To: VadeRetro; jennyp; Junior; longshadow; *crevo_list; RadioAstronomer; Scully; Piltdown_Woman; ...
The great "nature vs. design" debate is ready to begin. See the post above this one for details.
447 posted on
03/26/2003 4:46:14 PM PST by
PatrickHenry
(Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.)
To: PatrickHenry
Some things in nature apparently favor and follow some basic math such as spirals of various kinds, intersecting triangles, Fibonacci numbers, squaring the circle, the golden mean to a degree. The same math sequences and figures have been used to lay out systems for deciphering nature including the evolved intelligence of man. There are a limitless number of such systems, some used in teaching basic principles, which in turn are an attempt to being conceptual order to the chaos of variety in nature. Wolframs recursive formulae are a very recent attempt along these lines, but others have developed very similar schemes to explain the nature of intelligence and the psychology of mental functioning. Computers are being used to crunch numbers and view the emerging pictures in ever-increasing variety; some of the images so produced look as natural and of biological origin as leaves and fly's eyes.
448 posted on
03/26/2003 5:06:13 PM PST by
RightWhale
(Theorems link concepts: Proofs establish links)
To: PatrickHenry
Thanks for the heads up, I'll have to grab a box of popcorn and watch, could be interesting. Don't have time for much else, moving into a new house this weekend...
449 posted on
03/26/2003 6:05:35 PM PST by
ThinkPlease
(Fortune Favors the Bold!)
To: PatrickHenry
I don't get it. They are discussing naturally occuring items, some of them made by intelligent agents, e.g., basketball, brick pavers, beehives (arguably not using intelligence but maybe instinct, but still, bees have a version of intelligence), and some made by physical processes that don't involve intelligent thought.
I came in at the middle or end of the conversation and don't really feel like starting at the beginning, if it has something to do with creationism vs. evolution. The creationists haven't been interesting enough to justify my attention yet.
454 posted on
03/26/2003 6:58:37 PM PST by
CobaltBlue
(Support John Howard - buy Australian!)
To: PatrickHenry
I shouldn't have categorized the items as naturally occuring, that doesn't seem the proper term to use for basketballs and cobblestones.
455 posted on
03/26/2003 7:01:15 PM PST by
CobaltBlue
(Support John Howard - buy Australian!)
To: PatrickHenry
The great "nature vs. design" debate is ready to begin. See the post above this one for details. I see the Lucretian Umpire has been diligently conditioning (for at least a day).
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson