Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Sept 8, 2006 16:45:20 GMT -4
I don't ever notice my blind spot. Admittedly being able to see better in the dark would be nice, but does the octopus loose anything in return? Color sensitivity, resolution, speed? Are you certain the human eye has no advantages at all over those of an octopus? That's because large chunks of your brain that could be doing something else are constantly busy processing it out. So far as comparative tests can determine, the octopus wins every time: all the things you mention would be improved by having the light-sensitive layer unobstructed by its supply infrastructure.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 8, 2006 16:50:47 GMT -4
Wikipedia says that octopuses appear to be color blind (surprisingly). That would seem to be a drawback.
Doesn't matter anyway - as I said, the question hinges on "would God design something with flaws" - something religious philosophers have had no problem agreeing with.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Sept 8, 2006 17:18:39 GMT -4
Given that light in the ocean gets closer to monochromatic the deeper you go, that's not entirely surprising; marine organisms wouldn't benefit much from colour vision in an almost entirely blue environment.
It's understandable that theologians would have problems with a world populated by sub-optimal organisms: it throws a lot of the central tenets of many religions into doubt; if the deity is capricious, what are its promises worth? But generally, I leave the "angels on the head of a pin" stuff to the believers.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 8, 2006 18:19:17 GMT -4
I find it surprising because most octopus have the ability to change their skin color rapidly to camoflague themselves, right? So if they're color blind how do they match their background so well without mixing up red or green or some such?
I think you misunderstood the second part of my post - theologians have wrestled somewhat with the idea of imperfect creation but generally agreed that it is not an insurmountable problem.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Sept 8, 2006 18:53:16 GMT -4
IIRC, cephalopod color changes are produced by differential exposure of chromatophore cells, which in octopuses generally add up to various shades of brown. The famous "blue ring" species is obviously an exception, but I don't remember if that actually changes its colouration. In any case, they aren't selecting from an infinite palette, and as I said before, their environment is not exactly a riot of colour. Appropriate tonal variegations are sufficient for camouflage purposes.
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Sept 9, 2006 7:23:58 GMT -4
you don't get what Jason and me are saying. It is if it was anywhere else, it would cause another bigger problem. Lack of Protection by bones would make the problem worse. There are women who don't have these infections bcz they could keep cleanliness or stuff,but if it were designed another way, keeping away from the disease would be more difficult
What opposite problem? that ppl would have to bring more children to survive? Did you take into consideration the intelligence of people and they over consumption of materials. Are you following up to what is happening from exploitation of resources.?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Sept 9, 2006 15:57:38 GMT -4
you don't get what Jason and me are saying. It is if it was anywhere else, it would cause another bigger problem. Lack of Protection by bones would make the problem worse. There are women who don't have these infections bcz they could keep cleanliness or stuff,but if it were designed another way, keeping away from the disease would be more difficult Getting what you're saying and knowing you're wrong are two different things. The fact is, the fetus is unprotected by bones throughout its entire development. The opening through which it passes upon birth doesn't need to be protected by bones; having the bones there is detrimental to both mother and fetus. And actually, the current set-up of female anatomy, given that it's in a warm, humid, bacteria-rich environment, is far more dangerous than moving it out front would be. Yes. However, many thousand years ago, when human women had the exact same physical layout, the human population had bottlenecked. Losing even one child-bearing woman had disastrous consequences to the potential population . . . yet women died in childbirth all the time, because the layout is not beneficial to woman or child. As I've stated, I am a believer, just not in the interpretation of God that Jason--or, clearly, you--have. And women wouldn't need wider hips were the opening moved. There are also far simpler ways of limiting population, even in the design of a species, than killing mothers and children during childbirth. There's increasing the length of the cycle, and that's just for starters. In fact, our brains could develop even more if the opening were moved. (Is the board censor fixed so I can use the medical term?) As it is, human heads are as large as they can reasonably get unless every single birth becomes a C-section, which I assure you is not a desirable outcome. For what it's worth, I do believe in a Higher Entity, call it what you will, but I still believe that evolution is a hands-off procedure for Her, given that there is no evidence of intervention in the fossil record.
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Sept 9, 2006 16:37:28 GMT -4
Says who? How would the flesh alone - now I don't want to get into details in aforum read mostly by men but- how would flesh alone get supported?
how would a child grow if there is no humidity and good temperature?
not with a smart species that can develop things to survive. They have proved this through years
As I said before, if there is evolution, then a believer would think of it from a religious point of view, that God/Goddess lead human to better states. Care to say the name of your pagan religion?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Sept 9, 2006 19:08:01 GMT -4
Says who? How would the flesh alone - now I don't want to get into details in aforum read mostly by men but- how would flesh alone get supported? Muscle tissue, the way it's handled now. The cradling of the infant is done by the pelvis, but the opening requires no support. Um, I'm not sure what you're talking about. This is regarding the likelihood of bacterial/yeast infections, which is increased due to the warmth and humidity of the current location of the vaginal opening. (I'm risking the word filter.) But it took thousands of years past that populational bottleneck for humans to develop the ability to seriously affect the outcome of deaths in childbirth. Heck, my own great-grandmother died in childbirth--she got blood with the wrong Rh factor, probably, though of course we can't know for sure. And that was well less than a hundred years ago, in New York. No, that's your assumption. There are lots and lots of people who happen to have a different belief structure than you who don't necessarily think God/Goddess had a direct hand in evolution. I am one of them. I consider myself a generic Pagan--my personal religious beliefs don't meet the structure of any of the specifically named sects--but I don't believe that humans are strictly speaking superior to other animals. If She doesn't expend a lot of effort making things better for, say, pufferfish, why should She do it for us?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 7, 2010 12:35:35 GMT -4
RISE, my thread!
Since the current religious thread has been locked, I thought I would bump this one back to the head of the pack rather than creating a new one to allow the continuation of rick's "Jason's religious beliefs are easily debunked nonsense" conversation. The title of the thread seems rather appropriate for that subject.
I believe you never answered my question about what was wrong with the Dutch language analogy, and you haven't yet presented your definition of what "anti-science" is supposed to mean when you apply it to the LDS Church.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jan 7, 2010 20:17:38 GMT -4
Okay so now I have to read 14 pages of a thread that is before my time I think but is very interesting.... Luckily I don't have to judge whether or not Mormons are Christians - yes, Jason, God will do that (if he exists of course)... But as I see it - the New Testament superceeded/added to the Old, thus the followers who were formerly Jews became Christians... The Book of Mormon superceeded/added to the New Testament... thus followers who were former Christians become Mormon .... Maybe Dead Hoosiers doesn't believe The Book of Mormon to be God's word - likewise, Jews would have the same opinion of the New Testament. I find Dead Hoosiers quoting of the Bible as answers to questions to be confusing as many times it really doesn't address the specific issue being discussed... Good point, Jason. The Dead Sea scrolls were such an astounding and useful discovery because they were so much older than any other text that had been found Dead Hoosiers said: How could he be Mary's son? Applies to the Old Testament only... Really? Kiwi said: Good summary! Kiwi said: as I did too from the ages of 16 to 25 or so. Then I realized that I really didn't know but thought that Karma works, so I'll go with it. But its not important to me if God exists or not. Reincarnation feels logical to me, but I don't expect to remember past lives - I mean, who has ever remembered when they were born? Lionking said: First of all, I doubt if historians would say that. Maybe a few scholars, but they would definitely be in the minority. Kiwi said: Wow, you know I've never interpreted it that way. But I like it. AT THIS POINT I must say that I was not aware of Kiwi talents in the wit department. Kiwi, you had so much humour in your younger days! ;D ;DI'll read a bit more...
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jan 7, 2010 20:19:52 GMT -4
As promised, a brief overview of the LDS idea of the godhead (trinity). There are three sepearte persons in the Godhead: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. When we speak of God we usually mean God the Father, also known as Elohim. All mankind are his children. The personage known as Jehovah in the Old Testament is the Son, known as Jesus Christ after his birth on Earth. Jesus is also a God and works under the direction of the Father and is in complete harmony with him. All of mankind are his brothers and sisters. Many times when the scirptures refer to God they are actually referring to Jesus Christ, such as in Genesis when it says "God created heaven and Earth" - we know from the New Testament that Jesus created the earth. The Holy Ghost is also a God, and acts in harmony with the other two personnages in the Godhead. These three can be said to be one God because they always act in perfect harmony and are one in purpose with each other. They are one in the same way that Christ prayed that his followers might be one with him "Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thous has given me, that they may be one, as we are," not one in substance but one in purpose. That's the short version. I can't find fault in any of this because even as a Catholic I couldn't understand the Trinity. Your explanation and the RC Church's explanation both baffle me.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jan 7, 2010 20:28:47 GMT -4
As promised, a brief overview of the LDS idea of the godhead (trinity).I normally stay away from the bottom half of the board, but I'm having an unbelievably slow day today............................................ but since both Mormons and non-Mormons draw the line somewhere, the difference is simply quantitative and not qualitative. Jay's explanation doesn't make sense to me either. And what the heck was he doing posting in a thread like this? Thats a new one to me!
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jan 7, 2010 20:43:19 GMT -4
The story of the Nicene Creed is another can of worms altogether. I hold it up as the "traditional" standard of Christian belief, not the authoritative or even original standard. I would only view "Credo" as disrespectful if I proposed to adhere to Christianity in total ignorance of its history. I hold the Nicene Creed up not as a gold standard, but as a de facto standard of modern Christian belief; i.e., most people who call themselves Christians can get behind the creed as an accurate enough summary of what they believe as Christians. So when people start splitting hairs as to who is "really" a Christian and who isn't (which, it seems, Mormons suffer more so than most) then it's wise to pull out these widely-consulted yardsticks and see who really measures up. Especially in Utah you get people who say, "Mormons aren't really Christians because [insert alleged bellwether doctrine here]." As with many conspiracy theories, the real question is whether that's a good measure. You find you have a lot of people who just want to debate fine points of doctrine and whack people over the head with one book or the other. To me that's not what Christianity is or ought to be about. Personally I say that if you believe Jesus was the son of God in more ways than the average human is, and you aim to obey what you believe he taught, you're a Christian. And Mormons pass that test with flying colors. In fact, I think the Mormons have the best attitude on that point. Somewhere in their writings or canon is a statement to the effect that they believe in the crucified Lord Jesus and everything else is subordinate to that. Its sad when people's beliefs lead them into "I'm right - you're wrong" mode. I understand that people are passionate about their faith, but they should respect other's too. My father-in-law was a Mennonite Bishop, but I found him to be one of the most open minded, generous persons when discussing other religions. He chaired inter-faith conferences at times and was a wonderful man to discuss these issues with.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jan 7, 2010 20:44:59 GMT -4
Dead Hoosiers said:
Not only Mormons, lots of "Christians" too!
Jason said:
I would like to believe that you are right in this.
Apollo Gnomon wrote:
So true. I got married when I was 28.
Jason said:
I always distrust any "Religious" site that attacks other religions. Just seems their head and heart are in the wrong place.
Jay said: Most excellent point Jay. I understand that one.
|
|