You may believe evolution but will you abandon your design for the mark of the Beast?

[Gottservant]

Godless philosophies like evolution (I don't regard it as fact, so it can only be a philosophy) are one thing to talk about, but another to live by. We all know the line that "evolution doesn't happen to individuals" but that doesn't stop us educating ourselves in order to survive and one thing we need to be educated about is just whether people actually know restraint when it comes to evolution. The theory goes that man is his own creation with no appeal to a higher value, but this doesn't save you when it comes to serious compromise.

The temptation to change your design is growing. Implants grant people with disabilities new leases on life, but they can also benefit people who are fine. Genetic modification is believed to benefit food but one day it may extend to people as well. Right or wrong, it is likely that we will all be faced with difficult choices about where we stand in relation to our design, but what happens when the temptation is to abandon your design altogether?

There is a future in which we will be faced with the possibility of abandoning our design altogether: the mark of the Beast. It will be said that this technology will make society safer, more convenient and more law-abiding. What is it? A mark that makes you a slave to the Beast who will rule the world (Revelation 13). Anyone who receives this mark goes to Hell, but are people who believe in evolution ready to accept that?

 

[Electron]

Godless philosophies like evolution (I don't regard it as fact, so it can only be a philosophy) are one thing to talk about, but another to live by.

Evolution is a theory. A theory is a tested explanation of observed behavior. I'm sure you can figure out what this means on your own.

We all know the line that "evolution doesn't happen to individuals" but that doesn't stop us educating ourselves in order to survive and one thing we need to be educated about is just whether people actually know restraint when it comes to evolution. The theory goes that man is his own creation with no appeal to a higher value, but this doesn't save you when it comes to serious compromise.

Excellent! You now realize that it is a theory! Now, in this part, I'm guessing your assuming people who aren't creationists have no morals? Personally, I'd rather morality come from a true attempt to better humanity, instead of from a fear of being sent to hell by Deity X.

The temptation to change your design is growing. Implants grant people with disabilities new leases on life, but they can also benefit people who are fine.

I fail to see how plastic surgery has anything to do with evolution. However, it's their own choice. I find it unneccessary and a sign of insecurity, but they can waste their money if they want.

Genetic modification is believed to benefit food but one day it may extend to people as well. Right or wrong, it is likely that we will all be faced with difficult choices about where we stand in relation to our design, but what happens when the temptation is to abandon your design altogether?

Again, this has nothing to do with evolution. This has to do with genetic engineering. Genetic engineering is good to some extent, but I think we need to be very cautious with what we do with it. Knowing humans, we'd probably screw something up early (while having only a basic knowledge of GE), and destroy half the planet.

There is a future in which we will be faced with the possibility of abandoning our design altogether: the mark of the Beast. It will be said that this technology will make society safer, more convenient and more law-abiding. What is it? A mark that makes you a slave to the Beast who will rule the world (Revelation 13). Anyone who receives this mark goes to Hell, but are people who believe in evolution ready to accept that?

All people who "believe" in evolution go to hell? At least I'll have good company there. I'd love to talk with Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking someday.

 

[sbvera13]

I don't understand the question, unless it's just a long winded version of fire and brimstone.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Gottservant, what are you talking about and why?

 

[revolutio]

Godless philosophies like evolution (I don't regard it as fact, so it can only be a philosophy) are one thing to talk about, but another to live by. We all know the line that "evolution doesn't happen to individuals" but that doesn't stop us educating ourselves in order to survive and one thing we need to be educated about is just whether people actually know restraint when it comes to evolution. The theory goes that man is his own creation with no appeal to a higher value, but this doesn't save you when it comes to serious compromise.

Repeat in clearer terms because the bolded parts make no sense.

The temptation to change your design is growing. Implants grant people with disabilities new leases on life, but they can also benefit people who are fine. Genetic modification is believed to benefit food but one day it may extend to people as well. Right or wrong, it is likely that we will all be faced with difficult choices about where we stand in relation to our design, but what happens when the temptation is to abandon your design altogether?

My design involved a hereditary disposition to severe depression. I am happily changing that through neuropharmacological supplements. That isn't a difficult choice.
Where are you drawing the line of design, you need to define this carefully if you are going to preach on the topic? Don't assume design means the same thing to me.

There is a future in which we will be faced with the possibility of abandoning our design altogether: the mark of the Beast. It will be said that this technology will make society safer, more convenient and more law-abiding. What is it? A mark that makes you a slave to the Beast who will rule the world (Revelation 13).

People call everything the mark whenever technology is implanted. A group a women suffering from a seizure disorder had electrical implants fixed to their spinal columns. Regular pulses over time reduced seizure activity. Coincidentally they also caused [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] each time. Is that the mark? Sign me up.

Anyone who receives this mark goes to Hell, but are people who believe in evolution ready to accept that?

What the heck does this have to do with evolution? It sounds like you are talking about atheists and people who have no moral qualms with technology and science being applied to humans. Evolution is incidentally accepted by most atheists.

 

[flatworm]

Godless philosophies like evolution (I don't regard it as fact, so it can only be a philosophy)

Actually it's a well-substantiated unifying explanation of a large body of facts.

are one thing to talk about, but another to live by.

Nobody "lives by" evolution any more than they "live by" trigonometry. It isn't a theory of ethics, it isn't a theory of economics, it isn't a philosophy of social organization, and I can't for the life of me figure out why you treat it as if it were.

We all know the line that "evolution doesn't happen to individuals" but that doesn't stop us educating ourselves in order to survive and one thing we need to be educated about is just whether people actually know restraint when it comes to evolution.

What on earth does that even mean? For pity's sake, how many times do we have to explain to you that evolution isn't a choice organisms make. It's just an artifact of imperfect replication in environments where some variants reproduce better than others. Restraint doesn't enter into it.

The theory goes that man is his own creation

The theory goes that people are creations of their parents. Please tell me you understand this.

with no appeal to a higher value,

The pythagorean theorem provides that the on a plane, the square of a right triangle's hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides, with no appeal to a higher value. Oh noes!

A Haynes car repair manual will walk you through changing your oil, with no appeal to a higher value. Those soulless reprobates!

Ohm's law states that the current through a resistor is equal to the voltage across is divided by the resistance, with no appeal to a higher value. Save the children!

but this doesn't save you when it comes to serious compromise.

The temptation to change your design is growing.
Implants grant people with disabilities new leases on life, but they can also benefit people who are fine. Genetic modification is believed to benefit food but one day it may extend to people as well. Right or wrong, it is likely that we will all be faced with difficult choices about where we stand in relation to our design, but what happens when the temptation is to abandon your design altogether?

Neither medical implants nor genetic engineering are covered under or consequences of the theory of evolution. They may raise valid ethical question, and the field you want to look up is called bioethics.

There is a future in which we will be faced with the possibility of abandoning our design altogether: the mark of the Beast. It will be said that this technology will make society safer, more convenient and more law-abiding. What is it? A mark that makes you a slave to the Beast who will rule the world (Revelation 13).

Which technology is this, specifically? If you believe the Bible, this "mark of the beast" will be "the name of the beast, or the number which represents his name".

Anyone who receives this mark goes to Hell, but are people who believe in evolution ready to accept that?

I imagine many Christians who accept evolution would be, sure. As for myself, you first need to demonstrate the existence of 1) The Beast, 2) His mark, 3) Hell...

...and even then it would still have nothing to do with evolution.

 

[Maxwell511]

I heard the mark of the beast is a scar left from some chip implant.

Also Anti-Christ=Superintelligent Robot.

 

[spiritplumber]

Mark of the Beast... Well, I listen to Iron Maiden, so I probably already have it

Gottservant, a question for you: Would you rather go to Hell with a clean conscience or go to Heaven knowing you didn't deserve it?

 

[PeterMaclellan]

If events start happening as literally foretold in revelations I would probably accept that as evidence supporting the existence of God. IF the choice was between giving up evolution or accepting the mark of the beast, I would assume that evolution doesn't occur and would have some very pointed questions for God when I am judged. That said I find it very unlikely that the beast will ever show up, and when he does I find it even less likely that somehow ones belief in evolution will have anything to do with anything. If God does exist, then I believe evolution is simply the process he uses in creation.

 

[Brennin]

Anyone who receives this mark goes to Hell, but are people who believe in evolution ready to accept that?

I don't see the connection.

 

[Morcova]

Just because this hasn't been said a gazillion times before:

Evolution =/= atheism
Evolution =/= anti-christian

By the way, doesn't the post qualify as a violation of forum rules?

Well he has stated by default that christians who believe in evolution aren't christian.

 

[Dannager]

Hey guys I hear there are things going on in this thread that aren't going on in other threads is this true

 

[Tomk80]

What kind of things?

 

[HumanisticJones]

Um... I have no idea how to answer that question...

I don't believe in Satan or this so called Mark of the Beast. But that not withstanding, I don't see how the change in populational allele frequencies over time, driven by selection pressures to produce better adapted organisms is relavent to submission to the will of a supernaturally embued dictator.

 

[Parmenio]

Thread on evolution winding down because the creationist has nothing new to offer?

Nothing livens up a thread than an assertion that the entire universe was based on different physical properties 2 thousand years ago!

Does your theory not allow for light to get to the earth by the current time because light only travels at C? Have no fear! Simply assert that light used to travel one million times faster than it does now, and that no one can prove it didn't, and your problems are solved!

Pesky thoughts of "as it was in the beginning, so it is and ever shall be" getting in the way of your arbitrary physical laws theory? No fear! Accuse the other side of not understanding what "real" science is and further assert that it's all based upon the flawed uniformitarian assumption. Done!

No clue what evolution actually is? Enter random buzz word generator! Cite the immutable law that the different kinds have always stayed the same and there is no proof to the contrary! Remember! The fifth law of thermodynamoes says that no more information can be added to DNA! So even science disproves evolution!!

 

[Avatar]

My head hurts. Did anyone understand the question? Maybe my ancient brain cells are atrophying but I don't have a clue which choice to choose in the poll.

 

[Parmenio]

No one does. No one ever does.

 

[TurtleTamer]

There is a future in which we will be faced with the possibility of abandoning our design altogether: the mark of the Beast. It will be said that this technology will make society safer, more convenient and more law-abiding. What is it? A mark that makes you a slave to the Beast who will rule the world (Revelation 13). Anyone who receives this mark goes to Hell, but are people who believe in evolution ready to accept that?

Gottservant, I'm having a bit of trouble following your chain of logic. It appears you are arguing the following:

1. Evolution = atheist
2. ???
3. Evolution favors genetic manipulation and implants (prosthetics?)
4. Implants (prosthetics?) and genetic manipulation change our design
5. The mark of the beast will change our design.
6. ???
7. Evolution favors the mark of the beast
8. Thus, those who believe in evolution will be more likely to accept the mark of the beast.

Now, I'm missing two transitions in there. The first is why evolution would favor either implants or genetic manipulation. The second is how changing our design one way will thus carry to a generalized desire to change our design.

In addition, I see the following faults in the logic I can follow:

Evolution doesn't attempt to answer what we ought to do. It is the best model we have to explain population genetics. Nothing about modeling genetic change in populations would actually lend itself to ethical decisions about benefits of various medical advancements.

As far as the link between changing our design and evolution, I'd remind you that implants and most forms of theorized gene therapies would not be heritable and would thus not be evolutionary factors anyway. Likewise, there is nothing to suggest the mark of the beast will be heritable so that will likely not have anything to do with evolution either.

Concerning your apparent dismay at the prospect of changing our design, does this extend to correction of injuries? Correction of birth defects? For example, would it be wrong to correct a cleft palate surgically? Is it wrong to do hip replacements? would such a prohibition extend also to less invasive corrections like traditional prosthetics? In short, where does moral medicine become immoral change in design?

 

[spiritplumber]

Maybe Gottservant is trying to conduct a statistical analysis of some sort?

 

[Gottservant]

Evolution doesn't attempt to answer what we ought to do. It is the best model we have to explain population genetics. Nothing about modeling genetic change in populations would actually lend itself to ethical decisions about benefits of various medical advancements.

Thankyou for answering my opening post seriously. A considered reply is rare, much less one that is intelligent.

Unfortunately, you suggest that although you have this wonderful theory of evolution, which helps you identify things that look like a process that is responsible for who we are, you are actually unable to decide on the basis of that theory whether something will be good or not for who we are. That makes the thread slightly redundant... but not without making the theory of evolution look pointless (at best).

Neverthless, on topic, I have to ask: how many people here would look at a technology that harmonizes (makes of one mind) a population of human beings as an advance in evolution?

PS. I never said prosthetics or even genetics was bad.