Sign me up!!! I just hope the rest of society doesn’t hate me for being more evolved. Silly primates.
andros:
Now I know how you interpret those words. However, kumquats are of no interest to me without hallucinigens.
Biological evolution is included in the definition of evolution I am using. It is a part of a grander process. If you think humans can evolve on earth without earth first coming into existence I dare say you are wrong. Life on earth and the formation of the solar system/universe/Universe are most definately related.
What is the “scientific term” for the process that has changed and shaped everything since the beginning of everything? Including all matter, energy, and biological lifeforms?
Tied together in the same universe in the same time-line. You cannot have biological evolution without stars and planets evolving out of that great big explosion. Maybe you can explain how biological evolution occurs without the above.
Science has been unable so far to achieve a working theory of everything. When it does it will have to be able to include everything from the quantum level to the Universal level. All these things relate to each other, so any model must describe how they do. We just may need to create some new words. Or expand definitions of old ones.
Damn. We’re gettin on some Dirk Gently Interconectedness of all things shit now.
He’s talking about The X-Men. Even if you never saw the movie or the animated cartoons or read the comic book, surely you’ve heard of them.
The characters he described are, in order: Cyclops, Nightcrawler, Shadowcat, Colossus, Wolverine, Havok, Jean Grey, Angel, Gambit, Ice Man, Magneto, Storm, Rogue, and Jean Grey again.
I said I don’t much care fo comic books. Not that I never read one! Of course it’s the X-men. That’s why I said:
This is what happens to the X-men, no? Hated by the very people they are trying to defend and make life better for. Disinfo.com wrote a cool article about the movie and the X-men in general that you can find at http://www.disinfo.com/pages/article/id1400/pg1/
andros said:
Hmmm. This seems to me to say that the formation of galaxys, stars and planets is unrelated to biological evolution. This is untrue. They are intimately related. You would not have life on earth had earth not formed. Life is not the beginning of the process, but a part of something that started long before earth ever existed. These things are related.
When Humans advance to the Posthuman level, it will be a continuation of this process. Started billions of years ago. This process which takes billions of years (if not more) to make planets, and a few more million to start life here is denied to have ever occured by creationists. I say it does happen, and will continue to happen.
Well what he SAID was that they are unrelated. Anyway, they are also comparable. The transformation of matter into suns and planets is comparable to the transformation of matter into life in all it’s varying forms.
Sorry it took me a bit to respond. We don’t have any conclusive proof one way or the other regarding the potential intervention of a divine being. Humanity could well be some pan-galactic being’s breeding experiment. I’d prefer to think otherwise, but I suppose Occam’s Razor could be seen to cut either way.
I don’t think your contention against run-of-the-mill creationism, i.e. that mankind would not have survived were it created “drastically,” is valid, though. Human history nonwithstanding, just because another group of folks pops up on the other side of the hill doesn’t mean everyone is going to rush over there and kill the new neighbors. Especially if there are enough resources to go around, and you’re at a state of evolution/culture where hunting and gathering are much more important than subjugation and empire-building.
But no, there’s nothing to directly discount your theory.
Others have tried, but perhaps I will succeed.
No, life on Earth could not have evolved without an Earth to evolve on. This does not preclude life evolving elsewhere in the universe, of course (barring the unique intervention of a G-d in our own creation).
But evolution is a biological process. It’s basic tenets are variation, selection upon that variation, and differential reproductive success due to that selection. In other words, those organisms whose variations which are most beneficial will have the most kids.
This process can not be applied to “inanimate matter.”
You may certainly visualize some manner of continuity in the history of the universe from the beginning to the present day. As far as I understand things, this continuity could best be described by some manner of thermodynamic equation, rather than by an biological theory.
If you want to call them part of the same thing, fine. But do not call that thing “evolution.” Because evolution already has an accepted definition, and that doesn’t fit it.
No, it has several definitions. I can post one from Websters that works nice, but look up further in the thread to see the difinition I am using. Should have stated it in the first post and will do so in future posts which use words with multiple meanings and implications.
Mainly I refer to a process. A process creationists say does not exist. I say not only does it exist, it will continue. That’s the heart of it.
Look. No one is arguing that you can’t use a cell phone. And, if you get a cell phone implanted in your brain, you’ll have “almost telepathy”. Fine.
But, what argument are you trying to win here? Are you saying that because you can use a cell phone, suddenly creationists will wake up and say “You’re right, dalovindj, clearly, you using a cell phone implies that Archaeopteryx WAS the prehistoric ancestors of birds!”. Or “You’re right, the fact that you have nano-bots in your blood proves that bacteria, if given 1 billion years, CAN evolve into humans”? It isn’t going to happen. And,
so, once again, we can argue about definitions all we want, but in answer to your opening question, No, having a watch implanted in your forearm won’t convince the ICR magically to stop saying that the world in 4004 years old.
Do you see why we are trying to so hard to point out what evolution means to creationists now?
No, you are telling me what evolution means to you. Many creationists I have spoken with have gotten into “the whole Universe is not billions of years old” line of 6000 year old crap. Then it invariably leads to “We didn’t evolve from monkees.” Try starting a thread “how do creationists define evolution?” and I would wager you get a wide array of answers. They say it doesn’t exist. Not only the part about biological evolution, but the parts before that too.
You and andros obviously have a very specific definition of the word evolution you like to use. It is a technical one used to describe a particular biological process. Fine. I, however, am not using that definition as I indicated. Now to move out of the realm of semantics:
I was talking about alot more than a watch. A person with a pacemaker is not a posthuman. Given a posthuman, however (assuming your answer is the same), the next question is:
If this process of which I speak continues, and the fact that it continues doesn’t prove that it exists, what WOULD constitute proof in the eyes of a creationist? Proof that forms of matter have been and continue to become more and more complex for billions of years now and for billions more.
dalovindj insists on framing the debate inside a universe of his own definition. And I believe that contrary to the thread title question, he has ALREADY decided that what he proposes “is” an example of what he calls “evolution.”
The problem we have is that he is NOT referring to the specific life-science issue that busies legions of scientists and preachers on both sides of the creationist/darwinist divide, but to some sort of Grand Metaphysical Theory of the Universe that he subscribes to. Which is all fine and dandy but indeed makes the debate NOT about the OP question, but about dj’s GMTU (wherein there happens to exist a term, “evolution”, that sounds like one in everyone else’s vocabularies).
No, the life sciences are only part of the grander question of the origin (and evolution) of all matter and energy to which I refer.
Did not know what the word Metaphysical meant. I looked it up and I liked it: The branch of philosophy that systematically investigates first causes and the nature of ultimate reality.
This IS what I’m talking about. I have spoken about first causes and the nature of ultimate reality with many creationists, and I continue to speak of it here. I don’t think you need the word grand though. It become repetitive.
I have defined evolution as i have used it. As far as the “evolution” in everybodies vocabularies take a look in a dictionary (Websters):
Here are definitions I can use:
1a - A process of change in a certain direction
1c1- A process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state
Now, 1c1 is the way I use the word evolution, specifically in reference to the development of the universe (including biological life). It is this that creationists deny. That matter and energy are moving from simpler to complex.
Now have a look at this definition (still Websters):
5b- A theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations.
Now this is closer to the definition you are using. Just because you use one and I use another does not mean that one or the other is in everybodys vocabulary or that one is more correct than the other. Definitions are suggestive and not definitive.
It is obviously neccesary to state which definition you are using to avoid confusion. I have stated the definition I am using. In that context the initial post asks the question I wanted to ask.
[QUOTE]
What would convince creationists to accept evolution[\QUOTE]
I’m sure you’re being snide here, but the truth is, there is evidence that will convince some people – and make other people a bit more receptive. A good theory (which was agreed on) about the origin of life ( how exactly did we get to DNA) would do a lot. A simulation, biological or otherwise, that shows how wings can evolve, in some fashion that resonates with people. Someone breeding a dog into a cat. I’m not saying it will convince everyone, but it will convince some people.
But, your technological improvements, no matter how cool you think they are, won’t do that. After all, Intellegent Design is touted as proof of God – that complex things must imply an intellegent creator. The fact that you create nano-bots just proves intellegent things can be created by intelligent beings.
BTW, you have 10 more posts than I. I hope in them you’ve learned a little bit about speaking clearly so that people can understand you – it appears that we’ve spent 2 pages and 40 messages to agree that:
Post humanity (as defined however) will not prove the biological process called evolution to people who consider themselves Creationists.
and
Post humanity will convince a set of people ( possibly null ) that things become complex, and that humans can design things.
Did we really need this many pages to figure that out?
But at least now we are clear on where you’re coming from…
Which is meaningless to most of us on the board, since it has nothing to do with the commonly accepted definitions of what the creation-evolution debate is about. Which DO exist and ARE NOT YOUR definitions believe it or not. All those do, including your non-knowledge of what “metaphysics” means, is reveal an absolute dilettante just spouting off the top of his head – which is perfectly standard in this board.
In your OP example, the answer is you still will not “prove” evolution[sub]djdefinition[/sub] (progressism? transformism?) to YOUR creationists, because all you would have proven is that an ALREADY-CREATED intelligence has the capability to deliberately alter himself and his environment – of which the creationist does not question the possibility[sup]1[/sup], only the morality, thereof.
[sub] 1: Since their belief is about the NATURAL world, not about “unnatural” acts[/sub]
What other folks have said. Your definition is not the common one, and even under yours, you could not convince Creationists of evolution by turning yourself into a human with all the factory extras.
Just so it wouldn’t look like I was just disappearing. But now I am going to do so.
