Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Exactly 'HOW' intelligent must a Designer be ?
Rationalist
Inactive Member


Message 121 of 150 (16114)
08-27-2002 12:09 PM


quote:
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.
Great. If science was based on personal incredulity, you would be making a great case against a well understood mechanism of evolutionary systems.
quote:
2) Empirical reality is not rational reality nor metaphysical reality. Equating them in any way is fallacious.
Hmmm... that doesn't seem to make any sense.
quote:
3) My metaphysical schemes are far more real than your empirical schemes in my reality of the cosmos.
That's great.
quote:
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.
You're welcome to do that of course. However science is based on empiricical evidence, testable inferences from that evidence, and clear reasoning. Science is no more than the common sense reasoning that people use every day to solve ordinary problems, only applied consistently and rigorously to specific problems. This kind of evidenced reasoning is what we all use in our day to day life. After all, what kind of a person makes investment decisions based on the symmetry of a corporate logo, or the harmony of the company jingle?
And certainly there are beautiful aspects to nature, but there are just as many ugly and brutal aspects. I don't see how, on balance, you can conclude that the universe has any overall 'magical' symmetry or harmony. In fact, the sheer scale of the universe and our own relative insignificance seems to indicate that our world and everything that occurs on it is inconsequential in the grand scheme of things.. hardly consistent with a YEC or fundamentalist viewpoint.
[Edited by a more lucid and well rested Rationalist for clarity.]
[This message has been edited by Rationalist, 08-30-2002]

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Philip, posted 08-28-2002 1:27 AM Rationalist has not replied

  
Philip
Member (Idle past 4722 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 122 of 150 (16150)
08-28-2002 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Rationalist
08-27-2002 12:09 PM


I appreciate your candid and rapid response, incoherent in parts due to your haste, understandable.
Science, I agree must follow empirical parameters, albeit it does not seem to care about excellencies (e.g., harmonies, symmetries, and proportions). Excellencies must be reckoned with, however, in any grand scheme.
How concockted (forgive spelling errors for I too am in haste this evening), how fortuitous, and how wonderful that we exist! Empiricism fails to compute. Science fails (in its modern definition(s). Naturalism fails. The mega-ToE fails. Only the YEC model really makes sense regarding excellencies per se (in my metaphysical opinion).
To state empiricism has all the answers is to try to perceive life's tangible effects in a non-redeeming, sadistically detached manner.
Sadistic it seems to me because as creatures we become dreadfully aware of our loneliness and damnation enough without having empirical philosophies too be-cloud the metaphysical and spiritual ones. The realities are different.
Modern science works as a tool only for our having dominion over our space-time events, but it doesn't always answer the 'why's, the metaphysical worlds, the primary causes, nor the reality(s) that you are.
Empiricism will never explain the rapturous joy of a song, wife, oil-painting, out-of-body experience, redeeming love, redeeming observations in nature, excellencies, perfections, redundant virtues, etc., etc. Our real worlds (and those of our children) of your mind, heart, soul, and inner-strength, etc. defy most empirical inquiry.
Rationalist: I have 4 science degrees (which I count as dung to explain the grand scheme of things): Psychology (B.S), Elec. Eng Techn. (A.A.S.), biomedical sci(M.S), and podiatry (D.P.M.). None of them come close to explaining the human psyche in empirical terms. Empiricism is merely a tangible method of science; I'm not sure it even stimulates scientific inquiry at all? What do you think?
Does the mega-ToE stimulate scientific inquiry? If so, is the stimulous sadistically inspired? For how could anyone believe enzyme excellencies evolved at all, let alone your psyche, music, art, and all our surreal communications per se?
Or is the stimulous for mega-ToE inquiry one of dominating our space-time events? I doubt that (unless there are grant dollars involved).
Who would want to jump on a mega-ToE boat and why, rationalist? Give me a reason. Truth? Hope? or to be the enemy of truth and hope?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Rationalist, posted 08-27-2002 12:09 PM Rationalist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Peter, posted 08-28-2002 4:23 AM Philip has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 123 of 150 (16159)
08-28-2002 4:23 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Philip
08-28-2002 1:27 AM


Am I right in saying that you don't beleive certain things
could have evolved, becuase ... well ... you don't beleive
they could have evolved ?
That seems to be the gist of your post.
Why would anyone want to know how things work?
If you wanted to know how things work what would be the best
way to do that?
You could read a manual, sure, good starting point, but to
fully appreciate how something operates you need to look at it,
study it ... isn't that empiricism?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Philip, posted 08-28-2002 1:27 AM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Philip, posted 08-30-2002 8:25 PM Peter has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 124 of 150 (16175)
08-28-2002 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by Philip
08-09-2002 3:15 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Philip:
[B]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.
quote:
So, does this mean that you can't tell the difference?
quote:
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.
Actually, I took an entire year of Mammilian Anatomy and Physiology. We know a lot about the physiology and microbiology of cows. They are a huge industry so there is a lot of Ag Dept. money provided for bovine research.
This is beside the point anyway. Even if we didn't know a darn thing about cows, this just means we don't know. Not knowing does not = ID. That is simply a God of the Gaps argument.
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.
If you don't understand something, then how can you make any determination at all? YOU are the one saying that ID has evidence to support it. If you can't provide it, then you are talking out of your you-know-what.
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.
If you want to do science, rather than have faith, then no, they aren't equally valid.
Empiricism is based upon evidence that are repatable by anyone and it builds upon past observations.
Faith is based upon revelation. It may disregard any evidence. It is experienceable only by the individual, and the revelations can and are altered and changed all the time. It is not reliable for describing nor predicting nature.
quote:
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.
Your discomfort with the idea that we are purely biological creatures is obviously the real reason you cannot seem to be able to simply not know.
I have no problem with you believing in ID. I do have a big problem when you say that ID is scientific and that there is evidence for it.
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.
It is not meaningful from a scientific standpoint.
Proclaiming your ignorance and calling it "God" is nothing I would be "gleeful" about.
quote:
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.?
I don't know if these phenomena will ever be understood fully.
God of the Gaps again. Might be a fun way to have faith, but it's a lousy way to try to understand how nature works.
We do understand that the Earth goes around the sun, though, even though the Bible implies the opposite. Which explanation do you prefer? Why?
quote:
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?
Sure, why not? Just because you WANT to find your own personal God in there doesn't mean he's there. Doesn't mean he isn't, either, but now we have left science.
quote:
Or is there a redeeming God in his grace holding it all together?
No way to tell. YOu may feel it is so, but you may feel that a lot of things are so. I may feel that the galactic goat holds the world together. Is my belief/feeling more true than yours? Vice versa?
quote:
The evidences require faith-biased hypotheses either way:
Nope.
quote:
The empiricist will only logically abstract an event like Spock struggling against his emotions.
Silly caricature.
Some of the people who are most reverent and wonderstruck towards nature I know are non-beliving scientists.
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.
You have this silly notion of scientists as stoic or cold people. You obviously have never been to a scientific conference or read any popular science books by scientists who are passionate and exicted about what they do.
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?
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:
That's not what my point is. My point is that we have always explained nature the best way we knew how at the time, and for much of human history, we did this in metaphysical ways. Since the scientific method came along, it has shown itself to be a much more poweful and accurate way to describe and predict natural phenomena.
We didn't eradicate smallpox by praying, did we?
When we know better, we do better.
quote:
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.
OK, who is more narrow-minded; the scientist who will, because he is a scientist, accept quality evidence which contradicts previous research, or the YEC who believes his interpretation of an ancient book is the ONE AND ONLY TRUTH and will NEVER allow any evidence to dissuade him?
Tell me again who is more narrow-minded?
[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?[/B]
Ummmm, right.
Getting back to the original question...
How do you tell the difference between a Intelligently Designed system and a natural one that we
1) Don't understand yet, or
2) Don't have the capacity to understand?
------------------
"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 110 by Philip, posted 08-09-2002 3:15 AM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Philip, posted 08-30-2002 9:06 PM nator has replied

  
Rationalist
Inactive Member


Message 125 of 150 (16310)
08-30-2002 1:57 PM


quote:
I appreciate your candid and rapid response, incoherent in parts due to your haste, understandable.
I was somewhat sleep deprived at the time. I have edited the post to clean it up a bit.
quote:
Science, I agree must follow empirical parameters, albeit it does not seem to care about excellencies (e.g., harmonies, symmetries, and proportions). Excellencies must be reckoned with, however, in any grand scheme.
These excellencies are subjective. You see magical harmonies, symmetries, and proportions. I don't. I see mosquitos, cockroaches, cancer, hurricanes, and planet destroying asteriods careening through our solar system.
That is not to say that I believe that the universe is Satan's playground, hostile to us and "red in tooth and claw". It simply is what it is. It was not made 'for' us, does not care that we exist, and will not weep for us if we were to suddenly disappear.
quote:
How concockted (forgive spelling errors for I too am in haste this evening), how fortuitous, and how wonderful that we exist!
But if we didn't exist, would we be here celebrating?
quote:
Empiricism fails to compute. Science fails (in its modern definition(s). Naturalism fails. The mega-ToE fails. Only the YEC model really makes sense regarding excellencies per se (in my metaphysical opinion).
Only YEC satisfies your feelings about how the universe should be. But your feelings about the universe or the various scientific theories you mention have little to do with whether they are true or not.
quote:
To state empiricism has all the answers is to try to perceive life's tangible effects in a non-redeeming, sadistically detached manner.
Sadistic? I don't think so. Nor detached.
In any case, science does not claim to have "all the answers". But I don't think you are concerned with science having "all" the answers, just it having some answers that you would prefer it didn't have. For instance, there is an overwhelming amount of empirical evidence which supports the hypothesis that Earth is very old, and that all life evolved from a common ancestor over billions of years.
quote:
Sadistic it seems to me because as creatures we become dreadfully aware of our loneliness and damnation enough without having empirical philosophies too be-cloud the metaphysical and spiritual ones. The realities are different.
We only become aware of our damnation if we believe in damnation. I do not.
quote:
Modern science works as a tool only for our having dominion over our space-time events, but it doesn't always answer the 'why's, the metaphysical worlds, the primary causes, nor the reality(s) that you are.
Science doesn't claim to have all the answers. But again, that doesn't mean it doesn't have "some" of the answers.
quote:
Empiricism will never explain the rapturous joy of a song, wife, oil-painting, out-of-body experience, redeeming love, redeeming observations in nature, excellencies, perfections, redundant virtues, etc., etc. Our real worlds (and those of our children) of your mind, heart, soul, and inner-strength, etc. defy most empirical inquiry.
It explains them well enough.. but those explanations just aren't very satisfying to most people. People "want" to believe in magic, in an ethereal otherworld where things like love, joy, art, and the other supposedly ineffable aspects of human life exist unsullied by scientific description and examination. But love, for example, is a result of evolutionary mating instincts. Love, joy, the 'appreciation' of art, and all other emotions are merely biochemical processes which take place in the various structures of your brain.
This may not be emotionally satisfying, but it is the truth, and who said that what is true had to be emotionally satisfying anyway?
quote:
Rationalist: I have 4 science degrees (which I count as dung to explain the grand scheme of things): Psychology (B.S), Elec. Eng Techn. (A.A.S.), biomedical sci(M.S), and podiatry (D.P.M.). None of them come close to explaining the human psyche in empirical terms. Empiricism is merely a tangible method of science; I'm not sure it even stimulates scientific inquiry at all? What do you think?
Certainly many of them come very close to explaining the human psyche in empirical terms. Have you read "How the Mind Works" by Stephen Pinker, or any of the wide variety of scholarly papers and popular books on the subject. I am afraid the human psyche is not nearly as impenetrable as you would make it out to be.
quote:
Does the mega-ToE stimulate scientific inquiry? If so, is the stimulous sadistically inspired?
It is inspired by the desire to know the truth (at least as well as it can be known) and not to stroke our egos by pretending cosmic importance, or make ourselves feel better by merely reinforcing what we want to believe.
quote:
For how could anyone believe enzyme excellencies evolved at all, let alone your psyche, music, art, and all our surreal communications per se?
It's quite easy.
quote:
Or is the stimulous for mega-ToE inquiry one of dominating our space-time events? I doubt that (unless there are grant dollars involved).
Who would want to jump on a mega-ToE boat and why, rationalist? Give me a reason. Truth? Hope? or to be the enemy of truth and hope?
Well, my choice would be truth.

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Philip, posted 08-30-2002 9:26 PM Rationalist has not replied

  
Philip
Member (Idle past 4722 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 126 of 150 (16312)
08-30-2002 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Peter
08-28-2002 4:23 AM


Peter, I'll agree with you that empirical attitude is appropriate for tackling life's knowns and attemping to tackle many of life's unknowns, in an attempt to have dominion over our environment, for example.
But to deny the redemptive observations (A.K.A. via a Redeemer) as arbitrarily empirical is neither rational nor ethical (in my opinion).
Because, you and I don't even know what light is, let alone music, psyche, really viable mega-ToE mechanisms, nor love in all its myriad forms: Empiricism seems to be gappy, incomplete, superficial, and in denial of cosmic orderly excellencies as described. Correct me and thanks for your response.
Phil

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Peter, posted 08-28-2002 4:23 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Peter, posted 09-03-2002 3:53 AM Philip has replied

  
Philip
Member (Idle past 4722 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 127 of 150 (16313)
08-30-2002 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by nator
08-28-2002 11:44 AM


OK Shraf, don't think I can go into 3rd level apperceptive rebuttals of rebuttals (etc.) at this time.
I'll comment on some dissonant and coherent objections you seem to have made.
Scientists, even naturalists, (I stand corrected) are often very passionate, both in and out of their professions. My atheistic collegue, my atheistic identical twin, and the last Darwin lecture I saw on the liberal channel all have seemed very passionate; much more than my narrow-minded redemptive observations lead me to be; for my passion in viewing so many redemptive observations is not well accepted (both within and without).
Albeit those redemptive observations exist and must be reckoned with, even with scientific inquiry. Or what do you suggest?: Forget observing our material, soulish, and supernatural benefits? Explain them empirically? Deny the spiritual and/or psyche worlds as valuable? Stop reading our Bibles? Look for vicarious ethical solutions via science?
Our vicarious sufferings (curse) demand valid appropriate scientific and ethical inquiry. Empirical answers are only a fraction complete: the gaps they have increasingly left in our knowledge demand a non-empirical (metaphysical) God-of-the-gaps argument, regardless of your or my arbitrary disdain for this God-of-the-gaps necessity.
For one empirical question (whether answered or not) begets more questions until a vicious compulsively neurotic confusion is manifest ... not to deride emprical science. For example, with all we know about light, it increasingly evades our understanding: you and I will never fully appreciate light in all its phenomenal excellencies.
When will this forum realize that empirical study is a dead-end street once it becomes an end instead of a means to an end, i.e., to negotiate any given event within our complex space-time continuum?
Scientists (especially myself -- with 4 science degrees, that I now count dung that I may win Christ, or at least not forget the innumerable cosmic benefits we're blessed with): WAKE UP!
Sleepily,
Philip

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by nator, posted 08-28-2002 11:44 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by nator, posted 08-31-2002 2:47 AM Philip has replied

  
Philip
Member (Idle past 4722 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 129 of 150 (16314)
08-30-2002 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Rationalist
08-30-2002 1:57 PM


Thanks for your indepth and thought out reply:
I'll home in on excellencies, detachment, and sadism.
To deny unquencheable excellencies observed and expected to be observed in nature seems bigoted even under empirical grounds. Light in the darkness for example: Light is unquencheable and harbours innumerable electromagnetic harmonies, symmetries, and proportions that we don't have time to speak in particular now. To state that all is chaos and darkness is bigotted, non-factual, and a lie. (Forgive my bluntness, Rationalist, I'm probably the biggest liar on this forum with regards to describing excellencies empirically; sorry)
Sadistic and detached you are not. You seek truth as do I. You want answers that fit the empirical mold. I respect that as long as you realize empiricism miserably fails in dealing with excellencies (redemptive and otherwise) that we grapple with, i.e., to obtain control for our (human/humane) benefits.
Now, this other argument remains: Excellencies (all-pervasive) are multiplied in nature and cannot be quenched via rational or empirical arguement. We are not in hell (yet), total darkness, chaos, and/or universal decay, as would be expected under a purely empirical model, no?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Rationalist, posted 08-30-2002 1:57 PM Rationalist has not replied

  
Rationalist
Inactive Member


Message 130 of 150 (16327)
08-31-2002 1:35 AM


Which of these are excellencies?
1. Radioactive decay
2. The muon
3. Mold
4. Super Nova
5. Flies and their pupae (maggots)
6. The Ebola virus
7. Quantum electrodynamics
8. The fungus which causes Atheletes Foot
9. The Big Bang and the expanding cosmos
10. Devastating underwater landslides and tsunamis
[This message has been edited by Rationalist, 08-31-2002]

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Philip, posted 09-02-2002 1:45 AM Rationalist has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 131 of 150 (16338)
08-31-2002 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Philip
08-30-2002 9:06 PM


Look, I know that for someone with all those degrees, it must be difficult to reconcile the fact that you want to consider yourself a modern, well-educated, intelligent person, with your simultaneous belief in your particular literal interpretation of certain parts of a certain translation of the Christian Bible.
The cognitive dissonance you must experience every time your mind struggles with the backflips and double axles it must perform during the immense task of ignoring the vast amounts of physical evidence in favor of the ToE!
It would be much easier if you were not an intelligent person. Then you wouldn't have to actually choose to seek out your ignorance and embrace it as some kind of badge of honor or something.
In fact, you admittedly gleefully rejoice in your ignorance, calling it "God!"
I find this terribly sad; that you or anyone would follow a religion's dogma which requires you to leave your mind at the door.
This is why you don't have a simple, direct answer to my question of how can we tell the difference between a ID system and a natural one we don't understand.
Your answer, if you truly accepted what your religion seems to require you to, should have been, "I believe that the world was Intelligently Designed by the Christian God of the Bible in the way and manner in which I interpret the Bible says it did, and no scientific evidence will ever sway me from this belief."
It seems to me that you want to appear as an intelligent, educated, modern, person, and therefore you can't quite bring yourself to answer this way, particularly because you have already emphasized your science background so much. You want to use science when it suits you, but then when it doesn't, and you come up against that cognitive dissonance I mentioned, you babble on and on with all of that "redemptive" nonsense in order to somehow fool yourself that you are actually responding at all to what I wrote.
It is a SIMPLE question and this is the third time I will have asked it;
How can we tell the difference between an Intelligently Designed system and a natural one we either,
1) don't understand yet, or
2) don't have the capacity to understand.
------------------
"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 127 by Philip, posted 08-30-2002 9:06 PM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Philip, posted 09-02-2002 2:17 AM nator has replied

  
Philip
Member (Idle past 4722 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 132 of 150 (16385)
09-02-2002 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Rationalist
08-31-2002 1:35 AM


The first 9 appear relatively more excellent in their harmonies, symmetries, and proportions; albeit some, like the fungus are destructive (cursing) as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Rationalist, posted 08-31-2002 1:35 AM Rationalist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by nator, posted 09-02-2002 10:53 PM Philip has not replied

  
Philip
Member (Idle past 4722 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 133 of 150 (16386)
09-02-2002 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by nator
08-31-2002 2:47 AM


It appears you can not perceive redemptive observations in nature. Understandable: we're all apt to be empirically blind in this matter.
But its foolish to deny your own let alone anyone else's redemptive excellencies using even empirical reasoning.
Redemptive excellencies will always be dissonant to our supposed naturalistic grand scheme(s) and will always testify against those who exploit a purely naturalistic scheme.
Whether you cite such redemptive events as Christ or directly oppose such events as observable (anti-Christ and/or anti-scientific) will never refute those events.
Give it up, Shraf, please. Count your empirical blessings; see the silver lining on every observable cosmic event, despite the naturalistic tendency to deny those observed excellencies. Reasonably deduct that it was all designed by a Jesus-Christ-like ID.
Why not steal a little faith in that redemptive science; get caught up in it; sing or cry a little prayer to it; love it; let it love you back, as it always has.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by nator, posted 08-31-2002 2:47 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by nator, posted 09-02-2002 10:50 PM Philip has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 134 of 150 (16454)
09-02-2002 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Philip
09-02-2002 2:17 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Philip:
It appears you can not perceive redemptive observations in nature. Understandable: we're all apt to be empirically blind in this matter.
But its foolish to deny your own let alone anyone else's redemptive excellencies using even empirical reasoning.
Redemptive excellencies will always be dissonant to our supposed naturalistic grand scheme(s) and will always testify against those who exploit a purely naturalistic scheme.
Whether you cite such redemptive events as Christ or directly oppose such events as observable (anti-Christ and/or anti-scientific) will never refute those events.
Give it up, Shraf, please. Count your empirical blessings; see the silver lining on every observable cosmic event, despite the naturalistic tendency to deny those observed excellencies. Reasonably deduct that it was all designed by a Jesus-Christ-like ID.
Why not steal a little faith in that redemptive science; get caught up in it; sing or cry a little prayer to it; love it; let it love you back, as it always has.

Fourth time I have asked:
How do we tell an Intelligently-Designed system from a natural one that we
1) Don't understand yet, or
2) Don't have the capacity to understand?
(Helpful Note: It's perfectly fine to say that you believe because you want to believe, and that there is no evidence. I have no opinion on religious beliefs of others. However, as long as you say that there is scientific evidence of ID, I will continue to ask the question. As long as you avoid giving some kind of answer, I will consider you to be avoiding the question.)
------------------
"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 133 by Philip, posted 09-02-2002 2:17 AM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Philip, posted 09-05-2002 1:18 AM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 135 of 150 (16455)
09-02-2002 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Philip
09-02-2002 1:45 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Philip:
The first 9 appear relatively more excellent in their harmonies, symmetries, and proportions; albeit some, like the fungus are destructive (cursing) as well.
Athlete's foot fungus is not destructive from the fungus' point of view, and probably not destructive from the viewpoint of any infectious organisms which are introduced secondarily, as well.
------------------
"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 132 by Philip, posted 09-02-2002 1:45 AM Philip has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 136 of 150 (16466)
09-03-2002 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Philip
08-30-2002 8:25 PM


In order to investigate something empirically, surely
we need to find evidences. Empiracle observations that
confirm or deny the proposition.
If we have a proposal for which no empirical evidence can be
found, then surely we must question the proposal, rather than
the method.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Philip, posted 08-30-2002 8:25 PM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Philip, posted 09-05-2002 1:25 AM Peter has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024