Divinely inspired evolution

[Willum]

For purposes of this OP, God exists and is Omnipotent, and is otherwise as described in the NT.

One of the best fantasy writers of the '70's and 80's, Piers Anthony once quipped,

"God created the universe, Satan caused it to evolve."
Which made a lot of sense to me, when I was a believer. (Back in the '80's.)

So I am thinking a step forward.
Divinely inspired evolution:

We see genes change (like it or not creationists) and this even occurs over your lifetime (that's right, your genetics are not identical to when you were born - in a creationist sense, you are evolving - who knows, some of us might be even be evolving into apes - or is it the other way 'round?).

Anyway, if there is a God who loves us, even allowing for free will, wouldn't his desires for our well-being slowly or very quickly change us into perfect creatures?

God IS omnipotent, (OK God is omnipotent for purposes of this OP), so wouldn't his will, his desires change us, even the world according to what he wants? If he is Omnipotent, and things aren't changing according to his will, why not?

Why or why not? My thesis for this OP is, that since according to the Bible, God wants the best for us, and is all-powerful, the effect of his will upon mankind should dramatically change mankind - genetically, psychologically, or otherwise.

Submitted for your consideration and elaboration.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 280 by hoghead1]

[center]

What are the chances that a theologian has a good imagination?[/center]

...

A remarkable lack of imagination.

And this.

Blastcat Wrote:

"It almost looks to you that someone isn't even giving you the time of day, doesn't it?"

Moderator Final Warning


The snide remarks and the thinly disguised personal attacks have GOT to stop. This is your final warning.


Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator final warnings serve as the last strike towards users. Additional violations will result in a probation vote. Further infractions will lead to banishment. Any challenges or replies to moderator warnings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 321:

I think you misunderstood my point. I did not say God is human-shaped. I said a genuine uniformity must exist between ourselves and god.

For it is, "uniformity" don't mean it "uniformity", it means it "whateverintheheckitisicandotoconflagaratemethishereconversation".

Such uniformity does not mean God is absolutely identical to us in all respects, does not overlook major differences between God and ourselves. For example, I view the universe as the body of god

Your "view" comports it neither with reality, nor sanity.

A proposition lacking in supporting documentation is as goofy as me running up to the pretty thing there, and tellin' 'er she ain't.

because I find no other metaphor does justice to God's great intimacy with all things.

Your lack of imagination ough'tn it ever be a shamin' us who have us one of 'em.

What we know best , are most intimate with, is what goes on in our own bodies.

No. Speak for yourself when you attempt to declare what it is the rest of us are doin' it.

However, the major difference between ourselves and God is that God's body is the entire universe, God is incarnate throughout the entire creation, whereas we are incarnate largely in our own bodies.

By all that's holy, can you quit with your blind assertions and set to fetching after the truth!?

YOu've done nothing, NOTHING, to support your contentions, other'n to contentiate.

God's body would be the size and shape of the universe, which is a long way from how our body looks.

NO!

NO you can't!

You're just another fraudster come here to pontificate. You've made NO ATTEMPT WHATSOEVER to show you speak truth. You hide behind your biblical tales, your "divine stupidity", using it as a shield against anyone who challenges your claims.

You lack the moral fortitude to support your claims - much less the moral fortitude to deny those claims you can't support.

You're a fraud!

Put the heck up or shut the heck up!

[Zzyzx]

.
Moderator Warning

Joey, you KNOW you can't get away with such blatant personal attacks. This may trigger further Moderator Action.


Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

You're just another fraudster come here to pontificate. You've made NO ATTEMPT WHATSOEVER to show you speak truth. You hide behind your biblical tales, your "divine stupidity", using it as a shield against anyone who challenges your claims.

You lack the moral fortitude to support your claims - much less the moral fortitude to deny those claims you can't support.

You're a fraud!

Put the heck up or shut the heck up!

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 280 by hoghead1]


[center]

TWO CHALLENGES[/center]

Plus, novelty and complexity are continually happening at a rate beyond what mere chance would allow.

I hereby challenge you to defend that rather startling proposition.

Each moment your and I are new persons, unique. So there is far more in operation here than just mere chance or some sort of rare accident.

You've just repeated the first proposition.

You are hereby CHALLENGED to defend it.

The only logical explanation I can find for all this, is that there is a transcendental imagination continually at work.

I also challenge the PROPOSITION that you can't find any other logical explanation.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 321 by hoghead1]

I don't see the relevance of your point about the watch standing out.

Let's say both you and I believe the universe, and everything in it, to be intelligently designed. You and I take a walk in the woods. On the ground is a watch.
Now, answer me this. Why would I notice the watch? Why would I pick it up and say to you "oh, this is so obviously designed" and point out the various features it has that I say are indicative of design?

The fact one thing stands out over another has nothing to do with the fact as to whether they have intelligence or not.

I didn't say the watch has intelligence. I said it has intelligent design, and that one can justify this claim by pointing out various features it has, in contrast to everything else around it. Without the ability to compare and contrast, without being able to point to something that isn't designed, you (general you) have no way of pointing out what design even is, what it looks like.

[Joe1950]

I am going to go off track by referring to the OP.
Most specifically the suggestion that "god wants what is best for us". I don't see evidence of that in the Bible. If god wanted what is best for us it would be pretty easy for her to do. Certainly allowing chemical weapon attacks on children in Syria is not "best " for us. From what I see god could care less,

What does god really want?Seems as though god wants people to serve god.Period. The ultimate ego. Why? I have no clue.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 335 by rikuoamero]



[center]
If there is only ONE case, one particular instance of the case isn't going to be too too surprising.[/center]

]

Why would I pick it up and say to you "oh, this is so obviously designed" and point out the various features it has that I say are indicative of design?

If EVERYTHING was designed, I wouldn't notice the design of the watch compared to the design of anything else. The watch would not stand out by the fact that it is DESIGNED.

If everything was blue.. I wouldn't pick of a blue rock and say : "Wow look at this particular blue rock right here ... this particular blue rock is blue TOO, like everything else !!"

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 335 by rikuoamero]

The fact that something stands out has nothing to do with a contrast between something designed and something undersigned. A painting may stand out to you, from all the others in an art gallery. But you don't assume it had an artist, whereas the others didn't.

Plus, we have all had much experience as to how mindlessness produces but chaos. You take your mind off your driving, through texting, etc., Result: Mess, accident. A friend of mine was almost killed by a driver texting. remove mind from the equation and the result is chaos. That' why you would find it most illogical to assume that a tornado sweeping through a railway scrap yard would produce a 707. That's why a simple game of pool can turn into a big fight. The game starts with everyone in order, playing by rules. But as time passes, more and more booze is consumed. Everyone gets plastered. The alcohol suppresses more and more of your mental functioning. And in the end, a big mess. Let's say you ask a small child to draw something. Ok, they have some real degree of mind and can produce a picture. But that is nowhere near what a Da Vinci can do. Now if it takes a genius in art to paint a Mona Lisa, how much more genius yet was required to design the human body.

And consider that modern science assumes, at least via SETI, that just a few simple, organized beeps would indicate intelligent life. Ok, I agree. But then how much greater of an intelligence must be at work on organisms, who exhibit a far more complex order than just a few simple beeps.



You would pick up the watch and say that, because you know from your experience that such complex design and order requires a designing mind. That's how. Now, let's say you are walking through the woods and you stop to contemplate a tree. It stands out from everything else. You note it has a complex order, actually more intricate than the watch. So again, it would be logical to assume there is an ordering mind at work. If it took a designing mind to come up with the watch, how much more, how greater of an ordering mind must have been at work on the tree. Let's say you find a camera. You would assume a designing mind produced it. Ok, let's focus on the eye. It's far more sophisticated than a camera. So again, how greater a designing mind was at work on the eye.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 336 by Joe1950]

Yes, but you have to consider that we have freedom, we can choose not to follow completely God's aims for us. That is why evil occurs. That's why I said earlier that god is not in the guarantee business. god cannot decide for us. We have to decide for yourselves, and sometimes we do a lousy job of it.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 338 by hoghead1]

You take your mind off your driving, through texting, etc., Result: Mess, accident. A friend of mine was almost killed by a driver texting. remove mind from the equation and the result is chaos.

Do you mean chaos as in something not organized, not designed, not planned for? It is possible to pull cards from a deck with no plan in mind, and yet pull them in order of rank from highest to lowest.

That' why you would find it most illogical to assume that a tornado sweeping through a railway scrap yard would produce a 707.

Why this strawman of an argument? Show me where anyone ever argues that a tornado can produce a 707 aircraft.
This is a tired old hack of a line, one I've encountered dozens of times, and each time, I have to point out, it is a strawman of the evolution side of debate, in that proponents of evolution do not propose that tornadoes produce aircraft.
Do you have anything to say that isn't from creationist websites?

That's why a simple game of pool can turn into a big fight. The game starts with everyone in order, playing by rules. But as time passes, more and more booze is consumed. Everyone gets plastered. The alcohol suppresses more and more of your mental functioning. And in the end, a big mess.

What does this have to do with a discussion on divinely inspired evolution?

Let's say you ask a small child to draw something. Ok, they have some real degree of mind and can produce a picture. But that is nowhere near what a Da Vinci can do.

Is this presuming that children quite simply cannot have the same level of artistic skill as da Vinci? Whether in terms of drawing or in other areas?
Given that I was a child prodigy myself, I have to take umbrage at your seeming low opinion of children. I also look at my youngest sister, who is only 6 years old and who has already won trophies physically larger than she is.

Now if it takes a genius in art to paint a Mona Lisa, how much more genius yet was required to design the human body.

Error in logic, in that this assumes the human body to be designed. I've already had this argument many times with For_The_Kingdom. Have you read my exchanges with him?

And consider that modern science assumes, at least via SETI, that just a few simple, organized beeps would indicate intelligent life.

Because to date, no known or even proposed natural phenonemon has the capability to produce beeps in an organized pattern, such as the first 100 prime numbers.
If ever we did find such a phenomenon, we would have to revise that.

But then how much greater of an intelligence must be at work on organisms, who exhibit a far more complex order than just a few simple beeps.

Yes, life-forms are more complex than beeps on the electromagnetic spectrum, but are you being consistent with your logic here? What about the many errors in the human body, that we humans with our limited understanding of biology have been able to find and detect? Why am I lactose intolerant for example, when milk and milk by-products are such a great source of calcium, which is required for healthy bones?

You're trying to credit some imagined entity for designing the human body, because it happens to be so complex, but at the same time, you gloss over the many fundamental flaws it has, flaws that a designer entity who possesses the skill you attribute to it would simply not allow.

You would pick up the watch and say that, because you know from your experience that such complex design and order requires a designing mind.

As I told FtK before, this experience would include seeing firsthand watches being designed, seeing actual watchmakers hard at work designing and building watches.
I do not have a similar experience to draw upon when it comes to planets or the universe at large.
At best, all you have is an inference based on what you see as a similarity.
That's it.
Not an actual experience.
Also, I would say the above only in the hypothetical scenario. Not here in real life, just so you know.

Now, let's say you are walking through the woods and you stop to contemplate a tree. It stands out from everything else.

Assuming we are walking in the same woods as what I indicated...how? How does the tree stand out?

You note it has a complex order, actually more intricate than the watch.

Okay, how do you measure complexity? You say one thing is more complex than another thing. What's your metric?

So again, it would be logical to assume there is an ordering mind at work.

It would be logical to assume there is an 'ordering' mind (what does ordering mean?) at work because you notice a tree that stands out from its surroundings for no apparent reason, and that you somehow measure it as being 'more' complex than a watch, again, for no apparent reason?
There's no logic there. You're making jumps all over the place.

If it took a designing mind to come up with the watch, how much more, how greater of an ordering mind must have been at work on the tree.

All based on the assumption that the tree is 'more' complex than the watch, which you do not explain how you measure.

Let's say you find a camera. You would assume a designing mind produced it.

Because I've seen them built. I can go to factories right now and see them being built, if I wanted to. I wouldn't just 'assume' a mind designed them for no reason, as you seem to imply there.

Ok, let's focus on the eye. It's far more sophisticated than a camera. So again, how greater a designing mind was at work on the eye.

Again, what you have is not evidence, but an incredibly weak logical inference that is based on assumptions.

So question 1 for you is - What is your metric for measuring complexity?