The links you had me read are racist. I am guessing you innocently googled and found them, as if they somehow prove some point you were trying to make. The differences between "races" of humans are so slight that the variation is less for humans than for other species. Far less. As far as I'm concerned, and the science strongly supports it, the only difference between people who look different is skin pigment or other incredibly minor differences. Do I think Man is done evolving? Hardly. The issue is Man is intelligent and it becomes an interesting philosophical question of whether he is interfering with evolution or whether evolution must consider intelligence. For example, we cross breed corn to achieve certain characteristics that benefit us. The corn likely would not have turned out like it does if left to its own. Is the corn better surviving because it's more appealing to us, or have we radically altered the evolutionary path so it's less relevant? The same kind of thing affects Man himself. We breed selectively based upon what we deem choice characteristics, and so on.
I like that response and it makes great sense. So are you saying the mind is evolving? Maybe physically, and sorry but this was the only word that made sense, "spiritually"? And this evolution, has designed us to actually defeat the actual boundaries of evolution? Be it designing or genetically altering food, environment and science itself?
As I see it, the earth is 4.5B years old, life formed just a few hundred million years into that 4.5B, and evolution has been mostly doing its thing ever since. There have always been external forces that have altered the path of evolution. There have been a number of natural disasters that caused near extinction of every species, a reset of sorts. The extinction of every single being of nearly every single species. These disasters run the gamut from volcanoes to vast forest fires to asteroids hitting the earth. There have been geological and chemical processes that had effect as well. Like plants and algae creating enough oxygen in the atmosphere to make it possible for life to take to land. None of those things had any intelligent agent involved. It was pure luck, and destined to happen because of the sheer number of years involved and the way things like celestial mechanics work. Like, it's just a matter of time before the earth and some other celestial body end up in the same place at the same time. Only Man has shown any ability to intelligently alter the progression of things. And in the 4.5B year scene of things, it's a very recent thing. Maybe for the past 1M years (note: far longer than 6,000!). Wild goats on an island will eat every bit of vegetation until there's nothing left and they starve to death. Even primitive humans figured out agriculture and to plant crops, harvest them, and rotate planting in the fields. The goats is evolution at work. Evolution does its thing still, as man cannot control or affect everything everywhere. We see flu viruses adapt to our vaccines - a mutation exactly described by evolution.
And like I posted above this; the next dimension of thinking is "man can alter evolution" and notice I even put your "note" in with this. I am asking the question, giving you the benefit of the doubt about evolution. I am not admitting I believe in it, nor am I admitting I disagree with the Earth being (6,000 years old). Nor am I admitting that maybe, just maybe, what was told to a people with no sense of science and time was much more important to them; could imagine that 6,000 years is a very fucking long time. Try explaining physics to a sheep herder with no modern education. Hell try explaining how to fly to someone in the 17th century. But then look back at an artist like Da Vinci; designing possible flying apparatus. Regardless, science is a damn good tool to find truths. I will never discredit it. What is really intriguing is our ability to make DNA or RNA; that is using life of course in modern science. Can you imagine in 50 years, how much more advanced we will become? Can we grow a new strand of breathing species? Have we already? Does that mean we can play God? Can we inject moral code into new babies or even "tigers" like the ones that evolutionists believe was passed through an evolutionary process? The only sad thing I feel about "Atheism" is eventually life ends. Eventually the universe will end. Eventually all of these studies and advancements will end. Everything that we see is beautiful will be nothing? That's too hard for me to accept. Maybe it's the romantic or artist in me.
can a cloned human get to heaven? what about a half shark alligator half man? if a modified human clone is 10% human can it still get to the great beyond?
It's not clear that the universe ends. What is clear is that we are made of the products of the stars, and we will eventually be turned into the stuff of some new star.
I don't know because it hasn't happened yet. Do we even know if we clone a human they maybe without a soul. What if that cloned human didn't have humanistic behavior you and I or anyone else for that matter has? Could this be a way that we can prove we have a soul? Maybe we should try to clone a human and find out. I'm open are you? How would you explain it if I'm right? What that toss out all those studies about morality being evolved through behavioral issues and passed through DNA. But I think the study would need to be on creating a human from nothing. Like not using existing DNA from a living man. You must make man out of nothing. That is atheism. There is no soul and life didn't exist from life, but from intimate objects that eventually became life. It's that chicken before the egg thinking, if you know what I mean.
no, if we cloned you mags, and they were exactly like you and believed in jesus, would they go to heaven?
How can it? There isn't any study that cloned a full human. But if you are trying to dig into my philosophy; then if it's exactly like me "with a soul" then it has just as much a right to go to heaven as I do, IMO. My thinking is: we aren't just parts; but we have another intimate part to us. Like we have a part of God in us. I call that "spirit"
I didn't make that rule. Physicians theorize it isn't realistic. I don't know as much about physics or quantum physics like people in that field. Trip Tango is one. Maybe ask him.
Nobody claims to know how the universe ends. There are a few theories that are all possibilities, but no compelling evidence that any of those is the correct theory. None of these theories involve a rapture or resurrection or those sorts of things.
They're all good theories. To me, it seems reasonable to expect the universe to expand to a size so big that everything becomes really far apart. So far apart that no two atoms would be close enough for gravity or other processes to take place. Basically the number of stars will decrease over a really (really really) long time until there are none left.
Well that sucks. So all our information, art, history and well life is gone. If your right than that just sucks.
