Creation vs. Evolution

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Shakespeare is amazing because of our own bias. Bacteria may say "look at that new peniclinase enzyme we created --- neat!" Beauty and elegance are all relative. The same bias infects environmentalists --- we are destroying the planet? It's all relative. If we blew the place up with hydrogen bombs, some plutonium-eating bugs would think we created heaven on earth.
 
photohikedive:
which would explain why you don't mind kissing them....


Different strokes for different folks.:freak:
 
shakeybrainsurgeon:
Shakespeare is amazing because of our own bias.

not so fast ;)

we're discussing self-awareness. as a measure of self-awareness on Earth, try to match Shakespeare or Dante's work

i am not saying that they are intrinsically worth more than an amazingly constructed ant-hill.

i am just saying that humans do self-awareness better than any other species -- by a long shot

of course, when the brown stuff hits the fan, would you rather have Shakespeare's collected works or a house built half as good as an anthill?

but, to repeat, humans do self-awareness like the US does music, movies, software, and pizza
 
What use is "art" and "literature"...not a great number of emus or ptarmigan producing symphonies or mathematical proofs.

Is the sole reason for human intelligence (and all it's "useless" expressions) evolutionary and biological or do we have a greater good of some sort to follow with this seemingly unique characteristic. (Seen any deconstructionist essays written by lemurs lately?)
 
bwerb:
Is the sole reason for human intelligence (and all it's "useless" expressions) evolutionary and biological or do we have a greater good of some sort to follow with this seemingly unique characteristic.

yes

:eyebrow:
 
Zingtea:
So is MikeFerrara saying that God created happiness?

ok see if you follow me here Mike, and then back off of that statement, please:

1. Happiness = Great BJ:D
2. God creates happines for me:D
3. God must give me BJ's:11:

Bloody hell....you said it, not me. Repent, you blasphomous sinner:D
 
We don't know that our intelligence is unique. Our intelligence is the collective action of individual nerve cells, each cell oblivious to the whole it creates. Likewise, the biosphere, the colletive action of all living things, may form a massive compuational engine and we would be as oblivious to it as a neuron is to us. We have no way to gauge the computational or creative prowess of other species, or of collectives of species. (No, I'm not smoking anything) If there is a God, maybe he is more concerned with the global living collective, not with us as individuals. When i speak to someone else, I could care less about the individual cells that comprise him, they could live or die for all I care. I only interact with the collective of cells that form the whole. Perhaps God cares about our wars as much as I care about the wholesale death of skin cells that goes on in a friend's body everyday. maybe individual humans mean nothing, it is only the human species as a collective intelligence that communes with God.

We also have a bias of time scale... our buildings are beautiful, but evolution created the butterfly. It took millions of years, not a few years, but who said intelligence must work on a certain time scale? The rain forest adapts over millenia, our brains can solve problems in minutes --- is faster mean smarter? Trees think slowly, but their problems evolve slowly. Again, its all relative. In our chauvinism we place emphasis on quick analysis using symbolic logic and numerical calculations, things we are good at. But there are other methods of computing and problem solving.
 
AXL,

I say this with all the kindness I can muster in the face of your increasingly useless posts, please shut up.

Thank you.

R
 
shakeybrainsurgeon:
The rain forest adapts over millenia, our brains can solve problems in minutes --- is faster mean smarter? Trees think slowly, but their problems evolve slowly. Again, its all relative. In our chauvinism we place emphasis on quick analysis using symbolic logic and numerical calculations, things we are good at. But there are other methods of computing and problem solving.


hmm...if it was up to the multinationals we'd clearcut the trees infinitely faster than they could/can adapt. it ain't "chauvinism" to recognize the fact that humans are a distinct entity on this planet. oh...for the record faster=smarter, that's why exams have time limits.
 
bwerb:
hmm...if it was up to the multinationals we'd clearcut the trees infinitely faster than they could/can adapt. it ain't "chauvinism" to recognize the fact that humans are a distinct entity on this planet. oh...for the record faster=smarter, that's why exams have time limits.

What we really just don't know is the inner world of any creatures besides ourselves. We may try to use our measuring sticks of intelligence to judge other creatures but it may be an inadequate test. How can we possibly ask a butterfly what's it's like to be a child when they may only exist in adult form for a matter of hours? While we're asking the question they've completed high school and college! Sea mammals and elephants make noise in ranges we can't even hear. They can hear each other though. Is that language?

I have a joke for you.

A scientist was doing some experimentation with frogs and he took a subject frog and put him on a line and was going to ask him to jump and measure how long the jumps were in his notebook.

"JUMP!" says the scientist and the frog jumps 20'. The scientist marks "Jump #1 20'" He then chops off one of the frogs front legs and puts him back on the line.

"JUMP!" and the frog jumps 17'. So he marks down "Jump #2 17'" And he chops off the other front foot.

"JUMP!" the frog only goes 13'. The scientist shakes his head and in the notebook writes "Jump#3 13'" Now he chops off one of the back legs.

"JUMP!" and the frog only goes 7'. Disappointed the scientist marks down "Jump #4 7'" he then removes the frogs last leg.

"JUMP!" and nothing happens. He tries again... "JUMP!" and the frog still doesn't move. One last time, he thinks, "JUMP!" Alas, the poor frog is still where he was placed. Shaking his head he opens the notebook and writes, "Jump #5 Frog goes deaf."

Get it? Good.

R
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom