Today marks the 5th Anniversary of the origin of betty boop... in FreeRepublic.com!
boop boop-ey doop!
Posted on 03/03/2003 8:27:25 AM PST by general_re
I thought a new thread was a good idea, and here seems to be a good place to put it, so as not to clutter up "News". The only topic available was "heated discussion", though. ;)
If any clarification about the pictures is needed, just say so, and I will try to at least highlight the part that I am interested in for you. Remember that I'm interested in the objects or structures or artifacts being represented, so don't be thrown off if the illustrations seem abstract.
Do people have more than one way of consider things?
I do.
Are certain ways of considering relevant to information that is of the realms with which they naturally deal?
For me, some issues are moot to spiritual consideration, e.g. whether to part my hair today or not.
IMHO anything of substance, or anything that could touch upon another being, can and should be considered in every context. For instance, before responding to someone: Is the response truthful and complete? Will the statement do harm to this person or anyone else? Is it considerate of all persons who may be affected?
On second thought, maybe this line of thinking isn't helpful to you at all. Wish I could do better.
Please 'splain. I don't find a definition of word "voice" that pairs up with a definition or application of the word "reason," here.
Of course I can tend to misplace things.
Yes, well... and some people are prime examples of both consideraton and considerateness....
For instance, everything exists in my kitchen to make a cake, but it isn't a cake until I make it --- neither condition is the result of random chance.
You:
If it is your intention to imply that the two statements are mutually exclusive, I must disagree. For instance, everything exists in my kitchen to make a cake, but it isn't a cake until I make it --- neither condition is the result of random chance.
What, no hugs? Ah well. My tagline points out (too briefly) that some ID advocates use the remarkable congeniality of the universe as evidence that a Design is at work. At the same time, other ID advocates point to what they claim are the incredibly high odds against the appearance of life to indicate that a Design is at work. Your "cake ingredients in the kitchen" analogy is good, but it doesn't really undercut the "heads ID wins, tails ID wins" of congeniality to life and improbability of life as both leading to the ID conclusion.
[Unrequited hug.]
It is true that both conditions support the argument for Intelligent Design. To argue against Intelligent Design, you'd have to prove abiogenesis and find an acceptable explanation for the fine tuning of the universe, i.e. more than simply the "strong anthropic principle."
As I have mentioned before, I believe there is an objective "for" test, i.e. Algorithm at inception is proof of intelligent design.
Of course, other IDers could argue that if such an algorithm was never found, it would not disprove intelligent design.
But that's pretty much your point, isn't it?
It is true that both conditions support the argument for Intelligent Design.
And you don't see even a teeny-weeny bit of irony there?
To argue against Intelligent Design, you'd have to prove abiogenesis and find an acceptable explanation for the fine tuning of the universe, i.e. more than simply the "strong anthropic principle."
I don't need to do either. The ID advocates need to do the proving. However, in fairness, I should point out that there may be something to the anthropic principle. It's interesting and it definitely needs to be studied.
As I have mentioned before, I believe there is an objective "for" test, i.e. Algorithm at inception is proof of intelligent design.
I donno about that. Whatever principles were in play at the start of the universe could be described, after we figure them out. The search for a Grand Unified Theory is a search for something like what you are looking for. But merely because the initial relationships could be described, and put into equation form, wouldn't prove that someOne (or someThing) wrote that equation ab initio.
Of course, other IDers could argue that if such an algorithm was never found, it would not disprove intelligent design. But that's pretty much your point, isn't it?
That wasn't my point, but I agree with it.
"Voice" really doesn't line up with "reason" in the sense I gather you suggest here. What "Voice" is, is B. speaking his musical conception via the mechanical construct of the physical horn, interpreted by the listener to whom he appeals as a meaningful experience of some kind.
Today marks the 5th Anniversary of the origin of betty boop... in FreeRepublic.com!
That large mound of bits and pieces of earth held together by adhesive can only be the result of design. If you need the rationale I will attempt to give it tomorrow am. Thanks for your patience.
Cordially,
Test object 1. Diamond's answer in post 7.
Test object 2. Diamond's answer in post 33 and 62.
Test object 3. Answer at post 111 and 124.
Test object 4. Answer at 166 and 174.
Test object 5. Answer at 181.
Test object 6. Answer at 257.
Cordially,
Thanks for the heads up, unspun!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.