Sat 14 Jan, 2006 07:10 am
There are many misunderstandings between these two terms and , since the processes are pretty much taken for granted by scientists, I thought an objective discussion with some informative links would be in order.
The waking consciousness of pure scientific thought lives in the microcosm all on its ownio thinking about the macrocosm and the waking consciousness of pure being stream lives in the macrocosm (weeeheeyy!!!!) thinking about the microcosm.(See seaside girls).
well, that about clears it up for me
I'm glad we had this talk.
Farmerman, do they have sheep in Mulligan Bay or has the stew macroevolved into some form of fish concoction? Call me old school but I would prefer Mulligan Stew with mutton.
It is the fundamental intellectual difference between science and religion.It is why the battle is continually being fought out.Reason versus Belief.
The first rule of reason is test it until the pips squeak and conclude a probability.
I suppose Dover,and other cases to come,maybe is simply where a civilised society chooses to do battle rather than in more trying environments.A mark of our sophistication so to speak.Instead of a field full of corpses rotting in the sun we get nice cosy jobs for a whole range of folk who take their wages down to the shops and we get some more not quite as nice jobs and so on and poor Mr Bush has to keep it all in balance.Well-nearly at least.
And we did it hand in hand with a few hiccups along the way and some of us think art is the masculine hand but we understand that reason thinks that too.
But I baggsed it first.
kay, when you get done answering that question, could you answer mine spendi?
Rap, did ya ever spend time on Mulligan Bay? I didnt have time to do any fishing this last trip cause I was working, I love it up there
There isn't a question apart from rap's on the fish concoction which I'm not qualified to answer.
I knew this thread would be a disaster with the master of theMesoAmerican cluster F**k, spendius around.
The one at the back looks a bit despondent I think.
It is an interesting question.It might even be the most interesting question of all.Spengler's Volume Two opens with a dicussion along the lines of this thread.
"Regard the flowers at eventide...he begins and goes on to compare animal and plant existence with reference to the rootedness of the one and the freedom of the other.The fox furtively approaching a nest is one example of the little world within another great world where a freedom of choice is operative although the hunger that moves it is plantlike in its fixity.
The plant is what it is but in an animal there is something else.A duality.The plant knows only the "ineluctable modalities" and the servitude to those.Servitude to God is a search to return to that vegetal state Spengler says.
But it seems to me that so also is science.It seeks a rootedness in known facts and a togetherness with a community of fact seekers.That and the God search are a response to the fear felt by the emancipated and lonely conscious microcosm within its individual microevolution.And images of loneliness are attractive.The desert island,the soaring eagle and the white dove sailing over the seas to find a place to sleep in the sand.The lonesome hobo.The drifter.
I define great literature as that which reduces the fear and possibly eradicates it and crap anything that stimulates it.And I don't really have any other criteria.So I love Yogi Bear,Bilko,Proust & Co and especially Frank Harris and Viz magazine.
But Spengler is the place to go for this stuff.Clears your head.
Okay, let me take a stab at this.
The question was regarding micro vs. macro evolution. Here are my personal opinions.
As a follower of this really cool Jewish carpenter I've learned that this collection of writings commonly refered to as "The Bible" contains many different books. One of those books, named Genesis, is a wonderful short story about who created the world and for what purpose the world was created. WHO and WHAT... not WHEN, or HOW. The reason that so-called Christians claim to have such a problem with the concept of evolution (macro especially) is that they have an incorrect understanding of the type of literature they call "Holy Scriptures." Who can deny that there are different "genres" of litereature in the Bible? Take a look at Psalms (poetry), 1st Kings (history), the Gospel of John (narrative), Romans (correspondence), Revelation (allegory), then tell me that there aren't different kinds of literature in the Bible. Is it so hard to think of Genesis as conveying a truth about WHO, not HOW? I fail to see where "Christians" are drawing their arguments against evolution from.
Yes, some athiests will use a perfectly good scientific theory to try to explain away God, but that doesn't at all mean that the theory isn't valid. In fact, I find it more significant to believe that life as we know it was created by millions of years of evolution than by some six-day-long fireworks show. Just think... of what care God took over creating life. Think of the loving devotion, the tireless working of an omnipotent creator creating just the right conditions for life to start. To believe that, for me, causes me to be in even greater awe of the Creator. I have no idea HOW, I just am content to believe that HOWever life started, God was behind it.
I won't cram my ideas down anybody's throat. I'm mainly just wanting to say that not all Christians are right wing loonies who are unable to think rationally.
That's about all.
welcome aboard walker. I didnt neccesarilly mean this to be a shot at Christianity but a discussion among us to air what we think of these two concepts. Ive got my own working models but, Im not trying to draw anything but honest discussions.
BTW, your analogies to the Types of writing in the Bible are a good take. Youll find many on both sides that will agree with you.