If I evolve, will that prove evolution exists?

[dalovindj]

MeCorva:

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.

But what of the commonly held belief (by creationists) that humanity was created a certain way, and will end a certain way as foretold in the Bible? How does the emergence of a Posthuman person or society fit into this view without disproving it?

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

I figured that out many posts ago, and in that post I stated clearly the definition I use.

– 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.

Again, what I was discussing goes beyond biological process as do many discussions I’ve had with creationists. The above stated may be true, but it does not necessarily answer the OP question as qualified by the definition of evolution I provided from Websters.

Post humanity will convince a set of people ( possibly null ) that things become complex, and that humans can design things.

And that this is the continuation of a process begun long ago which creationists say does not occur.

Did we really need this many pages to figure that out?

Who is we? Some still haven’t figured it out. Lots actually. Contribute to the thread if you like, if not ignore it. I have no particular feeling concerning the length of this thread.

JRdelerious:

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.

Of couse that particular debate does exist. And obviously, several definitions of the word evolution exist. It is not the debate I am engaging in in this thread, however.

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.

Granted, I am a Lay-person. I posess no college degree (I left to pursue a career as an actor/musician but seem to be making $25/hr to post to the SDMB), don’t claim or pretend to know the definition to every word (although I look up any I run into that I don’t know). I read discover, american scientist, popular science, and a copule others every month. I check into artigen.com and sciencedaily.com as well as space.com on a daily basis. All of these things I have posted here I have spent many hours thinking about and discussing. They are far from the top of my head. Just because I don’t have a technical education does not make what I say invalid. I am as able as any to ponder the ethical and philosophical realms. These are issues that concern all people. Scientists and Musicians alike.

In your OP example, the answer is you still will not “prove” evolutiondjdefinition (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 possibility1, only the morality, thereof.

I disagree. The process I describe contradicts the outcome of reality posited by creationists and would therefore prove it wrong.

Back to Brooklyn now. It’s reggae night at the spot with the hotties. Will check in tomorrow.

DaLovin’ Dj

[Robb]

dalovindj

But what of the commonly held belief (by creationists) that humanity was created a certain way, and will end a certain way as foretold in the Bible? How does the emergence of a Posthuman person or society fit into this view without disproving it?

What you want to disprove: God made Man
What you offer to disprove it: Man alters Man.

Something tells me that creationists understand humanity’s creative abilities, what I don’t understand is how you think humanity’s creativity disproves God.

[JRDelirious]

*Originally posted by Robb *
**dalovindj

But what of the commonly held belief (by creationists) that humanity was created a certain way, and will end a certain way as foretold in the Bible? How does the emergence of a Posthuman person or society fit into this view without disproving it?

What you want to disprove: God made Man
What you offer to disprove it: Man alters Man.

Something tells me that creationists understand humanity’s creative abilities, what I don’t understand is how you think humanity’s creativity disproves God. **

But his last post gives us a clue:

He is ALSO defining “creationism” the way it suits him. :mad: In HIS universe, “creationists” believe that such an outcome would be impossible, and therefore if it happens it disproves them!!

No matter what anyone else says, he will fire back that it doesn’t jibe with HIS “definitions” – and that we have to work under THOSE definitions, or else we’re being arrogant and acting superior.

There is no “Great Debate” then… he renders his own question MEANINGLESS as a debate subject. All it is is just posting his fantasy on how he would triumph over his caricature of creationism. I’m so sure he has “given it a lot of thought”…
I think I’ll consider heading for the Pit. Anyone?

[jab1]

Here’s where I gave up on the guy:

*Originally posted by dalovindj *
**JRDelirious:

dalovindj insists on framing the debate inside a universe of his own definition.

Please show where I defined the word universe.**

[JRDelirious]

*Originally posted by dalovindj *
But what of the commonly held belief (by creationists) that humanity was created a certain way, and will end a certain way as foretold in the Bible? How does the emergence of a Posthuman person or society fit into this view without disproving it?
**

Simple: sign of the coming of the Time of the Antichrist. Satan at work.
And there ain’t nothing wrong with a layman debating an issue. But when a consensus of the discussion group points out to him (rather gently for the first 40 or so posts) that he is using commonly agreed-upon terms in a radically nonstandard sense[sub]1[/sub], that his premises aren’t shared by virtually anyone involved in the ostensible subject matter on either side of the debate, and his information on what are the positions of either side is inaccurate… and his response is to stonewall and DEMAND that THEY adopt HIS definitions and premises so they fit, the seriousness of his intellectual inquiry stands fairly questioned.

[sub]1: To which he will reply that HE did not agree to them[/sub]

dj does not want to discuss if he “will prove evolution” as most everyone else in God’s Green Earth understands it. He wants to ask if he can do it according to his Grand Metaphysical Theory of the Universe… But how the heck can we DEBATE that if to any objection he can “by definition” declare himself right?

[dalovindj]

JRDelirious:

Simple: sign of the coming of the Time of the Antichrist. Satan at work.

So how long after the Posthuman emerges before Armageddeon? If this (armageddeon) does not follow in a timely fashion (following the posthuman emergence), does this prove the Bible incorrect?

dj does not want to discuss if he “will prove evolution” as most everyone else in God’s Green Earth understands it.

Here is a list of links to sites using evolution in a similar fashion. How many people have to use the word diferently than you before “most everyone” turns into “some”?

http://www.pparc.ac.uk/Rs/Pp/Sp/SolarLTSR.asp?Pv=1
evolution of the solar system

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/spacesci/structure/cgro.htm
evolution of the universe (nasa)

http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/gradprog/astro_280.htm
evolution of the universe

http://www.sciam.com/specialissues/0398cosmos/0398peeblesbox1.html
evolution of the universe (scientific american)

I could go on and on but you can do it yourself. Type “evolution of the universe” into google and you get 27,700 hits. Alot with evolution of the solar sytem as well.

dj does not want to discuss if he “will prove evolution” as most everyone else in God’s Green Earth understands it. He wants to ask if he can do it according to his Grand Metaphysical Theory of the Universe… But how the heck can we DEBATE that if to any objection he can “by definition” declare himself right?

I am simply not talking about biological evolution alone. I clarified my definition (there are several, Nasa has a whole program called Structure and Evolution of the Universe, which is not how you use the word, but it is not incorrect or stupid), and wish to engage in that debate. We most definately can debate (without me having to change the definition I am using) the following:

Does evolution (definition for this case previously stated) occur?

Would a Posthuman be a continuation of this process?

Does the emergence of a Posthuman (new life-form with God-Like powers) contradict the Bible? If so, would it disprove it?

These are the questions I am entertaining here. They can be answered with a position on either side and I don’t have to change the definition I am using to be right.

and his response is to stonewall and DEMAND that THEY adopt HIS definitions and premises so they fit,

I demand nothing. I am using the word evolution, it has multiple meanings so I must clarify which one I am using. I’ll accept that the emergence of the Posthuman would not prove biological evolution exists, and would not prove Natural selection exists. My OP question (qualified by my ((and Websters and Nasa’s)) later definition) goes beyond that point.

He is ALSO defining “creationism” the way it suits him. In HIS universe, “creationists” believe that such an outcome would be impossible, and therefore if it happens it disproves them!!

I live in THE Universe. Cleary creationists represent a large group of people with many different beliefs and stances. You could be a creationist and be non-religious. Some creationists accept biolgical evolution, but claim it is the work of God. So that is another word with pitfalls. Most of the creationists I have had conversations with have been of the flavor who take the Bible literally (6000 year old universe). That is the type of creationist I am thinking of when I use the word. Think Southern baptist church.

DaLovin’Dj

[Robb]

dalonvindj, for reasons that have escaped me, I’ve tried to engage your questions in your terms. I’ll try this once more, then I’ll stop.

Would a Posthuman be a continuation of this process?

In the manner that there is evolution by natural selection and evolution by natural selection. For quite some tmie now, humans have directed some evolution. This is show through different breeds of domesticated animals and plants.

Does the emergence of a Posthuman (new life-form with God-Like powers) contradict the Bible? If so, would it disprove it?

NO. This is simply an example of human creativity. Any “God-like” power a Posthuman would possess would really only be a “human-like” power.
Ultimately, you ask whether human creativity negates divine creativity. It can’t. If you believe in an omniscient God, a bunch of really clever monkeys won’t make you a disbeliever.

[dalovindj]

Robb:

NO. This is simply an example of human creativity. Any “God-like” power a Posthuman would possess would really only be a “human-like” power.
Ultimately, you ask whether human creativity negates divine creativity. It can’t. If you believe in an omniscient God, a bunch of really clever monkeys won’t make you a disbeliever.

So can the emergence of a Posthuman be made to fit in with the biblical description of the end of times? Is the Posthuman subject to judgement (biblical)? Or just regular old humans?

DaLovin’Dj

[tracer]

MeCorva wrote:

What would convince creationists to accept evolution

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.

Sigh … The origin of life from lifelessness has nothing to do with biological evolution. Evolution only starts to matter once organisms arise which can make crude copies of themselves. Getting to that point is called “abiogenesis” or “biogenesis,” not evolution.

A simulation, biological or otherwise, that shows how wings can evolve, in some fashion that resonates with people.

You mean like the chapter on wings in Richard Dawkins’s book Climbing Mount Improbable?

Someone breeding a dog into a cat.

Grrrr … this one always ticks me off. And I don’t mean the kinds of ticks that live in dog and cat fur.

Cats did not evolve from dogs. Dogs did not evolve from cats. Cats and dogs evolved from a common ancestor that lived millions of years ago. This common ancestor was neither a dog nor a cat. This common ancestor is now extinct.

You may be able to breed a dog into something that looks like a cat, but you will never be able to breed it into a cat, because that’s not how cat’s freakin’ evolved in the first place!

[Fish42]

*Originally posted by dalovindj *
**JRDelirious:

Simple: sign of the coming of the Time of the Antichrist. Satan at work.

So how long after the Posthuman emerges before Armageddeon? If this (armageddeon) does not follow in a timely fashion (following the posthuman emergence), does this prove the Bible incorrect?
**

Well, there are passages in the Gospels where Jesus implies that his Second Coming will occur within the lifetime of his apostles. Christians have found ways to reconcile those passages with his not having yet appeared*, and I suspect they’d have fewer problems reconciling Armageddon not following the emergence of the Posthuman.

*Personally, I’d just as soon not open up a debate on that subject; but if anyone else wants to debate it, please open a separate thread; this one has enough convolutions as is.

PS–Re one of andros’s posts: does anyone else think “Botswana polka-dots” would make a good band name?

[dalovindj]

Fish42:

Well, there are passages in the Gospels where Jesus implies that his Second Coming will occur within the lifetime of his apostles. Christians have found ways to reconcile those passages with his not having yet appeared*, and I suspect they’d have fewer problems reconciling Armageddon not following the emergence of the Posthuman.

Really? Could you tell me which passages? I would like to give it a fresh read. Unfortunately, I have read the bible through at least twice due to the fact my parents thought catholic school would give me a better education, but that was with the teachers insisting it was all real. (It’s funny that they go through most of it in class but they left out discussions concerning some of the better parts of the bible like Deuteronomy: When was the last time we had a nice stoning in the center of the town? We can use Central Park!)

As far as reconciling that particular fact with the bible, I know just where to look for that. I’ve got upmteen devout born-agains in my family and they are forever sending me links to places that explain (to use the word loosely) away everything.

DaLovin’Dj