|
May the gods be with us! Home | Drawings | Idols | Links | Books | E-pistles |
E-pistles
evolution
 |
The discussion below is from |
| Author | Message |
|
afrostretch Not posted much yet Joined: 05 Jun 2003 Posts: 5 |
Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2003 6:12 pm Post subject: evolution another question, i belive fully in evolution and that life started as a one celled orginism. and i also belive the the great gods created the universe and let science take its course and do its thing and thats how life atsrted. how many of the i.p's(integrational polytheists) belive in evolution??? Back to top |
|
Calum Guy Who Runs The Site Joined: 28 Jul 2002 Posts: 309 Location: Outside of my head |
Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2003 9:19 am Post subject: well personally i am sceptical about evolution. I know it's in vogue to believe in evolution but i conversely believe in natural selection and i think that anything beyond that has yet to be proved or disproved. Basically i abstain because of a lack of evidence to comment on anything more than natural selection (which is that thing where minor differences between individuals have a cumulative effect on the species over time). Evolution seems to imply that fish were throwing themselves out of the water onto the beach for millions of years in an effort to develop something other than gills that was able to breathe air. I just don't see it myself. I have an amusing mental image of a generation of protoplasmic amoebas getting a hard time from their parents for trying to develop into two celled organisms, with the parents tut-tutting and saying things like "it just ain't natural, mavis". I just find it difficult to believe that one species can just metamorphose into another species. There appears to be little archaeological or zoological evidence to support this (to my knowledge). I also have a hard time convincing myself of the general idea that many evolutionists (but apparently not yourself) hold about how it's all happened at random. What are the odds? if it had all happened at random i really don't think our ecosystem would be nearly so complex and well balanced as it was up until the industrial revolution started to bugger it all up. This of course all neatly steps on the toes of my feelings about the big bang, but maybe we will save those for another topic. Of course these are only my personal feelings. Unlike other religions, IP allows you to believe what you like about the origins of the species' so long as you admit that other people's views may be right, which is why i don't say that i don't believe evolution can't happen, just that i am not at all convinced. _________________ ’War is fun when you know you won’t die’ – Michael Moore Help save the rainforests Back to top |
|
afrostretch Not posted much yet Joined: 05 Jun 2003 Posts: 5 |
Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2003 2:31 pm Post subject: i appreciate your input on the situation. Back to top |
|
Kate I like this site Joined: 29 Jul 2002 Posts: 71 Location: London |
Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2003 3:53 pm Post subject: Duality There seems to be this all pervading view that you are either a creationist or an evolutionist and that the two are mutually exclusive. But then recently I heard an argument from some creationists who claim that God may have created the world to look like it was older than it really is as part of a master plan. Therefore carbon dating can't prove anything. Back to top |
|
Flash Light I feel like I've been here before! Joined: 20 Mar 2003 Posts: 19 Location: New York City |
Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2003 7:15 am Post subject: The evolution myths authored by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, Charles Darwin, and Stephen Jay Gould, et al. are among my favorite myths of all time. If I were issuing a compendium of sacred writing, I would surely include Darwin's "Origin of Species" along with the books of the Bible. Although Gould's view may prove to be more accurate, Darwin's view attained the wide spread belief necessary for it to become a major myth. Calum, you wrote" Evolution seems to imply that fish were throwing themselves out of the water onto the beach for millions of years in an effort to develop something other than gills that was able to breathe air. I just don't see it myself" In classic evolutionary theory, the tide would recede, or the pond would begin to dry up, fish were stranded, and countless died. The random mutation: that some cells were able to pull oxygen from the air, became relevant, and the fish with this mutation had a better chance at survival until the next tide, or the next rain. Hence this random mutation was favored by a natural selection process, and lungs evolved. Although creationism and evolution are completely different ideas, they function equally well as myths. The science community has their favorite myths and the creationists have theirs. To ask whether the Vedic creation myths, the Biblical creation myths, or the big bang myths are true, is as unnecessary as asking whether UNIX, or WINDOWS, or LINUX are true. The relevant question is which operating system works for the user. _________________ http://www.Polytheism.org May the Gods be with us! Back to top |
|
Kate I like this site Joined: 29 Jul 2002 Posts: 71 Location: London |
Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2003 3:26 pm Post subject: Truth Are you then saying that all truths are relative or that there is a version of truth that we all experience slightly different versions of? I think that it would send me barmy if there wasn't some consensus or have I completely missed your point? Back to top |
|
Flash Light I feel like I've been here before! Joined: 20 Mar 2003 Posts: 19 Location: New York City |
Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2003 12:11 pm Post subject: Truth and Myth I'm saying that in general, when dealing with myths, the question of truth is not relevant. Rather, view the myth as software running in the mind of the believers. Rather than ask if the software is true, it's more meaningful to ask if it's useful for the believers. Does it enable them to live happier, more productive lives, etc.? Does it avoid oppressing others? If so, it is a useful myth. As to consensuses, they are as numerous as belief systems: the various denominations of Buddhists, Moslems, Christians, Jews, Pagans, Scientists, etc. have each reached their own consensus. Take your pick; it's like choosing an operating system for your computer: In buying an OS, the question of truth doesn't apply, rather it's a question of which operating system you prefer. In choosing a belief system, the relevant question is whether that belief system works for the believers. Try some out, and "make up your own mind," as Calum put it. I believe truth is absolute, however the appearance of truth changes relative to the belief system you're operating under. Once you choose a system, that system tells you what you must believe to be true to operate by that system, i.e. how truth looks from the viewpoint of that belief. To avoid misunderstanding, let me take the argument a step further: the only possible form of knowledge is myth. Science has no more claim to truth than any other belief system. Newtonian physics is proven to be a myth by Einstein's Relativity, which in turn will be shown to be a myth by some Unified Field Theory. Newton's "Principia Mathematica" is also on my list of sacred books. Newtonian physics is a myth, but it's still very useful for everyday physics problems. Similarly, numerous ancient belief systems are useful for coping with the problems of everyday life, as well as fears of death. The question is not whether a myth is true, but whether it's useful. _________________ http://www.Polytheism.org May the Gods be with us! Back to top |
Back to top