Explain the bumble bee.

I'm not doing your homework for you.

Damn, lazy theists. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

I think what you're striving for here is the argument of complexity, and if so -

I warn you: It crumbles, every time.

I dunno about bumble bees, but honey bees communicate through dance. It doesn't get much more badass than that.

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

I think what you're striving for here is the argument of complexity, and if so -

I warn you: It crumbles, every time.

Simple - The flying spaghetti monster created it with his noodle appendage.

It evolved from early organisms.

quote:Originally posted by bung:

I dunno about bumble bees, but honey bees communicate through dance. It doesn't get much more badass than that.

Actually, have you ever heard of the way Japanese honeybees kill hornets? They all rub together and cook the bastard to death.

Now thats pretty badass.

Flight

According to 20th century folklore, the laws of aerodynamics prove that the bumblebee should be incapable of flight, as it does not have the capacity (in terms of wing size or beat per second) to achieve flight with the degree of wing loading necessary. Not being aware of scientists proving it cannot fly, the bumblebee succeeds. The origin of this myth has been difficult to pin down with any certainty. John McMasters recounted an anecdote about an unnamed Swiss aerodynamicist at a dinner party who performed some rough calculations and concluded, presumably in jest, that according to the equations, bumblebees cannot fly.[3] In later years McMasters has backed away from this origin, suggesting that there could be multiple sources, and that the earliest he has found was a reference in the 1934 French book Le vol des insectes by M. Magnan. Magnan is reported to have written that he and a Mr. Saint-Lague had applied the equations of air resistance to insects and found that their flight was impossible, but that "One shouldn't be surprised that the results of the calculations don't square with reality".[4]

It is believed[citation needed] that the calculations which purported to show that bumblebees cannot fly are based upon a simplified linear treatment of oscillating aerofoils. The method assumes small amplitude oscillations without flow separation. This ignores the effect of dynamic stall, an airflow separation inducing a large vortex above the wing, which briefly produces several times the lift of the aerofoil in regular flight. More sophisticated aerodynamic analysis shows that the bumblebee can fly because its wings encounter dynamic stall in every oscillation cycle.

quote:Originally posted by crackhead:

Explain the bumble bee.

Or explain the delicate balance of life and nature; the humans who risk their lives for strangers; the majesty and grace of wild creatures; the mysterious energy and raw power of outer space. Can one really believe the existanceitself is just random and meaningless?

quote:Originally posted by shitty wok:

Or explain the delicate balance of life and nature; the humans who risk their lives for strangers; the majesty and grace of wild creatures; the mysterious energy and raw power of outer space. Can one really believe the existanceitself is just random and meaningless?

I've not seen majesty and grace in the wild, only violence. All that meaning is in your head. You're projecting that meaning upon the world. If you weren't there, experiencing those objects, that meaning would no longer be there.

quote:Originally posted by Hare_Geist:

I've not seen majesty and grace in the wild, only violence. All that meaning is in your head. You're projecting that meaning upon the world. If you weren't there, experiencing those objects, that meaning would no longer be there.

Then you just don't appreciate nature whatsoever. And if you think that life itself is meaningless, why not slit your wrists and abandon this meaningless universe?

quote:Originally posted by shitty wok:

Then you just don't appreciate nature whatsoever. And if you think that life itself is meaningless, why not slit your wrists and abandon this meaningless universe?

I pity you, if life has to have objective meaning... no. I take that back. I pity you, if life has to have any meaning whatsoever in order for you to enjoy it.

And yes, I do appreciate nature. I just don't attribute to it what isn't there. I appreciate it for what it is instead of what it "ought" to be.

[This message has been edited by Hare_Geist (edited 02-03-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by Hare_Geist:

I pity you, if life has to have objective meaning... no. I take that back. I pity you, if life has to have any meaning whatsoever in order for you to enjoy it.

And yes, I do appreciate nature. I just don't attribute to it what isn't there. I appreciate it for what it is instead of what it "ought" to be.



You said you only see violence in nature. How the hell can you say you appreciate it?

quote:Originally posted by shitty wok:

You said you only see violence in nature. How the hell can you say you appreciate it?

Easily.

It was also proven at one time that helicopter flight was just as imposible and that was man-made.

it bumbles

quote:Originally posted by Hare_Geist:

I've not seen majesty and grace in the wild, only violence. All that meaning is in your head. You're projecting that meaning upon the world. If you weren't there, experiencing those objects, that meaning would no longer be there.

Flowers and trees are violent? http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif)

quote:Originally posted by King_Cotton:

Flowers and trees are violent? http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif)

You've not seen the Venus Fly Trap?

quote:Originally posted by Hare_Geist:

You've not seen the Venus Fly Trap?

I have, but aside from a small number of carnivorous plant species the rest are generally peaceful.

Also, the violence is not out of malice but survival. A wolf doesn't kill a deer just to tack a deer head on his wall, he kills the deer to survive. There's a natural order of things that thrives on natural selection and sacrifice.

You are projecting your limited visions of violence upon the world. You see violence, I see beauty and order.

quote:Originally posted by King_Cotton:

You are projecting your limited visions of violence upon the world. You see violence, I see beauty and order.

1. why can't violence be beautiful?

2. I wouldn't call it ordered, but whatever.

quote:Originally posted by shitty wok:

if you think that life itself is meaningless, why not slit your wrists and abandon this meaningless universe?



It would be an act of futility, as the *meaningless* universe would not be affected at all by the act of one meaningless human being extinguishing their life. What would the point be? If they already felt the universe was meaningless, the act of dying would hardly lend any meaning to the grand scheme of things.

(Kind of like cutting off your nose just to spite your face)

quote:Originally posted by shitty wok: Can one really believe the existance itself is just random and meaningless?

Sure they can. And they can believe this without feeling jilted that the universe did not come into being just to give human beings a sense of purpose.

Isn't it enough that we stand alone in the universe as Human Beings, "advanced" products of long, unconscious, material processes that equipped us with unique understandings and the potential to be so cursedly self-aware?

That alone should give those who seek a higher purpose all the ammo they need to feel superior, necessary and *special*.

I actually wrote a little paper today, because I was bored. I didn't think it was relevant to this thread at the time but now I think it is:

quote:Morality is very easy to explicate without the requirement of a God. Through evolution, man acquired the ability to empathize. Along with empathy, another attribute of man is his tendency to dislike pain but like pleasure. Man also tends to retaliate when hurt - i.e. forced to experience something exceedingly displeasing to him. Because of empathy, a man can put himself in the emotional position of another. In this position of another, the man somewhat experiences his pain when he is harmed, and therefore wishes to retaliate on his behalf. Further yet, while in this position, the man can question whether or not he himself would like done to him what he is about to do, or has done, to the other whom he is empathizing. Hence justice, hence the golden rule and hence the useful tool that is morality. Contingent on how you perceive this, it may result in you embracing utilitarianism or ethical egoism as your moral creed.



I am well aware of the common retort to this statement and aspire to disparage it here and now. The retort goes somewhat like this: if you look at a watch, you can quite clearly tell it has a designer for it is so complex in design. The same goes for man and all other natural phenomena, for they are so complex it is impossible that they merely appeared from nowhere. Hence the beautiful, delicate balance required for justice, the golden rule and morality.



If you have mulled over the argument and now comprehend it, I shall like to commence my criticism that shall not only refute the necessity of a God for morality, but for everything. First and foremost, this argument, in every way conceivable, is self-refuting: if the universe is so complex it needs a designer, then God, infinitely more complex than the universe, too needs a designer, and so on and so on ad absurdum. We could simply accept an inexplicably complex designer; but then why not merely accept a less complex universe instead? The reply of the desolate mind is that everything has a beginning, but then what’s God’s beginning? It is true that there are still a lot of controversies about the birth of the universe, one of them being whether or not a birth occurred or if the universe is infinite, but that does not mean we should posit a God of the gaps. Also, there is a plenitude of empirical evidence that the universe formed via slow, gradual changes, as opposed to popping into existence complete. It is much easier to accept this, once one has the realization that the world did not adapt to us, but we adapted to it, that what you currently see around you was formed out of the universe naturally annihilating what did not have what was necessary to adapt to certain changes, as opposed to this all being designed by an even more complex designer. Do not be fooled, too, into thinking there is order in the universe. A glance at the Milky Way shall prove otherwise.



A common response to the previous renunciation of God is that without God the universe is meaningless. This is true. That is why it is foolish to search out there for a purpose. You yourself subjectively create your purpose in life. It can be easily done. Besides, even if a God existed, you cannot know what his purpose for you is until death, or even if he has a purpose for you.



I hope you have all seen via this essay that morality and meaning are still possible in a Godless universe. It is true that they are a little more insubstantial for being in a Godless universe, but that only makes them all the more precious.

You're a moron.

wtf...

The bumble bee exists, fact.

God may or may not exist. I believe in something "more" but i'm never sure if it's within myself, or external, either way I belive it's very significant and clearly life is beyond the simple physical in some ways.

If you think some bee proves the existence of the omniscient and all powerful God, then well, you're an idiot. If "God" does exist, then clearly "it" didn't sit down and go "hmm ho, well now i think i'll design a big round thing that buzzes and can sting people lOLZZZ, isn't that cute!"

If you think otherwise, jeez you're deluded, and you're just putting your view of a "powerful" level of human into the mould of the cause of reality. Which is of course very arrogant, and illogical.

Both arguments from 'perfection' or complexity are so ridiculous. Perfection is flawed simply because 'perfection' is simply not a reachable attribute. Complexity is equally absurd, because 'complexity' is relative. Why is life on earth so utterly flawed? Why are there genetic disorders and species that cannot survive? Sure, there are some complex things in biology/chemistry, but only relative to our brain power and we could easily conceive of more complex things than actually exist as well.

quote:Originally posted by shitty wok:

Then you just don't appreciate nature whatsoever. And if you think that life itself is meaningless, why not slit your wrists and abandon this meaningless universe?

You're under the assumption that something without meaning is a bad thing.

Creation just pisses me off its so retarded.

God this all knowing all powerfull being managed to fuck up so much.

Why do humans have wisdom teeth that dont fit our fucken mouths. Why do we have a tail bone that is totally useless. Why does the signals of the eye have to bypass so many parts of the brain before its percieved. Why do bats have to climb a fucken tree before it can fly. Why do humans have left over body hair thats not needed? Why do whaleshave hip bones that arent used. Why are there virus and bacteria that could eat and mutate us alive. ETC, ETC, ETC. There fucken millions of these facts.

What it shows is IF there is an all knowing all powerfull god. His creations are smarter then he is.

If there is a god he obviosly doesnt give a shit.



[This message has been edited by boozehound420 (edited 02-03-2007).]

^Perhaps he created the universe and permitted it to evolve.

quote:Originally posted by shitty wok:

Can one really believe the existanceitself is just random and meaningless?

Who says these things are meaningless or random? You did.

I dont belive in god.

The bumble bee was obviously created to give the mother spider (half-blind creater of all) something to snack on.

Humans, of course, were created to evolve and then create the extra-dimentional wormholes required to transport the bum,ble-bees into the realm of webbie-ness

It all fits

quote:Originally posted by King_Cotton:

^Perhaps he created the universe and permitted it to evolve.

This is a possibility.

But that is not Christianity at all. Its a philosophical idea.

quote:Originally posted by boozehound420:

This is a possibility.

But that is not Christianity at all. Its a philosophical idea.

How so? How is it incompatible with Christianity? There are certain Jesus nuts who will deny that their God would've intended such a thing, but if Genesis is interpreted metaphorically where are the incompatibilities?

The Bible obviously doesn't encompass everything Christians believe. I know many Christians, priests included, who believe in and teach this.

^ya those are the people who pick and choose which part of the bible to take as literal and which to take as a metaphore.

I Think there just holding on to the companionship of there fellow christians instead of just saying we dont believe.

To me its doesnt make sense to do that though.

It isn't a random pick and choose, though.

See, when the Bible says something outrageous that would make the Christians look like total nutjobs, of course it's meant to be interpreted metaphorically. If it says something that's halfway decent, it's literal.

You know what really kills me about religious people? They have to look to millenia old fairy tales to appreciate the beauty in the universe, and yet they've got the gall to call atheists pathetic.

So what if there's no grand meaning? If you can't deal with that, then you're the childish little shit... not the rest of us that deal with that logically and get on with our lives.