May you all have peace!
I know, I know... from Body Members: why is she going THERE, again?? And from others, "Doesn't she ever get enough?" I know, I know. BUT... I have what I believe are a couple/few valid questions, so I must ask that you indulge me, if you can.
Before I pose my questions, though, I would like to state a couple/few things:
First, I am sincere and my questions are sincere... and so I am asking for sincere responses. I am NOT trying to provoke, contend, or debate, so no matter what the responses are, I am not going to counter-respond. I just want to hear what your responses are. In that light... and since I'm starting the thread... I would like to ask the "Eddie Haskels" of the Board to refrain, if possible, from the snide, snarky, sarcastic, often one-line responses. Please, if you can... save them for another time. If you MUST respond, surprise us all and try to give an insightful, if not refreshingly intelligent response.
I would also like to ask that if you DO respond, you accommodate me and other readers and do so in as laymen terms as you can. If you get to detailed and start using math and physics and "university/science magazine" lingo and tables/equations, etc., I am going to pass over your response. Sorry, but since I don't understand that "language" I will have no choice because I won't really know what you're saying so no point in expending the time. If, though, you can break it down, I don't care if it take you three pages - I will read it.
I would also like to make a couple things as to MY beliefs crystal clear:
A. I do not reject science
B. I do believe in evolution... of plants... animals... and the human intellect... but not the human (homo sapiens) species
Now, then. Recently, a dear one posted that although he has tried to teach me logic, my stubborness has gotten in the way. While I do not dispute that I can be stubborn, I have to say that I disagree that it has gotten in the way of my learning logic. In fact, I took logic (both philosophical AND mathematical) in university... and got an "A" (94 and 98) in both. So, I GET "logic." But it is my understanding of logic (coupled with what I hear from my Lord) that makes me reject human evolution. Logic asks me to ask the following questions and, IMHO, any way you answer them seems to speak against human evolution. So, here goes:
Per certain beliefs, the "evidence" shows that humans physically evolved from lower life forms which had been physically evolving for millions of years. It seems to me that, logically, it would follow that we would be/are still physically evolving. My questions are, then:
1. Are we still physically evolving (as the "evidence", if true, would logically indicate we would be)?
a. If not, why not? What occurred (and when), logically, so that the process has ceased?
(1) If the processed ceased as to humans, why not, logically, as to animals? Or has it there, as well?
b. If so...
(1) HOW, logically, are we still evolving? (Please note, man being able to clone parts or even full humans is NOT evolution, in the sense that that word suggests natural progression based on a need to survice... because it is man-induced and thus artificial. Thus, while I agree that it is INTELLECTUAL evolution, I would ask that you explain how it is NATURAL evolution.)
(2) WHAT, logically, are we involving into? What is/could/must be "next"? (Note, while "next" could involve things like flying or being able to swim underwater without an apparatus, wouldn't the second suggest, logically, a de-volution - i.e., back to the "soup" - and wouldn't, logically, both have to involve some kind of "mating" with another species that can already fly/swim... which I don't deny could occur due to some experiment in a petrie dish but, again, logically, would require intervention by humans, thus, being "artificial" as opposed to natural?)
Finally...
2. If we are still evolving, wouldn't evolving into a species that surpasses the physical body, surpasses being limited by the physical world, its laws and confines... and the requirements and needs of the physical body... be the ultimate station? I mean, logically? Wouldn't evolving to the point where the body doesn't need to eat, sleep, pee, poop, breath air, use apparati to fly, swim, etc., to be limited to a set space... logically, be the ultimate?
And if so... isn't that what spirit beings already experience... so that being a spirit (free) being IS the ultimate "evolution" of man?
And if so... isn't that the "evolution" held out by Christ... to "change" the physical body to a spirit(ual) body?
And if so... why is it feasible, even logical, to imagine man getting man to this point, perhaps through science... but NOT through a man who has already achieved this goal... is already a spirit "man"... and thus has already experienced the ultimate? Could it perhaps be because man... has lied to man... about HOW to achieve this... and through whom... because HE doesn't know... because he refuses to entertain that it just might NOT be through "scientific" (as we understand that term) means?
Again, I am being serious and sincere. You don't have to answer every question; just what you can/would like to. Either way, I really would like your thoughts (primarily as to whether we are still evolving, if not why not, and if so, into what and what is/could be next/ultimate).
Thank you, kindly and in advance, for your time and [serious] responses. I look forward to hearing from you and, again, I won't respond so please do not pose questions to me. I just want to try and understand what logic tells you... versus what it tells me.
Again, peace to you!
A slave of Christ,
SA