03 Sep 20
@petewxyz saidI don't happen to believe the concept that "God never changes". It's a bit of self-advertizing that isn't quite true.
What if God's image is continuously evolving and never static (I have certainly seen powerful phenomenon represented by clouds of constantly moving images now that technology permits). What if God's image refers to a powerful pluripotent ever changing thing, such that the pluripotent nature of evolution is in that image (as opposed to just referring to the appearance of man at one static moment in time).
@suzianne saidNone, really. Technological and cultural advances aren't evolution as we're discussing it. The last few thousands of years have seen us adapt, by natural selection, our skin pigmentation, hair and eye colour; characteristics have been inbred into isolated populations, which are largely climate - related, but nothing which makes us diversify into different species, under the skin we're still all the same, and have been since our African beginnings, and now we're busy coming back together and interbreeding that won't happen anyway.
How much 'evolving' have we been doing since, say, the discovery of agriculture?
Big changes have come in our scientific knowledge and hence technological advancement, and in our understanding of life, the universe and everything, including of course our discovery of DNA and our understanding of genetics. None of this was known about in biblical times, so in order to explain and try to make sense of everything they made stuff up, which is understandable. Some of us take the writings in the bible as 'Gospel truth', and reject completely anything learned since then, ('It's faith, John, know what I mean, and that's good enough for me.' ) which is an easy position to take as you don't have think about anything. Some of us reject the teachings of the bible (and all other world religions) and run with the new science, which is also an easy thing to do, and some of us try to blend the two together, which is a difficult position to take, fraught with difficult questions.
These three absolutely opposing positions are the reason that we bang on endlessly in these forums, and I daresay will continue to do so until the cows come home, be they biblical or otherwise.
03 Sep 20
-Removed-How long does evolution take? Are you aware of the answer to that question?
Is it longer than Man has been of the same species, Homo sapiens sapiens? Has man evolved past this species yet? Exactly how many evolutionary changes do you think have occurred to man (H. sapiens sapiens) while man has been on this planet? Is man a new species now, since Jesus the Christ? What is wrong with you people? Man has been in God's image since he has been man. This entire question is moot and I cannot believe you are actually stretching this far to even ask it.
Are you actually going anywhere (besides your typical MO of harassment) with this line of questioning?
@indonesia-phil saidYes, exactly.
None, really. Technological and cultural advances aren't evolution as we're discussing it. The last few thousands of years have seen us adapt, by natural selection, our skin pigmentation, hair and eye colour; characteristics have been inbred into isolated populations, which are largely climate - related, but nothing which makes us diversify into different species, unde ...[text shortened]... orums, and I daresay will continue to do so until the cows come home, be they biblical or otherwise.
If man was "in God's image" when he was first made, then, obviously, he still is.
@suzianne saidYou and I don't agree about everything, indeed there are few of us who agree with each other about everything, but isn't it jolly nice when we can at at least agree about something. Let us celebrate our agreements when they happen!
Yes, exactly.
If man was "in God's image" when he was first made, then, obviously, he still is.
@indonesia-phil saidIn the last 10,000 years or so mankind has evolved to digest milk and gluten.
None, really.
In the last 5,000 years sickle cell anemia has evolved as a protection against malaria.
In the last 5,000 years blue eyes have evolved as a response to living at northern latitudes.
In Tibet genetic mutations have evolved in the last 2,000 years to better breath at altitude.
Still evolving!
@wolfgang59 saidYes, as I touched upon, we are as a species adapting to different environments, and you have added diet to this and our resistance to nasties, and I daresay we could think of other things. We nevertheless remain the same species. Given enough time in isolation a new, distinct species may well have developed, but given that everyone nowadays is all over the place, and Africans are breeding with Norwegians (for example) (sexual attraction is a good one for breaking down racial barriers) we are if anything in the process of meeting somewhere in the middle, given a few more hundreds of thousands of years.
In the last 10,000 years or so mankind has evolved to digest milk and gluten.
In the last 5,000 years sickle cell anemia has evolved as a protection against malaria.
In the last 5,000 years blue eyes have evolved as a response to living at northern latitudes.
In Tibet genetic mutations have evolved in the last 2,000 years to better breath at altitude.
Still evolving!
I'm not a 'man in gods' image' merchant, as I don't believe in any god, nor do I assume that we will be around forever as the dominant species. One good meteorite strike or a really nasty virus and it's goodnight Vienna and something else would take over, but I find it hard to see how Homo Sapiens will develop into a newly classified species, unless we all do it together and reclassify ourselves.
That's how I see it, I could be wrong, of course, but admitting that you could be wrong is the road to greater enlightenment and understanding, neither of which I lay claim to. And you are right, of course, in what you say, I'm not disagreeing with you.
@indonesia-phil saidSurely one generation to the next will always be the same species!
We nevertheless remain the same species.
Definitions of species in an evolutionary lineage are quite arbritary.