Posted on 02/12/2005 4:24:09 PM PST by snarks_when_bored
Speaking of what is "real," here is a truism if ever there was one: "Perception IS reality."
Reality comes later. Animals perceive. Plants perceive. Microbes perceive. But intuition, the reflection on perception, that is where reality comes up.
Ahhhh. A pure example of conditional love.
You should have been a lawyer, a prosecuter; for if anyone has the 'will to prosecute' highly developed, it is you. Chances are good you are a first born; heck maybe even an only child.
And I feel sorry for the kids who are receving 'moral' instruction from you.
And as for feeling bad for the kids that receive moral instruction from me (I think that could be called a slam against a Christian, don't you?), be honest; don't you feel bad instead for ALL kids who go to sunday school and learn about Jesus?
Wouldn't they be better off going to yourSunday School class? Oops. You don't go to church; I keep forgetting. You do teach morals, however, yes? Perhaps you have a weeknight neighborhood 'morals according to darwinian principles' class that is open to the local kids?
But what the heck, maybe proper moral instruction is something you have some expertise in given your willingness to impugn and denigrate me and my reports of teaching kids about right and wrong. In fact, way back on this other thread that I started (here) you said in post 340
"...I can give you some compelling reasons why everyone should be honest."
(I remember it so well, for it is so bold; and if there is one thing lacking in so many males in our society today, it is boldness).
I sense that a priest who never got to be a priest lives in you RWP; but be that as it may, I am quite interested in your 'reasons' .... I can't wait to see how compelling the rationalisms are for honesty from someone who openly rejects the teachings of Christ and openly proclaims himself a priest of reason.
Finally, phylogenetic analyses of the gene sequences [20] suggest that flagellar motor proteins arose first and those of the pump came later. In other words, if anything, the pump evolved from the motor, not the motor from the pump.Yikes! I didn't know that claim had been refuted. Granted, if the TTSS had come after the flagellum it still would have proven that a major part of the flagellum was indeed useful on its own. But still, wow.Wow, a citation finally! But if they ever attempt to publish this "paper", they're going to have to correct their error in the title of their citation...
In any case, Minnich et al "forgot" to mention that newer research has superceded their citation. That's a *BIG* no-no in *real* peer-reviewed scientific papers (seriously -- as in evidence of incompetence and/or dishonesty), but I see that it's no impediment to the sort of unreviewed "conference papers" that IDers put out in order to try to keep the dream alive.
Agreed. Our observations and abstractions, including the laws of physics, and all the rest of science, are of the same character -- in your words: intangible, non-physical, immaterial. In my words: intellectual constructs.
They are not "things" in the sense that the moon is a thing, or that you are a thing, or that the photons of moonlight are things. Unlike you, the moon, and moonlight [** sigh **] all those other items are mere abstractions. If we all died, those abstractions would not exist. They are, as I said earlier, within us, and they are not additional aspects of the things we observe and about which we abstract.
In this sense, "science" is no more a real thing (like you and the moon) than is the English language, or any other intellectual work of man's mind. (Obviously, a book in English is a tangible thing, but that's not what we're talking about.)
I'll be stealing that someday soon for my sig line.
These things (post 365) are what I imagine Aristotle would have said to Plato, and Plato in return would have rolled his eyes and responded: "Aristotle, you were my brightest student, but you are my biggest disappointment."
In brains there is no distinction between hardware and software. If you have some evidence to contradict this, I'd like to see it. Brains learn by modifying the connections between neurons.
Excellent insights, RobRoy! Plus I think you're absolutely right about this: "Creation reeks of a designer, and those who study it with this thought in mind are the ones who make the most progress unlocking it's secrets."
Thank you so much!
Why do you say such things are "more real" than material things? I never said that!
So do crystals reek of design?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1341981/posts?page=351#351
You never said that? That's been said though, and if you didn't say it, it must have been that I said it. It's a good thing to say and puts the world at peace. The realer world is the legal world not the visible world.
I want to see the evidence that backs up the assertion, "The mind is the behavior of the brain," js1138. For otherwise, it strikes me as being yet another "theological statement."
As to this "learning visibly alters the structure of the brain" business: It is well understood that the infant brain continues rapidly to develop well past birth, for at least another 24 months or so. This is the time when (presumably) the infant is most rapidly learning. But which came first, the brain development or the learning? Or to put it another way, is the brain developing because the infant is learning, or is the rapid learning of an infant the result of the brain development? Do you know? Does anybody know for certain fact which it is?
This is not an intelligent response. The fact that Darwinism had trouble being accepted for decades doesn't justify the way current Darwinists use their power against dissenters and engage in name-calling. And even if Intelligent Design is not a new argument, that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be heard today. The 1802 argument that you refer to surely isn't being heard now, absent the ID people, so what's wrong with bringing it up again? What are you people afraid of?
Yes, it does. Microscopic analysis show the neuronical connections change with learning. Don't know if there is a similar change for reading without comprehension.
You sound like someone who thinks that there is no possible knowledge outside of science, narrowly defined. This is called "scientism," and it has been responsible for a great deal of bad in our civilization. Such people tend to be barbarians in white coats. They reduce human knowledge to a very narrow little sphere. No thank you.
You people are really reacting hysterically to ID. Look in the mirror and ask yourselves why.
You really need to read some Hayek. In The Road to Serfdom he showed that there was an essential difference between regulating the process, in the form of enforcing simple, clear rules of contract, etc., and regulating the outcome, as happens in centrally planned societies. Free market societies flourish & evolve, while centrally planned societies turn totalitarian and crush the peoples' lives. This is because The People keep getting in the way of The Plan.
Hieronomous explains another system. It is not gov't that regulates the futures market, but the market itself. Many confuse gov't with state, and it could be argued that the market is of the state, but it isn't of gov't. Laws do not create state, but civil laws exist under state.
sorry professor the article says "There is one, and only one, observed mechanism which causes two different organisms to have ubiquitous proteins with similar sequences (aside from the extreme improbability of pure chance, of course). That mechanism is heredity." in 4.1
i said the article's dna and protein conclusions assume ONLY heredity causes 2 organisms to have similar ubiquitous sequences..you said They assume no such thing.
then you made an assumption again by presuming organisms have a common ancestor when that is the question being dis/proven..
why should design predict either more or fewer similarities bw various species?? it doesn't
point being, design is a second valid mechanism.
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.