> Science vs Religion > Evolution vs Creationism
  #41  
Old 02-10-2005, 04:53 AM
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elihal
First off Thank you Goozy with the help, in inserting quotes. I will try to use them. The dictionary link is wonderful. And speaking (well typing) of the dictionary questinons that I had, are you trying to use big words in an effort to improve my vocabulary. I mean I just finished my English 30 diplomia, but I'm sure that my teachers will thank you for this, much much later.
Well, I will not deny that I am trying to impress you (and others) but the truth is, I really do like having a large vocabulary. Words are amazing things, and the more you learn, the more amazing they are. I can be succinct. I can also carry on and on, telling lots of stories about my appendectomy scar and my dog Teddy, who once piddled on my snowman but was eventually taken away by the dogcatcher in my tendency to be loquacious.

As you would know, if you saw me from the beginning, I am a poet. Not a great poet, but still, I do write. Iacchy is also a poet, in his own way. Both of us use words to create a scenario. I don't necessarily believe my scenarios, but love the poetry anyway. Iacchy loves the scenarios, but does not seem to appreciate his own poetry. I am a skeptic. He is a romaticist. So we use the same tools, but to different ends. I have fruitlessly tried to convince him to put his talents to better use than bad philosophy, but he is what he is.

Ah well, I ramble. It is what poets do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elihal
As for Hally, well it is most certainly unique. I think that I like it. In the end I guess that you could probably shorten my last name to
Hally. If you actually knew what my real name was you would probably find your choice quite amusing.
Wow! I must be psychic! No really it was just an educated guess by deconstructing you forum name. I also threw out "Lilly" which you didn't bite on. I had two chances to get a lucky guess.

But I still don't know your last name. Please don't tell it to me, because I think anonymity is very important in these forums. It allows you to let loose with whatever you feel, yet not worry the people will judge you. After all, elihal is not you. It is just your forum name.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elihal
It might me wierd to get used to though.
LOL. Work on your typing skills, Hally. That last sentence was a bit... um... weird. Errors in communication can lead to all sorts of problems. Like the joke about the monk who was translating the original bible in Hebrew and came out crying saying "It's not 'celibate', it's 'celebrate'!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by elihal
Diggy is really not all that borning, I was reading some of the other forum posts this morning. You and Diggy seem to play off of what each other has to say a lot.
He just basks in my brilliance. I am the one who comes up with the great ideas, and he just puts them in "science talk". Without me, he'd be nothing. Yeah, I'm talking to you, mollusk man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elihal
Anyway Social Current Events and ESL here I come.
As always
Hally (elihal)
Try to enjoy it Hally. My friend the ESL teacher finds it very rewarding. Think of how you could be helping others to understand. Search for parts that you can enjoy and use, even if it seems impossible right now.

I admit that I find some parts of schooling very tedious. Statistics was particularly grueling, but I have found it useful. But the most useful course I ever had in high school was the one I hated the most and that I did poorly at. I use it every day. I am using it right now. Typing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pegasus
Thanks for all the tips you posted about finding your way around and using quotes and editing features. You can tell you're a veteran forum poster.
Actually, I learned everything from Diggy. When I first came to these forums, I couldn't put two brackets together. But you're welcome. Tips should always be shared.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 02-10-2005, 03:17 PM
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hally
Don't worry about laughing at me. I rather enjoy a good laugh at my expece every now and again.
Well, that's good, because now I'm going to be the bitch and critique your points (or as Iacchus says, "rip you to shreds").
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hally
Can we really start life with out starting intelligence? You use flowers as an example, even flowers are capable of intelligence. Some flowers close during the night when the tempurature is lower. Some flowers only open in the dusk. Some are capable of ingesting small animals to sustain themselves. I know that you will probably show that all of these things are simply adapation, and not the result of some slight intelligence, but do we really know for sure?
I don't think any of those things would classify as "intelligent" under most definitions. According to Merriam-Webster:
Quote:
1 a : having or indicating a high or satisfactory degree of intelligence and mental capacity b : revealing or reflecting good judgment or sound thought : SKILLFUL
2 a : possessing intelligence b : guided or directed by intellect : RATIONAL
Normally we associate intelligence with the actions of a brain or at least ganglion, so it would be hard to catagorize the reactions of plants as intelligent even under the most liberal definition. Well adapted, to be sure.

As I side note, I used to own a Venus Flytrap, and it was very stupid. I could make it close just by touching it's trigger hairs with a pencil. Still, very cool. I used to feed it hamburger.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hally
What makes us as humans different from every other species on the planet. Well we have opposiable (boy did I spell that one wrong) thumbs, but then so do some primates. We have higher intelligence, but then again we have been training animals to do things for us for many years. Maybe we are just more developed, as compaired to other animals. Then we must get into the just what qualifies as developed. We can change our enviornment to suit our needs, but then some one proved that beavers do this too. Our intelligence maybe? Nah humans are not really all that smart. It might have something to do with our way of understanding what is going on in the enviornment around us. We can understand when a metor is comming towards the earth. We know about global weather patterns. On the other hand so do birds. They fly south in the winter, this shows that they are aware of the climate.
This is a very good question. The truth is, humans are really not much different from other species on the planet. We are made of the same building blocks, and we all contain DNA. In fact, the DNA of chimpanzees is something like 98% identical to humans (I forget the exact number, but it is in the high nineties). Different creatures have evolved different survival techniques. Intelligence is just one of them. How successful it will be we can't say yet. Certainly humans have been here a much shorter time than the dinosaurs were, so we shouldn't get too cocky about how wonderful our big brains are. They may be the thing that destroys us (along with lots of other species).

And yes, other organisms change the environment, often to their detriment. Some weeks back we discussed the fact that most of the original free oxygen on the earth was generated by blue-green algae, some of the most primative prokaryotic (cells have no nucleus) organisms around. It was a waste product for them. Problem was, they were so good at it that they eventually raised the oxygen content on earth so high that they killed themselves off except for small niches where oxygen can't get to. They literally died in their own poop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hally
In my opinion it is. I don't agree with the death penalty, but I can see where you are going with this. In the most basic sence the death penalty is impossed on people who have committed a heinous crime and have therefore forfeit their lives. With cloning we are talking about not only playing God, but denying life to hundreds, or more, people who have not even had the chance to commit a crime. We are punishing them for being born our inferiors.
I have some responses to this, but I'm going to let it sit. I agree that this is would merely divert the issue. Perhaps we can start another thread on this topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hally
Lets just take a look at my orrigional question. I asked for help to learn about the different opinions between evolution and creation. What you are proposing is that we all become creationists. When we start to manuifacture life or any part there of we are playing God. Evolution would still play a backstage role, but we are talking about controlling our entire existance.
Creationists believe that God controls everything. I don't think that you can call people who manipulate biology "creationists".

And I think that we all "play God" in certain ways. If you take an antibiotic, you are interfering with the "natural" way that the world operates. Yes, that's an extreme example, but you can keep progressing to higher and higher levels until you see that what we do is very much like "playing God". We make artificial limbs for people and synthetic blood plasma. The question is where to draw the line. That is the thing that causes disagreements.

There is a religious group called Christian Scientists who think it is immoral to have medical treatment, even if they die because of it. I think they are loonies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hally
I think that we can both agree that evolution is controlled by nature. If an organism is born with a adapation that helps them to survive in their enviornment better, then it is more likely that they will be able to produce offspring. Eventually that abnormality if benifficial will become a trait in that population. With cloning a person could be born with out the capability of having children, a common problem, and we could simply insert a coloned uterus or any other part, maybe a ova duct, it really doesn't matter. Then that person who would never normally be capable of reproducing may have children. I'm not by anymeans saying that this is a bad thing, but we are going against mother nature, and that may possibly turn out to be a bad thing later in our human existance.
I pointed out some of the other ways that we manipulate life. You don't object to a manufactured wooden leg, so how can you object to a manufactured uterus? What difference should it be if the "artificial" part is on the inside or the outside?

Personally, I am convinced that Iacchy has a metal plate in his head which allows him to receive radio messages from God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hally
Lets not get in to that one. As a student in a Catholic school I am expected to follow the Catholic views, but I don't personally agree with all of them.
I was pretty sure you were not one of the ones who believes everything they tell you. You have my respect. But I understand if you don't want to get into that issue. It is a big can of worms.

I have to go play God for a while. Talk to you later.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 02-11-2005, 04:24 AM
elihal elihal is offline
Initiate
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Cold, cold, Canada
Posts: 9
Default I understand but only in part.

Hey Goozy
I must admit that you have some points in your last post, but I have a feeling that you missed the point that I was trying to make. I also think that your difination of intelligance may be lacking. Should it not include some referance to the way humans interact. If we were to take a small child away and let it be raised by animals, then the child would learn their ways, and not ours. Our knowlage is tought, but are the two not connected. IQ tests are a good example, if you are brought up under a differnt set of values, in a different country, and a different economic class then your answers will probably be different from a middle class Canadian's. There was a radio discussion on this; on the CBC quite a while back. If your upbringing effects how you do on the IQ tests, is it not possible that you would be precieved as a less intellagent person. Our intellagence is based on more then just our genetic material, our interactions also should factor in.
Quote: If you take an antibiotic, you are interfering with the "natural" way that the world operates. Yes, that's an extreme example, but you can keep progressing to higher and higher levels until you see that what we do is very much like "playing God". We make artificial limbs for people and synthetic blood plasma. The question is where to draw the line. That is the thing that causes disagreements.
Yes antibiotics mess with mother nature, but most of them were at least at one point derived from natural components found in plants and animals. I don't think that it was a very good example, but most of that is because I can't find a logical argument to counteract it. Artifical limbs are hardly a case, for side stepping mother natures plan for us. One of my father's best friends has an artificial leg. He was borne with one leg the just wouldn't grow so the doctors cut if off at the knee, and now he has an artificial leg. He works as a Emergance Medical Responce Person. Even with out the leg he could work, maybe not at what he is doing now, but he could still contribute to our society. Blood plasma from what my Biology 30 teacher said, is not the be all end all of the blood problems. It is not natural so according to her, it doesn't work for everyone. As I don't really know too much about artifical blood plasma, I think that I should move on to defending myself on other topics.
Quote: I pointed out some of the other ways that we manipulate life. You don't object to a manufactured wooden leg, so how can you object to a manufactured uterus? What difference should it be if the "artificial" part is on the inside or the outside?
I can simply reject a manufatured uterus on the grounds that my dad's best friend having a wooden leg will not effect his children, or any future generation that comes from him. This arguement would be like looking at a body builder, who has worked hard at his muscles for many years, and then expeciting his children to also be born with big muscles. There is a difference between genotypic and phenotypic traits. A person with a manufactured uterus may or may not pass thier birth defects on to thier children. I'm not at any point trying to say that people who have genetic problems should not be allowd to have children, my opinion is quite the opposite but it makes for an interesting conversation. You're right it shouldn't matter if the cloned body part is on the inside or on the outside. But I could easily see some rich old man or woman who doesn't want to grow old or even die, and they keep changing out their defective out dated body parts for something that is younger. This could end up being quite bad for the human race. What if it was a person like Hitler, I mean onece he came into power there was no stopping him. He had a goal and he stuck to it. If now he could live for a hundred years, then, well I'm sure that you can see the problem for yourself.
I also think that the quality of all life would go down if we started to clone ourselves. Just think instead of going out and doing something, we could simply sit at out jobs, because there will be plenty of time to do the fun things later on. People will stop living, and start waiting for the perfect time later on. Maybe after retirement, but hey they will have the body parts to start to surf. Lets all go to California!!
I don't know how the Amercian population pyramid stacks up to the Canadian one, but I do know that when I'm 65 I will not be able to collect my Canadian Pension. It will simply not exist. Now in Canada there is roughly three siniors to ever one working member in our society. I was reading an article in the Economist that stated the Britian was in a compairable situation. There the older citizens are being given a chance to go back to work. Here well, you can always work for yourself, but most are content to meet at my grandmothers house and complain about the little bit that they get from the government over cups of steaming coffee. If we could ever clone, I can imagine that this problem would be worse. I suspose that if these people entered the work force again, we could fill some of the jobs that are currently empty, but what if they decided to just collect thier pension cheques and that was it? Big touble for the working class that pay in to CPP.[Quote=goozy] I have some responses to this, but I'm going to let it sit. I agree that this is would merely divert the issue. Perhaps we can start another thread on this topic.
IF you wish to start another thread on this topic, please do so. I would be one of the first people to post my opinions on it. Just let me know where.
I think that I'll call it a night.
Hally
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 02-11-2005, 03:00 PM
Default

Just one quick comment. Gooze, your definition of intelligence, I agree, does not allow for intelligent plants. However, it is very much an anthropocentric definition, and given the debate on defining intelligence just in humans (compare the early IQ tests with later Wechsler tests, compare those to Howard Gardner's multiple intelligences or Sternberg's crystalized and fluid intelligence), trying to stretch an obvously human definition to fit all situations is perhaps inappropriate.

Not to mention...take a good look at that definition. It contains a great deal of circularity. "Indicating high...mental capacity", for instance. How? This definition forces us to go look up any number of other things...what it comes down to is, what does an organism have to do to be called intelligent? Most current definitions have decided to define intelligence as the ability to thrive in one's environment (i.e., intelligence = successful adaptation to environment). By that measure, the heliotrope is more intelligent than other plants, and the flytrap as well. Yes, the "intelligence" is something that changes phylogenetically, rather than within the lifespan of the organism, and that is a serious difference. But whether or not it is a deal-breaker is up for argument.
Reply With Quote
Reply