Hi there,
The concept here is very simple: if I have variations of design, in the one species (not variations of species), what does the culmination of those variations, result in? In Evolutionary terms?
A: the variations do not result in Evolution - leaving "Evolution" imaginary?
B: the variations result in a partial Evolution - leaving "Evolution" ineffectual?
C: the variations result in a predicted Evolution - making "Evolution" code for design?
D: the variations are set aside for Design, not Evolution
The point being, that you are not necessarily describing "Evolution", when you are describing "Design" - they do not exist in the same "space".
There is no reason why I should not see, the Hand of the Creator in a given species.
Jesus Himself, dealt with a variation of Jews, in His Apostles - He did not set out to sacrifice Himself for what their genetic typology would become (He died for every variation of a typology that there will be, in spirit - meaning it applies to every permutation of those types).
Typology can't change, unless the foundation becomes precedent to almost all subsequent generations of the new typology.
What is insulting, is the idea that something that doesn't change, will lose it's standing as a species - when it is the selection pressure on a species, that results in a continuation of design, in most cases.
There is no law that a design cannot be reused, once it dies (selah).
Variations of a rule of design, do not become "cases" of a predetermined call, but beg the expression of the working with the call (for a return to calling - in principle). A return to calling, is good in advance of determination, thus. There is therefore a greater capacity for response to predation, than there is predation - as a natural equilibrium (which is why nature is comprised of "more than survivors").
If there were not this equilibrium, between creatures and predator, the creatures would be tempted not to respond to a predator being a predator that would not stop. This does not invalidate the design, but ensures that it find a specific context, where it can flourish, even simply for the purpose of almost perpetually dying.
I say again "there is no law that a design cannot be reused, once it dies".
If you are indifferent to this, it bodes well for your future, in response to the test, that every creature faces before God.
The concept here is very simple: if I have variations of design, in the one species (not variations of species), what does the culmination of those variations, result in? In Evolutionary terms?
A: the variations do not result in Evolution - leaving "Evolution" imaginary?
B: the variations result in a partial Evolution - leaving "Evolution" ineffectual?
C: the variations result in a predicted Evolution - making "Evolution" code for design?
D: the variations are set aside for Design, not Evolution
The point being, that you are not necessarily describing "Evolution", when you are describing "Design" - they do not exist in the same "space".
There is no reason why I should not see, the Hand of the Creator in a given species.
Jesus Himself, dealt with a variation of Jews, in His Apostles - He did not set out to sacrifice Himself for what their genetic typology would become (He died for every variation of a typology that there will be, in spirit - meaning it applies to every permutation of those types).
Typology can't change, unless the foundation becomes precedent to almost all subsequent generations of the new typology.
What is insulting, is the idea that something that doesn't change, will lose it's standing as a species - when it is the selection pressure on a species, that results in a continuation of design, in most cases.
There is no law that a design cannot be reused, once it dies (selah).
Variations of a rule of design, do not become "cases" of a predetermined call, but beg the expression of the working with the call (for a return to calling - in principle). A return to calling, is good in advance of determination, thus. There is therefore a greater capacity for response to predation, than there is predation - as a natural equilibrium (which is why nature is comprised of "more than survivors").
If there were not this equilibrium, between creatures and predator, the creatures would be tempted not to respond to a predator being a predator that would not stop. This does not invalidate the design, but ensures that it find a specific context, where it can flourish, even simply for the purpose of almost perpetually dying.
I say again "there is no law that a design cannot be reused, once it dies".
If you are indifferent to this, it bodes well for your future, in response to the test, that every creature faces before God.
