by Shining One 369 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
hooberus:
1) All amimal phyla will be easily shown to be separate and distinct in the living world 2) All animal phyla will be easily found to remain separate and distinct in the fossil record.
Could you define the term "phylum" as youn understand it please.
Since I just awoke from 16 hours sleep several of which were occupied by dreams of a 1982-era blonde Chris Evert in a nightie, all I can add right now is: this is a great thread and what great thinkers we have here and I would have loved to participate more, but Chrissy kept begging me to come back to bed. And THAT, my friends, beats any science/religion/alternate reality talk.
Could you define the term "phylum" as youn understand it please.
Is a major taxonomic group that animals are classified into.
I'm flattered that you see fit to discuss my inadequacies in public, really I am
Tetra:
You are divorcing science from religion, however quite a number of the scientists that you applaud were religious men. Nonetheless, I'll happily divorce religion from spirituality and science.
Supposing I could see into the x-ray spectrum? Wouldn't I be deemed a freak?
What about seeing into other dimensions that cannot be scientifically observed by a third party without such vision, because the apparatus has not yet been developed to do so?
Mysics and even religious leaders have been making money off of that for millenia. Unfortunately there have been a good proportion that have been charlatans, but science has been plagued by that phenomena, too.
Listening to your turn of phrase, you seem to have a lot invested in a non-spiritual paradigm
As OldSoul highlighted, evolution doesn't always make things better, but it certainly explores the possibilities through variation. I humbly submit that I can't help but wonder whether or not our lack of need to "survive as fitter" is hindering our further evolution.
hooberus:
[A phylum i]s a major taxonomic group that animals are classified into.
OK, and do you believe those classifications are arbitrary (like classifying cars by colour, for example) or that they represent part of an actual hierarchical system?
OK I'm a little more awake now. I'm definitely a materialist, but I'm definitely open to spiritualistic or ultra-dimensional feelings, if they'd ever come to me. They don't, and as kid-A remarked (wow, I have a newfound respect for the dude), we know what causes feelings of "I", or id, and it has nothing to do with a Jeremiah-like influence where God rattles our guts and bones into action.
I'm more than welcome to a Little-Toe like spiritual awakening, but I'd have it studied./.... by...erhm.... scientists. I wouldn't go around the corner to the psychic who does hand readings and the like. or maybe I would for the hell of it?
Great thread guys, wish I were smarter or that I could type faster to participate more. I love this stuff, which is why i spent 20 hours reading the Hedonistic Imperative. We know so much more than goat-herders 3000 years ago.. though they were damned smart themselves. How in god's adam's apple we as humans got so far is a miracle in itself. What a great time to be alive!
Hey LT
I humbly submit that I can't help but wonder whether or not our lack of need to "survive as fitter" is hindering our further evolution.
I bet it is. The Darwinian age is over for us. We post-Darwinian manipulate the system with medicine, better living conditions, and so forth. As carbon-based lifeforms we've probably gone as far as we'll go. We might even regress! Look at all the fat kids we've created with Gameboys and chatrooms available to almost any kid. "Hindering" is subjective though. When I was a kid I might have been in better shape cause I spent my free time playing baseball, but kids today learn at a much more advanced rate than I had opportunity to do so. They have tens of thousands of libraries at their fingertips. It'll be interesting to see how those kids develop as the world's greatest minds and our leaders 40 years from now.
OK, and do you believe those classifications are arbitrary (like classifying cars by colour, for example) or that they represent part of an actual hierarchical system?
It is generally accepted by creationists that animals are able to be classified by characters under a basic hierarchial classification system.
hooberus:
It is generally accepted by creationists that animals are able to be classified by characters under a basic hierarchial classification system.
Do you accept then that animals within a phylum are related, and that those within lower-level taxonomic orders are more closely related?
Do you accept then that animals within a phylum are related, and that those within lower-level taxonomic orders are more closely related?
Regarding animals within phyla: It depends on what you mean by "related". If you mean "related" by having sharred similarities then yes. If you mean "related" by ancestor-descendant relationships then generally no. For example General Motors vehicles can be generally classified hierarchically, are "related" by various amounts by similar characters, with vehicles possessing more and more similarities as the classification scheme moves to lower levels (the similarities being products of a common creative entity-the corporation).
