Theological Quandaries 101

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Wed Jun 06, 2001 5:42 am

I appreciate your point, but doesn't that notion require you to make certain assumptions?

Waverly · Post by **Waverly** » Wed Jun 06, 2001 6:30 am

Originally posted by Mr Sleep:
I appreciate your point, but doesn't that notion require you to make certain assumptions?

Not so much assuming as forming a hypothesis. That's how science works, you form a hypothesis as to how something works and test it through observation or experimentation. Then you confirm (as much as possible), disprove, or revise. The process should be self correcting and very few things are absolute. Evolution itself has progressed to the point of fact, that natural selection drives it is a sound, very well supported hypothosis.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Wed Jun 06, 2001 6:33 am

Originally posted by Mr Sleep:
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.

Half an arm??

, well that would dependt on placement

No - I would say that, yes it is pretty much the same argument.
For instance an animal on 4 legs will maybe start using a leg for using some tools and there by develop the use of arms.

Or somekind of animal developing 2 legs to help it swim, and when they are developed fully, starts to used them for walking. Etc.

I would say/argue that the differece between microevolution and macroevolution is not that big.
If you can understand/belive/reason that a specices can change gender etc. then why not over a larger time scale that a spicie can develope extra limbs or change the use of limbs.

(IMO)

[ 06-06-2001: Message edited by: Xandax ]

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Wed Jun 06, 2001 6:52 am

I don't want to sound like a pathetic wimp, but i am bored with this argument, your thoughts are enlightened and thought out, you also put your points across without the need for flaming (mostly - i see you trying to look innocent Wav

) but i don't know if i am convinced and i don't think i ever will be, you have discussed your points better then i have ever seen someone discuss such a topic, but i am still too cynical to accept it, oh well maybe next time.

Waverly · Post by **Waverly** » Wed Jun 06, 2001 7:29 am

Oh, I know I could never convince you. Once someone gets a case of creationism, no amount of discussion ever seems to bring them back. Thought it would be worth a try though.

Strange you would call yourself a cynic. Usually it's the science types that are labelled as cynics or skeptics.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Wed Jun 06, 2001 7:32 am

Originally posted by Waverly:
<snip>
Strange you would call yourself a cynic. Usually it's the science types that are labelled as cynics or skeptics.

I was about to say that - you don't know how often I've been called cynical

(but hey, they are right

)

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Wed Jun 06, 2001 7:38 am

I am cynical about everythin, especially politics.

nael · Post by **nael** » Wed Jun 06, 2001 8:25 am

the only true skeptics are philosophers, scientists put their faith in just as many nonsensical things as any religion.
but they have to in order to make progress. it has worked otu for society that their assumptions have held so far, but it is simply naive to believe that such things will hold true forever. just because the sun rose today, doesn't mean it will rise tomorrow. if i flip a coin a billion times, and every time it comes up tails, the next flip it could be heads. i think that is one of the strengths of religion, they know what they belive is based on faith, scientists still for some reason believe they are the end all in knowledge. but like i said, thank goodness only philosophers really dwell on the ignorance of man, because we would be no where without science.

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Wed Jun 06, 2001 8:32 am

But then you look at some of the atrocities of this worls and you wonder if science is really that wonderful

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Wed Jun 06, 2001 9:46 am

Originally posted by Mr Sleep:
But then you look at some of the atrocities of this worls and you wonder if science is really that wonderful

And look at what have been done in the name of (any) God.

I think generally that mankind is (almost) incable (espcially at our level of awerness) of being "nice", and that mankind is often(if not always) looking towards something (be it science and/or religion) to justify their actions.

hermetic · Post by **hermetic** » Wed Jun 06, 2001 10:55 am

Well let me bring theology back into this discussion, if I may. What makes evolution so contrary to the religious? Couldn't Adam have been just a bunch of amino acids? Even you Bible-Nazis out there must admit that most of the biblical tales are metaphorical.

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed Jun 06, 2001 2:10 pm

Xandax writes:
I think generally that mankind is (almost) incable (espcially at our level of awerness) of being "nice", and that mankind is often(if not always) looking towards something (be it science and/or religion) to justify their actions.

Interesting point. I'm inclined to suggest that humanity projects upon religion or science an immature desire for a cureall that evades personal responsibility. But that isn't the fault of scientific tools, or of whatever deity moves in, and through, the universe constantly.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Wed Jun 06, 2001 11:35 pm

Originally posted by fable:
Interesting point. I'm inclined to suggest that humanity projects upon religion or science an immature desire for a cureall that evades personal responsibility. But that isn't the fault of scientific tools, or of whatever deity moves in, and through, the universe constantly.

I never said that

I'm one of the people "beliving" more in science that so much else, but that doesn't mean that I accept all that scientist are discovering and especially some of the things people are trying to make money of.

For instance (now I'm gonna be flamed) - I actually support genetic enginering(sp?) and cloning. Because I think this will be the only way we find a cure for say cancer and HIV/AIDS etc. and that it is a way of elemintaing world hunger.

But because a lot of people/scientist are incapeble of being "nice"/"humane"(call it whatever) - they missused this to clone humans and genenticialy enginering bioweapons (okay - a little drastic example) etc.
And then they call it science.

I still firmly belive that untill mankinds awerness expands such things will unfortunally be done in the name of science.

And likewise in religion - where there are still people claiming that the follow the rightful God and are running around like fanatics and try to convert or destroy the rest.

(IMO)

(Hope I'm making some sence here through my rambelings

)

[ 06-07-2001: Message edited by: Xandax ]

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Thu Jun 07, 2001 5:09 am

Just out of interest at what point will Evolution stop, will we become beings of light, like in star trek?

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Thu Jun 07, 2001 6:14 am

I don't know

But if we look at humans, I think that while we are "eathbound" nothing much will happen, but if we start to take to space evolution will change us.
Just look at astronauts - when they've been in space for sometime, their muscles start to "decay"/become weaker. So if we were to live in space in partial "non-gravity"/"low-gravity" areas, mankind will evolve to match these conditions.

As for other animals I don't know

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Thu Jun 07, 2001 6:18 am

That brings out the whole argument about how much money is spent on the space race that could be spent on making life better on planet Earth.

We have run off the theology angle quite a lot.

Gwalchmai · Post by **Gwalchmai** » Thu Jun 07, 2001 8:59 am

Originally posted by Mr Sleep:
Just out of interest at what point will Evolution stop, will we become beings of light, like in star trek?

This is not a flame, just a discussion!

No, you're missing the point that Waverly was making. Evolution is not defined in terms such as "progression" and "superiority". Evolution is not like a ladder with humans at the top and every other living thing below. Our cranial capacity is not necessarily getting larger and larger until we exist as big brained creatures with tiny little bodies floating around moving things with telekinesis and communicating via telepathy.

In fact, the Neanderthals, which are considered by some paleo-anthropologists to be a dead-end off-shoot of the human evolutionary tree, had an average cranial capacity that was larger than today's human average (by about 500 ccs I think) and were physically more powerful to boot. Who was “more evolved?”

Popular science fiction clap-trap aside, nothing is more or less "advanced" in terms of evolution. Evolution works principally by means of natural selection and mutation.

BTW: I typed this post telekinetically. I'm still working on the telepathy.

Waverly: Nice bit on eye evolution.

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Jun 07, 2001 10:12 am

Gwalchmai posted:
Popular science fiction clap-trap aside, nothing is more or less "advanced" in terms of evolution. Evolution works principally by means of natural selection and mutation.

I completely agree, but this is a concept that humanity, steeped in a learned social belief that "we're here because we're best" in all senses of the phrase finds hard to accept. To continue your thought above, mankind won't "evolve" into muscular atrophy if all humanity were miraculously dumped into a zero-gravity dimension for thousands of years. Mutations occur more or less constantly and at random. A variety of conditions arise that help determine the relative success in reproducing a given mutation over a long period of time (long relative to generations of the species involved).

For example, if Uber-Waverly-Junior, the first-born of that notorious man-about-town, Waverly, were to somehow exhibit as a mutation phenomenal powers of super-flight, super-strength, super-invulnerability, super-xray-vision--in short, all the abilities of Henry Kissinger--that would not mean his mutation's benefits would reproduce for future generations, much less become the standard for humankind. Suppose the mutation left him sterile, or was recessive? And even if he could reproduce offspring with his abilities, how many women would be required to make his traits dominant among the entire species? Most importantly of all, what "thing" is going to look at Waverly, Jr, and say "A ha, yes, this mutation is really damn good, let's preserve it"? Evolution works to preserve species under threat. It does not award medals and give raises (so to speak) to reasonably good (or even fantastically good) mutations which are just plain fun.

I hope this made sense. I've been up all sorts of hours, and for some reason my mind is playing back the concluding music to an old animated series from the early 1960's, based on the Wizard of Oz. I've told it to stop, but it just stares at me and blows soap bubbles.

I think it's time for bed.

Waverly · Post by **Waverly** » Thu Jun 07, 2001 11:09 am

Thanks Gawain. Am I to understand you studied the sciences?

err fable, I *do* have those powers, and I *do* spend all my time putting on ridiculous mating displays

[ 06-07-2001: Message edited by: Waverly ]

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Jun 07, 2001 11:19 am

Er, no comment. Or was that comment itself a comment? Perhaps we should make a religion of recursion.