[_ Old Earth _] The future of Humanity

[jasoncran]

Hydrogen wrote the bible :biglol

 

[Barbarian]

Hydrogen is an invisible, orderless gas that when left to its own devices produces life.

Along with a few simple rules by which God organized nature. The wonder is not in God magically producing one thing after another, but in the elegance and simplicity of the world the Creator made to bring forth beings like us.

What promise is given?

Only our bodies are from the earth. But we are given a soul directly by God. And that makes us potentially capable of fellowship with Him, as His children.

Shall all energy devolve though the efficacy of the 2nd Law?

In the long run, it won't matter.

 

[jasoncran]

we get new bodies, not permanate heavenly ones. we will live on the earth when the lord decides to descend the new city of jerusalem.

 

[Crying Rock]

What is your definition of "evolve"?

Change in allele frequency in a population.

Microevolution doesn't prove macroevolution:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/e ... ange.shtml

 

[Crying Rock]

We're continuing to evolve now. The issue is that with medical care and science, we are getting increasingly good at negating the evolutionary effects of formerly harmful mutations, and by genetic counseling, getting better at preventing the spread of these mutations.

No one really knows the long-term effects of this.

CR wrote:

If evolution is God's plan why should we be "negating the evolutionary effects of formerly harmful mutations". Isn't that rebelling against God's plan? Why not let these "harmful mutations" play themselves themselves out?

Barb wrote:

"...Along with a few simple rules by which God organized nature. The wonder is not in God magically producing one thing after another, but in the elegance and simplicity of the world the Creator made to bring forth beings like us..."

 

[Barbarian]

Microevolution doesn't prove macroevolution:

But they are both a change in allele frequency in a population. The only difference is that microevolution is variation within a species, and macroevolution is speciation. And both have been directly observed.

 

[Barbarian]

If evolution is God's plan why should we be "negating the evolutionary effects of formerly harmful mutations". Isn't that rebelling against God's plan? Why not let these "harmful mutations" play themselves themselves out?

If disease is God's plan, why should we be treating people to stop it? Maybe God wants us to take care of ourselves.

 

[jasoncran]

God did plan to let us die from sin, but rather that he placed a curse on all men and the whole creation was to suffer the vanity of men from the fall of adam till know.

he wanted us to look to him by seeing and asking him to help and reconcile us to him.

 

[Barbarian]

God did plan to let us die from sin, but rather that he placed a curse on all men and the whole creation was to suffer the vanity of men from the fall of adam till know.

Does that mean He doesn't want us to do what we can to alleviate disorders?

 

[jasoncran]

God did plan to let us die from sin, but rather that he placed a curse on all men and the whole creation was to suffer the vanity of men from the fall of adam till know.

Does that mean He doesn't want us to do what we can to alleviate disorders?

no, but he did plan to use that curse to draw us to him. Didnt the writer of eclassietes write that all is vanity, why did he say that. no matter what we do, it in vain unless we know the lord and he is with us.

you say that evolution is natural and used by god. how do you really know that the next mutation we block isnt a supposed improvement?

how do you really know that the lord is using us to stop mutations. did he speak to you and give you or others a cure for the diseases?

if didnt want us to have mutations then why allow them in the first place. the curse is most likely explanation. as we are persishing every day. our bodies are meant to die.


the lord allowed the fall so that men would love him. he didnt want adam to sin but knew that he would do it and allowed the consequences of sin. he planned on perfection but let adam and eve choose death over life

 

[Barbarian]

no, but he did plan to use that curse to draw us to him. Didnt the writer of eclassietes write that all is vanity, why did he say that. no matter what we do, it in vain unless we know the lord and he is with us.

you say that evolution is natural and used by god. how do you really know that the next mutation we block isnt a supposed improvement?

Maybe it is. Or not. We can make that argument about everything we might or might not do. I can only trust that He has it right.

how do you really know that the lord is using us to stop mutations. did he speak to you and give you or others a cure for the diseases?

He's not neutral on this. Jesus seemed to approve.

if didnt want us to have mutations then why allow them in the first place. the curse is most likely explanation. as we are persishing every day. our bodies are meant to die.

If we never got past H. erectus, would it matter to God? I don't see how. The gulf between us and erectus is nothing compared to the gulf between us and God.

 

[jasoncran]

are we the only creatures that could via evolution to have intellegence, from now till eternity, surely its possible given enough time that another species could evolve into a level of intellegence to have thoughts and also a means of communication (a language).

whales? dolphins? and so on of that family or other primates even.

what then?

 

[Crying Rock]

Microevolution doesn't prove macroevolution:

But they are both a change in allele frequency in a population. The only difference is that microevolution is variation within a species, and macroevolution is speciation. And both have been directly observed.

Microevolution has been observed repeatedly. Macroevolution has been imagined by researchers and "confirmed" by semantics. Take our land dwelling mammals to whales discussion. Or the idea of dinosaurs evolving into birds.

Is it possible that someday birds and whales will pray to God? With your line of reasoning, why not?

 

[Physicist]

[quote="The Barbarian":3txl0qb7]

Microevolution doesn't prove macroevolution:

But they are both a change in allele frequency in a population. The only difference is that microevolution is variation within a species, and macroevolution is speciation. And both have been directly observed.

Microevolution has been observed repeatedly. Macroevolution has been imagined by researchers and "confirmed" by semantics. Take our land dwelling mammals to whales discussion. Or the idea of dinosaurs evolving into birds.

Is it possible that someday birds and whales will pray to God? With your line of reasoning, why not?[/quote:3txl0qb7]

Slight correction: Evolution is an established scientific fact, equivalent to geocentrism and atomic structure. Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection,refined over the past 150 years, is the recognized best explanation of this scientific fact.

I am sure that is what you intended to say.

 

[Crying Rock]

Slight correction: Evolution is an established scientific fact, equivalent to geocentrism and atomic structure. Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection,refined over the past 150 years, is the recognized best explanation of this scientific fact.

I am sure that is what you intended to say

Of course! Thanks for the correction!!

 

[Barbarian]

Microevolution has been observed repeatedly. Macroevolution has been imagined by researchers and "confirmed" by semantics.

Even most creationist organizations acknowledge the evolution of new species. They've just tried to redefine "macroevolution" to "evolution so drastic that no one could live long enough to see it happen."

Take our land dwelling mammals to whales discussion.

At one time, it was no more than a prediction. Now we have a very complete set of intermediates. In the case of birds, we can no longer say with any certainty where reptiles leave off and birds begin.

Is it possible that someday birds and whales will pray to God? With your line of reasoning, why not?

Your error is to suppose that all cases of fitness lead to us. But if that was true, we'd be the only species on Earth. Intelligence is not the inevitable consequence of evolution.

 

[Crying Rock]

Microevolution has been observed repeatedly. Macroevolution has been imagined by researchers and "confirmed" by semantics.

Even most creationist organizations acknowledge the evolution of new species. They've just tried to redefine "macroevolution" to "evolution so drastic that no one could live long enough to see it happen."

[quote:14nlv0lo]Take our land dwelling mammals to whales discussion.

At one time, it was no more than a prediction. Now we have a very complete set of intermediates. In the case of birds, we can no longer say with any certainty where reptiles leave off and birds begin.

Is it possible that someday birds and whales will pray to God? With your line of reasoning, why not?

Your error is to suppose that all cases of fitness lead to us. But if that was true, we'd be the only species on Earth. Intelligence is not the inevitable consequence of evolution.[/quote:14nlv0lo]

Barb wrote:

Even most creationist organizations acknowledge the evolution of new species.

ICR, Answers in Genesis, etc...? Who are "most"?

Barb wrote:

...we can no longer say with any certainty where reptiles leave off and birds begin...

Negative evidence proves nothing.

Barb wrote:

"...They've just tried to redefine "macroevolution" to "evolution so drastic that no one could live long enough to see it happen..."

Example?

Barb wrote:

"...Now we have a very complete set of intermediates..."

Your arguments in the whale evolution thread aren't very convincing.

 

[Barbarian]

(Barbarian notes that most creationist organizations now admit the evolution of new species)

ICR, Answers in Genesis, etc...?

Both of them. The two biggest, I think. The ICR actually endorsed Woodmorappe's "Ark Feasibility Study", in which he claimed that new species, genera and families evolved by hyperevolution in a few thousand years.

AIG has admitted speciation.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... -evolution

Barbarian writes:
...we can no longer say with any certainty where reptiles leave off and birds begin...

Negative evidence proves nothing.

But the discovery of many intermediates between birds and reptiles is compelling.

Barbarian chuckles:
"...They've just tried to redefine "macroevolution" to "evolution so drastic that no one could live long enough to see it happen..."

Look at the AIG page I linked. They'll admit new species, but they want to stop before it gets too frightening for them.

(Barbarian cites the large number of whale intermediates)

Your arguments in the whale evolution thread aren't very convincing.

I don't think denial will do you much good, now.

 

[jasoncran]

uh, no, that isnt what i read from that barb.
Speciation has never been observed to form an organism of a different kind, such as a dog species producing a cat. Speciation works only within a kind. Evolution requires natural selection and speciation to give rise to new kinds from a former kind (e.g., dinosaurs evolving into birds). Speciation, however, leads to a loss of information, not the gain of information required by evolution. Thus, speciation as a possible outcome of natural selection cannot be used as a mechanism for molecules-to-man evolution


so my wolf-hybrid having thick fur can't mate with a german shephard? and have cubs or etc. they are saying that doesnt produce different kinds that evolution needs to have happen.

 

[jasoncran]

first since i have heard that even darwin didnt know what a species is.
i will ask barb to define what it is. and crying rock and bronzeznake.

then i think we can see if "specation" is actually supporting the toe.