Talk:Main Page/Archive index/103

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Explaining the breathtaking beauty of autumn foliage

The beauty of autumn foliage is a result of a multitude of factors. The first is that the tree's branches are arranged according to the golden ratio, which humans generally find aesthetically pleasing. Second, the leaves on the trees appear as brilliant shades of reds and oranges thanks to secondary pigments used by plants to absorb a wider spectrum of light. These new, pleasing colors, combined with the effect of dishabituation allows us to truly appreciate the exotic new colors of the foliage, as well as the arrangement. FCapra 22:54, 13 October 2011 (EDT)

You do a good job of explicating some of the wonders God has hidden in autumn foliage. Truly, only the hand of God could arrange a plant so as to appeal so directly to the aesthetic drive within his greatest creation. JimmyRa 01:39, 14 October 2011 (EDT)
Or evolution just happens to favor traits in plants that make them appear beautiful, much like how tapeworms happen to be most successful with traits that make them appear hideous. FCapra 17:12, 14 October 2011 (EDT)
A man that tries to piece together explanations from a hodgepodge of happenstance is halfway to insanity. Whenever someone says something "happened" without further explanation it is a sure sign that they are tiptoeing over gaps in their attempt to explain the universe. Open a Bible and escape from your futile quest to replace God with your own ego. JimmyRa 13:04, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
See, the issue here is I actually have faith in my lord and savior, and I don't need every little coincidence to be evidence for his existence because I already know he exists. You need to be reacquainted with your entire faith, if you're so insecure about our Lord that he has to be directly responsible every time the leaves turn red. Also, I assure you that every scientist I have ever met is well beyond "halfway insane", and that saying they are anything less is a grave insult to their dedication :). FCapra 16:20, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
I agree with FCapra, and I'm a Christian also. I do not think that the leave foliage is a good philosophical arguement for God, because beauty is subjective. There are other better arguements for God, this one would be easily shredded by agnostics and atheists. Epulo17:30, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
I have met people who call themselves Christian yet are strongly pro-choice. Just last weekend I had the unpleasant experience of listening to a "Christian" talk about how the Hindu Vedas contained as much divine inspiration as the Gospels. Christianity is not a banner which you can hoist over whatever moral beliefs you want to follow and expect divine approval to fall down upon you. Fcapra, God is not necessarily responsible for turning every leaf red but he did design the tree, if you ascribe this miracle to Darwin instead you are turning your back on God. And I did not question the dedication of scientists, but rather the accuracy of their conclusions. Epulo, when you call beauty subjective you make the same error as the moral relativists, God is absolute. I suggest you discard your "Christian" beliefs in favor of Christian beliefs. JimmyRa 21:47, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

Autumn foliage existed before humans did, so there is only one plausible explanation for the beauty in autumn foliage: it's a work of art by the Designer. No evolutionary explanation exists for something beautiful that appeared before any creature existed to appreciate the beauty.--Andy Schlafly 22:12, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

I can't argue that autumn foliage is not the work of a designer, but Mr. Schlafly, how can you be sure that autumn foliage existed before humans did? Humans were created just three days after Earth's vegetation was created, so how can you be sure this creation occurred during the height of the autumn foliage season? --JohnA7 23:03, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
Why does beauty need to be appreciated? The factors that make trees beautiful are factors that help them survive. Every aspect of autumn foliage, from the color change to the leaves falling off the trees to the arrangement of branches, are all adaptions that let trees survive through the winter. The beauty is a side effect, and inherently meaningless to a naturalistic view of the world. I believe this argument is a prime example of begging the question. You assume that there is inherent meaning to beauty in your argument, which means only god could have created trees, because they have inherent beauty. You can't prove that inherent beauty actually exists, so your argument is critically flawed from the beginning, and there is really no point in defending it. Regardless, every single aspect of autumn foliage helps the tree survive, and its biological mechanics are well detailed. So if you think about it, trees were around to appreciate the beauty, no? FCapra 00:53, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
JohnA7, I believe Mr. Schlafly is just using the "logic" of evolution to show how absurd the theory of evolution is. If you were to take the opinion of darwinists seriously you would have to believe that trees evolved millions of years before humans. Which obviously raises quite a few problems. FCapra, you make a lot of arguments as to why trees have properties that are beautiful, but provide no explanation as to why humans possess the faculty to appreciate that beauty. What evolutionary mechanism do you propose as the etiology of humanities appreciation of this kind of beauty, reproduction? Perhaps now we have an adequate explanation for the behavior of tree huggers. I have always wondered why liberals and atheists liked trees so much, maybe Conservative should write an article exploring this unhealthy relationship.JimmyRa 01:06, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
Regardless of your unchristian attacks, you have done nothing to actually prove beauty cannot exist without humans to observe it. Please, feel free to propose to me an uglier adaption for trees which would provide more evolutionary success. Humans generally appreciate pattens, symmetry, and bright colors, as it helps us organize information and bright colors tend to be associated with things we evolved to pay attention to, such as poisonous frogs or ripe fruits. Thus, we view the patterned branching and bright colors as autumn foliage as "beautiful". FCapra 01:16, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
I believe it would be quite possible to have a tree which would provide equal evolutionary success while being simultaneously uglier. I therefore propose the twee. The twee is more of a snaking vine than a traditional tree, nonetheless where the twee receives adequate sunlight it does give forth vegetation, of a kind. This vegetation is rather like a spiky bush, with those kind of thin, really hard, and pointy spikes. The leaves are not like the leaves you imagine a bush having, they are more like flaccid sheets, about two thumb wide, with sharp edges. The roots of the twee are neon blue, and the leaves are all manner of garish colors. Instead of tastefully colored chlorophyll the twee has all manner of rudely colored macromolecules. The twee's smell is one of its defining characteristics, you can get used to any smell in time, no matter how foul; the twee has overcoming this limitation by producing a number of olfactory excretions that smell like anything from moldy hyena to a porta potty after an atheist convention. The evolutionary justification for this smell, if there can be one, is that it serves as a strong deterrent to predators. Because of these execrable excretions wood from the twee cannot be used as fuel. It is the twee's berries that are it's most insidious feature, they are delicious, but they make one lose all grasp of ones mental facilities. Almost all who partake in the berries end up voting for Obama. It is only the hand of God that saved us from twees and instead in his mercy gave us trees. JimmyRa 02:13, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
Comments on those qualities: A snaking vine is less likely to grow taller, and thus more likely to be covered by other plants, and hence having access to less sunlight, diminishing its ability to grow and survive. Regarding the neon blue roots, I'm not even sure if that's biologically possible. If leavse aren't green, then they contain very little chlorophyll, which is vital to plants surviving. Even a wide of smells one would eventually become used to when around them frequently, and the person would eventually not notice the smell. However if instead of emitting a range of smells constantly, if the twee emitted smells that continued to change, then the person would not be able to become used to them (I don't think). The rest of those characteristics you mentioned I can't think of something off the top of my head that would make them negatively impactful to trees. But honestly, nice try. (Question though, are some of those characteristics actually in some trees and plants?) - JamesCA 03:02, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
The twee would never be able to compete with photosynthesizing plants, as it could never grow fast enough to compete with other briars and has inferior seed dispersal methods. If you give it chlorophyll and edible berries to compete with other plants, you basically just end up with a new species of Smilax, which are everywhere in deciduous forests and have every property you described, or a superior version, like chlorophyll so they can actually undergo significant photosynthesis and survive. FCapra 10:49, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
That's a nonsensical statement. Your argument is self-defeating too. If the purpose is beauty for people and people didn't exist yet what is the point? It seems like you're saying, "It is pretty and we didn't make it that way because we couldn't appreciate it. Therefor the only answer is a God." Not to mention that saying that the purpose is beauty when the purpose is to absorb more light during a period of decreased light. You're right that beauty is an evolutionary advantage in some cases but not when it does not benefit the creature itself. Beauty of leaves does not increase the likelihood of pollination nor does it increase photosynthesis. Different color leaves which bring in different wavelengths of light do increase photosynthesis. Beauty is a subjective attribute which some people give to the changing of the leaves. Ayzmo 16:01, 16 October 2011 (EDT)

Does the theory of evolution try to deny that autumn foliage has intrinsic beauty?--Andy Schlafly 17:51, 16 October 2011 (EDT)

No. The theory of evolution is defined by the OED as "The transformation of animals, plants, and other living organisms into different forms by the accumulation of changes over successive generations; the transmutation of species (cf. transmutation n. 3f); the origination or transformation of an organism, organ, physiological process, biological molecule, etc., by such a series of changes." It neither supports, nor denies the existence of intrinsic beauty. The question of inherent beauty is a philosophical question, not a scientific one, as scientific reasoning can't answer the question. For example, a theory might be "intrinsic beauty exists", which can't be proven true as there is no way to prove anything with absolute certainty dosen't exist , or "intrinsic beauty does not exist", which is also unscientific because there is no quantitative, objective method of measuring interpreted beauty, let alone inherent beauty. FCapra 18:54, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
My question relates to evolution and the beautiful autumn foliage, the subject of this thread. The theory of evolution has to deny it has intrinsic beauty, because the foliage developed before anyone could appreciate the beauty. If the foliage is inherently beautiful, then the theory of evolution is false. But if the inherent beauty of the foliage is denied, then few would agree.--Andy Schlafly 00:32, 17 October 2011 (EDT)
Assuming beauty is inherent, the trees were around to appreciate their own beauty long before humans were. Beauty is inherently meaningless if said beautiful organism derives no personal benefit from said beauty. Your logic is clearly flawed, as you assume that only humans can appreciate beauty. There's not a single organism that enjoys fall foliage more than the trees themselves, and the more beautiful the foliage, the healthier the tree is. Clearly, the trees can be beautiful for their own sake, as inner beauty is still beauty, no? Trees don't need to be beautiful for us, because their beauty is caused by traits which help them survive. Trees don't have to be beautiful for anyone, and thinking otherwise makes you misofoliagist :). FCapra 01:13, 17 October 2011 (EDT)
Well said FCapra!--Beardude1963 08:46, 17 October 2011 (EDT)
As a matter of fact, God would have been around to appreciate beauty before people existed. He is even documented as having done so: "He looked, and He saw that it was good".--CPalmer 10:54, 17 October 2011 (EDT)
How does autumn foliage being beautiful equal evolution being false? We may find the patterns on snake skin to be beautiful but the fact that they existed before humans doesn't say anything about the validity of evolution. The purpose of the patterns on snake skin has nothing to do with beauty and everything to do with traits that help the snake to survive(camo and warnings in some cases.) Beauty has no effect on evolution because evolution makes no claims of beauty. Beauty is a subjective interpretation of the effects of evolution. Personally, I don't find fall foliage all that beautiful because I much prefer vibrant green foliage. That alone says that it isn't inherently beautiful. The old adage proves true: "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." Ayzmo :) 12:58, 17 October 2011 (EDT)

The colorful beauty in autumn foliage cannot be appreciated by things that cannot see colors, such as trees as well as most mammals. The theory of evolution cannot explain it, and indeed denies that it could exist. Yet it does.

Just so you know, appreciate means "to enjoy the benefits of", and I'm pretty sure trees enjoy the benefits of not dying. Everything about a tree that makes it beautiful helps it survive, and I'm sure you can't come up with an aspect of autumn foliage that is somehow a detriment to the tree. FCapra 18:19, 18 October 2011 (EDT)

Perhaps this should be moved to a debate page? - JamesCA 21:57, 18 October 2011 (EDT)

Emilio Estevez news item

Perhaps I could convince you to include the fact that his Brother is Charlie Sheen (Carlos Estevez) and his father is the repeatedly arrested well known active liberal Martin Sheen (Ramon Estevez)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by MeredithBr (talk)

Wouldn't that qualify as gossip, which has long been disfavored on this site? Wikipedia is more welcoming to that type of information.--Andy Schlafly 13:41, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
Regarding Emilio Estevez: In my opinion, it doesn't really matter who his brother or father are, he cannot be held responsible for their actions, any more than any of us can control what our adult relatives chose to do. I think that it's even more inspirational that he has chosen his own path in spite of who his famous relations are. I'm glad I saw this mention and followed the link, I found the article on him to be inspiring and uplifting. I always learn something new when I come to Conservapedia. There are often links to articles that I haven't seen anywhere else. Taj 13:56, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
Very well put, Taj! Thank you for your feedback.--Andy Schlafly 17:48, 16 October 2011 (EDT)

Don't be too lazy...

... it just takes a couple of minutes to archive a talk-page properly. AugustO 15:32, 18 October 2011 (EDT)

And something odd

I had a quick look at the main page history, and noticed that the last edit was on October 6. As one of the external links goes to an article written on the 18th of October, this is obviously wrong. Is this an error or is this done intentionally for some reason? - JamesCA 01:25, 20 October 2011 (EDT)

The main page is made up of subpages, viz. Template:Mainpageleft and Template:Mainpageright. It's these templates that are updated with content, not the main page per se. --FrederickT3 02:52, 20 October 2011 (EDT)