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

[Gottservant]

I wonder what Evolutionists would say, if all I did was rephrase the question?

Like would it upset them, that I am equally curious as to how you might think Evolution worked, as they are to believe it works (but not explain how)??

When I think of what Evolutionist Gentiles will trust about Jesus, that they will be questioned, is not really something encouraging (what is needed is something encouraging?)?

 

[Gottservant]

I think the thing that wins evolutionists over, in the end, will be something that addresses selection pressure.

There is a huge black box mentality to selection pressure, when really it should be your chosen "mate", that shares your strength in that area, the most.

What I mean by that is, if you are a tiger and you want to win a tigress over to your lineage, you can do better than pretend there is something terrible selectively, that has power over the two of you together - really, you want to say "here is part of a selection pressure, that I have adapted for,, and you complete it (your adaptation to this selection pressure matters)"

I'm basically saying "where is Evolutionist's virtue signalling?"

 

[Brightmoon]

Since you don’t understand evolution . You continually equate evolution with atheism which is like comparing rocks to boiled eggs . Anyone who knows what evolution is thinks that’s silly

 

[Gottservant]

I really want to know what the answer to this thread, is.

I think the thing is that "Evolution" is a good defence, against a fool who continually asks for more.

If a fool is only ever going to ask for more, sure, tell him he will change forever.

But if the fool ever wants to repent, its on your head if you don't tell him the gospel?

 

[Brightmoon]

Evolution is just a fact of nature that creationists, for some weird reason, continually lie about. What’s the point in lying about a fact of nature? What does a fact of nature have to do with supernatural causation ?

 

[Gottservant]

Evolution is just a fact of nature that creationists, for some weird reason, continually lie about. What’s the point in lying about a fact of nature? What does a fact of nature have to do with supernatural causation ?

The problem is Evolutionists claim to "see" all they need to "know".

Hope that is seen, is not hope - for how does one hope in what one sees? Romans 8:24.

There are choices that we make in life, that are known only to God - it is Him that we should be aiming to please!

 

[Brightmoon]

Evolution is a fact of nature , period . Pretending that mystical woo or atheism is added to it is just pointless and silly . Denying that it happens and that it has happened in the past is just lying to yourself.

 

[Gottservant]

Evolution is a fact of nature , period . Pretending that mystical woo or atheism is added to it is just pointless and silly . Denying that it happens and that it has happened in the past is just lying to yourself.

What happens is not necessarily what we want to happen?

That's all I'm saying??

The time will come when you see my point, but I wonder: will it be too late???

 

[Brightmoon]

You’re basically saying that believing in an unverified incoherent tale is more Important than believing the truth and that God will be mad at me because I don’t believe an unverified and incoherent story is a history . Not buying it, go sell that nonsense to someone else

 

[Gottservant]

You’re basically saying that believing in an unverified incoherent tale is more Important than believing the truth and that God will be mad at me because I don’t believe an unverified and incoherent story is a history . Not buying it, go sell that nonsense to someone else

God will be mad at you? You will be mad at yourself!

You may leave no room for hope, but one day you will wish you had.

As for what to believe, I have never found anything to compare to the words of Jesus - if you think you can compete with Him as to the nature of truth, by all means, try to develop even a handful of sayings as good as His.

 

[Brightmoon]

I won’t be mad at myself. If you get fooled into believing a lie that’s when you get mad at yourself. Evolution was demonstrated clearly by Darwin and Wallace over a 160 years ago . No one has refuted any of the theories of evolution. A few minor facts have been corrected but the overwhelming majority of the facts of evolution still stand . What do you have besides a few conflicting and confusing bible verses ?

 

[Gottservant]

I think the thing is, is that if there was a beginning - even if - there would still be multiple ways of interpreting it.

Like the blind men examining the Elephant: it is not clear to any of them, that the one Elephant is like the many animals (animals, that they see in the Elephant - the snake for the trunk, the rhinoceros for the tusk, the hippopotamus for the feet, the horse for the tail).

Genesis looks at perfection, Ezekiel looks at the faith, Jesus looks at male and female, John looks at the word - all these things are interpretations of the same beginning and each interpretation serves its own purpose. We do not look at the perfection of the beginning and say "I have no need of giving it a word"; we do not look at the faith and say "I have no need that it be male and female" - all these things are inter-related; the world looks at us and says "they have an opinion, about the beginning, I will have one too" but they do not consult God, as to what interpretation was needed.

So I think it will be evident, that Man is in need of God, whatever He discovers about the beginning - simply because it is too complicated to graft everything, on the same foundational knowledge. There may be successive grafting, as with the passing of the time of History, but there will be no conclusion that men ought to stop thinking of the beginning, in anything other than a "particular" way. I would even stand to benefit, if there was just one interpretation, but I don't seek it, because I see Wisdom, in how God has set out the greater point that can be made, when you trust His timing.

And that is basically it, if it exists in time at all, it has a beginning and if it has a beginning, the timing of that beginning, is more crucial than the interpretations of it!

 

[Brightmoon]

The story of the blind men and the elephant is a perfect description of zoology before Linnaeus gave us his system . Darwin and Wallace just expanded it by saying that all of life are distant cousins. (even Linnaeus thought so but he couldn’t say that in public in the 1700s. He does mention it in a private letter)

 

[The Barbarian]

What I mean by that is, if you are a tiger and you want to win a tigress over to your lineage, you can do better than pretend there is something terrible selectively, that has power over the two of you together - really, you want to say "here is part of a selection pressure, that I have adapted for,, and you complete it (your adaptation to this selection pressure matters)"

Most tigers don't live to reproductive age. Those with qualities that make them more efficient hunters, and able to exclude other tigers from their territory, tend to live. So selection is already underway. Female tigers tend to be more attracted by male tigers exhibiting signs of fitness like size, energetic behavior, and dominance over other tigers.

I'm basically saying "where is Evolutionist's virtue signalling?"

It doesn't work the way you seem to suppose, in a mostly asocial species like tigers. Perhaps you don't know what the term "virtue signaling" means, or how it came to be. It's a totally meaningless term for a solitary organism like a tiger.

 

[The Barbarian]

(even Linnaeus thought so but he couldn’t say that in public in the 1700s. He does mention it in a private letter)

"I demand of you, and of the whole world, that you show me a generic character—one that is according to generally accepted principles of classification, by which to distinguish between Man and Ape. I myself most assuredly know of none. …But, if I had called man an ape, or vice versa, I should have fallen under the ban of all the ecclesiastics. It may be that as a naturalist I ought to have done so.“
Zdroj: https://citaty-slavnych.sk/citaty/1...emand-of-you-and-of-the-whole-world-that-you/

 

[Gottservant]

I think what it is, is the "prodigal son" syndrome.

Evolutionists, don't necessarily want to 'change the genome', but they want the freedom to define their sin, the way they see fit - Christ is not necessarily against this.

If in the end, they win the luck of the genetic prize draw, good for them - but if they fail in some way that can't be mended, they expect the faith to be there (to go back to).

This takes prayer and fasting and is a snare to the faith, if it (the faith) does not hold its own ground.

At some point, the unfaithful will be cut off, but in the meantime: many might be saved.

The point is, that there is a peak performance, for a species - but a species is not necessarily "in the zone" so to speak, with that peak: even if the species were able to reach the zone, it is not guaranteed that the species would be able to 'stay in the zone'. There might be calls for people to try, but ultimately, it is a struggle between Jesus and the Devil, to drive out the wilful sin that so easily ensnares the anti-Christ.

I think if we need to pray anything, it is that people experience the conviction that Christ inspired at the cross and that if we need to fast anything, it be led by the Holy Spirit.

When the world's faith runs out, we will be there, it's just a matter of forgiveness whether the world falls in the end, or can stand on its own two feet.

 

[Brightmoon]

No Gottservant , we “ evolutionists” are not prodigals , we just see no point , and honestly think it’s dangerous, ignorant and stupid to lie about natural phenomena

 

[Hazelelponi]

No Gottservant , we “ evolutionists” are not prodigals , we just see no point , and honestly think it’s dangerous, ignorant and stupid to lie about natural phenomena

Dangerous to lie?

In a 2008 paper published in the journal Philosophy and Public Affairs, Thomas Nagel takes issue with the conclusion reached by the judge in the famous 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case in which intelligent design was deemed not to be science and therefore unworthy to be taught in science classes. Nagel writes:

"The political urge to defend science education against the threats of religious orthodoxy, understandable though it is, has resulted in a counterorthodoxy, supported by bad arguments, and a tendency to overstate the legitimate scientific claims of evolutionary theory."

Nagel is not convinced that the empirical evidence supporting standard evolutionary theory is nearly as unassailable as the defenders of evolutionary orthodoxy claim. Without this unassailable empirical evidence, Nagel argues, barring any mention of intelligent design from the biology classroom is based just as much on a preconceived religious bias as are arguments for its inclusion. For Nagel, decisively ruling intelligent design out of the classroom "would require that the sufficiency of standard evolutionary mechanisms to account for the entire evolution of life should have been clearly established by presently available evidence. So far as I can tell, in spite of the rhetoric to the contrary, nothing close to this has been done."

It is truly noteworthy that a philosopher of Nagel's academic standing and reputation would risk putting that reputation on the line by criticizing standard evolutionary theory and even suggesting that intelligent design cannot be summarily dismissed just because of its religious implications—and that it may even have a role to play in the scientific classroom!

Nagel followed up this article with a small book published in 2012 with the provocative title "Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False" (Oxford University Press). There he writes:

Physico-chemical reductionism in biology is the orthodox view, and any resistance to it is regarded as not only scientifically but politically incorrect. But for a long time I have found the materialist account of how we and our fellow organisms came to exist hard to believe, including the standard version of how the evolutionary process works. The more details we learn about the chemical basis of life and the intricacies of the genetic code, the more unbelievable the standard historical account becomes.

Nagel realizes just how controversial his claims are, writing:

I realize that such doubts will strike many people as outrageous, but that is because almost everyone in our secular culture has been browbeaten into regarding the reductive research program as sacrosanct, on the ground that anything else would not be science.

Intelligent Design—It's not just for evangelicals

 

[Brightmoon]

Intelligent design is pseudoscience! There’s no verifiable evidence that’s supports it so teaching it as science would be lying

 

[Hazelelponi]

Intelligent design is pseudoscience! There’s no verifiable evidence that’s supports it so teaching it as science would be lying

There's no evidence that intelligent design is incorrect either, nor complete empirical evidence for Darwinism either that explains everything.

It's all theory... and when it's all based on theory any theory is equally valid, including intelligent design.