Is human the end of evolution?

[juvenissun]

This assumes "in the likeness of God" means looking like Him in a physical body". Not "Having a soul." Most TEs figure on the latter. God in His infinite wisdom designed a process that would eventually spit out a being with enough brainpower to hold and understand a soul and knowledge of Him. And voila! It did. Here we are.

Metherion

Then why not wait just a little longer, the being to come would possibly be even better (more like God and can please Him more). We would be just like apes, a pass-by product in the train of evolution.

 

[metherion]

TE laughed at YEC that there is no scientific evidence for the idea (TE's idea fits much better SCIENTIFICALLY).

That is what I meant. But when the very scientific TE is pushed to the corner, then it called the idea of Creation (God made it that way, or No one really knows the truth) and trying to get by.

You seem to misunderstand something at a fundamental level.

There is no scientific evidence for God. Period. God is outside the realm of science.

There is scientific evidence for evolution, and old earth, and old universe, etc. There is scientific evidence against a young earth, special creation, a global flood, etc.

The main thing TE does is it REALIZES THAT GOD SET SUCH THINGS IN MOTION. That is the point: realizing God made and set into motion evolution, the laws of the cosmos, etc. The evidence for TE is the evidence for evolution, geology, etc. But that's all in the E part of TE. The evidence for the T part is the evidence for God. Which there isn't any. Well, no scientific evidence anyways. There is no evidence God designed evolution. There is no evidence God created the universe. There is no evidence that God exists. The God part comes out of faith. But the God part of TE realizes how the world and the universe actually are and attribute that to God instead of denying it, or wrestling with how to cram it into a literal Genesis, or even lying and deceiving about it.

Metherion

 

[juvenissun]

You seem to misunderstand something at a fundamental level.

There is no scientific evidence for God. Period. God is outside the realm of science.

There is scientific evidence for evolution, and old earth, and old universe, etc. There is scientific evidence against a young earth, special creation, a global flood, etc.

The main thing TE does is it REALIZES THAT GOD SET SUCH THINGS IN MOTION. That is the point: realizing God made and set into motion evolution, the laws of the cosmos, etc. The evidence for TE is the evidence for evolution, geology, etc. But that's all in the E part of TE. The evidence for the T part is the evidence for God. Which there isn't any. Well, no scientific evidence anyways. There is no evidence God designed evolution. There is no evidence God created the universe. There is no evidence that God exists. The God part comes out of faith. But the God part of TE realizes how the world and the universe actually are and attribute that to God instead of denying it, or wrestling with how to cram it into a literal Genesis, or even lying and deceiving about it.

Metherion

you can not separate T and E that clearly. In TE, the E "must be" related to T. That is the question in my OP, how does TE handle that? As I understand, TE handle this issue very poorly. The OP just presented one of the challenge to the way TE handle it.

 

[metherion]

Praytell, why MUST the E be related to the T? Why can the E just not be something the God represented in the T created? Why must TE reveal the mind of God to say WHY He revealed Himself at the time He did? Why can't TE just be recognizing what God set up in the universe and that is WAS God who set it up? Why can't TE just be recognizing that God revealed Himself to (well, the Jews to be specific, but humanity as a whole) us and our descendants? Why do we have to know WHY God chose us to craft in His image in whatever way He saw fit to do so?

Why can't my beliefs be what they are?

Metherion

 

[Mallon]

Then why not wait just a little longer, the being to come would possibly be even better (more like God and can please Him more).

juvenissun, it sounds mean, but this statement clearly reveals your ignorance of evolutionary theory. Evolution is not a continual process of improvement, whereby the longer we evolve, the "better" we become. It is a process of change, whereby we adapt to our changing environments. We cannot evolve to become "more like God".
Enough with the fear mongering. We cannot evolve out of God's love.

 

[juvenissun]

juvenissun, it sounds mean, but this statement clearly reveals your ignorance of evolutionary theory. Evolution is not a continual process of improvement, whereby the longer we evolve, the "better" we become. It is a process of change, whereby we adapt to our changing environments. We cannot evolve to become "more like God".
Enough with the fear mongering. We cannot evolve out of God's love.

May be YOU, who should re-evaluate how did evolution change things.

We just did (we became better than monkey), didn't we? The little green man, who knows how to fly through a worm hole, are "better" than us, Aren't they? Who knows that they were not the chosen ones?

 

[Mallon]

May be YOU, who should re-evaluate how did evolution change things.

We just did (we became better than money), didn't we? The little green man, who knows how to fly through a worm hole, are "better" than us, Aren't they? Who knows that they were not the chosen ones?

What in the world are you talking about?

 

[Assyrian]

TE laughed at YEC that there is no scientific evidence for the idea (TE's idea fits much better SCIENTIFICALLY).

That is what I meant. But when the very scientific TE is pushed to the corner, then it called the idea of Creation (God made it that way, or No one really knows the truth) and trying to get by.

Sorry? You think we are pushed into a corner here? We believe by faith that God is Creator. We are Christians. That comes with the territory. Where science has provided answers about the history of universe we will go with the scientific evidence, because as Christians, as human beings, we love the truth and don't want to live in self deception. However we do not feel any particular need to answer questions we don't have any evidence about, and are very comfortable living with things we don't understand and probably won't understand until we met Jesus face to face.

Thanks for the elaboration. What you said simply emphasized my question. Why should then God choose us, if His image was everywhere in the sequence of evolution. He could choose apes (not that much worse from us) and saved them. Then the salvation would be completed 10 million years ago (just 0.1% earlier in time, no big deal).

Then why not wait just a little longer, the being to come would possibly be even better (more like God and can please Him more). We would be just like apes, a pass-by product in the train of evolution.

Why not earlier... why not later? Well why not when he chose? God does things 'in the fullness of time'. Jesus could have died a thousand years earlier, we could still be waiting. God does not necessarily tell us why he chooses the times he does.

I suspect it is because we needed to be able to know right from wrong. When we know something is wrong and do it, that is when the human race started to need a saviour. Isn't that what Genesis tells us?

 

[juvenissun]

What in the world are you talking about?

Sorry, typo. It should be monkey, not money.

Ha ha ...

 

[Assyrian]

Monkey as in £500?
Oh I see, you mean ape.

 

[Mallon]

Sorry, typo. It should be monkey, not money.

Ha ha ...

You still missed, like, four or five others.

 

[juvenissun]

Sorry? You think we are pushed into a corner here? We believe by faith that God is Creator. We are Christians. That comes with the territory. Where science has provided answers about the history of universe we will go with the scientific evidence, because as Christians, as human beings, we love the truth and don't want to live in self deception. However we do not feel any particular need to answer questions we don't have any evidence about, and are very comfortable living with things we don't understand and probably won't understand until we met Jesus face to face.




Why not earlier... why not later? Well why not when he chose? God does things 'in the fullness of time'. Jesus could have died a thousand years earlier, we could still be waiting. God does not necessarily tell us why he chooses the times he does.

I suspect it is because we needed to be able to know right from wrong. When we know something is wrong and do it, that is when the human race started to need a saviour. Isn't that what Genesis tells us?

Very good: "we don't understand" and "why not when he chose?". That is basically my question to TE.

Human beings only existed for a very very short period of time in the time scale of evolution. Yet, TE think God choose this very exact moment to give His salvation. Statistically, this is very very odd. Provided that many many other strange natures also happened to this species (such as the recognition of sin, industry etc.). Put all of them together, TE should admit that human being IS VERY SPECIAL, and is "highly likely" NOT a result of evolution.

This is the main argument in the OP. And I do not see any one effectively argue against it.

 

[Assyrian]

Very good: "we don't understand"

Of course TEs leave the we don't understand to things we don't understand. What we don't do is claim "we don't understand" for things that are well established science.

and "why not when he chose?". That is basically my question to TE.

Don't we both believe God sent his son 2000 years ago? What is the question?

Human beings only existed for a very very short period of time in the time scale of evolution. Yet, TE think God choose this very exact moment to give His salvation. Statistically, this is very very odd.

Yes the observable universe is 27 billion light years across, 4x10^20 cubic light years, yet in all that huge volume of universe you believe you live right here. Statistically, this is very very odd. Statistically you probably don't live on this planet. Well according to that sort of statistics anyway.

Provided that many many other strange natures also happened to this species (such as the recognition of sin, industry etc.). Put all of them together, TE should admit that human being IS VERY SPECIAL,

Agree completely.

and is "highly likely" NOT a result of evolution.

No that does not follow at all.

God could create us in six days as easily as he could do it over billions of years using evolution. The evidence says we evolved over billions of years. What is highly unlikely to the point of ridiculousness is to claim God did it in six days when all the evidence says clearly they we evolved.

This is the main argument in the OP. And I do not see any one effectively argue against it.

The fact that it is a non sequitur works quite well.

 

[Mallon]

You know, the Christian church once held strongly to Ptolemaic cosmology, and strongly objected to the findings of Galileo and Copernicus, on the basis that man was no longer placed at the centre of the universe (which was suddenly much bigger).
Your objections sound much the same, juvenissun. Let's learn from our past mistakes and not force God to work according to how we think He should.

 

[juvenissun]

Yes the observable universe is 27 billion light years across, 4x10^20 cubic light years, yet in all that huge volume of universe you believe you live right here. Statistically, this is very very odd. Statistically you probably don't live on this planet. Well according to that sort of statistics anyway.

... when all the evidence says clearly they we evolved.

When the statistical odd is so dismally small, why would anyone say the the evidence is "clear"?

Yes, we should not exist here. The reason we do is that we are not the result of evolution.

 

[Mallon]

When the statistical odd is so dismally small, why would anyone say the the evidence is "clear"?

The Bible is full of improbable things. As Christians, I don't think we should get too hung up on statistics.

 

[shernren]

You know, the Christian church once held strongly to Ptolemaic cosmology, and strongly objected to the findings of Galileo and Copernicus, on the basis that man was no longer placed at the centre of the universe (which was suddenly much bigger).
Your objections sound much the same, juvenissun. Let's learn from our past mistakes and not force God to work according to how we think He should.

Micro-quibble: not all geocentrists were Ptolemaic. In fact, not even most of them were - and while many of the clergy were firmly Aristotelian, yet Cardinal Bellarmine (who as I understand spearheaded the inquiry into Galileo's hereticism) was firmly unAristotelian, even going so far to believe that the heavens were not perfect and unchanging but in fact that stars and planets floated through the heavens "like fish in water, or birds in air".

 

[Assyrian]

When the statistical odd is so dismally small, why would anyone say the the evidence is "clear"?

Because we obviously do exist here, and now. Why do you think the statistical likelihood of our existing here and now is any less than for any other time and place? Why not accept the clear evidence in front of your nose.

Yes, we should not exist here.

No that does not follow. It is like going up to a lottery winner and telling him he should not have won because it is statistically impossible. You could have a ministry preaching to lottery winners. The likelihood of them winning the lottery is so small it must have been a miracle.

The reason we do is that we are not the result of evolution.

That certainly does not follow. There is no reason evolution should not have produced us here and now rather than any other time, and as people who believe in God, there is no reason God should not have used evolution to produce us here and now rather than any other time.

Youi seem quite happy to use a 'why did God choose us now rather than any other time' argument against evolution. The same bad statistical argument applies to God creating us here, only the statistics are cubed. Why now in 13.7 billion years? Why here in ¾ x π x 13.7 billion x 13.7 billion x 13.7 billion cubic light years?

 

[shernren]

Youi seem quite happy to use a 'why did God choose us now rather than any other time' argument against evolution. The same bad statistical argument applies to God creating us here, only the statistics are cubed. Why now in 13.7 billion years? Why here in ¾ x π x 13.7 billion x 13.7 billion x 13.7 billion cubic light years?

To at least 6 digits of accuracy, humans have existed for 0% of the universe's time. To probably more than 15 digits we comprise 0% of the universe's mass and occupy 0% of the universe's volume.

To a pretty darn good first approximation none of us exist.

 

[juvenissun]

The likelihood of them winning the lottery is so small it must have been a miracle.

Good try. However, the analogy is wrong, and it should look like this:

The lottery pool is 10 million, but the winner actually won $10^30. It is nothing but a miracle. Your lottery example only apply to any particular species in the evolution of other animals, not to human.

Youi seem quite happy to use a 'why did God choose us now rather than any other time' argument against evolution. The same bad statistical argument applies to God creating us here, only the statistics are cubed. Why now in 13.7 billion years? Why here in ¾ x ? x 13.7 billion x 13.7 billion x 13.7 billion cubic light years?

Yes, I am still quite excited in using this argument. It is incredible that we are looking at the same statistical fact, but have an entirely opposite understanding. Nobody convinced me yet (to the slightest degree) that my illustration missed the point. Unlike other arguments that each side may have some solid foothold to base on, or have some confused area in the middle, this one is nearly black and white. One has to be (very very most likely) wrong.