Exactly 'HOW' intelligent must a Designer be ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:
Zombification?

---

... string of syllables which resemble language but carry no meaning... much like the post to which I was responding.Sorry, Phillip but you aren't doing anything but reciting opinion. This is the cause of any zombification which may be becoming noticable.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Philip:
[b] [QUOTE]Originally posted by schrafinator:--It's credible science; it never fails to rebut the non-naturalistic problems of stating that men evolved as zombifications (soul-less, mindless, heartless, powerless, etc), which is erroneous.[/b][/QUOTE]I'm sorry, what? What credible science rebuts non-naturalistic problems?------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
I'm sorry, what? What credible science rebuts non-naturalistic problems?

---

​

--(See prior paragraph, John; but I'll repeat)

---

I see nothing resembling science in that paragraph.

quote:

---

The science (theory/hypothesis) of Christ-crucified-risen-from-the-dead at the crux of a cursed-creation-redemption science.

---

Please note, you said 'credible science'

quote:

---

This crux of all sciences seems to fit the observed data.

---

'God did it!' fits all data.

quote:

---

It never begs a God-of-the-gaps for evo gaps.

---

Phillip, it is nothing but God-of-the-gaps.

quote:

---

It seems to answer all the metaphysical data as well.

---

There is no metaphysical data. If there were metaphysical data it would be called 'physical data'------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Philip:
[B]Frank, I have a B.A. in Psychology! Not a B.S.! Much of psychology, Freud, Adler, Horney, Jung, etc., is metaphysical. Freud, for example, gives us concepts of the psyche, the sea of the subconscious, libido, and hosts of other metaphysical concepts.[/quote][/b]Metaphors for the sometimes bizarre way we think, but hardly proof of anything extra-physical.

quote:

---

Psychology is essentially another conglomeration of humanistic and naturalistic cults (if you will), bent on demeaning humanity via quantitization and other naturalistic ploys.

---

Wow!!! We agree, at least on the demeaning humanity part. [quote][b]Yet, Shraf speaks of her husband doing research psychology that seems perhaps to fit naturalistic behavioral psychologic science: a more focused and disciplined endeavor.[/quote][/b]Not sure what your point is here. I do follow Schraf's distinction between research and applied psychology, though.

quote:

---

The talk-archives definition (a rigorously biased ToE forum) is honest when it implies that science essentially may search for truth by any means using the scientific method (not restricted to naturalistic cults).

---

But the scientific method demands evidence and reprocucibility of results. This rules out meta-physical phenomena. This doesn't seem to fit what you've argued in the past.

quote:

---

Respectfully, I don’t see the biological basis of higher communication any more than music.

---

There doesn't have to be a biological basis for 'higher' communication which I take to mean such things as the debate we are now having. What there has to be is a basis for communication which allows for higher communication. See the difference? Our hyper-braininess may be a developement that will eventually get lost by the wayside-- an experiment gone wrong.

quote:

---

They did not evolve from a common prototype, but rather were independent languages per se (eg., created originally, then divided as per the Tower of Babel event).

---

I am betting this discontinuity isn't as dramatic as you percieve it to be.

quote:

---

2) Music is a common denominator, harmoniously shared, with different cultures having different musical qualities about them.

---

Don't know what you mean here.

quote:

---

Music is an enormously complex universe which cannot be explained by linguistics.

---

Maybe, but I wonder if linguistics even addresses this at all.

quote:

---

4) Languages and music do evolve, but by non-biological mechanisms completely unrelated to the mega-ToE.

---

Depends on where you draw the line. I think that any adaptation, language included, fits into the grand scheme of evolution. I think we've been over my feeling on this.

quote:

---

5) Language and music both are complex universes which seem to have no biological basis whatsoever, but a supernatural, metaphysical, divine, and/or glorious beginning

---

Statement, not argument.

quote:

---

6) Language as such (fitting my YEC scheme and those of others) evolved/devolved into the various Creoles, SANS biological evolution.

---

Sans biological evolution? OK. Languages change but it is weird to attribute it to devolution. Kinda implies that the hypothetical original language was somehow better.

quote:

---

7) The complexity of music(s) and its appreciation is so massive (and subjective for that matter) that it’s difficult to comprehend how the depth, height, width, and breadth of it’s complexity could have evolved biologically, let alone fit into our puny brains. Stellar evolution must be appealed to under the ToE, seeing that music (and language) exist outside the neuro-synaptic configurations.

---

Arguement from incredulity.

quote:

---

The complexity of language(s), which continue SANS human appreciation might easily (parsimoniously) change the paradigm against naturalism and the ToE, in favor of metaphysical/religious paradigms.

---

huh?

quote:

---

Be not surprised that many eastern cultures like China reject the ToE in favor of Buddhist and Confucius paradigms.

---

I'm not surprised. Those are the native religions. You are what your mommie and daddie tell you.

quote:

---

Biblically, most Christians accept that: In the beginning was the word and the word was with God, and the word was God. (John 1.1).

---

I think this betrays a metaphysical/religious belief that most Christians today would reject if they actually thought about it.

quote:

---

This would indicate that music, and therefore music appreciation, grew out of basic communication, and basic language is strongly correlated with pattern recognition.

---

I think that was Schraf's point.

quote:

---

1) Music growing out of communication (via the naturalistic ToE) is difficult for me to imagine

---

Interesting but still an argument from incredulity.

quote:

---

Genetic devolvement of language and music appreciation seems evident enough: The days of Mozart(s) making symphonies at 3 years old are gone.

---

Oh come on.... you can find analogous things today if you look for them, but not within an art form that doesn't have the pervalence it once did.

quote:

---

The astounding KJV biblical and Shakespearian languages of the last century have devolved into naturalistic nuances and gutter-talk (see Talk-Archives forums).

---

The languages of Shakespear and the KJV are themselves 'devolved' from other languages. English is bad middle english. Middle English is bad old english. Old english is bad old german. ... and so on and so on.[/b][/quote]

quote:

---

The Haitian Creole has slandered Napoleon’s romantic French into Voodoo chants and the minimalist of languages imaginable.

---

And french is bad latin....

quote:

---

I’d sooner buy a recorded whale’s sirening

---

Yikes.... I like whales but whale music makes me want to shoot myself. Now you know what to get me for Christmas.

quote:

---

For our brains merely enable, in my less-than-meager opinion, our souls.

---

Interesting that brains, for which we have evidence, enable souls, for which we have no evidence at all.

quote:

---

Finally, the conclusion you’d expect from me: The ultimate music/communication might perhaps be the Song of the Lamb that was slain in Revelation 13.

---

Boy would I love to hear that lamb squeal!!

quote:

---

--Biochemical devolution, despite feeble selection pressures, will continue as expected under the 2nd Law.

---

Ah yes, the second law again. It is not applicable to open systems.

quote:

---

--Real significant mutations (the only raw mechanism of a mega-ToE) are about as believable as the signs and wonders mockers who’d call fire from heaven and raise the dead, cause Carl Sagan or Oral Roberts done it.

---

Believable or not, such mutations are there and are as significant as they need to be-- which is actually quite insignificant on a mutation by mutation basis.

quote:

---

--Music and original human language(s) (vs evolved Creoles) exist outside organismic parameters and may be believed/hypothesized to exist SANS the cosmos, forever.

​

---

Nope, sorry....------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:
I hope you two don’t fully perpetrate this mega-ToE, and realize you don’t have all the answers.

---

I know we don't have all the answers. That is different from making up the answers when need be.

quote:

---

Incredulity sounds out against you and I both, no?

---

If you mean that I do not believe in that for which I can find no evidence, then I suppose you are right. I don't believe in dragons either, or Ming the Merciless. Should I?

quote:

---

You’ve learned the delusional lingo well, John. For when it comes to your psyche, which you don’t even seem to acknowledge exists (correct me if I’m wrong), you appeal to the mega-ToE and demean the psyche into total arbitrary naturalistic phenomenon.

---

'cept this is only demeaning from your point of view, not from mine.

quote:

---

John, can’t you (and I) stop the mean humor

---

hmmm.... well there was that bit about the squealing lamb... but most of my post was dead serious.

quote:

---

the parroting of Shraf against me

---

I am not aware that I parrot Shraf.

quote:

---

You are both naturalists in your perspectives, seeking to strengthen your resolve, and for what? To eradicate the world from a few remaining honest and hopeful YECs?

---

I am not naturalistic in perspective really, more like empirical, and yes, there is a difference. I am also not trying to strengthen my resolve. My resolve, what I have of it, comes from my thinking; not the other way around. Give me evidence, I'll change my mind. Simple.I don't want to eradicate anyone. But search for truth I will. Hence, the debate. If this forum wasn't serving the purpose of stimulating my thoughts, I wouldn't be here.[qutoe]Did it ever occur to you that the mega-ToE may be mere speculation only and is easily disproven by, and, is outside the realm of naturalistic science? Then what? Currently you disagree. But if you are so sure of your hypotheses, why debate them here? What (redemptive) good could come of it? Your time is expensive, in my opinion.[/quote]The moment I stop learning I start to die. Simple and direct. Time is an expense I have always paid for such things, and I wish I had more time to spend.

quote:

---

Wait til the curse catches up with you and I (and it will) and you’re suddenly devastated: one of your children dies, your loved one abandons you, this or that mishap completely ruins you or I, etc. Peradventure

---

Peradventure, we turn to God.

quote:

---

then our naturalistic jestings will stop long enough to seek a real redemptive science that is truer and unpolluted by cruddy professors.

---

What do you think prodded a 14 year old kid to bury himself in books instead of girlfriends? What do you think led this kid to quit high school and go to college at 17 instead of waiting bored in class for another year? Why do you think I majored in Philosophy and Anthrology instead of something that actually earns money? Why do you think I own more books than most people would read in fifty lifetimes? And on top of that go through one or two audio book per week (Audio.com... brainiac heaven). Why do I spend all my time surfing the web and writing? Why do I rate movies by how much they make me think thoughts I wouldn't otherwise have thought? I can give you a nutshell version of every major mythology on the planet, more than a nutshell version of most. Ask me something I don't know, I'll look it up, often to the point of neglecting my job. ( Luckily, I am self-employed )Why? Eh?You don't know me Phillip. My jesting stopped long ago.

quote:

---

What do either of you two think? Shraf, I gave you Creation Science already. You disagreed already. The data I gave you was naturalistic redemptive data, the conclusion was a Christ-crucified-risen-from-the-dead redemptive designer model, based on the data. What part of the naturalistic redemptive data I gave you hinders you from seeing the supernaturalistic ID. Did I not perpetrate my Gospel scheme crudely but using the scientific method, here earlier, remember?

---

I remember. What I don't remember are reasons why I should accept what you postulate rather that any of a thousand other options.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:
I've found this forum the most challenging because, well face it; naturalists (and empiricists) are less-stupid than philosophers (in my opinion), and I evangelize better using in their clever mechanistic terms.

---

Philosophers can tend to be hyper-specialized to be sure.

quote:

---

I find you empiricists vicariously and graphically stimulating in your use of language, albeit your empirical and gappy premises seem to me as insane as our sophistication can get.

---

Ya know, Phillip, I am painfully aware of the problems of empiricism-- not in the details, as in evolutionary sequences and such, but in the logical and theoretical underpinnings of it. I just don't see an option (with fewer problems that is).------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:
Music is a 'language' with only eigth letters each
subject to one accent (sharp/flat they are the same really since
Eb is just D#) and a variable period (1/2, 1, 2, or four beats).

---

And these eight letters are basically a function of the physical properties of sound. There are only a few stable notes. Intereference blurs most frequencies.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:
That was my point ... music isn't that complex.

---

I was adding too, not detracting from...------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:
Tell the truth I only replied to get the 'Yes' out
of the replies waiting box

​

A way of cancelling that would be good

​

---

I second that motion. Oh no.... now you have to reply again. ------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com