Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-26-2019 9:45 AM
27 online now:
JonF, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Stile, Theodoric, vimesey (6 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,250 Year: 5,287/19,786 Month: 1,409/873 Week: 305/460 Day: 5/52 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
567
8
910Next
Author Topic:   Exactly 'HOW' intelligent must a Designer be ?
frank
Inactive Member


Message 106 of 150 (14870)
08-05-2002 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Philip
08-05-2002 2:02 AM


OK, so we differ in how we interpret observations.

I will not argue for/against your faith. It is something very personal and hope you do rejoice in it.

As for your last question:

quote:

Do you or anyone on this forum have any idea how an enzyme (say a simple kinase enzyme) could have evolved with its delicate active site force-vectors? I see IC written all over the phenomenon.

For myself, no, I can't answer that question. But I am glad to read that you can see IC written all over it, as this would assume you understand IC. I have been following another thread on what is ID and must admit I am confused as to exactly what is ID/IC. Are they the same ? Perhaps you would like to post an explanation there.

Clear Skies !

Frank


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Philip, posted 08-05-2002 2:02 AM Philip has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Philip, posted 08-09-2002 1:35 AM frank has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 281 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 107 of 150 (15004)
08-07-2002 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Philip
08-05-2002 1:39 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Philip:
quote:
Originally posted by schrafinator:
Now you are simply babbling.

I suppose that is the only thing that you can do if you can't discuss specifics.


--Oh please pray tell; give me a specific and we'll try again if you wish.

Philip


OK

How do you tell the difference between a Intelligently-Designed system/structure and a naturally-occurring one that we either:

don't understand yet, or

don't have the capacity to understand?

Saying something like, "Nobody knows how X could have happened naturally, so this has ID written all over it" is merely a God of the Gaps argument, and not meaningful.

It is exactly the same argument as "We don't really know what makes the sun go across the sky every day, so Apollo must pull it across in his firey chariot."

So, how can we tell the difference?

------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."

-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Philip, posted 08-05-2002 1:39 AM Philip has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Philip, posted 08-09-2002 3:15 AM nator has responded

    
Philip
Member (Idle past 2834 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 108 of 150 (15065)
08-09-2002 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by frank
08-05-2002 7:32 PM


quote:
Originally posted by frank:
As for your last question:
quote:

Do you or anyone on this forum have any idea how an enzyme (say a simple kinase enzyme) could have evolved with its delicate active site force-vectors? I see IC written all over the phenomenon.

For myself, no, I can't answer that question. But I am glad to read that you can see IC written all over it, as this would assume you understand IC. I have been following another thread on what is ID and must admit I am confused as to exactly what is ID/IC. Are they the same ? Perhaps you would like to post an explanation there.
Frank


ALL enzymes (I believe ALL) have active site force vectors that are peculiar enough to be ICs: they seem impossible to incrementally develop, lest their beneficial catalytic effects are rendered destroyed via every tiny mutated step along the way of evolution (any proposed ToE, that is).

An IC by definition is something that is: irreducible in its complexity, requiring a high pattern of arrangement at the start.

A fixed IC (FIC) is similar: the IC cannot be broken down without destroying the function altogether. Perhaps most ICs are FICs.

ID is merely the cause of ICs. I have a hard time believe you Frank, and you other empiricists, if and when you equate cause with effect.

But redemptive design (RD) under my so-called Gospel scheme seems even more conspicuous. Now, RDs are not necessarily ICs in your empirical sense, Frank. RD's may be speculated to have evolved via a God-of-the-Gaps ToE, or even by an atheistic ToE, and not just my YEC/ID scheme For example:
1) A super-enzyme repairs/restores deleterious events and/or sequences during DNA replication.
2) A carbon atom contains the precise quantum forces to negotiate all organic and biochemistry AD INFINATUM.
3) Light has billions of other functions besides eliminating darkness.
4) The earth with its precise proportion(s) of water, its distance from the sun, its tilt, its complex chemistry, atmosphere, geology and hosts of other coincidentals, enables it to sustain life. Such innumerable necessary coincidentals parsimoniously seem to cry out RD and ID.
5) The innumerable excellencies of astronomy, the patterns, arrangements, harmonies, symmetries, proportions, etc. of those shiny spherical orbs, cry out ID, RD, and perhaps IC, that is, if our empirical abstractions don't bog down our grosser holistic thoughts.

--The times and seasons themselves seem redemptive paradoxes: The cold winter clears away insect contagions while the hot summer enables beneficial harvests.

6) Oceanic and Zoological excellencies, with their complex and orderly arrangements of ecosystems, organismic functions, physiologies, sociologies, etc. fill the libraries and our psyche's with RD data.

7) Man (and Woman) with psyches and minds that are as empirically and metaphysically mysterious as a phenomenon can get: Yet filled with metaphysical excellencies:

A man's 10 fingers each has a harmonizing protocol (if you will) when it types, plays the piano, repairs computers, extracts cultures, drives the hot-rod, or whatever.

So then, in sum; the data of these IC excellencies (in my less than meager hypothetical opinion) declare the glory of ID and RD, and their cause-effect relationship thereof.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by frank, posted 08-05-2002 7:32 PM frank has not yet responded

  
monkenstick
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 150 (15067)
08-09-2002 2:05 AM


phil, do you mind if I say that what you've said is all very nice, but it isn't in any way scientific.
Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Philip, posted 08-09-2002 3:19 AM monkenstick has not yet responded

  
Philip
Member (Idle past 2834 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 110 of 150 (15070)
08-09-2002 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by nator
08-07-2002 10:56 PM


S: How do you tell the difference between a Intelligently-Designed system/structure and a naturally-occurring one that we either:

don't understand yet, or

don't have the capacity to understand?

P: Without begging defintions at this point. Intelligently-Designed system/structures, IDSs (if you will) and naturally-occurring system/structures, NOS's seem to obviously overlap in many of their apparent existences. In other words: A cow is a cow both because its gene pool was established (designed in my Gospel scheme) and reproduced. We are far from understanding physiological and microbiological phenomena of cows. Perhaps we have 1 or 2% of this knowledge in books at this time.

But, Shraf, for me to tell you the difference between phenomenal IDSs and NOSs using necessary (?) empirical terms is vexing, since we don't understand them in empirical detail. I've always appealed (empirically or metaphysically) to cause-effect relations.

IDS's and NOS's are kin enough: in the reproductive events of their evolution (not the mega-ToE) they reflect much of the original and wonderful gene pool. I say wonderful because all IDS/NOS entities are intriguing in many of their qualitative and quantitative arrangements, patterns, proportions, etc.

Moreover, your empiricist faith vs. my metaphysicist faith is perhaps the only difference between IDS's and NOS's. Can we not admit that we are stuck with both schemes, Shraf? Are they not both real and valid, the empiricist and the metaphysicist schemes and their respective NOS's and IDS's.

Why should I deny the affective component of your psyche's abstractions and call them empirical (which they certainly are not)? You, your psyche and spirit, are a real albeit empirically complex invisible entity in this world. I only know you by faith. I don't even care what you look like. Its you soul I would commune and reckon with; not the bio-mental phenomenon you'd perhaps have us to be.

S: Saying something like, "Nobody knows how X could have happened naturally, so this has ID written all over it" is merely a God of the Gaps argument, and not meaningful.

P: Who said the God of the Gaps argument is not meaninful. The OEC? the theistic-Evo? the YEC? Or the empiricist only? Or, perhaps, am I using the term God of the Gaps indiscriminately? I've been using the term God-of-the-gaps gleefully. Why not? A Christian name is grace.

Though a YEC, EVERY event and object must have God's grace to explain its existence. Light, energy, quantum physics, etc., although somewhat predictable scientifically, are not really understood (as you probably agree). Do you think these phenomena will ever be understood to the point that they are deemed non-miraculous, non-benevolent, non-redemptive, non-consoling, non-mysterious, etc.?

Is not the simplest piece of dirt a great mystery: its significant neutron forces for example. What really binds these carbonacious and inorganic molecules together in the soil, Shraf? Mere coincidental and fortuitous arbitrary empirical sub-atomic and quantum energies?

Or is there a redeeming God in his grace holding it all together?

The evidences require faith-biased hypotheses either way:
The empiricist will only logically abstract an event like Spock struggling against his emotions.
The ID'st will appear foolish to himself, to the stoic empiricist, and to his can't-see-the-forest-for-the-trees contemporaries.

S: It is exactly the same argument as "We don't really know what makes the sun go across the sky every day, so Apollo must pull it across in his firey chariot." ... So, how can we tell the difference?

P: Scriptures are filled with vicarious illustrations of grace (despite our mis/understandings of natural events). The scriptures play on this Apollo-like God-of-the-Gaps, but in a more redemptive (Christ-like) illustration. Consider Psalm 19:
1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.
3 There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. 
4 Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, 
5 Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.
6 His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.
The Holy Bible : King James Version. (Ps 19:1-6).

Shraf, the Greeks were wisest in their day; perhaps their Apollo devolved from this Psalm. Looks fairly correlated to me.

But your point being that mythology, Christianity, Islam, religion, Buddhism, Voodoo, and all metaphysical explanations of life's mysteries are often a lie is not always true:

A person's understanding (as you admit) is minimal, despite his/her Greek-like wisdom. His Apollo-like perspective of Christ, or Moon-God (Islam) perspective of Christ, or 'Jesus'-like perspective of Christ may more accurately depict the redemptive phenonenon of the sun in the sky, than the narrow-minded empiricist ever will at Guntersville High School.

My question is: Who's description of the sun is the most redemptive, beneficial, inspiring, helpful, and loving, while respecting astronomical science, and is thus the most learned and/or appreciative?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by nator, posted 08-07-2002 10:56 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by nator, posted 08-28-2002 11:44 AM Philip has responded

  
Philip
Member (Idle past 2834 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 111 of 150 (15071)
08-09-2002 3:19 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by monkenstick
08-09-2002 2:05 AM


quote:
Originally posted by monkenstick:
phil, do you mind if I say that what you've said is all very nice, but it isn't in any way scientific.

Don't mind; thanks for your reply.
Scientific implies hypothesis, data-evaluation, making deductions based on the data, coming to conclusions and discussions.

What is your scientific way; and/or where did I violate your or someone's definition of science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by monkenstick, posted 08-09-2002 2:05 AM monkenstick has not yet responded

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 2035 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 112 of 150 (15263)
08-12-2002 5:03 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Philip
08-02-2002 1:54 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Philip:
Peter,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Time constraints forbid indepth reply at this time. Suffice me to sum (hand-wave) for now:

1) The intonations may or may not be developemental vs. genetic; I'm not sure.


Nature Vs Nurture is always a tricky one, but in this case it
does seem that sufficient 'hearing' of intonation is not something
that can be learned in later life.

Doesn't mean it's all genetic, but would suggest a genetic
bias ... in my opinion any how ... not saying I'm right.

quote:
Originally posted by Philip:

2) Intonations and music, in my less-than-trivial opinion, seem perhaps exponentially different in their complexity.

In what way?

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).

Intonation can convey huge amounts of information to the
recipient ... the same words, even in english, can be humerous,
insulting, angry, sad, etc. only differentiated by the 'way'
that they are said (I get into trouble with my wife over many
inoccent statements ... becuase of the way I said it!)

quote:
Originally posted by Philip:

3) Intonations, I think, require a biological mechanism. Written words, thought-concepts, science-constructs, music, and music constructs exist SANS a biological mechanism. Rebut me, cause I may be wrong.

What do you mean by biological mechanism? They all happen
in the brain ... isn't that biological?

quote:
Originally posted by Philip:

4) Computers, presently weak, have some characteristics of pattern recognition: Speech programs like Dragon Dictate for example.

Yes, you can right image/speech recognition programs (that's why
it takes so long for the pumps to activate in some UK filling
stations!!), but the major difference between a computer and
a brain (human or otherwise) is that it is fixed, and cannot
create new programming for itself ... it cannot learn.

Learning programs to date, do not really learn, becuase we do
not fully understand what learning is ... maybe one-day though.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Philip, posted 08-02-2002 1:54 AM Philip has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by John, posted 08-12-2002 8:56 AM Peter has responded

    
John
Inactive Member


Message 113 of 150 (15279)
08-12-2002 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Peter
08-12-2002 5:03 AM


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.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Peter, posted 08-12-2002 5:03 AM Peter has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Peter, posted 08-13-2002 3:35 AM John has responded

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 2035 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 114 of 150 (15343)
08-13-2002 3:35 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by John
08-12-2002 8:56 AM


That was my point ... music isn't that complex.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by John, posted 08-12-2002 8:56 AM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by John, posted 08-13-2002 8:36 AM Peter has responded

    
John
Inactive Member


Message 115 of 150 (15357)
08-13-2002 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Peter
08-13-2002 3:35 AM


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

I was adding too, not detracting from...

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Peter, posted 08-13-2002 3:35 AM Peter has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Peter, posted 08-13-2002 10:22 AM John has responded

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 2035 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 116 of 150 (15367)
08-13-2002 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by John
08-13-2002 8:36 AM


Tell the truth I only replied to get the 'Yes' out
of the replies waiting box

A way of cancelling that would be good


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by John, posted 08-13-2002 8:36 AM John has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by John, posted 08-13-2002 8:37 PM Peter has responded

    
John
Inactive Member


Message 117 of 150 (15389)
08-13-2002 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Peter
08-13-2002 10:22 AM


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.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Peter, posted 08-13-2002 10:22 AM Peter has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Peter, posted 08-15-2002 4:02 AM John has not yet responded

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 2035 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 118 of 150 (15466)
08-15-2002 4:02 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by John
08-13-2002 8:37 PM


Drat!!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by John, posted 08-13-2002 8:37 PM John has not yet responded

    
Rationalist
Inactive Member


Message 119 of 150 (16028)
08-24-2002 11:14 AM


quote:
P: Without begging defintions at this point. Intelligently-Designed system/structures, IDSs (if you will) and naturally-occurring system/structures, NOS's seem to obviously overlap in many of their apparent existences. In other words: A cow is a cow both because its gene pool was established (designed in my Gospel scheme) and reproduced. We are far from understanding physiological and microbiological phenomena of cows. Perhaps we have 1 or 2% of this knowledge in books at this time.

Regardless of your hopeful appeal to a future that will somehow save your beliefs.. what you claim clearly flies in the face of all the knowledge about biology that we do have. We know that life and reproduction are biomechanical processes, governed by the forces of chemistry. We know that this biomechanical process implements through genetic inheritance a form of mathematical optimization algorithm, and we know how these types of evolutionary algorithms commonly produce "apparent" irreducible complexity that isn't really irreducible at all.

If you see a process which is nominally equivalent to the one in nature that regularly produces irreducible complexity.. how can you claim that the natural process can not do the same.

We even know how these supposed "irreducible" systems are made.. through scaffolding, multiple function and shifts in function. In fact it is so obvious that these common evolutionary processes are responsible for the "appearance" of irreducible complexity that the argument has been considered settled quite a long while ago. It is only through creationists continuous self imposed ignorance of scaffolding and change in function that the argument constantly seems to ressurect itself in new forms.

quote:
But, Shraf, for me to tell you the difference between phenomenal IDSs and NOSs using necessary (?) empirical terms is vexing, since we don't understand them in empirical detail. I've always appealed (empirically or metaphysically) to cause-effect relations.

IDS's and NOS's are kin enough: in the reproductive events of their evolution (not the mega-ToE) they reflect much of the original and wonderful gene pool. I say wonderful because all IDS/NOS entities are intriguing in many of their qualitative and quantitative arrangements, patterns, proportions, etc.


What evidence do you have of an 'original wonderful gene pool'. Any at all?

quote:
Moreover, your empiricist faith vs. my metaphysicist faith is perhaps the only difference between IDS's and NOS's. Can we not admit that we are stuck with both schemes, Shraf? Are they not both real and valid, the empiricist and the metaphysicist schemes and their respective NOS's and IDS's.

Empiricism is not faith.. it is well justified belief supported by hard physical evidence. If you are standing next to a mountain, and you see it and can touch it.. is it "faith" that tells you there is a mountain behind you. Of course not.

Empirical evidence is evidence which you can see and touch, and that evidence necessarily constrains the sort of inferences and deductions that can be made from it. Needless to say, that evidence is not at all consistent with a miraculous 6 day creation, it stands in stark contradiction to it.

quote:
Why should I deny the affective component of your psyche's abstractions and call them empirical (which they certainly are not)?

Who says so? You? Why should we believe you?

Can you prove that the evidence for evolution and for an old earth is not empirical, that the amount of evidence, and the fact that it cross correlates providing multiple lines of evidence for the same conclusion is false, or that the problems it poses to a miraculous creation are not contradictions?

Simply claiming that it the evidence is not empirical evidence, or it doesn't clearly favor a particular conclusion is not enough.

quote:
You, your psyche and spirit, are a real albeit empirically complex invisible entity in this world. I only know you by faith. I don't even care what you look like. Its you soul I would commune and reckon with; not the bio-mental phenomenon you'd perhaps have us to be.

This is all nonsensical mumbo jumbo. Do you have even a shred of evidence for any of this?

quote:
S: Saying something like, "Nobody knows how X could have happened naturally, so this has ID written all over it" is merely a God of the Gaps argument, and not meaningful.

P: Who said the God of the Gaps argument is not meaninful. The OEC? the theistic-Evo? the YEC? Or the empiricist only? Or, perhaps, am I using the term God of the Gaps indiscriminately? I've been using the term God-of-the-gaps gleefully. Why not? A Christian name is grace.

Though a YEC, EVERY event and object must have God's grace to explain its existence. Light, energy, quantum physics, etc., although somewhat predictable scientifically, are not really understood (as you probably agree). Do you think these phenomena will ever be understood to the point that they are deemed non-miraculous, non-benevolent, non-redemptive, non-consoling, non-mysterious, etc.?


So your argument is that every object and every process is by the grace of God. But how can you prove this to be the case? Isn't this merely a case of making an unsupported claim with absolutely no evidence to back it up?

Well, I think that the processes you describe are not miraculous, not redemptive, and have nothing to do with God. Can you prove me wrong?

quote:
Or is there a redeeming God in his grace holding it all together?

Or are there two Gods holding it together, or three? How about the angels holding it together for God. Or perhaps there is an unthinking benevolent magical force in the universe that is holding it together. It really doesn't take a lot of imagination to come up with a half dozen heady sounding poetic ideas as to the wonderous spiritual nature of the universe. But they are merely fictions created to make us feel good, and have absolutely no basis in reality at all.

quote:
The evidences require faith-biased hypotheses either way:
The empiricist will only logically abstract an event like Spock struggling against his emotions.

And the superstitious spiritualist will concoct dozens of flowery suger laden pronouncements.

The differences is the empiricists claims and advice and ideas tend to work better in the real world than the shamans or witch doctors.

quote:
The ID'st will appear foolish to himself, to the stoic empiricist, and to his can't-see-the-forest-for-the-trees contemporaries.

Who precisely can't see the forest for the trees?

quote:
S: It is exactly the same argument as "We don't really know what makes the sun go across the sky every day, so Apollo must pull it across in his firey chariot." ... So, how can we tell the difference?

P: Scriptures are filled with vicarious illustrations of grace (despite our mis/understandings of natural events).

..snip biblical quotes..

Shraf, the Greeks were wisest in their day; perhaps their Apollo devolved from this Psalm. Looks fairly correlated to me.


Ah, the bible mentions the Sun, therefore there must be a connection.

Sure.

quote:
But your point being that mythology, Christianity, Islam, religion, Buddhism, Voodoo, and all metaphysical explanations of life's mysteries are often a lie is not always true:

A person's understanding (as you admit) is minimal, despite his/her Greek-like wisdom. His Apollo-like perspective of Christ, or Moon-God (Islam) perspective of Christ, or 'Jesus'-like perspective of Christ may more accurately depict the redemptive phenonenon of the sun in the sky, than the narrow-minded empiricist ever will at Guntersville High School.


So you're saying that the Sun is pulled across the sky by a chariot? And you're claiming that this explanation is just as good as the scientific explanation?

I don't think so.

quote:
My question is: Who's description of the sun is the most redemptive, beneficial, inspiring, helpful, and loving, while respecting astronomical science, and is thus the most learned and/or appreciative?

So, what you're saying is that the best measure of truth is that which makes us feel nice, regardless of any evidence or reason?

I think that is very revealing.


Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Philip, posted 08-26-2002 1:20 AM Rationalist has not yet responded

  
Philip
Member (Idle past 2834 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 120 of 150 (16064)
08-26-2002 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Rationalist
08-24-2002 11:14 AM


Without responding too indepth.

1) We both know that scaffolding is a crutch term for enzymatic evolutions to become viable. I reject it as another irrational hopeful monster theory.

2) Empirical reality is not rational reality nor metaphysical reality. Equating them in any way is fallacious.

3) My metaphysical schemes are far more real than your empirical schemes in my reality of the cosmos. While your empirical scheme may in fact be more real to you, I reject it for rational reasons: Namely, there are too many excellencies (harmonies, symmetries, and proportions) that invoke a gospel-scheme, too many redemptive observations on all cosmic levels (which you clearly fail to see), and empirical entropic forces of devolution that must be rationally reckoned with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Rationalist, posted 08-24-2002 11:14 AM Rationalist has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
567
8
910Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019