That isn't a coherent question, because evolution isn't a moral question.
No.You can't say something isn't "coherent", because it falls out of the sphere of your influence - that's like saying a bad apple is a reflection of the apple tree, in general.
The context, the subtext, timing of the apple, is what determines whether it will be a bad apple.
You're trying to tell me there is no reason for what you know, but that I am somehow wrong - but how can I be wrong, if there is no reason to be right?
Using your fruity analogy, it's like saying "a bad apple is a reflection of the peach tree, in general." It's a meaningless expression.You can't say something isn't "coherent", because it falls out of the sphere of your influence - that's like saying a bad apple is a reflection of the apple tree, in general.
But you don't get apples from peach trees. So your point has no meaning.The context, the subtext, timing of the apple, is what determines whether it will be a bad apple.
No, you're wrong because you're talking nonsense.You're trying to tell me there is no reason for what you know, but that I am somehow wrong - but how can I be wrong, if there is no reason to be right?
Are the connections from or to? Or even through?
[...]
But you need to ask yourself, how permanent is a connection and why? That, surely @Gottservant answers your question concerning limits.
If you want me to be specific as to the eigenution (the creating of links, to be called functionally "evolved") of your words and understanding
you will have to permit me to re-engineer the methodology which you employ
Where do you feel I come closest to the truth as you see it?You are closer to the truth, than you think.
Cleary we understand each other almost totally; as if we were brothers. I wonder if you are comfortable with me sharing that unpalatable truth with the other members. (The yellow brick road was a long one, but the denoument could lead to someone being oztracised.I have begun to understand that almost everything done in the name of Evolution, is a compounding of sense: word yet believed function, as though stopping in the processing of makes all the more manifest?
If you want me to be specific as to the eigenution (the creating of links, to be called functionally "evolved") of your words and understanding, you will have to permit me to re-engineer the methodology which you employ to create that eigenution or like it - I cannot hand over a weaker sense of Evolution, simply because you ask me to? As if by that I would understand the working of Evolution, in part, attempting to?
There is no suppressive eigenution that will prove Evolution strong: that is simply not its function.
I have begun to understand that almost everything done in the name of Evolution
Hi there,
So I just want to appeal to mercy for a moment, is there a connection that you can't recruit for Evolution?
When you beg the question, you can't beg the question of something that is the foundation - you can't for example question meaning, if you question the reality of someone who might find that meaning (either they exist independent of meaning, or not, but they do not "not exist" because you question that existence).
So if you are begging the question of connection, for Evolution's sake, you can't fundamentally expect a connection to mean more Evolution, if you question the creature's ability to sustain that connection - there has to be a limit to how much you recruit for Evolution's sake; you can't have your cake and eat it too?
So in context, for example: what if I said "you won't be able to Evolve further, if you fail to develop this mutation"? Would being left out of Evolution, somehow mean that I don't survive, when I already have enough to survive by? What is that phenomenon? What is it that leaves you in free fall, away from a homogeneous understanding of Evolution? Where is the foundation that tells you "this is how long your Evolution has left"?
I mean we need to be able to work this out, if we are to beat climate change, right? If everyone has an indefinite clock, there is no way to prevent wasting our resources? That makes sense, right?
I am interested to see what you say the limit is.
Again, you could have just asked someone to explain what "begging the question" means, you don't seem to understand.In Biblical terms, the question that was not supposed to be begged was how much of the forbidden fruit you could eat without sinning.
We moved beyond that in Christendom, to the question "how do you pay for the difference, if you do (eat the forbidden)?"
If there is no such thing in Evolution, I am afraid to say it: but that means there is no foundational knowledge worth preserving in Evolution, at best.
You are contradicting the importance of experienced knowledge - saying Evolution is post *substitute here*, for no reason - when the purity of an expectation is foundationally the beginning of a passage to greater justification.
You are positing the greater justification, but you are not justifying it.
The forbidden fruit was forbidden because apparently your deity did not want his creations to understand the difference between good and evil.I just mean it as plainly as it sounds:
In Creation we have the forbidden fruit.
What in Evolution, is a forbidden connection?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?