Posted on 10/12/2005 10:43:32 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
ID is not a science, by any measure. Its even less scientific than alchemy.
peas understand, I haven't the hart to continue this with ewe.
oh, so the UN did a documentary on my handiwork, eh?
they owe me ROYALTIES
It's one thing to argue with yourself, but take care not to lose those arguments.
Aha! You shall not get my goat. I am not as sheepish as you fear.
In this case you are probably right.
You talking about the sound of one hand clapping?
Uh, gee, thanks for the "heads up."
I find that difficult to believe, but then again, that would be an argument from personal incredulity, and I know how well those fly around here...
I guess we already do -- babies.
2. Science can measure and define fun, love, worry, anger. I refer you to neurochemistry and biochemistry.
False. All science can measure is neurochemistry and biochemistry. It cannot measure the actual feelings and it cannot measure spirit.
3. You believe you "instinctively" know life when you see it. I'm willing to bet that you can be fooled on that score. I know as fact that many people do NOT automatically recognize life when they see it, and have mistaken non-life for life from time to time.
You miss my point entirely. Like anyone else I have occasionally thought a fallen tree branch or discarded hose in the woods was a snake, especially at dusk or any other time when the light is bad. My point is that even though we can't define it, we know what life IS. Just like art and pornography still have elusive definitions, yet most of the time we know both when we see them.
4. No. Non-sequitur. You leave out the "yet". Many things are well explained by 21st century scientific methods which were inexplicable in the 19th century.
I left 'yet' out quite on purpose. By definition, science, because it deals with the physical world and ONLY with the physical world, will never be able to measure anything that is metaphysical in nature. It will never be able to tell us whether there is or isn't a God, whether there is or is not an afterlife, whether morality is just a head-trip or is actually based on something transcendent and eternal, etc. Science is no closer to answering these questions than it was 10,000 years ago.
Re-read the original post for what "things". Then re-read the two words "strongly imply". To imply does not mean to know or to prove.
Some things can't be defined or dissected in a laboratory because words and science are instruments that are far too crude. Such things strongly imply the existence of a realm beyond the physical.
What "things," how do you know this, and are you sure you're correct?
Actually he left out the dupes -- the names of returning banees.
That's my point.
I did and found no strong implications.
Oh good.
1. funny - I would not consider babies/natural offspring to be "devices"
2.a. you assume that measuring the physics and chemistry fails to measure the feeling. I do not.
2.b. spirit? we were discussing material LIFE, were we not?
3. "Just like art and pornography still have elusive definitions, yet most of the time we know both when we see them."
Ah, but you fail to take into account that what one might call art, another might call crap; what one might call porn, andother might call art. We are trying for something a *little* more concrete than such "instinctual" rubbish.
4. Again, we were discussing material LIFE, are we not? Changing the game and moving the goalposts like that just ain't cricket.
Yes, creationists are scary.
And amusing.
I do not have any theory.
I think you do.
Very simple request, produce a scientist that can produce matter from nothing by doing nothing.
Mr. Sartre? Is that you? I thought you were dead, whatever that means.
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.