A Question for the Evolutionist (of any stripe)

[EarlyActs]

To be perfectly clear, I define Theistic Evolutionist to be people who are raised in a religion such as Christian, then taught evolution.
I was taught evolution strictly without any reference to god or gods who were myths created in the mind of man through fear and ignorance to explain natural forces and morals were speculation about chemicals in the brain or cultural, nature versus nuture.
However, there are some very serious problems with evolution.

1) Like begets Like. Natural fact.

Darwin claimed Like begets UnLike
GMO and other genetic manipulation has resulted in 3 results for both the claim and the methods. The Unlike 1) is sterile Or 2) reverts to type (repairs the damage) 3) deselected (dies)

2) And Darin claimed the begetting took a very very long time
However, most processes evolution has claimed took a billion billion years can be done in day or weeks under the same initial condition and procecesses.

That raises an interesting question
If the evolutionary processes can be done in a few weeks or days, then why don't we see any evolution?
The Darwinist answer is that it is toooo slow to see.
Evolution being so slow may be because evolution is not happening and we can wait around until the hot place freezes over to prove or disprove that assertion, according to Darwin.

The Black Molly in the Louisiana area can change from saline to fresh water in 3 weeks.

 

[Hazelelponi]

I noticed a couple things that I have come across. The Christian geneticist R Carter(?) was studying DNA

I was only here for the theologal discussion, since there's not one, I'm taking my leave.

 

[John Bauer]

Mutations don’t improve a creature.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2002266330255212833

Both of the following statements are false:

1. Mutations don't improve a creature.

2. Mutations improve a creature.
​

And they are false because each absolutizes what is, in reality, a contingent and context-dependent phenomenon.

The truth is

3. Mutations are sometimes harmful, rarely helpful, and usually neutral.
​

 

[John Bauer]

I was only here for the theologal discussion, since there's not one, I'm taking my leave.

There was a theological discussion to be had here (post 290) and here (post 295)—both of which you may continue ignoring.

 

[EarlyActs]

I was only here for the theologal discussion, since there's not one, I'm taking my leave.

That would be an example of splitting reality from how the Bible describes it. A whole hermeneutic developed in the 19th century which is trying to salvage the use of the Bible socially, even though it is false in other ways. Lyell the geologist was one of the first where this is noticed.

 

[EarlyActs]

Both of the following statements are false:

​

1. Mutations don't improve a creature.​

​

2. Mutations improve a creature.​

​

And they are false because each absolutizes what is, in reality, a contingent and context-dependent phenomenon.

The truth is

​

3. Mutations are sometimes harmful, rarely helpful, and usually neutral.​

​

Exactly. They don’t improve a creature.

 

[John Bauer]

Exactly. They don’t improve a creature.

That is simply a repetition of the original erroneous claim and ignores the criticism of it.

 

[EarlyActs]

That is simply a repetition of the original erroneous claim and ignores the criticism of it.

I disagree. As asked earlier, please correspond with Seegert and Malone and post the response here. I do not understand you, and feel like you obfuscate intentionally.

 

[EarlyActs]

For the record:

• I do not prohibit dissent. Moreover, I do not prohibit anything.
  
  ​
• It is the rules that contain prohibitions, and nowhere is dissent one of the things prohibited.
  
  ​
• Misrepresenting the views of others is prohibited, though.
  
  ​
• All moderators, including myself, enforce those rules—including 2.2.

MOD HAT: Since this line of discussion violates the rules, anything further in this vein will be moved to the Questions/Concerns/Suggestions forum, which is designed for precisely these concerns.



Feel free to quote where I lost my composure. I will not hold my breath, though, because my record for explaining my view calmly is pretty established.

Misrepresenting the views of others is prohibited, though

But that is between the parties to straighten out. You are putting yourself in the middle as the one to say what correct views are when you are one of the parties. That way, anything I say will be called misrepresenting you, and quite a bit has.

I find you exactly as a "Two Lectures" developmentalist. You will say I'm misrepresenting you, and you've already said it was not about evolution.

If you are going to moderate, it needs to be between other people. That is why I asked for a mediator, not you! (I asked at Contact Us).

 

[EarlyActs]

1. Affirming sola scriptura does not require accepting your unique interpretation of Genesis.

2. In my view, evolution does not map onto Genesis. I should not have to say this again.

[MOD HAT: Misrepresenting my view again will incur moderation.]



Indeed. In fact, it is deeper than even you suppose.

And the answer is still, “No.” It is theologically impossible for God to “interrupt” nature. Such a notion is utterly incoherent.



That belongs to your interpretation, which I happen to reject. So do a lot of other sola scriptura creationists.



[MOD HAT: Again, any further misrepresentations of my view will incur moderation.]



I have not addressed any of the “exegetical details” you raise because I simply don’t understand your view or your argument. I can’t respond to something that isn’t even intelligible to me.

And I’m still shocked to hear you characterize liturgy in that way (“merely liturgical”), as if it’s an inferior thing. In my view, calling something liturgical is an elevation; I believe liturgy is one of the highest modes of truth-claim—certainly far superior to science.

PLEASE, PLEASE one topic per post. It's like hearing 8 conversations at once.

2. In my view, evolution does not map onto Genesis. I should not have to say this again.

Is "map onto" here some kind of edgy street vernacular for something. I have no idea what you are saying and I have asked Contact Us for a mediator because of that.

 

[EarlyActs]

1. Affirming sola scriptura does not require accepting your unique interpretation of Genesis.

2. In my view, evolution does not map onto Genesis. I should not have to say this again.

[MOD HAT: Misrepresenting my view again will incur moderation.]



Indeed. In fact, it is deeper than even you suppose.

And the answer is still, “No.” It is theologically impossible for God to “interrupt” nature. Such a notion is utterly incoherent.



That belongs to your interpretation, which I happen to reject. So do a lot of other sola scriptura creationists.



[MOD HAT: Again, any further misrepresentations of my view will incur moderation.]



I have not addressed any of the “exegetical details” you raise because I simply don’t understand your view or your argument. I can’t respond to something that isn’t even intelligible to me.

And I’m still shocked to hear you characterize liturgy in that way (“merely liturgical”), as if it’s an inferior thing. In my view, calling something liturgical is an elevation; I believe liturgy is one of the highest modes of truth-claim—certainly far superior to science.

This is from post #285.
Indeed. In fact, it is deeper than even you suppose.

And the answer is still, “No.” It is theologically impossible for God to “interrupt” nature. Such a notion is utterly incoherent.

I do not accept you telling me how I think. The interruption of nature is fully explained by Lewis and is not utterly incoherent. To me that is your out-of-control side and I'm sick of it.

I will not talk further until there is a mediator, because you are trying to self-mediate, which puts you in the authority position, not the 'petitioner' position.

 

[QVQ]

*checked the OP
We seem to have wandered off topic again
Oh Well
"The time has come the walrus said to talk of many things..."

I did notice one intriguing comment about "body and soul." There was a comment earlier about that in regards to ameoba or some such. I can't find it now, so no matter

 

[Hazelelponi]

I will not talk further until there is a mediator,

I think there's a lot of meanness in there discussions and I can't figure out why.

It's like everyone wants a war and not a discussion.

I was recently on another forum and the people behaved so badly it was almost a blasphemy to call the website Christian.

We all should get rightly upset with real heresy but in the end, if we claim to represent Christ with our words it's better to at least try to act like it.

This website is better, but I think it bleeds from other places or something.