Re: Evolutionists are especially hard pressed to account for the numerous instances in which beauty is hidden and unnecessary
- From: "Zachriel" <"http://www.zachriel.com/mutagenation/contact.asp"@giganews.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 08:01:08 -0400
<unrestrained_hand@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1126844578.043438.211500@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Kant wrote:
>> Nature abounds with magnificent visual beauty.Many organisms exhibit
>> beautiful coloration patterns and architectural designs.Where did all of
>> this visual beauty come from?
>> Surely,the initial life-form in the evolutionists scheme did not exhibit
>> such beauty.
>
> Who says? Many very simple lifeforms have marvelous shapes and subtle
> colors. The problem with you Creationists is, is that you have lost
> your sense of wonder. And beauty, apparently.
>
>> Science maintains that the origin,development,perfection and
>> widespread presence of visual beauty in the world of life completely
>> defies
>> evolutionary explanation.
>
> No it doesn't. I wonder if the person you are quoting was so jealous of
> what he lost that he felt compelled to lie. Ah, well; whatever his
> motive, this simply isn't true.
>
>> Evolutionists are especially hard pressed to
>> account for the numerous instances in which beauty is hidden and
>> unnecessary.
>
> On the contrary; since most of us do not believe that life was put here
> for our enjoyment, but evolved for other reasons, it is to be expected
> that much beauty will never be seen, and some has only lately been seen
> by a few of us via modern tools. I would instead wonder why a creator
> deity would make things beautiful which would not be seen by his
> intended audience.
>
>> Much to the consternation of the evolutionist,visual beauty is
>> often quite useless except for the aesthetic gratification of man and
>> God.
>
> [Your not knowing its reason] != [there being no reason].
> This is another problem with Creationists; their overwhelming arrogance
> and pride. No scientist would say "Gosh, I can't think of an
> explanation right off the top of my head. Therefore, there is no
> reason."
>
>> Many structures are beautifully colored despite the fact that they are
>> rarely or never seen.
>
> Rarely seen by us, doofus. They are often seen by other fish, or bugs.
> In any event, some chemicals (and therefore some critters) are simply
> pretty colors. That's nice, but why do you assume our enjoyment of it
> indicates anything profound? The world doesn't revolve around you,
> Bucko, nor even all of us humans collectively.
>
>>For example,the abyssal fish,Rhodicthys,is of a bright
>> red color.Yet,it lives in total darkness,1.5 miles below the surface of
>> the
>> ocean.Likewise,the deep-sea Neoscopelus macrolepidotus is vividly colored
>> with azure blue, bright red, silver spots, and black circles!
>> Even the eggs of some of the deep-sea creatures are brilliantly colored.
>> Useless or hidden visual beauty is indeed an evolutionist's nightmare.To
>> their way of "thinking,"everything that evolves must have a practical
>> purpose, or else it would never evolve.Evolution is supposed to be a
>> responsible process.Why then the splendors of the abyssal fish, the
>> beauty
>> found inside some shells, the dazzling colors inside the mouths of
>> nestlings, and so on?And remember we have only considered color, saying
>> nothing of the magnificent and limitless architectural design found in
>> nature.
>
> Some things are soft, some sharp and scratchy. Etcetera. So?
>
>> Also, if visual beauty is a natural consequence of evolutionary
>> progression, why is it that lower life forms display greater visual
>> beauty
>> than that of the higher life forms, such as man?
>
> Evolutionary science does not imply humans are "more advanced". Why
> would this disparity of color be a problem? Why on Earth would beauty
> be a consequnce of progression, whatever that means?
>
>> Evolutionary thinking falls short ad rather fails dismally in attempting
>> to
>> explain visual beauty.
>
> It hasn't been high on the list of priorities for most scientists. Some
> have researched it. Did you know, for instance, that the most beautiful
> members of the opposite sex are the most *average? When the photos of
> the faces of young women are blended together by computer, so that the
> features are most average in placement and measurement, the majority of
> males and females who view the fotos pick the blended ones as the
> prettiest. Isn't that something? It's not what most people expected,
> but it makes sense in retrospect. The average members of the tribe are
> probably best adapted to the current environment. Science explains
> this, without in any way reducing the beauty of the physically
> attractive young people.
>
> Did you know that bees see ultraviolet? Many flowers which seem pretty
> enough (but plain) to us are actually spectacular in ranges of light
> which the human eye can't see. When viewed thru photos revealing the
> ultraviolet patterns, strong "runway" and "arrow" patterns appear,
> quite striking, but until a few years ago visible only to the bees.
> Reptiles, birds. frogs, and insects are frequently very colorful. Most
> non-primate mammals are pretty much colorblind, so most of us are quite
> drab. The other critters seem to be communicating a lot of information
> with their colors. Warnings, sexual status, species identification,
> etc. Do you find the blue nose and red bottom of the mandrill
> beautiful? Females find it sexy, apprently. Females mandrills, that is.
>
> Why would a God make the world beautiful for bees and not us? Why would
> he make parts of it so beautiful, but invisible to the vast majority of
> people? And how about all the ugliness - are we being sent mixed
> messages?
>
> Or perhaps the beauty and ugliness we see in most things is incidental,
> and says more about our brains than anything else.
The other day, I saw a very unusual cloud pattern. I clearly perceived a
giant angel with a radiant crown and a fiery sword fighting a terrible
demon. I thought to myself that God sends the archangels to fight the great
clashes, to leave we lesser angels free to fight the more meager battles. I
continued to watch the struggle between the archangel and the demon in awe
until wind and time had erased the image leaving just the gentle rays of
sunlight passing through an opening in the clouds onto the Earth beneath.
Interestingly, clouds are well-explained as the interaction of moisture, air
and energy.
--
Zachriel, angel that rules over memory, presides over the planet Jupiter.
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/
> In any event, much
> beauty has been explained by science, and eventually it will get around
> to more. But there are so many wondrous things to investigate! There
> are many lifetimes left of stuff to find out.
>
>> The evolutionists is totally baffled by the world
>> around him so characterized by perfect widespread beauty that often
>> serves
>> no practical function, except for aesthetics.
>
> Not all evolved traits evolved for a reason. And not all unanswered
> questions mean there is no answer possible. Science baffles you,
> doesn't it?
>
>> The only logical explanation
>> and reasonable conclusion agrees with the observed facts is that such
>> beauty
>> is the creation of the greatest designer and aesthete of all.As the
>> psalmist
>> records: "The heavens declare the glory of God;and the firmament sheweth
>> his
>> handywork" (Ps. 19:1).
>
> Well, assuming there is a god, and he thinks you're hot stuff, and
> wants to send you a message by some ambiguous and incomprehensible way.
> Maybe it's a message that you should do more science.
>
>>
>> --
>> "There are more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any
>> profane
>> history."
>> Sir Isaac Newton [1642-1727]
>
> Newton was an alchemist, and tortured animals. Even geniuses are wrong
> about some things. And yes, maybe even you, as hard as that is to
> believe.
>
> Kermit
>
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Views on evolution
- Next by Date: Re: Evolutionists are especially hard pressed to account for the numerous instances in which beauty is hidden and unnecessary
- Previous by thread: Re: Evolutionists are especially hard pressed to account for the numerous instances in which beauty is hidden and unnecessary
- Next by thread: Re: Evolutionists are especially hard pressed to account for the numerous instances in which beauty is hidden and unnecessary
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
