Joe we are more apt to design our species into something new. Splicing gene's, removing them, creating new ones.

Here's something for you that supports the topic to a degree.

Religion pretty much thinks abortion is bad and evil. Yet our leaders have a new game to play.

A&M Univerisity has been picked to do the Genetic research into Splicing Human genes with those of a Fruit Fly. Seems we share 50% of our genes, the flys and humans.

Someone noticed that the Flys go without sleeping for up to 20 days at the end of which they die. That is one of the reasons they have such a short life span.

Anyway, they eat and multiply, that is the life of a Fruit Fly. So the Military has been druging Pilots, Special Forces and such for years to enhance surviability and mission success.

An EO was signed assinging A&M the job of seeing what they can come up with to Gentically Engineer Servicemen so they do not have to sleep for extended periods.

A&M is the best choice for this research out of everyone because they have had the greatest success in Genetic Engineering out of everyone in this nation. Their an Ag school which has extensive skills in Engineering Food Vegitables.

That opens some really nasty possibilities to say the least.

Someone volunteers for this and it works, they are now Gentically Engineered and will spend the rest of their life as such. They will have special diets to survive and so forth. Now are they allowed to marry and have children? The children would have these genes in their make up so you could not allow them to mix with anyone outside the group for fear of the genetic changes expanding throught the population and species. So do they become wards of the Military or Government?

anyway, the possibilities are staggering to say the least. This EO was signed within months after 9/11 and it was only spoken about on the news three times that I know of. DOD has open projects for such things also.

So, is that Creation or is it Evolution?

If we can do it, why couldn't someone else have done it before us? If they did, then there are/is a creator/s.

anyway... off to never never land with me

Social Evolution? Where?

I'd like to see it

Hell I would like to see the Governments of the world evolve at the same pace as their respective citizens for a change.



[Message Edited]

Paxx:

Social Evolution was a contrived way for one class or race to purposefully weed out another, and then blame nature. Often their targets are *more fit*. Immigrants that will work harder for less money are *more* fit evolutionarily than fat and happy native inhabitants of a country. The Jews in Germany were not poor and downtrodden, they were an influential and thriving ethnic group that Hitler saw as a threat to the 'true' people of Germany ( those who were coincidentally less-thriving ). This is the *opposite* of natural evolution.

No one causes the Ethiopian people to starve. They are less educated, have no natural resources, and are faced with an environment that will not allow them to survive. The other 'packs' of their species who live in neighboring areas won't let them have a new place to live. Evolution? With wolves it would be, with people it is 'wrong', (i.e. 'evil'). How can you apply these laws to nature and not to Humanity, who, as you are stating to Kona, you also consider to be animals?

If there is no higher moral authority than nature, no 'good and evil', then I fail to see the logic of applying some esoteric, subjective idea of 'right and wrong'. Children starve by the millions while we sit and eat Mickey D's until we look like Jabba the Hut. Those are things that we call 'wrong', and yet when packs of wolves do the very same things, or when climate change causes the extinction of a species, or when a mother cat kills the weakest kitten so that the others will have more food... THAT we call evolution.

IF there is no higher moral authority espousing compassion and charity, then I'm not sure why atheists bother with it. People here who are stating their complete acceptance of evolution as the factor of their own creation and well-being, often state their total disgust with its characteristics acting within the human race. At the very least people who are religious can point to an ethos. What are you basing this 'right and wrong' on? Conscience? Who made that? Millions of years of extinctions and survival? Not a very palatable system to base your humanity on.

Hitlers use of the Jews had many things behind it. On a personal level he had felt they cheated him when he was attempting to enter University for Art. He was painting and drawing greeting cards and also some pictures that a friend was selling for him like an agent, a Jewish friend. But in time he failures where directed at that friend as a liar and cheat who was bleeding him for profit.

Hitlers second turning point for hating Jews was in WWI. He had walked through a Gas barrage leading those of his unit still alive and blind and or dying from the Mustard Gas, himself almost blind, to a Hospital miles away. A long line of men in that condition with Hitler at the front egging them on to not stop that they would find help. He actually was awarded the highest honor in the German Army for it which would be the equivalent of the Medal of Honor in the United States.

While in the hospital he could see more and more troops coming in and dying around him, the cannon fire coming closer each day, the opposition had pushed hard and was gaining ground. One day some low grade officers and a higher ranking Noncom came to the hospital, almost drunk and still drinking. Hitler asked what news of them and they in turn started talking about how the War was lost and that the Army should turn it's guns to Capitol and get rid of their leaders or the country was lost. That put him over the edge.

The Jews were hated by him and he used them as a Tool, Fear and the Economy also had a place in his tool box.

That is Social Engineering of which Social Evolution is the end result...

imho...

anyway

How sad the Germans in WW1 were dying and suffering from Mustard Gas.....the phrase 'poetic justice' comes to mind....

On one level it is without a doubt, but on another it was no less wrong than them making use of it.

Odd isn't it, as a species we haven't evolved all that much from smashing each other over the head with rocks and sticks really on that account

Those accounts of Hitler are from a two book novel about Hitler written by a Jewish author. It was a trial I would think to be able to look at him without coloring what he would eventually say about him or the end reault of the Hollacost..

He looked at the facts, spoke with Hitlers sister and others who were close to him as a youth and on to the end, then turned around and presented it without coloring it in the least.

anyway... back on topic...

Human Evolution is in question for me because of the fact that we have not evolved in any other way than technology pretty much.

Creation without religious overtones is something I lean towards.

there is a reason why I mentioned cows and humans being combined.

It's an army thing I think; some sort of experiment to save people from anthrax and other WMD

But the new 'cows' could become the new 'species' that talks and walks and all that rot.


By the way, don't dolphins and whales have some sort of religion or faith in there societies? Elephants?

So sad how the word "Religion" has scared so many ppl away from "God"
hehe

and evennnn sadder that ppl cannot distinguish the two apart? hehe!

(nevermind Jafo I checked the distinguish word it looks right) hehe
nice to have this edit button
[Message Edited]

Although i could care less it saddens me to think of all the people who don't even believe in God, or a higher power of some sort.

if sience is SO good, why can't they (scentists)explain how a cat purrs or why can't they predict the weather down to a T or why can't they predict eathquakes and all that?

I define Science as things Man is just now finding out
but
what I already know through the word of God and my Faith.

Kona,

It's not a matter of science being SO good, or anything like that. Science is not (nor does it claim to be) the answer to all things.

Science is the process we use to understand the things around us. We observe things, try to figure out why they happen, see if we can predict other things from our level of understanding. And we constantly adjust that knowledge as we get more and better information.

We may not fully be able to create a 100% accurate model of the weather (or earthquakes, etc.), but we can forecast it enough to do us some good, as opposed to simply saying 'God did it.' That God 'did' it, may in fact be true, but the level of understanding we achieve allows us to adapt to what happens, and that, IMHO, is also part of His will.

Science is not in conflict with God (even though some people think so). If God wanted us to have all the answers, we would actually have them, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

If you believe (as I do) that God exists, and is responsible for everything, then it isn't that much of a leap to accept that He wants us to learn how things work, the real history of life and the universe, etc. As a matter of fact, I believe that one of the reasons we exist is specifically to advance our knowlege and grow with it.

Knowledge (or power) merely granted (or gained without effort) is dangerous, much as giving the detonator to a nuclear device to a two year old would be. Our test as intelligent beings is to learn that knowledge (and gain the concomitant power) for ourselves, with our own effort.

There is nothing about either creation or evolution that is fundamentally compassionate or harmful. To argue that believing in evolution implies that the scientist is harsh or accepting of harm is no different from arguing that a God who creates a world with the same level of pain and suffering is a harsh or uncaring God.

Whether attributed to evolution or creation, the same forces are in play. And there's a valid reason for those forces, regardless of the source. In much the same manner that getting a vaccination or a mild infection strengthens the body against the more harmful factors, so also does the struggle and effort and pain and death (bad as they are) serve to strengthen us as a whole.

Growth of any kind is fraught with pain and hardship and bitter experience, otherwise it would not be growth, but merely change. And we cannot protect ourselves from this pain, nor should we, even if we could. There is only growth or stagnation or death (and IMHO, stagnation and death are pretty much the same thing). You either grow or die, and I prefer to believe that God wants us to grow.

Any purpose God requires of us cannot be defined by the limited concepts in the mind of any man. I firmly believe that His purpose for us REQUIRES us to learn and understand and grow, both in science and in faith. We would not have those abilities otherwise.

Since ancient times, a common sense, straightforward reading of Scripture has led Israelites and Christians to understand an approximate age of the universe. The cosmos was created in six 24-hour type days, and is only thousands of years old, not millions. With few exceptions, this is what our Church Fathers have always taught.
Since the 1800s, when Evolutionism became popular, various Christians have tried to harmonize it with Biblical beliefs. Although most Christians rejected atheistic Evolutionism, many accepted various important aspects of the theory, including the belief that the Earth was billions of years old. What most have done to harmonize the Bible with "modern" scientific theories is add God's supernatural power to an evolutionary process.

The three most common ways in which Christians have incorporated billions-of-years into the Bible is by Theistic Evolutionism, the Gap Theory, or Progressive Creationism (also called "Process Creation"). Of the three, Theistic Evolution is the most liberal theologically. Theistic Evolutionists often reject the entire Creation account. For some, the only active role for God is the He started the "Big Bang" and occasionally stepped-in to supersede natural processes.

The Gap Theory is a more conservative view, theologically. Both Gap Theorists and Progressive Creationists definitely consider themselves to be Bible-believing Christians. The Gap Theory's basic proposition is that there is a possible time gap of millions (or possibly billions) of years between Genesis 1:1 &1:2. There are many versions of the Gap Theory, but most agree that the time supposedly "required" by modern science can be put into this assumed gap. During this supposed time, many events took place which God did not tell us about.

Progressive Creationists take another approach. How do they insert billions-of-years into the Bible? They change the meaning of "day" in the creation account - from a single rotation of the Earth, to a long, indefinite period of time (perhaps hundreds of millions of years each).

What happened during these long periods? Not all Progressive Creationists agree. Their opinions often hinge on whether they have a theologically liberal bent, or a conservative bent. The more liberal picture God as doing relatively little in the way of actual creative acts during the supposed billions of years of creation. God simply steps-in now and then, to create new life forms. The more conservative Progressive Creationists present God as doing many more creative miracles. That is, God creates the world in numerous progressive steps. That is why this belief is called "Progressive Creation" or "Process Creation."

Although there is little widespread agreement among Progressive Creationists, they generally believe the following:


The "Big Bang" is interpreted as God's way of producing stars and galaxies through billions-of-years of natural processes.
The Earth and universe are billions of years old.
The days of Creation were overlapping periods of millions and billions of years.
Death and bloodshed have existed from the very beginning of Creation and were not the result of Adam's sin. Man was created after the vast majority of earth's history of life and death had already taken place.
The flood of Noah was local, not global and it had little affect on the Earth's geology which represents billions of years of history.
It is obvious then that Progressive Creationism is a belief which opposes both atheistic evolutionism and historic Christianity's understanding of biblical creationism. The teachings of Progressive Creationism are not new or original, but only recently have the views of Progressive Creationism received unprecedented wide and favorable publicity through Christian radio, television and magazines. Because Progressive Creationists often present their views as being based on a literal interpretation of the Bible, they have been invited to speak at numerous prominent evangelical churches, schools and ministries.
There are many inconsistencies in the theory of Progressive Creation. According to many conservative theologians, the most dangerous of its teachings is the proposal that Adam and Eve were created after the majority of earth's history had already taken place, including eons of death among the animals. Their timeline includes millions of years of major disasters befalling the animals before Adam or sin, including disease, famines, volcanic destruction, hurricanes, tornadoes, asteroid impacts, supernovas etc. As a result, animals frequently became extinct, never to be seen by man. The belief that death existed prior to the fall undermines the Bible's clear teaching that death is a result of sin (I Corinthians 15:21-22; Romans 5:12). Any theory which places man or animal death prior to the fall of Adam must be rejected.

Another concern for many Christians is the Progressive Creationist's belief that the "days" of creation in Genesis 1 can be legitimately understood as long, undefined periods of time. This claim is impossible to support using sound hermeneutic principles (the science of understanding the Bible) and is contrary to the orthodox teachings of the Christian Church from the time of the apostles.

Clearly, Progressive Creationism is an attempt by many evangelical Christians to harmonize the teachings of modern science with the Bible. However, rather than confirming the truths of the Bible, Progressive Creationism supports the foundational tenets of evolutionary science and causes greater anxiety among believers that indeed God's word cannot be rightly understood by the common, untrained layperson. After-all, the "proofs" for Progressive Creationism come mainly from the field of science, not from the simple teachings of the Bible. In this way, Progressive Creation erects a subtle barrier between the believer and the Bible, a wall is constructed between the believer and God Himself.

#282 by Kona0197 - 9/16/2003 8:14:42 AM Comes down to faith. I believe God created us in his Image and he gave us dominion over every other lifeform and animal on the face of the earth.

hmmm...I have to disagree with with that.  Why would that be?  And how can we not be an animal?  It seems like only an animal would eat another animal.  If we are so superior, why do we still do that?  Why do we have to believe that we have to be superior to all the animals instead of peacefully co-existing with them (or admit that we are animals just like all the rest?)?  I have watched how animals interact with each other too many times to believe that we are really that advanced from them.  I don't believe that they way we act shows that we are superior to anything.  All it shows to me is that we are egotistical and destructive.  That is not to say that I don't believe that I also have some of this behavior, I am just stating that the only reason that anyone would want to think that we are not animals is to justify their actions toward other animals.

This is my thought on the whole "God" thing- God created mankind and stuck us on this Earth.  Everything that is needed by man is on the Earth.  There are diseases, but there is something on the Earth that will cure the disease.  The game is to see how long it takes before man kills itself off by destroying everything on Earth that would have cured the diseases.  We think we know everything, but in truth, we know so very little.

I'm not going with blind faith about anything.  My plan is to live as wholesome of a life as possible and see how it turns out in the end.  I really doubt that going to church is what will appease this "god", and I doubt that there is any one belief that is correct. 

Bakerstreet, I still fail to understand your logic. So in your opinion, people who don't believe in God have no morals?
Morals, values are aquired. They are taught by parents, friends, school, and in this day and age, by the media as well.  But the strongest values are learned at a very early age by the parents. Those values can be based on religion, sure, but it can also simply be based simply on "tradition". Parents transmit to their children the values they themselves have been taught. Again, religion can come into account, but is not required. As a matter of fact, religion is simply one of those values transmitted as well.

But, I'll return the argument the other way around. How can religious people think that there is a Universal Good and Evil set forth by God? If it's the case, God changes his mind quite often, IMO.  In the days of Jesus, adultery was a sin (ie: Evil) and punishable by death through lapidation (well, only for the girl, the involved man just got frown or two). That was the Law of God. Not quite the case now.
Less than 100 years ago, dancing was a sin (evil).  Having pleasure in the sexual act was a sin; procreation was a duty, but enjoying it was a sin.  Birth control is still a sin for the Catholic Church (including the condom).

I could go on and on. And I'm not even talking about the inconsistancies with the other Gods' laws. This is all the same God who's laws have changed over the centuries.  How can somebody who believes in God and in his perfection, still believe that our morals, our values, our concept of Good and Evil, comes from Him?

I agree w/ you Java I doubt that going to Church will appease this "God" too *sigh*
If that were true I'd only have to take a few steps in any direction each day and run into one each day and be saved... hehe!
(got a ton of Churches over here by me and I still don't go, cept on rare occasions)

I also doubt reading your Bible faithfully will appease this "God" or just running around doing good deeds all day long, I "think" it has more to do w/ faith, love & compasion maybe? but who knows I'd still like to know how God expects us to pass these trials on earth and make it when it's seems impossible cuz of our surroundings and our physical makeup.

Funny thing w/ me is I never doubt there is a "God" I just doubt and don't know anything else... hehe