Posted on 05/25/2005 3:41:22 AM PDT by billorites
Or even in an unstable environment.
Sounds life the fecundity principle, a/k/a life principle at work. But I must point out that a principle is not a material thing at all. And form and organization imply intelligence and information. These are not material things either.
Looks like AntiGuv may be some kind of closet ID-er after all. :^)
Thanks for the ping, Alamo-Girl! I have to turn in early for I have to get up at 5 a.m. to attend an all-day conference in Boston tomorrow. I'll be off-line all day, but will check back in in the evening. Hugs for now!!!
banMy teenage daughter can understand the difference so I know you do too and this is merely another lie.
verb (banned, banning) officially prohibit.
noun an official prohibition.
libelClaiming that Dawkins would ban religion is false and defamatory and you have written it publicly. It is therefore libel. You really think people are too stupid to see through your bluster. It is amazing.
• noun 1 the publication of a false statement that is damaging to a person’s reputation. Compare with SLANDER. 2 a written defamation.
• verb (libelled, libelling; US libeled, libeling) defame by publishing a libel.publish
• verb 1 prepare and issue (a book, newspaper, piece of music, etc.) for public sale. 2 print in a book, newspaper, or journal so as to make generally known. 3 announce formally. 4 communicate (a libel) to a third party.
What is pathetic is your grasping at some imagined dragon. Don Quixote has nothing on you.
This is the context of my statement.
Plus your gambling problem does not help your argument either. Notice that the summation for the calculation of pi has a symbol on top. That means something.
[img]
And the set of rationals is closed when using all of the operations in the equation.
"That means something" means something. This was your conclusion So you don't know what that little "sideways eight" atop the sigma symbol means? Sad.
You are just as wrong now.
My questioning whether you understood the meaning of that symbol in the equation is simply explained. Since rational arithmetic is not closed under that operation, I figured you didn't understand its meaning. As you showed later, you did (which I acknowledged here).
But your claim about closure is still wrong. And you still trying to bluff it out.
I'm not throwing dust or bluffing anything. The discussion is clear, except to you. The purpose was not to discuss your personal view of the discussion. Rationals are closed under addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. I mentioned the little thing on top for a reason. It was not just to add words to my post.
Oh yeah, before I forget, you flatter yourself that Dawkins would come here and debate you. What an ego.
Why don't you dare him? Maybe that will rile him up enough and it would sure be a spectacle. I gave you his email address. Not too chicken are you?
Look, I'll try and make if very easy for you. I promise it won't hurt. You just have to answer this question with a simple yes. Were you wrong to claim that rational arithmetic is closed under all the operations in that equation?
Gore3000 used to kick your butt in debate without breaking a sweat too?
How does a 6 year old have a teenage child Ed? That's what you act like, a six year old. Dare ya, double dare ya ya chicken creationist liar.
Grow up.
you: You say this like it's a Bad Thing. The alternative would be what? Embrace death?
For the atheist, physical life is all the life there is - but for many of us, "life" itself is not only physical and therefore does not end upon physical death (as compared to life v non-life/death in nature).
We who are Christian have the added awareness of being alive already in timelessness while still in the flesh - thus we are dead and yet we live (Col 3:3, Gal 2:20). We will not taste the second death (Revelation).
One of these days we need to tackle the false Cartesian split in a wide-ranging discussion. It touches many subjects we debate around here - and like our previous discussions of "reality" and "types of knowledge and valuation of them" and "what is life", it would surely help us to communicate more effectively.
And I'll make it easy for you. No, not in the context for which I made the statement. The infinite symbol was given special attention for a reason. It was to set up the next statement. The one which troubles you so much.
Stalin banned the teaching of Darwinism in public schools
Therefore you are a Stalinist.
Zdrastvuite, tovarisch!
As we continue on the definition project - and get into a definition of the collective consciousness hypothesis - then I'm sure we'll be revisiting the fecundity principle, life principle and evolution of one. I'm very much looking forward to it.
As you say, "a principle is not a material thing at all. And form and organization imply intelligence and information. These are not material things either."
My greatest hope is that the Lurkers and correspondents will realize from this definition project that there is more interest in the hypothesis of intelligent causation than just the fellows and supporters of the Discovery Institute. A rose by any other name...
Have a great time in Boston tomorrow, betty boop! Hugs!
You really don't get it, do you?
Dawkin seems like an extremist. I think extremists usually tend to spoiliate the public square.
By the way expression of opinion are not libelous per se.
Come on Prof, a little originality and intellectual honesty. We've been over this before. You have no basis in fact for making such an idiotic assertion. Unfounded assertions devoid of fact are simply unfounded assertions.
I won't comment on your motive for making such an unfounded assertion. Nor will I threaten you with libel or call you a "Darwinian Liar". I'll just get a good laugh out of the lengths otherwise smart folks go to to defend a bigot because they like the science he does.
{Insert hearty blue collar laugh right here!}
I won't comment on your motive for making such an unfounded assertion. Nor will I threaten you with libel or call you a "Darwinian Liar". I'll just get a good laugh out of the lengths otherwise smart folks go to to defend a bigot because they like the science he does.
What really amuses me are people who can't follow their own logic to its conclusion.
Dobre noch', in any case.
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.