Evolution vs Creationism

Originally Posted by Helenthereef

and see for themselves the development of changes in a species (albeit accelerated by deliberate human intervention) could still insist that every species is created as a finished product.

I enjoy this thought process Helen. Just tossing this out there for anyone:
Assuming that humankind has randomly evolved to where we are now over "X" millions/billions of years, what will we evolve into given yet another "X" millions/billions of years as our evolutionary progression continues, assuming we ourselves must not be finished products either?

What would stop man, if given enough time, from evolving into a super version, a version far more advanced then we are now?

Originally Posted by Robert Walker

What would stop man, if given enough time, from evolving into a super version, a version far more advanced then we are now?

Himself.

A hastily sent nuclear weapon that started a war where the not-quite-evolved-enough decided that return volleys of their nuclear weapons would be just the answer.

Hopefully, for the sake of our world and our children and grandchildren, that will not happen and further evolution will have a chance.

There are 4 interesting potential options discussed at

https://futurism.com/the-next-stage-...pecies-evolve/ and at https://www.quora.com/How-will-human...years-from-now

And more scientifically (but rather less fun) at
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/suppl_1/1787.abstract

"We found that natural selection is acting to cause slow, gradual evolutionary change. The descendants of these women are predicted to be on average slightly shorter and stouter, to have lower total cholesterol levels and systolic blood pressure, to have their first child earlier, and to reach menopause later than they would in the absence of evolution. Selection is tending to lengthen the reproductive period at both ends."

Originally Posted by Lucille

Himself.

Lets hope that humankind can avoid such a scenario.

Originally Posted by Helenthereef

There are 4 interesting potential options discussed at

Thanks for the links, I looked them all over.

Barring the potential that mankind annihilates itself and we take human cyborgs out of the running for the moment, if evolution is a constant occurrence then the humans of today will not be like those of the distant future.

If we are the drastically more complex, better, smarter version of what came from primordial life... then given yet another 50 million years those in the future may have an equal opportunity to be that more far advanced than we currently are.

As an example, if:
50 million years turned sludge into a human...
50 million more years turns a human into a super human...
50 million additional years turns a super human into a super, super human...
so on a so forth

Couldn't evolution produce an individual(s) that in their super x10 form, 500 million years from now, would be considered a God(s) to those of younger generations less evolved?

Evolution relies heavily on enormous amounts of time being key to making such changes. So, if left alone and barring self destruction, couldn't evolution produce a God? If not, why not? Would primordial sludge look at the possibility of evolving into a human and call it bogus, impossible or crazy? What is the difference then?

Originally Posted by Fangthane

Given my own particular inclinations, I object to the possible implications behind the choice to use that word. I'd word my thoughts like this: Until presented with compelling evidence that disproves evolution, I accept it as the most plausible explanation available.

Dan, I'll start by saying, I've agreed with a lot of things you've posted over the short period of time I've been here, but I knew this day would come.

What proof did Darwin have that disproved creation? Simply coming up with another idea, doesn't disprove the original one. My human nature is, if I don't like the way something is done, find a way I can do it. That doesn't necessarily mean the other way was wrong, does it?

I would fall into the "Creationist" category, with a slight skew.

I did not grow up in church, I was taught evolution (big bang). I was sort of a hellion in my younger years, up into my 20's. In fact, your first impression (looks) of me, you wouldn't think I was a "church goer". So I have spent half my life in both worlds (creationist/evolutionist) and I understand that science and God go together. I do understand the human race is changing but is it for the better or worse? I don't merely believe in a Creator, I know my Creator. I have seen His works, in creation and in my life.

For just as many "religious" scientists that have went over to evolutionary thinking, there have been evolutionist to come over to the creationist side. There is just as much evidence that points to a Creator and creation, as there is that points towards evolution.

This is really hard to stay on topic without going too deep. This is a battle that will go on after we are gone or until...

I don't want to ever come across as a closed minded, in your face, type of person. So as you read my replies/responses just understand that these are done so, with respect and regard to your understandings (I come from the same). I've gone back and forth trying to sort out all the mysteries of life, there are just some things we will never understand, in this lifetime.

For your reading pleasure

https://answersingenesis.org/charles...a-creationist/

https://answersingenesis.org/missing...its-spiritual/

What proof did Darwin have that disproved creation? Simply coming up with another idea, doesn't disprove the original one. My human nature is, if I don't like the way something is done, find a way I can do it. That doesn't necessarily mean the other way was wrong, does it?

Had you actually read and comprehended what I've previously written, you may have noticed that I did concede that creationism and evolution aren't really mutually exclusive ideas; in and of itself, evolution doesn't directly attack the idea of a sentient creator.

I just don't really perceive any pressing need to disprove that for which, contrary to what you later say, there appears to be nothing more than faith-based "evidence." Also, given the likelihood that Darwin had a certain degree of religiosity early in life, I have doubts that he even had any such intentions when he boarded The Beagle. His time spent in the Galapagos Islands simply led to observations that were eventually fleshed out into the theory of evolution by natural selection.

I do understand the human race is changing but is it for the better or worse? I don't merely believe in a Creator, I know my Creator. I have seen His works, in creation and in my life.

Any move toward secularity is a move in the right direction, I'd say. Since you're claiming to have seen works that can apparently be tied directly to a god, let's hear what your evidence is.

For just as many "religious" scientists that have went over to evolutionary thinking, there have been evolutionist to come over to the creationist side.

I have my doubts about the veracity of your claimed ratio, but it's not even vaguely relevant. While it may be a glimpse into the numbers-game mentality prevalent in so many theists, it really means absolutely zero. There are people who, after reading any given collection of BOI bad guy threads, will still do business with said bad guys. There's often a disconnect between what someone knows and how one chooses to apply it.

There is just as much evidence that points to a Creator and creation, as there is that points towards evolution.

SERIOUS citations needed here. Let's hear your case for that statement. I suspect it amounts to nothing more than that old watchmaker analogy, or maybe Kalam's Cosmological Argument. Perhaps it's some golden plates that can conveniently only be read by someone with some sort of magical device? A book written by numerous authors, many of them anonymous, penned decades/centuries after events supposedly happened, based on stories related by word of mouth? At any rate, you've chosen to make an affirmative statement that really needs to be backed up - hopefully, by something much more compelling than the aforementioned plates, book, etc.

If only people were willing to give their chosen religion the same degree of scrutiny seen in even the most typical BOI thread. I don't think much of it stands up to even the smallest amount of critical thinking. The idea of blind faith is the true genius to religion. Where faith begins, actual thought seems to end. I'm someone who's always open to being presented evidence that runs contrary to my current thoughts, but after 40 years, living in a society where one can't go more than 10 minutes without having religion shoved down their throats, I've yet to see anything even slightly convincing.

Originally Posted by Fangthane

If only people were willing to give their chosen religion the same degree of scrutiny seen in even the most typical BOI thread.

"SERIOUS citations needed here" - that they don't. Where is your proof?

Originally Posted by Fangthane

I don't think much of it stands up to even the smallest amount of critical thinking. The idea of blind faith

When it really honestly comes down to it, any pretend claim of being "open" instantly evaporates once someone's position has to deteriorate to "oh yah, you religious types are simply blind sheep who lack critical thinking skills". Clearly, very open minded...

The whole post wasn't directed towards you Dan, the first paragraph was.

Originally Posted by Fangthane

Had you actually read and comprehended what I've previously written, you may have noticed that I did concede that creationism and evolution aren't really mutually exclusive ideas; in and of itself, evolution doesn't directly attack the idea of a sentient creator.

I did read and I comprehend (thanks for the vote of confidence) pretty well, I was actually asking the question in general. What made Darwin (or anyone) try to disprove creation?

Originally Posted by Fangthane

Any move toward secularity is a move in the right direction, I'd say. Since you're claiming to have seen works that can apparently be tied directly to a god, let's hear what your evidence is.

I'm sorry that you feel that way, did we all evolve with a moral code?
Unfortunately I've been here before, there is absolutely nothing I can say that will change anyone's mind.

Originally Posted by Fangthane

I have my doubts about the veracity of your claimed ratio, but it's not even vaguely relevant. While it may be a glimpse into the numbers-game mentality prevalent in so many theists, it really means absolutely zero.

That was sort of my point of this statement, I wasn't try to use this as proof of anything.

Originally Posted by Fangthane

SERIOUS citations needed here. Let's hear your case for that statement. I suspect it amounts to nothing more than that old watchmaker analogy, or maybe Kalam's Cosmological Argument. Perhaps it's some golden plates that can conveniently only be read by someone with some sort of magical device? A book written by numerous authors, many of them anonymous, penned decades/centuries after events supposedly happened, based on stories related by word of mouth? At any rate, you've chosen to make an affirmative statement that really needs to be backed up - hopefully, by something much more compelling than the aforementioned plates, book, etc.

Mitochondrial dna, the world is all related. The book of Genesis stated that long before any scientists did.

Originally Posted by Fangthane

If only people were willing to give their chosen religion the same degree of scrutiny seen in even the most typical BOI thread.

I don't think of it as "religion", it's more of a way of life.

Originally Posted by Fangthane

I'm someone who's always open to being presented evidence that runs contrary to my current thoughts, but after 40 years, living in a society where one can't go more than 10 minutes without having religion shoved down their throats, I've yet to see anything even slightly convincing.

I will never try to shove my way of life down your throat, unfortunately we have never had any dealings before now, or you would know that. I have several Atheist friends and plan to continue doing business with them.

Moving on

OK, so let's say that we are evolving (to make better?) from primates. I'd like to ask a few questions, why do primates still exist if they weren't good enough for this time that we live in? Why did we get rid of our fur that keeps us warm, just to have to make a substitute (clothes)? It seems (speculation, I'd need to research) that the human race has more immune (viruses, disease) issues than your typical primate.? Humans have a harder time with hiv than primates do. Siv or hiv originated with primates but were transferred to humans, some primates seem to live with it better than humans. https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0916143900.htm

Dammit, I'm going away for the next 3 weeks and can't take part in this very interesting discussion. Please keep the topic warm (but not TOO HOT!) until I get back!