ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 6:19 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 46 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 02, 2003 12:03 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 4439
Location: You can't take the sky from me. Since I found Serenity.
Crashman wrote:
Archeopteryx....or however the hell you spell that ugly bird's name. It went from lizard - lizard with feathers - lizard with feathers and flappy arms - birdish lizard - lizardish bird - bird, near as we can figure. Best explanation for the feathers? Warmth. But, lemme ask ya', aren't feathers a bit....complex? I mean, after all, hair is much simpler, and just as effective, as per the vast majority of mammals. It's easier to grow, too, and it could grow up between the scales, if need be. There, armor AND warmth, together! Beautiful. Or thicker scales, perhaps, that'd keep warmth in, but with the proper texture to 'em, they'd absorb heat from the sun quite well.


They went extinct, the current birds are thought to have evolved from a completely different line.

_________________
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 02, 2003 12:47 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 239
Location: Oregon, then California, now Virginia.
Alright, I wasn't aware of that. But still, the ugly buggers got feathers, when hairs would suffice. That was the whole point of the post, really....hair is simpler than feathers, and just as effective at keeping you warm, if I'm not mistaken.

_________________
We'll wipe out all the nasty crawly things that come into your home, regardless of whether they have jobs, families, or even personal firearms. Call Quadruple-E right this fucking second!

Before your neighbour does.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 02, 2003 12:50 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 4439
Location: You can't take the sky from me. Since I found Serenity.
They also glided. The Archeopteryx. The feathers weren't just for warmth.

_________________
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 02, 2003 1:23 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 239
Location: Oregon, then California, now Virginia.
I'm aware. I was stating, and apparently I wasn't clear enough so I'll be blunt, that their need for feathers, while obvious, isn't enough that they'd be developed when other, far simpler and more likely means, could occur. For starters, why would htey grow feathers prior to their evolution of flight, when hair would suffice to keep them warm, and is far simpler and easier to work with? And then there's the fact that, since they were still only mere gliders, hair instead of feathers would hardly hurt that at all. Then there's the fact that feathers are a fairly complex thing anyway, so, realistically speaking, it's more likely not to ever develop them in the first place. They aren't as likely to grow feathers as they are to grow a bit more skin, or slightly longer/broader wings, which could be done simply by growing a wee bit more. Feathers seems an awfully clear-cut and easy method to assist flying, but not an easy thing to develope biologically before hair.



Like I said, I'm probably missing something, though. Perhaps they had hair prior-to, and we're simply not aware. Though, I still feel the need to clarify what I was trying to ask.

_________________
We'll wipe out all the nasty crawly things that come into your home, regardless of whether they have jobs, families, or even personal firearms. Call Quadruple-E right this fucking second!

Before your neighbour does.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 02, 2003 2:21 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3447
Location: New York
Crashman wrote:
"Let there be light" could very easily be a euphamism for the big bang. It'd work just fine, because I assume that all the matter in the universe exploding from an infinitely small point (read that as 'non-existant', for that is how 'infinitely small' translates over in layman's terms) is going to be rather bright. A supernova made of the entire universe.


Only one problem there: The universe was opaque for the first 300,000 years after the big bang. It was simply too dense for light to be able to penetrate any distance. Thus, the big bang was not bright, but in fact quite the opposite - darker than anything we could imagine.

Quote:
Archeopteryx....or however the hell you spell that ugly bird's name. It went from lizard - lizard with feathers - lizard with feathers and flappy arms - birdish lizard - lizardish bird - bird, near as we can figure. Best explanation for the feathers? Warmth. But, lemme ask ya', aren't feathers a bit....complex? I mean, after all, hair is much simpler, and just as effective, as per the vast majority of mammals. It's easier to grow, too, and it could grow up between the scales, if need be. There, armor AND warmth, together! Beautiful. Or thicker scales, perhaps, that'd keep warmth in, but with the proper texture to 'em, they'd absorb heat from the sun quite well.


Ah, but it wasn't like the feathers on Archaeopterix and vis predecessors were anywhere near as complicated as the feathers on modern-day birds. I vaguely remember reading a Scientific American article on this very subject about a year ago. Basically, the precursor of feathers was hair - or a dinosaurian analogue of hair. In the case of proto-birds, these hairlike projections developed in such a way as to maximize lift, since the hunting methods of these creatures basically required them to be able to leap great distances. As these animals progressed from leaping to gliding to full flight, these hairlike insulators became more and more complex, until finally they became what we would recognize as feathers.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 02, 2003 3:48 pm 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2003 5:00 pm
Posts: 7672
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Also, I don't see feathers as much more than elongated and softened scales. Take a scaly beast today, strech out the scales, serrate them, and you have simple feathers in a way.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Looking back, I realize this is pretty much what Rince said. To hell with it, REDUNDANT OPINION AWAY!!!
PostPosted: Thu Oct 02, 2003 10:57 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 06, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1967
Location: All curled up in a Calabi-Yau space
IcyMonkey wrote:
I really hate using terms like these, since they assign teleological significance to evolutionary processes, and thus anthropomorphize nature. But saying that an animal "wants" to pass on vis genes or that this is its "evolutionary goal" is a lot easier than saying that animals that do not do this wind up having less of a genetic impact on the next generation than those who do. What can I say, I'm lazy

Well congratulations, you forced me to go look up a word I didn't know. This is only the second time that's ever happened :) (I agree with your point about anthropomorphizing nature, but really, what can you do? It's an integral part of language. And harmless, as long as we don't confuse our homemade maps for the territory...)


As far as advancement of the human race is concerned, I think strict biological evolution is entirely irrelevant at this point. Natural selection doesn’t have much effect on societies which take care of their weaker members, and where artificial insemination is widely available*. Which is fine, because technological advancement is faster, by several orders of magnitude. Humans are what we are because our particular evolutionary path is one that found advantage in greater complexity. A certain threshold has now been reached, whereby we can increase the complexity of our artifacts by using older ones, at an ever-accelerating rate. Someday they may even be able to increase their own complexity without our intervention (see Terminator, The Matrix, etc., for the Hollywoodized version of this possibility), although by that time, defining just what constitutes “we” would probably be a tricky business. If we are ever to become something other than human, I seriously doubt it will be through the same biological processes which brought us to this point.

The only way I can see natural Darwinian evolution becoming relevant again is in the advent of some massive biological or ecological catastrophe (probably brought upon ourselves in one way or another, like an engineered virus getting loose). And even that would be more a matter of simply adapting to a more hostile environment, rather than a process of increased fitness for the normal one.

Notice that I’m only talking about completely natural processes (i.e., not manmade). Certainly, Darwinian evolution as a paradigm could prove to be useful in everything from computer algorithms to nanotechnology and genetic engineering, etc. But those would be a direct result of our technological, not biological, advancement. Of course, if you take the wider view, perhaps such things are natural, since they arise ultimately from the biological adaptations that led to our current brain structure and societies. You might almost say that our genes have found a better way to express themselves- as pure ideas, which affect how our technology and society develops. But that would just be abstract philosophizing ;)


* There is still some selection at work of course, especially for men, since even artifical insemination requires a woman’s approval of one’s general attributes (there’s some sort of data sheet that goes with all sperm donations, isn’t there?). My point is that the rate of gaining complexity through slow genetic adaptation is so glacial as to simply not matter.

Abunai! wrote:
Creationism. Hah. HAH! At least by some omnipotent entity.
[snip]
Any other major options I'm forgetting?

How about creation by an omnipotent entity who is a misleading bastard, and want us to think he doesn't exists? After all, I'm pretty sure than any actual omnipotent, omniscient being who had any interest in us would have to be something of a bastard anyway. And you certainly can't *disprove* the possibility…

_________________
Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence.
- Robert Anton Wilson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Looking back, I realize this is pretty much what Rince said. To hell with it, REDUNDANT OPINION AWAY!!!
PostPosted: Fri Oct 03, 2003 2:58 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3236
Location: Allentown, PA
Wandering Idiot wrote:
How about creation by an omnipotent entity who is a misleading bastard, and want us to think he doesn't exists? After all, I'm pretty sure than any actual omnipotent, omniscient being who had any interest in us would have to be something of a bastard anyway. And you certainly can't *disprove* the possibility…


I've always thought that if God is anything like the Bible portrays him he's sadistic enough to plant fossils just to make us question his existence--because it's more fun to have us running around like headless chickens wondering which end is up than for him to make it obvious.

_________________
I'm too damn pretty to die.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 03, 2003 4:17 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
Or just not really caring about how we interpret how the whole thing was set up, and not minding us explaining it however we do, regaurdless of actually how it was done.

I mean jeeze, kinda vain here arn't we, the creator of all, the alpha and the omega, being insecure enough to want to leave us little clues about his existance, "oh please mighty humans worship me" etc...

-MiB

_________________
delenda est communism


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 03, 2003 9:41 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3447
Location: New York
Keep in mind that, as a scientific theory, whether evolution is "true" or not does not matter. Most modern science is founded, in one way or another, on Logical Positivism, which is the idea that a statement is meaningless unless it has consequences, and if the consequences of a particular proposal are all found to be true, the statement itself can be considered "true". Truth has no meaning outside of this. Many, if not most, prominent scientists (e.g. Stephen Hawking) share this view.

As such, the "real truth" of evolution is not in question in a debate about its scientific legitimacy. What is in question is whether evolution explains more observed phenomena than any competing theory; if it can be used as a means of making concrete predictions which can be verified; and furthermore, if previous concrete predictions it has made have turned out to be correct. As far as scientists are concerned, God could have created the world last Tuesday. What matters is whether a model of the world presupposing that it started last Tuesday works better than a model supposing that the universe is billions of years old.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Minus Luther, I mean.
PostPosted: Sat Oct 04, 2003 7:32 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 06, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1967
Location: All curled up in a Calabi-Yau space
The Man In Black wrote:
I mean jeeze, kinda vain here arn't we, the creator of all, the alpha and the omega, being insecure enough to want to leave us little clues about his existance, "oh please mighty humans worship me" etc...

Heh, true. Although I should point out that's just about what Yahweh did, on multiple occasions.

Dude, aren't you going to be the most heretical priest ever? "My brothers and sisters in Christ, I think God doesn't really give a shit whether we believe in him or not..."

IcyMonkey wrote:
As far as scientists are concerned, God could have created the world last Tuesday. What matters is whether a model of the world presupposing that it started last Tuesday works better than a model supposing that the universe is billions of years old.

But if we did find evidence that some god had had a hand in evolution, and if we could figure out in what sort of conditions he would be likely to intervene again, that would make for more accuracte predictions. Certainly, it would be annoying for scientists to not be able to see vis "inner workings", but ve would have to be taken into account nonetheless.

_________________
Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence.
- Robert Anton Wilson


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Minus Luther, I mean.
PostPosted: Sat Oct 04, 2003 8:34 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
Wandering Idiot wrote:
Heh, true. Although I should point out that's just about what Yahweh did, on multiple occasions.


The bible's all allegorial, thats where so many people get it wrong, I mean Jesus spoke in parables, the 10 commandments appear to be mostly guidelines ("Thou shalt not kill," its almost universally accepted that there are still circumstances killing is okay with God, if 1 of the commandments is merely a guideline it logically follows, since it isn't specified, the others are as well, correct?) and all of these stories have more worth if they *mean* something instead of taken as history (story of moses warns against being fickle and shallow, I mean really the Moses guy must have been superhuman to not just say fuck it and leave those people to die in the desert, Cain & Able doesn't warn against murder so much as jealousy, you can fill in the rest.) etc.

Wandering Idiot wrote:
Dude, aren't you going to be the most heretical priest ever? "My brothers and sisters in Christ, I think God doesn't really give a shit whether we believe in him or not..."


Er...no. Aside from closed-minded people, a lot of ministers and priests take this view, I mean the real problem this solves is, God is all-forgiving and all-merciful, but if he really wants to give us all a chance to go to heaven, why is Christianity the One True Religion? It means that a whole lot of people went to hell who not only lived good lives but had *no opportunity* to convert to said "right" religion (ie the Chinese just after Christianity got started.) So, either God is not really all forgiving and all merciful, and he lives to pick random peoples to bless and take up to heaven (kinda inconsistant with the ideal of the Christian God) or there is some other way to get to heaven than by being Christian.

Thus my explaination.

-MiB

_________________
delenda est communism


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Minus Luther, I mean.
PostPosted: Sat Oct 04, 2003 10:04 am 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2003 5:00 pm
Posts: 7672
Location: Tallahassee, FL
The Man In Black wrote:
10 commandments



Go read the old testament. The jews have around 613 commandments from God, if I remember correctly. Its just you silly Christians ignore 602.


- Krylex - Ass since 1984


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 04, 2003 10:51 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
Speaking of the 10 Moses supposedly took down from that big mountain, Krylex. The jews can have all the rules they want, I was citing a specific example, and you do something completely stupid and unrelated to the discussion.

That doesn't even makes you an ass, because an ass says something relevant, just offensive. You're being stupid. Stop it.

-MiB

_________________
delenda est communism


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 04, 2003 11:29 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3447
Location: New York
The Man In Black wrote:
Speaking of the 10 Moses supposedly took down from that big mountain, Krylex.


No, Krylex is right. God gave Moses a shitload of other commandments (found mainly in Leviticus and Deuteronomy) up there on that mountain, a large chunk of them having to do with things like dietary restrictions and the like.

D00d, j00 got 0wz0red by a heathen pothead in biblical knowledge, and you're planning on becoming a preacher?

And have you ever read the OT? There's shit in there that can't possibly be rationalized as good, even in terms of allegorical teaching. The Yahweh of the OT is a vicious, conniving, jealous bastard.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 04, 2003 11:42 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
--;; I mentioned that doesn't matter, as I was speaking of those specific 10, not the others. Do you people ever pay attention, or are you so wrapped up in your pedant intellectual masturbation that you don't notice a specific example?

Fine, I'll be more specific. When I speak of the 10 commandments, I speak of *those* 10 commandments. Its understood in biblical circles, I'm sorry if you want to nit-pick but thats what I'm referring to. THATS why I got angry at Krylex, because it had nothing to do with what I was talking about.

Icy: Woah, crazy, I just happened to have read the OT once or twice...who woulda thunk it? And I disagree and say you're an idiot. CRAZINESS.

-MiB

_________________
delenda est communism


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 04, 2003 1:05 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 4439
Location: You can't take the sky from me. Since I found Serenity.
Yes, and I'm sure that ordering the Jewish people to kill all the men and children, enslave the women you don't and force them to marry you, and kill all the livestock, and then salt the ground of the gutted husk of the city is just his way of saying, "I love you."

And when some Jewish people decided to disobey Him and not kill all the cattle they were punished.

_________________
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 04, 2003 1:37 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
Because the bible is perfectly accurate when it comes to history.

TEH WINNAR IS YUO!

-MiB

_________________
delenda est communism


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 04, 2003 2:30 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3236
Location: Allentown, PA
What Mibby dear keeps trying to say and being cut off by his sarcasm, is that taking the Bible literally means coming to the conclusion that YHVH is one sadistic fucker.

Therefore, the Bible is meant as a lesson. Not an accurate historical document.

(Then again, that raises the issue of: what does the OT teach us, really? In a nutshell: Don't fuck with zealots. They'll cut your balls off and steal your women XD . . . No, really, that's why you IGNORE the craziness. The Bible would be just as effective if you didn't focus on that shit and instead focused on the behavior of the men caught up in it. Cause, really, they reacted pretty normally to the extraordinary circumstances they found themselves in. Sometimes they got excessively violent, but there's nothing they've done that the Expatriates haven't done too {speaking of the RT-universe Expats}. And that's really become more of a tale about the nature of the universe than a story, so I'm wondering if we can't say the same for the OT.)

_________________
I'm too damn pretty to die.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 04, 2003 8:38 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3447
Location: New York
I look at the Old Testament the same way I look at the epics of Homer. No one can deny that the Iliad and the Odyssey are works of artistic genius. However, in modern times, no one actually looks to them as a consistent moral guide. The gods in these stories basically act like little children, and the humans, even the so-called "heroes", are usually even worse. There's tons of gratuitous violence, rape, etc. on almost every page. And yet, despite all of this, it's inspiring - and there are moments when both gods and men rise above themselves and become, however briefly, role models. Besides this it is very well-written and poetic, even during the morally questionable parts. All of this applies just as much to the OT as it does to Homer. (I pity anyone who can read Job or Ecclesiastes and still think that the entire Old Testament is worthless drivel.)

In fact, I treat Judeo-Christian mythology in general the same way I treat Greek mythology - as an expression of the Jungian collective unconscious, as a collection of narratives that have deeply and permanently influenced Western art and civilization, and as really fucking good stories in themselves. But trying to actually extract some sort of consistent moral code from the Old Testament is like trying to do the same with Classical myth.

Keep in mind that the Old Testament is not one monolithic work. It was composed by a variety of writers, working at a variety of times, and thus it contains a variety of views which often conflict with each other. Thus, Genesis and Psalms have about as much in common with each other as (say) the works of Homer do with the works of Hesiod.

Things are a bit different with the New Testament. The Greek mythology analogy doesn't work as well here; it's much more overtly philosophical/pedagogical than both the OT and Greek myths. The NT reminds me more of the dialogues of Plato.

(On a side note, has anyone ever noticed how eerie the similarities between Jesus and Socrates are? They're the two most influential figures of Western Civlization though neither wrote a single word, they were both killed for being heretics, they both criticized the dominant scholarly sect of their day (e.g. the Pharisees/Sophists), and their moral philosophies were quite similar.)


Last edited by IcyMonkey on Sat Oct 04, 2003 9:11 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 46 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group