Theological Quandaries 101

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Tue Jun 05, 2001 7:20 am

Well, i wasn't saying artistic people are less logical, they just tend to view things differently.

I am making sweeping generalisations, so you have to bear with me

Some people have a need to fil ltheir lives with something whether they worship football or movie stars, doesn't that suggest something?

Georgi · Post by **Georgi** » Tue Jun 05, 2001 7:24 am

That's ok, I wasn't taking it personally

So people will create idols for themselves, whether it be a real person (or at least their perception of that person) or an omnipotent deity?

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Tue Jun 05, 2001 7:32 am

That seems to be the case look at how people are glorified now a days for anything they do in the media spotlight, my brother says that the human mind (soul) has an in-built need to worship something.

Georgi · Post by **Georgi** » Tue Jun 05, 2001 7:33 am

And yet there are other people who can live their lives perfectly well without worshipping anything.

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Tue Jun 05, 2001 7:36 am

Unlike us spammers, who worship Buck Satan and GameBanshee

Georgi · Post by **Georgi** » Tue Jun 05, 2001 7:38 am

Waverly · Post by **Waverly** » Tue Jun 05, 2001 7:48 am

Well Sleep, you seem *relatively* comfortable observing change as microevolution. Does it really take a whole lot more imagination to suppose it could be at work on a grander scale? You are tumbling down the slope, wait untill I tell you there is no Easter Bunny

Regarding Darwin and the church. So what? He didn't intend his observations and theories to be anything more than an explaination for a phenomon anyone, religious or no could observe. Whether he hated the church, or vice versa isn't really relevant. I'm not a big fan of the church.. would you also chalk up anything I do to irrational church-hate?

I still haven't asked you to believe that some force other than god drives these changes (that comes much later

), just admit that change occurs for now.

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Tue Jun 05, 2001 7:56 am

You can not claim that any work inspired by hate does not effect how it is produced, look at Eminem, Limp Bizkit and alike, hate breeds hate, that is just a fact if you listen to swear words and watch porno all the time they are going to rub *ahem* off on you, look at the deranged Grunt

All things are connected and we all grow around and adapt to our surroundings is it so hard to beleive that this phenomenon happens through orchastraion?

Georgi · Post by **Georgi** » Tue Jun 05, 2001 8:02 am

But just because one might have a specific intention in undertaking something, doesn't mean that their conclusions are necessarily wrong.

Waverly · Post by **Waverly** » Tue Jun 05, 2001 8:04 am

Why are you making the huge acrobatic leap in reasoning to the bald faced assumption that Darwin's work was based in hate and not years of study? If he was such a hate monger, I'd assume that his work would be so poor that one could easily and irrevokably refute it.

Why would respected scientists continue to this day to work off his ideas? Would they not see through his hoax? (Hey Joe, look here in the margins of Origin of the Species, it just says 'the pope smokes dope' over and over... what a sham!)

[ 06-05-2001: Message edited by: Waverly ]

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Tue Jun 05, 2001 8:15 am

Well doesn't he

I just happen to be in an acrobatic mood

I assume that some of his work has been de-bunked over time, but this is a non-issue since you asked me about evolution as a possibility and i started a personal attack on Darwin. Which was contary to the question.

I am just arguing a perspective Wav, don't act like it is so personal, detach yourself from the flaming banshee and re-connect the banshee of love and integration....

Our argument has lost any perspective, we may as well conceed that i can beleive there is such a phenomenon as Evolution i just don't necessarily agree that it should be taken as the only choice and only outcome.

i know i am.

Waverly · Post by **Waverly** » Tue Jun 05, 2001 8:30 am

We have lost perspective intentionally, my drowsy friend. You want to paint a whole huge picture and object to a handful of brushstrokes, so I intentionally limitted the question to just evolution for the moment. Now that we can agree that change in some form occurs, what do you think drives it? Could it be random? Preordained by the hand of god? Could there be some mechanism at work? Hmm...

nael · Post by **nael** » Tue Jun 05, 2001 1:10 pm

as far as the Darwin/hate topic goes, how many of ya'll have actually read Origin of Species? he uses his observations in the islands to extrapolate that whites evolved from their primitive ancestors (blacks). oh, he was definitely a racist, but he also did some good research. unfortunately, just liek he generalized his research to "fit" humans, he also overgeneralized evolution.
i mentioned this on here once before, there is zero proof of macroevolution. micro, yes, without a doubt. it was best documented in England as one species of moth that came in bright or dark colours eventually became only dark because the severe polution only allowed the dark ones to hide from predators. but this was a pool of preexisting traits that was narrowed down, not a new trait being introduced. the onyl evidence of this happenign is through the intervention of man in cross breeding.

Gwalchmai · Post by **Gwalchmai** » Tue Jun 05, 2001 1:55 pm

Okay, I’m drawing from the depths of my memory here, from the various Intro to Physical Anthropology classes I took in college. I am not responsible for factual inaccuracies.

As I recall, The Origin of Species was based on sound scientific research that Darwin had conducted in the Galapagos, but the book itself drew from many other sources, no the least of which was his experience in breeding pheasant. But he was a devout man, and delayed the publication for a number of years because he was afraid that others would take it as an attack on religious doctrine, though he saw no inherent contradiction. He eventually forced himself to publish, mostly because he was about to be scooped by someone named Wallace, I think. His first edition was a purely scientific treatise, but the second edition (about a decade later?) was written in partial response to some of the criticism he received. In the second edition, he inserted much of the “man is superior, and Englishmen are the best” drivel in order to appease the vociferous zealots. Today’s evolutionary paradigm generally ignores Darwin’s second edition as he would have wanted it.

Evolutionary thought today does not rank species by any value system. Mosquitos are just as evolved as humans in that they fit their niche. If you want to look for a mechanism for change, then look no further than Mendelian genetics. Ultimate driving force beyond natural selection and random mutation? No one can answer that.

Change does happen, and new species have been documented during human history. Waverly is right, evolution is a fact. But that says nothing about if God exists or not.

BTW, there is no such thing as a “Missing Link”. We have Waverly!

Waverly · Post by **Waverly** » Tue Jun 05, 2001 2:17 pm

Well put Gawain.

I am newly amazed how prevalent unscientific thinking is.

The Outsider · Post by **The Outsider** » Tue Jun 05, 2001 5:05 pm

@the people on the last page or two who wanted the term for when a word like "hoover" becomes the standard term for an object:

This one's out of linguistics, and it's actually a term that I'm responsible for inventing (as far as I & my teacher knew).

CORPORATE ANTONOMASIA

Antonomasia is the term for when a person's name becomes the term for the thing- e.g. 'pasteurization'. 'Corporate' refers to the fact that it's a company that provides the name.

Other examples:

escalator
elevator
zipper
windex
xerox

---

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Wed Jun 06, 2001 4:03 am

Thankyou for that information.

I was wondering how evolution actually works, if the natural selction issue has weight and it takes a long time, if i remember my biology lessons correctly the eye is supposed to have evolved from jellyfish, but at what point is half an eye of any use in becoming more effective than just one of the other full senses, without next to full sight an eye is of no use (in a predator sense) how therefore did the eye ever come into ascendancy, i hope you get what i am driving at if not i will re-write with a better example, i have work to do.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Wed Jun 06, 2001 4:13 am

Well regarding vision, just look at how many types of vision there is. Cats for one have a different vision than humans and again from fish etc.

For instance you could say that first step would be like an eye that registre movement.
And maybe next step would be an eye that can diffiretiate colours.

(am I making sence, or have I missread your questiong

)

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Wed Jun 06, 2001 4:53 am

Your reasoning is reasnoably sound.

I can't fathom how half an arm would be of any use in the hunter gatherer sense. This is just another point and will probably be answered with the same opinion.

Waverly · Post by **Waverly** » Wed Jun 06, 2001 5:27 am

@Sleep:
We may never know exactly how the eye evolved, and yes it is a remarkable concept to think that such complex organ could have evolved from something much simpler. A partial eye is, of course, no good whatsoever; but that is a misnomer. What you should picture instead is a series of steps involving much simpler, yet fully functioning (not ‘partial&#8217

organs.

A simple photoreceptor cell detects light and nothing more. Many simple organisms still have exactly this. Begin adding a series of such cells to make the simple organ more sensitive. Now if by chance the cells are arranged in a cup shape, some rudimentary directionality can be sensed. Put the organ at the bottom of a pinhole and you now have a separate and unique organ taking shape, and what’s more the nautilus still uses exactly this type of eye.

The there are two major mistakes in the ‘partial eye’ argument. 1) you assume immediate complexity and ignore the possible intermediate steps. And 2) you use the word partial to suggest that any intermediate steps lack use. The examples above show that structures that are both functional and intermediate could, and do exist (organism exhibiting each of those structures still live.)