lightgigantic:
You realise that the explanation you just gave makes sense in light of evolution, but very little sense in light of Creation?
Not at all.
What on earth is wrong with male nipples??
lightgigantic:
You realise that the explanation you just gave makes sense in light of evolution, but very little sense in light of Creation?
I pointed out that "descent" has several meanings, and that in the context of the OP, the other meanings may be adding things one doesn't intend to mean.
Like I said the first time around.
:shrug:
Geez. Sarcasm travels poorly online, I guess, even among people who've known eachother for a while ...
your "sarcasm" said:Sure, and "living our lives" is completely devoid of any philosophical outlook; instead, it's "how things really are", no thinking required.
what you "really meant" said:Experience itself is just that, experience, it's just neurons firing. There is no evaluation, no philosophy in it.
You are probably referring to interpreting experience - and for that, some kind of philosophy is necessary to begin with.
IOW, your "all we need to do is live our lives" involves a lot of philosophy to begin with, although you will probably deny that.
Science does not view the origin of life (abiogenesis) as part of the theory of evolution, which the above implies. While current notions probably attribute abiogenesis as due to some random event or series of random events, I do not think there is any widely accepted theory dealing with this subject.Science currently makes two assumptions I dont support.
That the first truly self-replicating life form must have appeared by random chance because tiny evolutionary changes occurring by random chance are currently observable.
That matter must have formed a state of absolute contraction at some point in the past, because the expansion of matter in space is currently observable.
Not unlesslightgigantic:
You realise that the explanation you just gave makes sense in light of evolution, but very little sense in light of Creation?
And as I said to you, a word that has several meanings does not imply every meaning regardless of context. The context in which a word is used implies a particular meaning, such as the case in the OP, which uses "descent" in a genealogical sense. In that context, "descent" does not imply lesser value or status, and to suggest that it does is idiotic. And that's exactly what you're doing when you tell him he should use a different word because of the supposed connotations the word carries.
Of course, now you admit to it, but only after denying it first. Why the games?
The great catastrophe of western history was the adoption of the Judean paradigm by the Roman Emperor Constantine. By 'western' I'm referring to the realm north and west of Gibraltar and Constantinople.
A cultural link to the ancient ethos of the Greek world was only re-established by the 'Sun King' Louis XIV (1661-1715)...who created an aesthetic of beauty unblemished by Hebrew self loathing.
The games are all in your head.
Pop quiz:
If Balerion were to actually read Wynn's posts the first time he "reads" them, he would:
a) get the flu
b) get chickenpox
c) get smallpox
d) get rabies
e) other
wynn said:To descend means, among other things, to now be on a lesser level than previously. There must be a reason, a motive for this descent.
Leaving aside what this implies for the idea that "man descended from apes (or whatever)" - you might need to rethink the concept of "descent" and use a term that doesn't have connotations that you do not intend
me said:That's a ridiculous argument. "Descend" in the context of evolution or genealogy does not imply lesser value or status. What kind of idiotic logic is it to suggest that a word with multiple, context-specific meanings must imply one negative meaning across all of its usages?
wynn said:[I didn't say that,] I pointed out that "descent" has several meanings, and that in the context of the OP, the other meanings may be adding things one doesn't intend to mean.
So male nipples become just as much a design flaw as red hair (since, you know, some kids get teased like hell about it and truly wish they didn't have red hair and it serves no apparent purpose
Is it possible that God created anomalies, imperfections and problems, so humans would have to use their brain? We learn more from mistakes because they make us think. While necessity is the mother of invention. The imperfect is perfect for learning because it places humans in a position where they need to use their brains and ingenuity to complete the perfection. If there are genetic defects in creation humans need to learn to control genetics and thereby contribute to creation.
A good teacher will challenge students, rather than spoon feed them. That might require messing up their ordered world, so they have to use ingenuity and reason to level the boat. It is only in the future that one will see how this apparent chaos leads one to the ways of self reliance; student becomes the master. The bible says you are Gods, so training began with imperfections.
Are we talking about hair or skin?Balderdash;- Red hair w/corresponding fair skin is most prevalent in North-Western Europe where the condition is actually beneficial. Lower melanin levels actually allow individuals to manufacture greater amounts of vitamin D than others in poor light conditions; therefore evolutionary advantageous.
Conversely, men possessing nipples simply serves no purpose, well, none other than to completely dismiss the concept of a creator.
lightgigantic said:Are we talking about hair or skin?
Pretty sure hair doesn't generate vitamin D ... much less red hair
lightgigantic said:Given that you just took the topic of hair and extrapolated it to broader contextual issues of biological necessity and function in the world, its not clear why you suddenly decided to throw your blinkers on and pretend to be stupid in the next paragraph
This doesn't even make sense. Male nipples don't force people to use their brains, and there are certainly many greater wonders in the world than that, so nipples as an abstract lesson from God doesn't fly. And what kind of lesson would it be if the result made people think that the whole process is by chance rather than by design? I mean, looking into why men have nipples, one comes away with the understanding that all human embryos follow the female template, which totally debunks the story of God creating woman from man's rib.
I mean, looking into why men have nipples, one comes away with the understanding that all human embryos follow the female template, which totally debunks the story of God creating woman from man's rib.
If you look at culture, men invent most of the new, while women help integrate the change; Eve comes from Adam. Why do you think women work so hard to be like the men? Eve follows in the wake of Adam. The bible symbolism is more consistent with the spirit and not biology, with the spirit more connected to the brain/mind. This is how you infer, instead of assume.
Women create biologically through birth and maternal instinct. The males do not have the same system draw and gain bandwidth. Males create and give birth to ideas and inventions; use the bandwidth. The classic example used to be when men and women drive the male will try to improvise and the female will want to stop and asks for directions. The male is creating. The female wishes to take what is already created.
An analogy between created and descended would be Henry Ford, who was a self made man. He created his empire without education and from humble beginning; created from nothing. His children and children's children descended from him, with a silver spoon in their mouth. From this position of opportunity and privilege, many of the descendants added their own mark, helping to move the family creation into the future. Jesus was descended from King David. While Adam was created.
Man, you get silly when you're desperate.
Conversely, men possessing nipples simply serves no purpose, well, none other than to completely dismiss the concept of a creator.
Believe me, when I say the idiocy is all purely yours.
But that is also true with a hierarchical worldview. The self always comes first in any structure. People help others because that action is pleasurable to them (it feels good to be helpful), or they voluntarily feel humble when something superior is recognized; to achieve true humility is itself exhilarating.A lateral world view (i.e. a world view that doesn't see any higher and lower order/values in life) has no scope beyond the fulfillment of personal desire, or, in rare cases extrapolating that to extensions of one's body
(so it becomes a case of my family, my people, my country etc)