What a strange, convoluted way to put the problem, spunkets! And so tendentious — a real "strawman" argument!
Where did I even suggest that "all anyone needs to know [is] that animating spirits, created by god are what enables, drives and moves the nonliving material body"? The implication being that I am personally "anti-science." So add to the strawman maneuver an ad hominum argument....
Why should I suppose you to be a good-faith correspondent on this issue?
The above italics is not an example of witness testimony from the human past that I alluded to. What I meant was such "records" as cultural and religious traditions; the great myths; written histories; poetry, literature and the arts in general; philosophy; and philosophy's offspring, systematic natural science.
These human activities have been going on for millennia. Do they become worthless because they do not correspond to the "expectations" — the "what everybody knows" doxa — of the thoroughly corrupt, degenerate post-modern climate of opinion, of which you seem to be a self-selected spokesman?
The "kultursmog consensus" utterly devalues the individual human person and all his works....
"The AP Model and Shannon Theory Show the Incompleteness of Darwin’s ToE"; Drew, Jean F
This thread is of course about folks whose animating spirits were mistaken about being called to "some other place" and after tunneling off early were sent back to resume animating the nonliving matter referred to as their body. As you put it, at the beginning of the second paragraph of the above link, "... so far, science has not identified any naturalistic source for “information” within the universe, biological or otherwise."
"What a strange, convoluted way to put the problem, spunkets! And so tendentious — a real "strawman" argument! "
No. A strawman argument requires that the claim, or proposition be misrepresented. Your paper and the other claims you've made support irreducible complexity and ID, which require and are about an unseen, unpredictable and arbitrarily unfathomable fifth force in nature.
"The implication being that I am personally "anti-science." So add to the strawman maneuver an ad hominum argument.... "
That's your characterization. I made no characterization. I simply stated and referred to the claims being made and presented.
"The above italics is not an example of witness testimony from the human past that I alluded to. What I meant was such "records" as cultural and religious traditions; the great myths; written histories; poetry, literature and the arts in general; philosophy; and philosophy's offspring, systematic natural science."
The subject is the validity of testimony as evidence. Presenting billions of incidencess of testimony is simply bandwagon, grasping at numbers and otherwise hand waiving.
" These human activities have been going on for millennia. Do they become worthless because they do not correspond to the "expectations" — the "what everybody knows" doxa — of the thoroughly corrupt, degenerate post-modern climate of opinion, of which you seem to be a self-selected spokesman? The "kultursmog consensus" utterly devalues the individual human person and all his works..."
Testimony is not scientific evidence.
What a strange, convoluted way to put the problem, spunkets! And so tendentious — a real "strawman" argument!
There is nothing convoluted about spunkets' argument. That is exactly what is being taught: that some animating spirits (breaths) drive, move a body that is otherwise dead without it.
the thoroughly corrupt, degenerate post-modern climate of opinion...
And the world dominated by religious zeal and "truth" (for the past 2000 years) was uncorrupted, progressive, and full of blessings? LOL!