Unsimplifiability, proves Darwin was not intent on developing a working theory...

[Jude1:3Contendforthefaith]

Sometimes advanced Christian monastics will even purposely be Fools for Christ and often employ shocking and unconventional behavior to challenge accepted norms, deliver prophecies, or to mask their piety.

Foolishness for Christ - Wikipedia

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

The learned Christians are usually able to help reach those in that particular field.

So it would make sense the get some learning and education if just to help your fellow Christians ?

 

[Jude1:3Contendforthefaith]

So it would make sense the get some learning and education if just to help your fellow Christians ?

Yes that would be a good idea.

With that being said though, there are somethings that can only be spiritually discerned and will only sound foolish to unbelievers.



But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
• 1 Corinthians 2:14

 

[Danielwright2311]

You want evolution explained in simple words? Okay.

If you have a population of animals, each individual will be slightly different. No two individuals will be exactly the same. Sometimes, these differences help the individual animal a little, and sometimes, the differences are a slight disadvantage.

If an individual has a difference that gives it a slight advantage, then this individual will be better able to withstand some pressure it is put under. It could be an advantage that gives it slightly more stamina, so it is more likely to escape when a predator attacks. Maybe it is better able to deal with droughts. But it will be more likely to survive long enough to produce offspring. Since the differences are caused by genes, and since genes are passed from parent to offspring, there's a good chance that the offspring will get the same genes that helped the parent. And so the offspring that get these genes will have the same advantage.

If the individual has a difference that hinders it - maybe it has slightly poorer eye sight, or it has a deficiency in its immune system - then this disadvantage is going to mean that the individual is more likely to die from this weakness than an individual that does not have that weakness. As such, it has a reduced chance of living long enough to reproduce. Since it is less likely that this disadvantaged individual is going to reproduce, it means that it is less likely that the genes that caused the disadvantage are going to be passed on.

So, the genes that help an animal survive the pressures it faces are going to have a better chance of being passed on and any genes that reduce an individual's ability to survive are less likely to be passed on. As a result, the genes that cause individuals to be better adapted to their environment will gradually spread throughout the population over many generations. A change that was once present in just one individual will end up being in ALL individuals.

When many such small changes occur, we will see the population evolving over many generations to have new adaptations that help them, will losing traits that do not help them.

If you think any part of that is wrong, please tell me which part.

 

[Danielwright2311]

I never said I needed a simplified term of what evolution is, but thank you. And what you wrote another 100 would argue and say a bunch of gibber jabber.

I understand the basis compleatly, but I need real evidence with real science in a simplified term, thanks.

 

[Danielwright2311]

Honest question: do you think the many Christians here who accept evolution, some of whom study it professionally, are trying to deceive you? What do you think they gain from this?

You can not be a Christian and not belive in Gods own words, its impossible.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

I understand the basis compleatly, but I need real evidence

That is like saying you understand that if it rains and people are outside without a cover they will get wet but you refuse to believe this until you see wet people after the rain.

 

[Jude1:3Contendforthefaith]

That is like saying you understand that if it rains and people are outside without a cover they will get wet but you refuse to believe this until you see wet people after the rain.

No it's not.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

No it's not.

So how would an illuminated mind explain evolution to uneducated and simple ?

 

[Jude1:3Contendforthefaith]

So how would an illuminated mind explain evolution to uneducated and simple ?

In Basic Terms:

Microevolution : Provable through observable science and is true.

Macroevolution : Unobservable using the scientific method theory on the origins of man and is Pure Trash.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

Microevolution : Provable through observable science and is true.

Macroevolution : Unobservable using the scientific method theory on the origins of man and is Pure Trash.

Sounds simple enough. Although I am not sure Daniel accepts microevolution either....

What prevents the microevolution becoming macroevolution over long period of time ?

 

[Jude1:3Contendforthefaith]

Sounds simple enough. Although I am not sure Daniel accepts microevolution either....

What prevents the microevolution becoming macroevolution over long period of time ?

I'm referring to the idea of one species turning into another species over millions / billions of years.

 

[mark kennedy]

Evolution is a game of connect-the-dots.

It looks good on paper, but paper burns.

Oh yes, and there are so many dots.

 

[Jude1:3Contendforthefaith]

In the case of an animal growing longer or more fur because of climate change to colder weather, I'm convinced that The Lord just makes these types of changes happen divinely.

 

[Kylie]

I never said I needed a simplified term of what evolution is, but thank you. And what you wrote another 100 would argue and say a bunch of gibber jabber.

But you had said that you had never seen it (presumably to show that such a feat was difficult or even impossible), and I did so without using complicated words, and in a manner that was easy to understand. So I hope you will never make that claim again.

I understand the basis compleatly, but I need real evidence with real science in a simplified term, thanks.

And what would count as evidence of what I described?

How about a long term study where scientists observed a population of organisms over many generations and watched as their genes changed as a result of changing pressures that the population faced?

 

[Kylie]

In Basic Terms:

Microevolution : Provable through observable science and is true.

Macroevolution : Unobservable using the scientific method theory on the origins of man and is Pure Trash.

That's like saying that walking across the room is possible, but walking across the country is not. The process is the same, it's just on a different scale.

 

[mark kennedy]

Hello,

So yes, there are standards that have to be kept.

A cohesive theory is one that sets out to complete what was undertaken, not beach halfway - in the context of Evolution, it is evident from the fact that it cannot be simplified, that Darwin was not intent on the theory culminating in something specifically meaningful: his thoughts were gibberish, in principle.

I can simplify the Bible - "it was, it began" - and if that was all that you ever knew about it, those words would still save you from a Hell separated from God - on the other hand it can be expanded into Old and New Testaments, with a fractal like quality, delimiting for how long you should ponder life and to what end. I can even over-simplify the Bible, but for that I receive the punishment associated with such an act, spiritually - if nothing else.

So we have two paths, before us: do we simply add to what was never intended to finish, completely foolishly? Or do we work with the text in which we have faith: regardless of how much is gained or lost in the manner we approached it? It is not necessarily given that these developments are irreversible: the unending can end, the ended can regrow - it is not determined that one steals our freedom or the other one grants it: only that something of some sort must happen, while we have time on Earth, lest the greater portion of what is possible now, be lost.

A working theory, is possible. It takes beginning and ending conditions and a determination not to let one settle without the other, when both are needed. If it can be simplified it be communicated and that can only be a good thing. Should we be trapped, we need to start again; should we be confused, we need to study more carefully. This is the process of engaging meaningfully with something that has been offered to have been understood - unless, pray tell, your understanding is itself to you a ruse? I pray with long suffering that this not be the case, but that your theory become more porous, more able to draw in and establish - where indeed all Christ, the very Creator, comes to a head.

Not that it is wrong to set out to have approached an unreconcilable digmatic, but that to call that digmatic the truth or more like it, is a forgery.

I don't know, I think he was pretty clear, he was comparing natural selection to artificial selection. He appeared to have no clear concept of species, to the point where he abandoned the definition of species he considered synonymous with variation. Darwin was trying to explain all of natural history without referencing to God or miracles as a cause. Natural selection is a real enough phenomenon and comprehensive enough, it just breaks down when you talking major adaptive evolution particularly with regards to origins.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

I'm convinced that The Lord just makes these types of changes happen divinely.

So you believe if we had a sudden Ice Age The Lord would make all the animals have thicker fat layers, longer fur, stronger claws to climb on ice or whatever divinely and the effect would be immediate ?

Also again what stops microevolution becoming macroevolution over long span of time ?

 

[Jude1:3Contendforthefaith]

That's like saying that walking across the room is possible, but walking across the country is not. The process is the same, it's just on a different scale.

Ultimately both of Our World views are at the heart of the matter here.

 

[mark kennedy]

And what would count as evidence of what I described?

How about a long term study where scientists observed a population of organisms over many generations and watched as their genes changed as a result of changing pressures that the population faced?

Those genes do change sometimes, but the strong tendency is to revert back. There is a reason for that, there are repair mechanisms that tend to fix changes in the DNA.

 

[mark kennedy]

So you believe if we had a sudden Ice Age The Lord would make all the animals have thicker fat layers, longer fur, stronger claws to climb on ice or whatever divinely and the effect would be immediate ?

Also again what stops microevolution becoming macroevolution over long span of time ?

Those things occur, adaptive traits of Polar Bears being a strong example. But Polar Bears can still mate with Grizzles. Evolution is supposed to work one way but in nature that's really don't the case, in a lot of ways it's cyclical.