[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: evolution

I found life is much easier when you approach any debate with the knowledge 
that no matter how sure you are you could be wrong.  It seems those who are 
so arrogent to believe they couldn't possibly be wrong, have very little 
peace in their life, and very few friends as well.

If two people witness the same event, they both see different things.  Who 
is correct?  Both and neither.

If I was right even most of the time, I wouldn't have to work again...

Drummond


>From: "-RJ-" <TranquilityBase at NetZero_Net>
>Reply-To: killietalk at aka_org
>To: <killietalk at aka_org>
>Subject: RE: evolution
>Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 14:56:55 -0400
>
>Hi Folks,
>
>I usually try to stay out of this one but what the heck. Might as well toss
>in a few cents.
>
>First of all I am in neither camp, neither Fundimentalista nor 
>Evolutionary.
>And I am not looking for flack from either or worse yet both sides.
>Discussion of a theory or a particular part of a theory is a good thing.
>But when we start a discussion we must accept the following possibilities:
>
>Our position is wrong.
>Our position might be partially wrong.
>The opposing position might be right.
>The opposing position might be partially right.
>Both positions might be partially right.
>Both positions might be partially wrong.
>
>Some people call this "open mindedness". If one is completely convinced 
>that
>he/she has the only correct answer then debate is unnecessary and useless.
>Except if ones goal is to persuade. Why should anyone really care what
>someone else thinks? In the grand scheme of things this is actually one of
>the more useless theories. It concerns changes in life forms over 
>centuries.
>None of us will live long enough to feel the impact of evolution. By the
>time you are old enough to read and understand this message you are not
>likely to further evolve into anything other than what you are. If you
>believe in creationism the point is also moot. Things which are, have
>already been created and if anything is to be created in the future it is
>most certainly not up to anyone on this list. If I am wrong, and any
>immortal, omnipotent beings capable of creating new life are lurking on 
>this
>list, you have my e-mail address and I would be more than willing to listen
>to your take on natural history.
>
>Long ago the Buddha was asked by a disciple of a competing religion, how to
>make a decision in the absence of convincing proof. He responded by saying
>that you should chose the one that most benefits you and brings about the
>greatest good, everything else being equal. For different people this will
>no doubt lead to different conclusions. That was true then, as it is now.
>
>If either position makes you happy. Great. Don't change it!  If someone has
>a different position which makes them happy leave them alone!  Why rain on
>their parade? No matter what you believe on this matter none gets hurt, at
>least until we start fighting about it.
>
>If someone wants to discuss a theory rationally and with an open mind. I am
>game. Why not?  Lets have some fun. If someone wants to impose their point
>of view on someone else, why bother???? Could you possibly care what I 
>think
>in the privacy of my own home?  If you do, I'd love to know why.
>
>This otherwise benign theory has become the poster child for the science v.
>religion debate. This is unfair to either theory and serves no purpose to
>either religion or science. Despite the pleasure which can be derived from
>verbal intercourse and mental self-stimulation from this discussion the
>debate is not particularly useful to the vast majority of people.
>
>If someone really wants to have some fun with evolution. Lets talk about 
>the
>concept that life may have arisen from multiple events. That the conditions
>necessary for spontaneous life have occurred many times over the past few
>million years. Maybe even while I am writing this an entirely new life form
>may be coming into being. Would this life form be substantially similar to
>what preceded it. Would it be pathogenic to existing life, photosynthetic 
>by
>nature or what would it do to support itself? What if we could create the
>conditions to create life in the lab, should we?  These are fun academic
>questions worthy of discussion.
>
>We could also ask some cool questions from the fundamentalists regarding
>God's intentions in the creation of creatures which serve no purpose to the
>human race. If Noah only took two of every creature on the ark how do we
>allow for the insufficient gene pool to perpetuate any of the species?  If
>at some time a large gene pool was not necessary to perpetuate a species,
>why is it required now?
>
>The permutations are infinite and we could have a great deal of fun with
>many of them.  But what does it matter who is right? Whatever mechanism is
>controlling circumstances as they were, are or will be, it is not in our
>hands.
>
>Creationism is not the basis for the Christian religion! Evolution is not
>the foundation for modern science!  Therefore both will survive the debate
>either way.
>
>Best regards,
>
>
>-RJ-
>
>
>
>NetZero Platinum
>No Banner Ads and Unlimited Access
>Sign Up Today - Only $9.95 per month!
>http://www.netzero.net
>---------------
>See http://www.aka.org/AKA/subkillietalk.html to unsubscribe

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

---------------
See http://www.aka.org/AKA/subkillietalk.html to unsubscribe