Go to LETTERS, ESSAYS & SHORTS
- Add a comment
- Go to DO I BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION? DO YOU?
belief is not the point
Evolution is.
There is enough evidence supporting.
posted by
Xeno-x
on July 7, 2007 at 10:49 AM
| link to this | reply
Okay GEPRUITT, I will I realize your point, and I am sorry that I often
tend to make powerful statements like the one you mention. I would definitely stick and see what you have to say. I will reread it. Thanks
posted by
Bhaskar.ing
on July 5, 2007 at 8:22 AM
| link to this | reply
Re: GEPRUITT
Bhaskar,
I have learned to appreciate your well-thought-out opinions as well, but this one issue may very well be the one in which we may differ. In general, such all-inclusive and powerful statements of yours as "It can not be otherwise." tend to stick in my throat and can not be so readily swallowed. At any rate, stick with me awhile, and we will find out.
posted by
GEPRUITT
on July 5, 2007 at 12:32 AM
| link to this | reply
Re: GEPRUITT - where those who would argue against evolution as a valid
It's good to hear from you again, my friend!
Your understanding of my post (and my "drift") is basically a good one. While I, by no means, consider myself an expert (a drip under pressure!), I do, as you might well expect, have opinions which are, I think, uniquely my own! I would appreciate any of your comments which might help me to more correctly state this theory as we unfold it in future posts. I also accept your ( and this post's) use of "evolve" as to "develope." But we will go on from there and get much more specific!
Thanks again for joining in. I highly value your viewpoint. Enough said (yours and my heads are already big enough!) Have a great day.
posted by
GEPRUITT
on July 5, 2007 at 12:07 AM
| link to this | reply
GEPRUITT
I do believe in the whole cycle of events in evolution. It can not be otherwise. The Law of Nature is such that everything comes to manifestation, stays for a while, though that while for us may seem to be eternity, then it goes back into its involution, regains its equilibrium, and again through the vibratory forces of Time, a disturbance in the equilibrium is created in the three principles - those of kinetic, neutral, and static, called the Sattwa, Raja, and Tama - according to the scientific Sankhya philosoplhy of the East, and the entire kaleodoscopic happeningsis repeated time and again. Inmfact the universe is without a beginning or even without an end.
posted by
Bhaskar.ing
on July 4, 2007 at 11:35 PM
| link to this | reply
GEPRUITT - where those who would argue against evolution as a valid
scientific principle attempt to refute it is by the use of the word "evolve" in its common English vernacular.
Evolve has come to mean "develop" but the two words are only synonomous when speaking of ongoing change outside of the realm of the theory of evolution. Every usage of the word "evolve" or its derivatives in this post could be replaced with the word "develop" or one of its derivatives. My point is that what you are presenting here is not an argument in favor of the scientific theory of evolution, it is in a pure sense irrelevent to the scientific theory but I do catch your drift. If you are saying that seeing social, religious and mechanical structures improving through development over time lends credence to the possibility of lifeforms undergoing some sort of similar development over time, I fundamentally agree with that. But, evolution is omni-directional, for a life form to evolve it does not necessarily have to improve or become more sophisticated. To suggest so is simply a habit we have gotten into in the use of our langauge (I do it myself) and a result of our conditioning. This is derived from the notion that higher life forms evolved from lower life forms which implies improvement but this is not an absolute. There are many cases of the reverse being true.
posted by
gomedome
on July 4, 2007 at 11:13 PM
| link to this | reply