• 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.

In the mating game, first impressions count most

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by Gottservant, Feb 14, 2020.

  1. Gottservant

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

    +319
    Messianic
    Hi there,

    So there is a something massive I didn't count on when setting out to work out the relationship between Creation and Evolution: First Impressions. First impressions are simply the instinct first presented to a potential mate, that help define the relationship in a way that develops a stronger union between the two. Without first impressions, it would never be possible to tell whether a mate was a suitable candidate or not. Put simply: first impressions have to make a good first impression or mating is almost completely without a chance of successfully creating offspring.

    So what does this prove about Creation? Well, Creation establishes that there is a design behind the first impressions being made: in other words, Creation has the advertizing material, to prove that there is more of a reason to mate, than less. And this relates to Evolution, how? That's the problem: Evolution has no foundation on which to base a relationship. You would have to argue that Evolution learns to make a good first impression, after it is too late to make a good first impression. In other words, Evolution's chance of finding a mate is continually diminishing, down to the point that it concedes there is a design on which to base it.

    So I say "call Evolution's bluff"! At the point that Evolution makes any impression at all, it will have had no other choice, but to copy from all the other potential mates it is competing with, down to the last point, where it finally admits there is a design. You just can't get around it; it is Evolutionarily sound logic, that Evolution defeats itself as a competitor,, beginning as it does with so few rules, that it doesn't know when to start. How do you come at it any other way? What first impression does Evolution make, that somehow puts it ahead of the first impression that Creation keeps making?

    I am happy to hear your comments, on first impressions.

    Thanks.
     
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. Gottservant

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

    +319
    Messianic
    Make sure you understand the fundamental principle: "I have the same design as you" is essentially an instant "like".
     
  3. GaveMeJoy

    GaveMeJoy Well-Known Member

    691
    +457
    United States
    Christian
    Divorced
    I don’t get it lol
     
  4. Gottservant

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

    +319
    Messianic
    What don't you get - if you don't mind my asking?

    That something that's designed has more of a chance of finding a mate??

    Or that Evolution that has to evolve an impression, for the sake of a mate,, doesn't know where to start???
     
  5. Shemjaza

    Shemjaza Regular Member Supporter

    +1,939
    Australia
    Atheist
    Single
    AU-Greens
    Evolution doesn't mate.

    It's a description of how life changes over generations... it isn't an animal itself, so it doesn't mate and doesn't make first impressions.

    Creation also doesn't mate, it's term for the belief in an intelligent creator/designer responsible for life or the universe.
     
  6. Gottservant

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

    +319
    Messianic
    If Evolution doesn't mate, it can't perpetuate the species?

    Change over generations is supposed to make an impression??

    Creation has a whole book on the subject and you dismiss it???
     
  7. OldWiseGuy

    OldWiseGuy Wake me when it's soup. Supporter

    +7,431
    United States
    Protestant
    Single
    US-Others
    I was dazzled by evolution when I was first introduced to it in 8th grade biology (first impression). However as I grew older I became less impressed. It's like meeting a beautiful girl for the first time who is primped and made up to impress, only to see her later without the revealing apparel and makeup.
     
  8. Gottservant

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

    +319
    Messianic
    Sir, the sanity you speak is like fresh water to a dehydrated soul.

    I still feel as though Evolution could prove useful, if it didn't claim the moral high ground (at least, for something that is not moral).

    Moral people advance the cause of good, more than those that make a difference in the name of cause alone.
     
  9. Shemjaza

    Shemjaza Regular Member Supporter

    +1,939
    Australia
    Atheist
    Single
    AU-Greens
    It doesn't have a species to perpetuate.

    Animals who have evolved mate, but that doesn't mean that evolution mates.

    No, it's irrelevant to the point.

    Evolution isn't an animal. Evolution isn't a trait. Evolution is just a description for how inheritance leads to changes in species.

    There is nothing in the Bible that implies that creation mates.

    Creation also isn't an animal and it isn't a trait.
     
  10. Gottservant

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

    +319
    Messianic
    Can't you understand that unless "Evolution" advances some kind of action as being preferred, at the very least: that it is in danger of being called "immoral"?

    Partially right, most of the time, is moral.

    This literally is the difference between a trait being desired, to be passed on and not (passed on at all).
     
  11. Shemjaza

    Shemjaza Regular Member Supporter

    +1,939
    Australia
    Atheist
    Single
    AU-Greens
    Evolution doesn't have morals, it isn't a person. It's just a description of how life changes.

    Evolution isn't really even relevant to morality.

    Morality is about choices between good and evil, right an wrong. It's complicated and contentious... but it has virtually nothing to do with genetic variation passed to offspring.

    That is not a sensible definition of morality.


    What trait? How does that relate to your description of creation or evolution having the ability to mate?
     
  12. Gottservant

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

    +319
    Messianic
    But your understanding of animals mating, evolves your understanding of "Evolution"?

    But you are trying to make an impression, on me? Now??

    Jacob caused goats to take on specks and dots - but that's only nominal Evolution?

    Without the forbidden fruit, no one would ever have developed the theory of Evolution?

    God had a choice to Create, but in your opinion He made a mistake letting men question it, from an Evolutionary perspective?

    I have already explained the advantage of believing in Creation in Evolutionary terms (because it gives you foundation on which to base your interest in others of the species), but I can't have the advantage because you are going to do what about it?
     
  13. Gottservant

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

    +319
    Messianic
    If it is impossible to be moral, you are being severely cheated.

    It is called the Silver Line and it is just as important to morality as the Golden Rule.

    Creation defines defining good as good - for example.

    Evolution defines defining good as a necessary evil - ?

    Or perhaps you see that comparing species with species has confused you??
     
  14. Shemjaza

    Shemjaza Regular Member Supporter

    +1,939
    Australia
    Atheist
    Single
    AU-Greens
    Using two different definitions of a single word in a sentence is a bad idea.

    Mating and interaction of animals is relevant to the evolution of their species. Studying this could improve someones understanding of evolution in general.

    You are proposing muddled and false ideas about what evolution is and I am trying to point that out.

    The literal reading of the narrative seems to indicate that Jacob had the ability to miraculously genetically engineer animals using a staff.

    If it were possible it would be relevant to evolution because the spotted/striped traits seemed to breed true.

    I think a more reasonable reading is that Jacob encouraged the spotted and striped traits... which is completely reasonable example of evolution as a random trait became an advantage withing the very specific environment of being looked after by Jacob.

    There isn't an evolutionary perspective on creation or the belief in creation.

    It's not a genetic trait, so it isn't an evolutionary advantage.


    I have morals, people have morals... evolution doesn't have morals and isn't relevant to morals.

    Seems like a vague and exploitable way of looking at morals. It seems to imply that you are also "Partially wrong most of the time".


    Evolution doesn't define good at all. It's not a moral philosophy, as I've said before it's exclusively a description of how life changes genetically.

    What species and how are you comparing them?
     
  15. Gottservant

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

    +319
    Messianic
    Let's focus on just this: I said "Without the forbidden fruit, no one would ever have developed the theory of Evolution?"

    You said:
    Do you see how your answer, effectively short changes God?

    I mean here you have a Creator, who creates a world, puts forbidden fruit in it and in the event that the forbidden fruit is abused, He sends His Son to pay the price for all those negatively affected by the consumption (of the forbidden fruit) and people who for all intents and purposes should be rejoicing that they don't have to die as well, simply say "no comment"?

    Then I come along and say "well, even if you don't believe in God creating, at least offer your perspective on the efficacy of design in the mating ritual?" and your answer is again "no comment"?

    And I am to understand that if I develop an extension of Evolution that applies specifically to humans, I will again get the answer "no comment"??

    It wouldn't even be a problem that your theory was partial or less effective than thought, but you don't even try to assess one aspect of Creation in relation to another, with the hope that God will reveal something - as though, you in your absence of belief are still more committed than you would be if you gave to charity just as much, for example???
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2020
  16. Shemjaza

    Shemjaza Regular Member Supporter

    +1,939
    Australia
    Atheist
    Single
    AU-Greens
    That's the thing, evolution isn't a person and creation and God are not relevant to the study of evolution.

    Many Christians think that God created evolution and that it follows his plan... but that doesn't effect evolution.

    Evolution would be demonstrably true if life spontaneously came from non life; it would would be true if God specifically crafted the first life and let it go; it would even be true if God created the modern animals 6000 years ago.\

    We see evolution continuing to happen and the evidence indicated that it's the source of all diversity.

    Absolutely individual traits of life can be commented on from the perspective of evolution... but creation and belief are not genetic traits so are irrelevant.

    If this extension was actually about genetic traits that could be inherited by humans, then it is certainly relevant to evolution.

    However, if you just assert that some thing this isn't an evolved trait is connected to evolution, then you would be making a mistake.

    I'm happy to assess aspects of creation... but it has to make internal sense.

    Evolution seems to be significant to creationists because they see it as an attack on the creation of man, and thus on man's salvation.

    Evolution demonstrates that humans are not descended from a single pair of specially created humans about 6000 years ago, but that is just a side effect of the evidence, not the purpose.

    The purpose of the theory of evolution is just to explain life using the evidence of the world.
     
  17. Lazarus Long

    Lazarus Long Member

    337
    +101
    Australia
    Atheist
    Married
    No it doesn't. Creation is an unattributed story in an ancient book, it has no basis in truth.
     
  18. Lazarus Long

    Lazarus Long Member

    337
    +101
    Australia
    Atheist
    Married
    Define moral people.
     
  19. essentialsaltes

    essentialsaltes Stranger in a Strange Land

    +11,484
    Atheist
    Legal Union (Other)
    It's not surprising that I have a similar but completely opposite take to yours. We know that in many churches, anti-evolution is taught. This extends, naturally, to the Sunday schools for children. The first impression children receive of evolution is a negative one, reinforced by weekly messages and the theology of the church. It's no wonder this early indoctrination is hard to overcome by science education.
     
  20. Warden_of_the_Storm

    Warden_of_the_Storm Well-Known Member

    +3,683
    United Kingdom
    Deist
    Single
    Gottservant, you really need to wrap your head around this simple fact: evolution is not a thing. It is not an animal, a person, an object, or any tangible thing. Evolution is a biological event; it is the process of the change of alleles of an organism due to outside pressure.
     
Loading...