Syncopating competing "evolutions", can't happen without "design"

[Gottservant]

Hi there,

So, simple truth:

Syncopating competing "evolutions", can't happen without "design"

The idea is simply this: if you have differing members of a species, all intent on winning the same mate, that mate won't be able to bond with a particular member (of the species) without a) comparing her design with his, b) prompting his design with hers and c) staying true to both their designs together.

In other words, "evolution" may be the competing idea behind advancing survival, but it is not the final word, nor can it rule further word out - whether "evolution" does well or not, still depends on "design".

If you can understand this, you will understand why it is that Creationists, can't simply "forget design" however intelligent it may be, for taking a chance on Evolution, however poorly it may be thought out.

Design does not prove God exists, any more than it suggests God inserted design where it was strategically ingenuous - the choice between design and evolution has always existed, it is God that keeps its potential relevance in view, for those things He wants to have Created. Saying you can orient to being hunted on your own, is like saying you want to take a chance with your life, because you "like" it (the life). People may flock to being "evolutionistic" but in the end, that makes you more prey to the Devil than anything else.

Lord forgive us for putting our Evolution before others and for defaming Creation as being weaker than us, help us to find your seed, that we may grow by it - in Your Name Amen.

 

[Shemjaza]

Hi there,

So, simple truth:

The idea is simply this: if you have differing members of a species, all intent on winning the same mate, that mate won't be able to bond with a particular member (of the species) without a) comparing her design with his, b) prompting his design with hers and c) staying true to both their designs together.

In other words, "evolution" may be the competing idea behind advancing survival, but it is not the final word, nor can it rule further word out - whether "evolution" does well or not, still depends on "design".

If you can understand this, you will understand why it is that Creationists, can't simply "forget design" however intelligent it may be, for taking a chance on Evolution, however poorly it may be thought out.

Design does not prove God exists, any more than it suggests God inserted design where it was strategically ingenuous - the choice between design and evolution has always existed, it is God that keeps its potential relevance in view, for those things He wants to have Created. Saying you can orient to being hunted on your own, is like saying you want to take a chance with your life, because you "like" it (the life). People may flock to being "evolutionistic" but in the end, that makes you more prey to the Devil than anything else.

Lord forgive us for putting our Evolution before others and for defaming Creation as being weaker than us, help us to find your seed, that we may grow by it - in Your Name Amen.

Nonsense.

Once again you are misusing the terms and concepts about evolution.

Evolution isn't a choice, it isn't a philosophy, it isn't a possession, it isn't a trait and it doesn't apply to individuals.

You've been told this before. It's dishonest and disrespectful to keep repeating these lies on the forum.

 

[Gottservant]

Nonsense.

Once again you are misusing the terms and concepts about evolution.

Evolution isn't a choice, it isn't a philosophy, it isn't a possession, it isn't a trait and it doesn't apply to individuals.

You've been told this before. It's dishonest and disrespectful to keep repeating these lies on the forum.

If two creatures mate at a different rate to each other, they will never have children - that's just a fact.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Hi there,

So, simple truth:

The idea is simply this: if you have differing members of a species, all intent on winning the same mate, that mate won't be able to bond with a particular member (of the species) without a) comparing her design with his, b) prompting his design with hers and c) staying true to both their designs together.

In other words, "evolution" may be the competing idea behind advancing survival, but it is not the final word, nor can it rule further word out - whether "evolution" does well or not, still depends on "design".

If you can understand this, you will understand why it is that Creationists, can't simply "forget design" however intelligent it may be, for taking a chance on Evolution, however poorly it may be thought out.

Design does not prove God exists, any more than it suggests God inserted design where it was strategically ingenuous - the choice between design and evolution has always existed, it is God that keeps its potential relevance in view, for those things He wants to have Created. Saying you can orient to being hunted on your own, is like saying you want to take a chance with your life, because you "like" it (the life). People may flock to being "evolutionistic" but in the end, that makes you more prey to the Devil than anything else.

Lord forgive us for putting our Evolution before others and for defaming Creation as being weaker than us, help us to find your seed, that we may grow by it - in Your Name Amen.

Please pray for an understanding of evolution. It will get you a lot further than your continual misreprentations.

 

[Gottservant]

Lord thankyou for an opportunity to pray for the understanding of the faith, specifically as relates to "Evolution".

We know that you mean for Evolution to bring our survival into view and that it is by You that we survive.

We also know that those that are disingenuous about Creation, would suggest that it can be done without You, the very thing that is refuted here - Lord, have mercy.

We pray - as all believers pray the faith of other believers, in Spirit and in truth - that those who are disingenuous find the agreement they are looking for (may they find agreement and not nothing, let the reader discern) - in Your Name Jesus, Amen.

 

[AV1611VET]

The idea is simply this: if you have differing members of a species, all intent on winning the same mate, that mate won't be able to bond with a particular member (of the species) without a) comparing her design with his, b) prompting his design with hers and c) staying true to both their designs together.

This is true.

But why would different members of a species vie for the same mate?

Why, for instance, would a bull even want to compete with a stallion for a mare?

Or is that the point you're making? that syncopation prevents it?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If two creatures mate at a different rate to each other, they will never have children - that's just a fact.

That makes no sense. There is no mating at a different rate. Different animals have a different gestation period, that is a fact, but mating is just... I don't think I can make the joke I want to make on this site. But in animals it's very quick.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is no mating at a different rate.

So either way = no children.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So either way = no children.

I don't get how you got that from what I said. There is no mating a different rates. There is either mating or no mating. It's a very abstract and binary concept.

 

[AV1611VET]

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

There is no 'different rate'.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is no 'different rate'.

I agree.

But maybe he's talking about ... um ... rhythm or something?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I agree.

But maybe he's talking about ... um ... rhythm or something?

Can we even talk about that sort of thing on this website?

But, no, I very much doubt he is.

 

[AV1611VET]

Can we even talk about that sort of thing on this website?

Let's hope not.

 

[Shemjaza]

If two creatures mate at a different rate to each other, they will never have children - that's just a fact.

What do you mean by "mate at a different rate"?

If creatures can't mate then they are different species, and they aren't going to have descendants to evolve.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If two creatures mate at a different rate to each other, they will never have children - that's just a fact.

Lol! - as if there are no families where the husband has been unfaithful...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... if you have differing members of a species, all intent on winning the same mate, that mate won't be able to bond with a particular member (of the species) without a) comparing her design with his, b) prompting his design with hers and c) staying true to both their designs together.

In other words, "evolution" may be the competing idea behind advancing survival, but it is not the final word, nor can it rule further word out - whether "evolution" does well or not, still depends on "design".

This is either begging the question (circular argument) or equivocation of 'design' (or both), but it still manages to be a nonsensical description of sexual selection.

 

[Phred]

Hi there,

So, simple truth:

If you didn't have misunderstanding you wouldn't have anything.

 

[Gottservant]

This is true.

But why would different members of a species vie for the same mate?

Why, for instance, would a bull even want to compete with a stallion for a mare?

Or is that the point you're making? that syncopation prevents it?

That's right, syncopation only happens within the species.

Design is a foregone conclusion, because it helps mates focus on their love.

It's like starting a fire, you don't wait to see the flame, you start making sparks.

 

[Gottservant]

Cicadas can mate in two different mating periods, because there is a variation of a common design.

If cicadas tried to mutate their mating period, they would die - there would be no one to mate with them.

Your idea that "some would mutate the right period, and others would not" defeats the whole purpose of mating in numbers.

If mating in numbers, is by design, then you can build on what you think is the right period for you (given feedback about what your options are).