you, but we had a world war over this and you have progressed little beyond it, since then.

I can help. I will share a blank slate with anyone that wants it - but I'll be damned if I am going to sit by, while you say "no, we have better than a blank slate now, goodbye!"

 

[The Barbarian]

The point being, you can hate me for my faith in Evolution - I refuse to be loved (for it)!

Do you also have faith in electrical power? Do you love people for electrical power?

Instead of hating or loving reality, just accept it and move on.

 

[The Barbarian]

How else can I take up my cross, for Jesus? Just pandering to Evolution's mores? No!

Evolution has no "mores." You might as well attribute customs to thunderstorms.

I hate to break it to you, but we had a world war over this

No. Let go of your idol, and this will cease to trouble you.

 

[Gottservant]

It has dawned on me, that Evolution is an oxymoron.

The people in the Creation vs Evolution forum, contend that "man" and "animal" are the same thing, but the etymology of these words does not bear that out.

The point is that status as an "oxymoron" means that it is "knowledge" not "meaning".

And if it can't mean anything, it can't evolve!

 

[The Barbarian]

It has dawned on me, that Evolution is an oxymoron.

Perhaps you don't know what "oxymoron" means.

The people in the Creation vs Evolution forum, contend that "man" and "animal" are the same thing,

In the sense that "cookie" and "food" are the same thing. A cookie is a kind of food. Man is a kind of animal. That's not all that he is, but it's one of the things he is.

but the etymology of these words does not bear that out.

The etymology of "cookie" and "food" doesn't either. But you'd be pretty obstinate to deny that a cookie is a kind of food. Words mean things, but they aren't the essence of things.

And if it can't mean anything, it can't evolve!

Since we observe populations evolving constantly, either reality is wrong or you are. Rock and a hard place.

 

[Gottservant]

Perhaps you don't know what "oxymoron" means.

I think its a known unknown, do I?

In the sense that "cookie" and "food" are the same thing. A cookie is a kind of food. Man is a kind of animal. That's not all that he is, but it's one of the things he is.

You are arguing from the general to the specific (food is old English, cookie is 1700) I was arguing from the specific to the general (man is from 1000 animal is from 1400).

The etymology of "cookie" and "food" doesn't either. But you'd be pretty obstinate to deny that a cookie is a kind of food. Words mean things, but they aren't the essence of things.

No compute. Jesus said "my words are spirit and they are life" (from memory, gospels).

Since we observe populations evolving constantly, either reality is wrong or you are. Rock and a hard place.

You can evolve a known unknown, please tell?

 

[The Barbarian]

You are arguing from the general to the specific (food is old English, cookie is 1700)

You are arguing from the general (animal) to the specific (human).

I was arguing from the specific to the general (man is from 1000 animal is from 1400).

No, that's wrong. "Animal" is from ancient Latin. Much, much older. The general came first, then the specific.

 

[Gottservant]

I had a thought, that may shed light on what Evolution means.

Theoretically, if a contingent species develops from a human one, certain adaptations will be appropriate for the new species and others not.

If Evolution is true, there must be an adaptation that speeds up the separate from the old species - preserving the adaptations that are suitable, in the new.

I know, its a weird corollary, but it shows that if you are not ready to make the split, you are not ready to Evolve?

I'm not saying that's wrong, but it proves there is an element of agency, that random chance, can't account for.

I'm not sure how I should share this with the Evolutionists on this board, your thoughts are welcome!

 

[The Barbarian]

I'm not sure how I should share this with the Evolutionists on this board, your thoughts are welcome!

Probably, you should spend a little time learning what evolution is, and how we observe it working. Then you wouldn't need to imagine all sorts of weird things.

Darwin's great discovery, BTW, was that it's not a random process. That's just one of many things you've got wrong about it all.

 

[Gottservant]

I think maybe the answer to my question, is that Evolutionists need to believe they have the "moment" - that is, that Evolution happens in a "moment", that they have.

This is similar to the Christian faith, in that we believe that we started "unknowing" and reached a moment, where our perspective changed - and that "changed" moment became the foundation of what we now believe.

So the "moment" is something that Evolutionists carry with them: that from the moment they believed Evolution was true, they were able to call Evolution "momentous" - a fact that guided their interpretation from that moment on.

I arrived at this conclusion, after I realized that you cannot evolve an oxymoron - a certain degree of consistency is needed for Evolution to "hang together", a "moment" provides this.