Evolution II

[Moiraine]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: I have to admit I'm impressed at how this discussion has progressed. While a lot of the same arguments have been presented, we have managed to avoid the "hamster wheel" effect of just going round and round saying the same thing over and over again. I've seen many new - and interesting - perspectives and ideas put forth so far. I especially want to address comments made by Moiraine, Lord Kathan, and Draconia. Moiraine - I was also very impressed with your opening treatise in this second thread. That was very elegantly written and thought provoking. You put forth good, sound logic for your reasoning and - surprisingly - I found myself agreeing with most of what you said. I still don't believe apes and man have a common ancestor - I believe we have a common Creator who made us similar for reasons of His choosing that we are only just now beginning to understand. In that light, I certainly don't find the concept of a "shared heritage" between the two species as threatening as I may have before. Lord Kathan - I think your observation about Christians becoming more "accepting" of evolution is correct. As has been pointed out many times now...evolution encompasses much more than just the origination of our species. I think Christians may be realizing that they can "agree" with some aspects of evolution without abandoning their belief in Creation. Science and religion do not have to be "mutually exclusive". In fact, quite the opposite is true. Draconia - You hit the mark dead-on with your comments in the original thread. Religion and science are not mutually exclusive. Why? Because GOD is the one who determined what the Laws of Science would be when He created the universe. The universe, Earth, and our ecology are incredibly intricate and complex . Yet there are specific patterns of behavior and interaction directing this vast arena. These interactions follow specific rules and guidelines which mankind has been able to "discover" and study for himself - thus gaining a better understanding of the world around him. There are still "unexplained phenomena" - because we haven't "learned" everything yet...but once we do, we will find the same logical order can be applied to these phenomena as well. Does this "disprove" the existence of God? Since everything seems to be working just fine on it's own? In my opinion, just the opposite is true. God is the one who created this underlying order. He already knows all the answers. And He has given us the intelligence and aptitude to "discover and learn" these "answers" for ourselves. The very fact that everything DOES seem to be "working just fine" is further proof (to me, anyway) that God does exist - and is content to quietly direct the play of our lives from behind the scenes.

Thank you Cerek ! As always, a thoughtful and positive post. You should change your nick, really. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Scientific research on evolution don't seem to show a purpose ... so far. They don't exclude it however. Maybe the tiny nudge resulting in the division of the first cell was given by God, who knows ? [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Moiraine]

To those who believe there is a hierarchy of valor between humans - I would like to know on which basis you propose to measure the worth of a human being. Which unit do you use, which scale, which tools are you using ? Lacking those, permptory comments about "ignoring reality" haven't got an ounce of validity.

About singing and music. How do you define "a good musician" ? To me, a good musician is simply the one who brings pleasure. Thus, as Yorick said, anyone can be a good musician. I have heard many local bands that maybe didn't have a perfect pitch or an outstanding talent but knew how to make a ball or a small concert lively. Isn't that what really counts ? [img]smile.gif[/img]

[WillowIX]

Originally posted by Moiraine: To those who believe there is a hierarchy of valor between humans - I would like to know on which basis you propose to measure the worth of a human being. Which unit do you use, which scale, which tools are you using ? Lacking those, permptory comments about "ignoring reality" haven't got an ounce of validity. About singing and music. How do you define "a good musician" ? To me, a good musician is simply the one who brings pleasure. Thus, as Yorick said, anyone can be a good musician. I have heard many local bands that maybe didn't have a perfect pitch or an outstanding talent but knew how to make a ball or a small concert lively. Isn't that what really counts ? [img]smile.gif[/img]

Are we dropping the evolution for a moment? Well it is your topic so I have no complaints. [img]smile.gif[/img]

In my experience I do feel a difference in valor between humans. My husband is more valuable and therefore worth more to me than a stranger on a street. The same goes for the rest of my family. I know this is probably not what you intended with your question but that is the best answer I can give you. All men have the right to life; I find that a better sentence than all men are created equal. [img]smile.gif[/img] But were we to discuss the human genetic pool one could sauy that one individual would be worth more to society than another. But then we are no longer talking about humanity, rather the chance of a beneficial trait being passed on to future generations. And let´s face it, humans can´t tell that by looking at another human. Rats can though.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Okay, fine everybody. Very funny ha ha. So, on that note, Yorick: I'm tone deaf. I figured out after 7 years of piano lessons I would never play by ear. Because I could not replicate pitch I was left to sheet-reading only. That's no fun, and less than half a musician IMHO. So, I don't think I could have overcome my tone-deafness by simply willing myself to do it. And, I must point out I'm not what you would call weak-willed.

Awesome. I don't read music. Hasn't stopped me creating string arrangements, producing records, arranging vocal parts or being part of a small vocal or instrument ensemble. Hasn't stopped me from teaching myself guitar, piano/organ, drums, bass, mandolin or programming.

But by your reckoning that would make me half a musician right? The other half.

I know a tone deaf guitarist. He's overcoming it. He's much better than he was. I've taught to singers with absolutely no sense of timing too. Timing and pitch interpretational problems are huge obstacles to overcome, but in no way mean a person can't be involved in music. Participating and enjoying it's creation. Changing to another instrument or different style if necessary.

Nothing wrong with switching instruments. I started on trumpet. Don't play it now though.

On a personal note. I'm sorry to hear of your frustration Timber. That must have been a source of frustration and despondency for you.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Moiraine: To those who believe there is a hierarchy of valor between humans - I would like to know on which basis you propose to measure the worth of a human being. Which unit do you use, which scale, which tools are you using ? Lacking those, permptory comments about "ignoring reality" haven't got an ounce of validity. About singing and music. How do you define "a good musician" ? To me, a good musician is simply the one who brings pleasure. Thus, as Yorick said, anyone can be a good musician. I have heard many local bands that maybe didn't have a perfect pitch or an outstanding talent but knew how to make a ball or a small concert lively. Isn't that what really counts ? [img]smile.gif[/img]

Brilliant, brilliant, brilliant.

[Yorick]

Actually on the tone deaf pianist issue, now that that's brought up, I remember at a big combined churches event performing a song written by a pianist who could not for the life of him sing a melody on pitch.

While the band was playing he was singing me the melody, and was so in between the notes, I couldn't work it out at all. So I asked him to play the melody on the piano... which thankfully he ended up doing.

The song ended up going over really well. We played it well and it was well received.

My point being that his limitation didn't prevent the end result, just the means of getting there. People got to hear and appreciate a well performed and well played song that was born in the stillness of his heart.

[LordKathen]

[img]graemlins/offtopic.gif[/img] What happened to this thread? [img]graemlins/1disgust.gif[/img]

[ 02-26-2003, 07:26 PM: Message edited by: LordKathen ]

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by LordKathen: [img]graemlins/offtopic.gif[/img] What happened to this thread? [img]graemlins/1disgust.gif[/img]

It, we, evolved

[LordKathen]

I guess you guys are the more adaptable ones. I did not evolve with you.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by LordKathen: I guess you guys are the more adaptable ones. I did not evolve with you.

Natural Selection strikes again.

Moiraine: First, I apologize for mangling the spelling of your name previously.

Second, this is a discussion about evolution. Therefore, I based my assertion on equality on the value-basis (not "valor") of chance the person would survive to procreate, live long, and/or obtain happiness. Note, I said "chance" meaning probability. While it is possible for someone born with near immobility, it is unlikely that such a person can overcome those difficulties the way Stephen Hawking did. At least, it is more unlikely for them than for someone without physical disability challenges. It does not make them *better* or *worse*.

Please read my previous posts and pick apart the bits you disagree with because I don't think you've responded to them yet. You and Yorick seem to have only restated your initial sentiments.

I will note that on a purely logical level it cannot be true that all people are different but equal.