dino-chicken

[Bunyip]

Yes, I can. We make the changes we can make, and want to make, as much as we are able -or understand that we are able.

WE cannot see PERFECTLY into the future -because we are ignorant of some things -and cannot consider them beforehand.

If all could be understood beforehand, all could be predicted beforehand.

“The best way to predict your future is to create it”

― Abraham Lincoln

Now..... consider, for a moment, that the above is not a quote from Abraham Lincoln...

The one who created that lie would have created this false-yet-real future.

The problem is that lying about the past destroys the future -weakens the foundation.

Given enough falsehood, the future could collapse into chaos and ruin.

Disregarding the lie can redeem the time, etc..

Learning would be futile if we could not both know the future and create it to varying degrees.

Well I would think that learning helps to prepare you for any future possibility.

 

[Etritonakin]

Well I would think that learning helps to prepare you for any future possibility.

And... learning helps you create future possibilities, which were otherwise impossible.

 

[Bunyip]

And... learning helps you create future possibilities, which were otherwise impossible.

Sure does.

 

[Etritonakin]

How would you know what changes to make? You can't see into the future.

The reason I asked was that I was thinking about how God might make animals "after their kind".
I do not believe Genesis is speaking of the initial creation/completion of the earth -but a renewal after it had become waste and ruin, so I am considering "natural" evolution as a means of creation, direct creation and a combination of both.

The following two quotes are from http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/flight/evolve.html

""The most difficult question about the origin of flight is "Why?". "Why" questions are the most difficult ones to ask when they concern evolution; evolution does not ask "why?" Evolution has no sense of future; the here and now is the only place where evolution occurs. It is imperative to keep this in mind when considering the origin of flight."

"Since all we have is the fossil record, which seldom preserves records of complex behavior (except animal tracks!), it becomes necessary to formulate hypotheses of ancestral behavior based on ancestral adaptations.
Translation: We must compare and contrast the structure of the ancestor of the flying lineage (or closest approximation thereof) with the earliest known member of that flying lineage (as determined by cladistics), using functional morphology to infer the possible function of the adaptations present in the earliest flyers, and then make predictions of possible behavior. The environment where the organism is found also helps
to constrain possible behavior."

I understand why the above is done as it is from a scientific viewpoint, but where some assume no creative influence, I assume a creative influence and intent overall.
I have just as incomplete a physical/fossil record, but also consider the scripture an accurate, but extremely incomplete, written record.
Even if God did not exist, it would not be futile to consider such things as man has the capability to reverse-engineer life and purposefully initiate evolution in other environments -or to directly create species which are able to adapt to their environments.

Evolution itself does not ask why -but it certainly answers a lot of questions -or one big one in various ways! "How can life stay alive?"

(If one considers an intelligence -a personality -a psychology -which pre-determined evolution, the root of the answer to the question "Why" would have to be "Because it's totally awesome!"

If one considers the intelligence -personalities -psychology produced by what we call evolution, the end result has been a species able to consider things to be totally awesome -and to create things which are totally awesome for no other reason than to consider and enjoy their awesomeness. Totally awesome moves us forward. Totally awesome food, totally awesome hot babes, totally awesome rides, the totally awesome future in which we can create infinite infinitely awesome things....

Necessity is a consideration, but it is not enough. Totally NOT awesome and not TOTALLY awesome also become factors when a life forms have the ability to consider such things. Such can then consider that doing what is necessary to stay live is not worthwhile unless it leads to something totally awesome.

Man's present state of being between totally awesome and totally not awesome drives man to take control and actively make things totally awesome. Man often cries out "why are things not totally awesome when they obviously can be?"

The fact that what has been produced can ask "why" indicates to me that there IS an answer to that question -and someone who can answer it -that the specific nature of things [and the fact that they are not otherwise when they could have been] very much indicates an intelligence which could answer "because I caused things to be this way" -and also answer the questions which logically follow. "I made you to see things which are totally awesome" "I subjected you to not totally awesome so you would be aware of that possibility, avoid totally not awesome, and learn to create and appreciate a state of totally awesome yourselves")

I am considering whether genetic code might possibly be programmed to both produce specific types of life forms and also give them the ability to adapt.
Actually, I know it can be arranged to produce specific things by an external intelligence -as even man is beginning to do so, but I am wondering if it can be pre-programmed to make specific changes.

Is it a "fluid" sort of "produce every possibility" thing which just eventually goes everywhere it can and fills every space by its own nature -sea, land, air, etc. -or pre-programmed to respond to certain things in specific or generally-specific ways when it encountered them.

As one who believes that God created all things, when it is said that life happened by "natural" processes I cannot disagree, as the nature of nature would have been initially designed to produce physical life. The elements themselves would have been designed for that purpose -for physical life and its environment -and are a sort of "produce every possibility" tool kit.

Considering the scriptures about God changing the nature of animals ...causing the lion to eat straw like the ox, etc., I see that such is something we could also do in the near future -and would be a mix of direct creation and evolution/adaptation -though our short-sightedness, disunity and disorganization (etc.) make me hope that God steps in soon and does it right before we make a really grotesque mess of things.

 

[Nietzsche]

The reason I asked was that I was thinking about how God might make animals "after their kind".
I do not believe Genesis is speaking of the initial creation/completion of the earth -but a renewal after it had become waste and ruin, so I am considering "natural" evolution as a means of creation, direct creation and a combination of both.

The following two quotes are from http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/flight/evolve.html

""The most difficult question about the origin of flight is "Why?". "Why" questions are the most difficult ones to ask when they concern evolution; evolution does not ask "why?" Evolution has no sense of future; the here and now is the only place where evolution occurs. It is imperative to keep this in mind when considering the origin of flight."

"Since all we have is the fossil record, which seldom preserves records of complex behavior (except animal tracks!), it becomes necessary to formulate hypotheses of ancestral behavior based on ancestral adaptations.
Translation: We must compare and contrast the structure of the ancestor of the flying lineage (or closest approximation thereof) with the earliest known member of that flying lineage (as determined by cladistics), using functional morphology to infer the possible function of the adaptations present in the earliest flyers, and then make predictions of possible behavior. The environment where the organism is found also helps
to constrain possible behavior."

I understand why the above is done as it is from a scientific viewpoint, but where some assume no creative influence, I assume a creative influence and intent overall.
I have just as incomplete a physical/fossil record, but also consider the scripture an accurate, but extremely incomplete, written record.
Even if God did not exist, it would not be futile to consider such things as man has the capability to reverse-engineer life and purposefully initiate evolution in other environments -or to directly create species which are able to adapt to their environments.

Evolution itself does not ask why -but it certainly answers a lot of questions -or one big one in various ways! "How can life stay alive?"

I am considering whether genetic code might possibly be programmed to both produce specific types of life forms and also give them the ability to adapt.
Actually, I know it can be arranged to produce specific things by an external intelligence -as even man is beginning to do so, but I am wondering if it can be pre-programmed to make specific changes.

Is it a "fluid" sort of "produce every possibility" thing which just eventually goes everywhere it can and fills every space by its own nature -sea, land, air, etc. -or pre-programmed to respond to certain things in specific or generally-specific ways when it encountered them.

As one who believes that God created all things, when it is said that life happened by "natural" processes I cannot disagree, as the nature of nature would have been initially designed to produce physical life. The elements themselves would have been designed for that purpose -for physical life and its environment -and are a sort of "produce every possibility" tool kit.

Considering the scriptures about God changing the nature of animals ...causing the lion to eat straw like the ox, etc., I see that such is something we could also do in the near future -and would be a mix of direct creation and evolution/adaptation -though our short-sightedness, disunity and disorganization (etc.) make me hope that God steps in soon and does it right before we make a really grotesque mess of things.

...

Humans have been intentionally influencing the evolution of plants & animals since we've been recognizably human. Everything you eat was genetically modified over thousands of years by humans, to end up on your plate the way you recognize it today. Bananas might be the best example of this. The banana we recognize today is roughly 150yrs old. Dogs, cattle, chickens, goats...

Every domesticated animal. All of them.

The only thing we're doing differently in regards to genetic engineering is that we have greater control over the process, it's no longer a game of pure luck.

I loathe seeing people bemoan "humanity playing god". All it does is show me how little they know about human civilization. We've been doing it for as long as we've been around. It is not at all new. It's as old as our very civilization, and it's the bedrock on which we became what we are. This is not at all new, the only "new" thing is that we're able to do it with a precision our ancestors would've given their first-born sons to have.

Really, assuming you are right about God 'directing' or such evolution, I'd prefer he get his nose out of it. Because if anything, human existence has been one big collective effort at fixing God's mistakes.

 

[Etritonakin]

...

Humans have been intentionally influencing the evolution of plants & animals since we've been recognizably human. Everything you eat was genetically modified over thousands of years by humans, to end up on your plate the way you recognize it today. Bananas might be the best example of this. The banana we recognize today is roughly 150yrs old. Dogs, cattle, chickens, goats...

Every domesticated animal. All of them.

The only thing we're doing differently in regards to genetic engineering is that we have greater control over the process, it's no longer a game of pure luck.

I loathe seeing people bemoan "humanity playing god". All it does is show me how little they know about human civilization. We've been doing it for as long as we've been around. It is not at all new. It's as old as our very civilization, and it's the bedrock on which we became what we are. This is not at all new, the only "new" thing is that we're able to do it with a precision our ancestors would've given their first-born sons to have.

Really, assuming you are right about God 'directing' or such evolution, I'd prefer he get his nose out of it. Because if anything, human existence has been one big collective effort at fixing God's mistakes.

Psa 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

We now KNOW that we are doing things which we once did in relative ignorance.


Excellent points!

...Except the one about God making mistakes. It is no mistake that God is causing us to learn to fix and sustain things.

One of the most difficult and important lessons man must learn is that it is absolutely necessary that God gets his nose in it while we learn to get our noses in it correctly -and to understand that God's nose isn't going anywhere -it will always be in it.
However, as with human government and those who complain about too much of it, increased personal responsibility and competence means a decreased necessity for government -and vice-versa.

What you call mistakes (I'm assuming you mean things like illnesses, defects, vulnerability, death, war, sorrow, etc...) I call being cast out of "Eden" for rejecting God's nose -being kept from the tree of life lest we live forever in the disorder which would lead to such "mistakes" -and being subjected to an environment which would cause us to understand why God had his nose in it in the first place.

God essentially -to a degree -let the creation "go to hell" -fall into whatever disarray it might -so that we might understand what was rejected and also learn to begin to master the creation.

Romans 8:18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. 20For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 21that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now.

The end result being that WE WILL FIX THINGS, MASTER THINGS, HAVE DOMINION OVER ALL THINGS -but under the necessary and beneficial government of God.

Php 3:21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.

What was rejected in Eden was continued maintenance and oversight of the human condition and situation -guidance in keeping it from falling to ruin, etc... and prevention of the tragic "mistakes" we see all around.
We could have advanced much more quickly -without danger of catastrophy or abominable states of being.
He could have freely given what we now strive for through great effort -trial and error -but stopped freely giving knowledge and longevity to beings he knew would not initially submit to necessary government, thereby limiting their ability to cause undesirable states.
It was offered, and continually rejected -it was explained, but ignored. Who was this guy telling us this stuff, anyway? They had to learn both his nature and the nature of the creation.
So now we learn it by experience -and also eventually learn that God is capable of sustaining perfection -and was trying to teach us to do so.
He is the source of knowledge of the workings of what he created

There was no mistake on his part -but he had to temporarily allow mistakes on our part while we learned.

The reason people bemoan mankind playing God is that we are not God -and we really suck at it.
God does things right -but allows us to do things wrong -to experience things made and gone wrong -so that we eventually get it right and don't suck at it.

God is making of us gods, but we must still acknowledge the reality of our situation.
God should play God because he is God -there are certain things we should not do because it is not good to do them and it is not our place to do them.
That will always be the case.

Many individuals doing many things in disorder -trying to do things they are not even yet capable of doing right -will always be the wrong way to go about things. Acknowledging the source of all knowledge, power, -the one capable of bringing ALL THINGS TO ORDER (even eventually the wills/free agency of many individual creators), etc. will always be the right thing to do.

The end result of man not having God's nose in it would be the destruction of man -as we will soon learn by experience.

Fortunately, God will put his nose in it.....

Mat 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
Mat 24:22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved:.......

Isa 35:5 Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped.
Isa 35:6 Then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing: for in the wilderness shall waters break out, and streams in the desert.

Rev 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Needs more cowbell.

 

[Nietzsche]

The end result of man not having God's nose in it would be the destruction of man -as we will soon learn by experience.

Roughly, how long have people been saying that? "The End is Nigh", we're sowing the seeds for our downfall, our time draws near...

Oh, that's right. Forever. Tens of thousands of years. And each and every one of those predictions has been utterly wrong. This little brown-blue marble makes yet another revolution round' the super-dense ball of nuclear fire. People are born. People die. The world remains. Despite the repeated claims of self-proclaimed prophets, theologians, asylum patients & the hilariously gullible we're still here.

One would think that eventually people would get the hint. Namely, that civilization & humanity is not remotely as fragile as some want to believe. Even if the God of Abraham is the real deal, so far despite best efforts no "predicted" doomsday has occurred. There must come a point in time where you say "maybe I'm not the exception" with stuff like this.

 

[Bunyip]

The reason I asked was that I was thinking about how God might make animals "after their kind".
I do not believe Genesis is speaking of the initial creation/completion of the earth -but a renewal after it had become waste and ruin, so I am considering "natural" evolution as a means of creation, direct creation and a combination of both.

The following two quotes are from The Evolution of Flight

""The most difficult question about the origin of flight is "Why?". "Why" questions are the most difficult ones to ask when they concern evolution; evolution does not ask "why?" Evolution has no sense of future; the here and now is the only place where evolution occurs. It is imperative to keep this in mind when considering the origin of flight."

This was all resolved many years ago. Feathers evolved to keep the body warm, and wings began as a way to manoever faster when running. As turkeys, emus and ostriches do today. It is not in any way whatsoever challenging to evolution.

"Since all we have is the fossil record, which seldom preserves records of complex behavior (except animal tracks!), it becomes necessary to formulate hypotheses of ancestral behavior based on ancestral adaptations.
Translation: We must compare and contrast the structure of the ancestor of the flying lineage (or closest approximation thereof) with the earliest known member of that flying lineage (as determined by cladistics), using functional morphology to infer the possible function of the adaptations present in the earliest flyers, and then make predictions of possible behavior. The environment where the organism is found also helps
to constrain possible behavior."

I have to say, as a 'translation' that was remarkably self serving and distorted. Not so much a translation as it is a wildly optimistic interpretation.

I understand why the above is done as it is from a scientific viewpoint, but where some assume no creative influence, I assume a creative influence and intent overall.
I have just as incomplete a physical/fossil record, but also consider the scripture an accurate, but extremely incomplete, written record.
Even if God did not exist, it would not be futile to consider such things as man has the capability to reverse-engineer life and purposefully initiate evolution in other environments -or to directly create species which are able to adapt to their environments.

Evolution itself does not ask why -but it certainly answers a lot of questions -or one big one in various ways! "How can life stay alive?"

(If one considers an intelligence -a personality -a psychology -which pre-determined evolution, the root of the answer to the question "Why" would have to be "Because it's totally awesome!"

If one considers the intelligence -personalities -psychology produced by what we call evolution, the end result has been a species able to consider things to be totally awesome -and to create things which are totally awesome for no other reason than to consider and enjoy their awesomeness. Totally awesome moves us forward. Totally awesome food, totally awesome hot babes, totally awesome rides, the totally awesome future in which we can create infinite infinitely awesome things....

Necessity is a consideration, but it is not enough. Totally NOT awesome and not TOTALLY awesome also become factors when a life forms have the ability to consider such things. Such can then consider that doing what is necessary to stay live is not worthwhile unless it leads to something totally awesome.

Man's present state of being between totally awesome and totally not awesome drives man to take control and actively make things totally awesome. Man often cries out "why are things not totally awesome when they obviously can be?"

The fact that what has been produced can ask "why" indicates to me that there IS an answer to that question -and someone who can answer it -that the specific nature of things [and the fact that they are not otherwise when they could have been] very much indicates an intelligence which could answer "because I caused things to be this way" -and also answer the questions which logically follow. "I made you to see things which are totally awesome" "I subjected you to not totally awesome so you would be aware of that possibility, avoid totally not awesome, and learn to create and appreciate a state of totally awesome yourselves")

I am considering whether genetic code might possibly be programmed to both produce specific types of life forms and also give them the ability to adapt.
Actually, I know it can be arranged to produce specific things by an external intelligence -as even man is beginning to do so, but I am wondering if it can be pre-programmed to make specific changes.

Is it a "fluid" sort of "produce every possibility" thing which just eventually goes everywhere it can and fills every space by its own nature -sea, land, air, etc. -or pre-programmed to respond to certain things in specific or generally-specific ways when it encountered them.

As one who believes that God created all things, when it is said that life happened by "natural" processes I cannot disagree, as the nature of nature would have been initially designed to produce physical life. The elements themselves would have been designed for that purpose -for physical life and its environment -and are a sort of "produce every possibility" tool kit.

Considering the scriptures about God changing the nature of animals ...causing the lion to eat straw like the ox, etc., I see that such is something we could also do in the near future -and would be a mix of direct creation and evolution/adaptation -though our short-sightedness, disunity and disorganization (etc.) make me hope that God steps in soon and does it right before we make a really grotesque mess of things.

 

[Etritonakin]

Roughly, how long have people been saying that? "The End is Nigh", we're sowing the seeds for our downfall, our time draws near...

Oh, that's right. Forever. Tens of thousands of years. And each and every one of those predictions has been utterly wrong. This little brown-blue marble makes yet another revolution round' the super-dense ball of nuclear fire. People are born. People die. The world remains. Despite the repeated claims of self-proclaimed prophets, theologians, asylum patients & the hilariously gullible we're still here.

One would think that eventually people would get the hint. Namely, that civilization & humanity is not remotely as fragile as some want to believe. Even if the God of Abraham is the real deal, so far despite best efforts no "predicted" doomsday has occurred. There must come a point in time where you say "maybe I'm not the exception" with stuff like this.

I'm not predicting a date for doomsday, but most in the world who do just a bit of the math can see that much trouble is brewing -and just about everyone could agree that things are really messed up.

I'm not the one moving the doomsday clock back and forth. Who came up with that? Oh yah -scientists.

 

[Bunyip]

I'm not predicting a date for doomsday, but most in the world who do just a bit of the math can see that much trouble is brewing -and just about everyone could agree that things are really messed up.

I'm not the one moving the doomsday clock back and forth. Who came up with that? Oh yah -scientists.

No, the doomsday clock was a media invention. And of course life expectancy is at a high point.

 

[Etritonakin]

This was all resolved many years ago. Feathers evolved to keep the body warm, and wings began as a way to manoever faster when running. As turkeys, emus and ostriches do today. It is not in any way whatsoever challenging to evolution. I have to say, as a 'translation' that was remarkably self serving and distorted. Not so much a translation as it is a wildly optimistic interpretation.

I wasn't trying to challenge evolution -but understand it.
This was all not resolved, either -that's just their best scientific wild *** guess at present.
Besides, I thought things didn't evolve FOR anything -they just happened to be advantageous. Is that not the case now? I thought they had that resolved?
Also, I was not translating -that was a quote. Take it up with Berkeley.

I must say, I'm a bit disappointed.

 

[Etritonakin]

No, the doomsday clock was a media invention. And of course life expectancy is at a high point.

I'm just going to assume something got you in a bad mood and you just want to be argumentative and rude..

Could it be, El Guapo.... that you are angry at something else.... and transferring that anger onto me?

 

[Bunyip]

I wasn't trying to challenge evolution -but understand it.
This was all not resolved, either -that's just their best scientific wild *** guess at present.
Besides, I thought things didn't evolve FOR anything -they just happened to be advantageous. Is that not the case now? I thought they had that resolved?
Also, I was not translating -that was a quote. Take it up with Berkeley.

I must say, I'm a bit disappointed.

No, it is not a guess. Many of the raptors are now known to have feathers.

 

[Bunyip]

I'm just going to assume something got you in a bad mood and you just want to be argumentative and rude..

Could it be, El Guapo.... that you are angry at something else.... and transferring that anger onto me?

What anger? Where was I rude?

 

[Sapiens]

I wasn't trying to challenge evolution -but understand it.
This was all not resolved, either -that's just their best scientific wild *** guess at present.
Besides, I thought things didn't evolve FOR anything -they just happened to be advantageous. Is that not the case now? I thought they had that resolved?
Also, I was not translating -that was a quote. Take it up with Berkeley.

I must say, I'm a bit disappointed.

Wild-assed guess, hardly, rather the least wild-assed of the available "guesses" (these are called hypotheses, not wild assed guesses, educated guesses, at least).

Clearly there are other hypotheses .... starting with feathers developed as insulation, feathers on the arms lengthened both as a means to capture insects from the air and to provide an assist to a hop to capture a bug ... possibly to aid in escape (line of evidence for this: flying fish).

 

[Nietzsche]

I'm not predicting a date for doomsday, but most in the world who do just a bit of the math can see that much trouble is brewing -and just about everyone could agree that things are really messed up.

I'm not the one moving the doomsday clock back and forth. Who came up with that? Oh yah -scientists.

The "Doomsday Clock" is one part media-invention and one part geopolitical barometer. It is not meant to be a definite quantification of how 'dangerous' or 'volatile' the world is. As I have stated elsewhere, the world today is if anything more peaceful than in centuries(or even decades) past.

 

[Sapiens]

The issue is the killing power of the available weapons not the level of dispute. There are those that argue that MAD was the best of both worlds ... I don't happen to agree.

 

[Riverwolf]

The new Jurassic Park won't have feathered Dinosaurs. My scientific mind is offended.

Just blame it on the frog DNA.

 

[Riverwolf]

I have a question.

Would the presence of teeth in these chickens be all that's necessary for them to be regarded as avian dinosaurs in themselves? Or would other things be needed for that classification? (Or are all birds technically regarded as effectively "avian dinosaurs" already?)