Details on Ohio Lesson Plan

[Pyrrho]

http://www.cleveland.com/ohio/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/107926172824530.xml

Lesson plan in place, the point of "the Wedge" makes progress in Ohio.


I am not aware of any other states that have officially encouraged this kind of lesson," said John Calvert, a retired Kansas City, Mo., lawyer who heads the Intelligent Design Network.

But the board's action left some wondering how the 19-member body, which collectively said 15 months ago that it was not endorsing intelligent design, could adopt a lesson plan many scientists say is lifted directly from the best-known texts of that movement.

There is no consensus about how the lesson plan, castigated by mainstream groups such as the National Academy of Sciences and the Ohio Academy of Science, gained such strong support. Instead, people who observed and participated in the debate and the behind-the- scenes machinations say several factors made the plan's adoption possible.

[Denise]

It seems to me that people that support the teaching of ID are often against sex education. Now the same children who they do not want to be educated about sex, are supposed to be mature enough to participate in debate in which one side is clearly pushing an agenda that is not based on science.

If Intelligent Design led to the creation of the universe, and finally to man, we would have no way of knowing it because we would have nothing to compare it to. In my opinion of course. I don't think that they are advocating that part of the Universe came about by chance, and part by Intelligent Design so there is nothing to compare it to.

I have no idea how they would really teach this anyhow. If they are going to use it in their material I think it should be condensed into a single sentence. Some people believe that the Universe was created by an Intelligent life, some do not, and some don't know- now open your books.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Denise

.. If they are going to use it in their material I think it should be condensed into a single sentence. Some people believe that the Universe was created by an Intelligent life, some do not, and some don't know-
With the following addition

"The scientific theory of evolution does not require intelligent intervention, but neither does it prove that such did not occur."


now open your books.
;)

On sex ed, same basic thought; some people feel abstinence until marriage is the best course. However, others disagree, and should abstinence not prove possible, the basics of disease and pregnancy prevention is provided by this course.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by hammegk
The scientific theory of evolution does not require intelligent intervention, but neither does it "prove" that such did not occur. Occam's Razor, hammy.

[geni]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Occam's Razor, hammy. [/B]

Doesn't apply here. God did it is always the simplest explanation. Secondly the razor proves nothing.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

"God did it" has no explanatory power; it's never the simplest explanation for anything because it can't explain anything.

And of course the Razor proves nothing. So? Intelligent intervention is not required to explain the world we see. Until evidence making it required arises, ID is untenable.

[geni]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
And of course the Razor proves nothing. So? Intelligent intervention is not required to explain the world we see. Until evidence making it required arises, ID is untenable.

Perfectly tenable (just as a god of the gaps is perfictly tenable) it's just not requiered to make any predictions or to make the theory work so I am not going to bother about it. Just because we don't require something to exist to explane the word does not mean it does not exist.

So The oringal statment is correct it's just that makeing it would be a waste of paper.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by geni
Just because we don't require something to exist to explane the word does not mean it does not exist. No, but it does mean that it shouldn't be part of our explanations.

[fishbob]

Perfectly tenable (just as a god of the gaps is perfictly tenable) it's just not requiered to make any predictions or to make the theory work so I am not going to bother about it. Just because we don't require something to exist to explane the word does not mean it does not exist.

Huh? If I understand what you think you said, then I call the invisible pink unicorn defense.

[hammegk]

Gee, I wonder how many recognize by now what a cop-out that is?

Or are you folks so frigging dumb you have faith that every numinous experience actually invoved an IPU?

[geni]

Originally posted by fishbob


Huh? If I understand what you think you said, then I call the invisible pink unicorn defense.

Well depending on your defintion the theory of everlution does not disprove the invisible pink unicorn. The internal contaction might as might most of the thoeries involving light and/or the irrisponible use of the colour pink. As with the rest of science the thoery of everlution does not prove of dsiprove an inteligant designer either way. however I would prefer it if my text books did not start something like this:

This does not prove or disprove the existance of god
This does not prove or disprove the existance of invisible pink unicorns
This does not prove or disprove the existance of magic faries living at the bottem of the garden
This does not prove or disprove the existance of small green worms living on a planet orbiting sirius
This does not prove or disprove the existance of an honest politican
This does not prove or disprove the existance of p-zombies
This does not prove or disprove the existance ect....


We have a philoserphy deparment for a reason

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by hammegk
Gee, I wonder how many recognize by now what a cop-out that is?

Or are you folks so frigging dumb you have faith that every numinous experience actually invoved an IPU?

No. What you should have begun understanding by now is that when somebody uses the Unicorn analogy, they're demonstrating that there are no measurable differences between claim "X" and a claim of the Unicorn variety.

The Unicorn analogy is not meant to insist that somebody's claim is necessarily false. It is meant to explain how, if your "personal experiences" are so intangible that there is nothing physical to show for them, people who have not had the same experiences cannot fairly be expected to reach the same conclusions.

In this case, geni claimed that just because we don't need something to exist to explain anything doesn't mean it necessarily must not exist - and he is correct of course. However, it is the nature of science to keep human knowledge as accurate as possible by not asserting things that aren't necessary. The "god of the gaps" is analagous here to the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Both may exist; yet it is pointless to dwell on, or assert that, either one does in fact exist if said existence has no effect on anything. They may as well not exist at all, so we disregard them. See?

Now, suppose somebody has a transcendent mystical experience which, in their opinion, requires a God for explanation. They could be said to be justified in believing in that God. That's all fine and dandy.

Suppose further that this person tries to relate his experience, and the listener finds that he could explain the experience via hallucination, or drug use, or what have you. In this case, God becomes an Invisible Pink Unicorn again, because if we already have plenty of other things which can readily explain the experience, a new "god" is no longer necessary.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Technically the Invisible Pink Unicorn isn't a good example to reference, as it's a exemplar for logical invalidity.

A better example for this scenario might be the invisible black cat sitting on a black velvet cushion in a lightless room. Sure, it could be there... but if we have no reason to think it actually is, why consider it?

[geni]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
A better example for this scenario might be the invisible black cat sitting on a black velvet cushion in a lightless room. Sure, it could be there... but if we have no reason to think it actually is, why consider it?

Because I can do an easy experment to rule it out. Last I checked god did not have a refraction index.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by geni
Because I can do an easy experment to rule it out. Last I checked god did not have a refraction index. Yes, I'm sure an invisible cat will have an index of refraction. What an absolutely brilliant idea.

[fishbob]

Or are you folks so frigging dumb you have faith that every numinous experience actually invoved an IPU?

Now that is a cop-put.

Are you so friggin unimaginative that any event you can't explain is supernatural?

[geni]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Yes, I'm sure an invisible cat will have an index of refraction. What an absolutely brilliant idea.

Invisible and balck are still muturly exclusive. Asside from that I can test CO2 levels or even just feek around for a cat shaped lump.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by fishbob


Now that is a cop-put.

Are you so friggin unimaginative that any event you can't explain is supernatural?

Supernatural is a word used by materialists/atheists/brights; for objective idealists the word can have no meaning.

Unimaginative? I try, but realize I'm not one of the sharper knives in the drawer. Any such posting here are Brights. Why they have faith that using the premises of a selected system of logic to "prove" those premises True is valid is what I am not imaginative enough to understand.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by hammegk

Why they have faith that using the premises of a selected system of logic to "prove" those premises True is valid is what I am not imaginative enough to understand.

The logical points aren't used to prove any arguments; they're used to reject arguments, thereby reducing the number of possibilities and helping to ensure that whichever conclusion we finally reach is as accurate as possible.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


Now, suppose somebody has a transcendent mystical experience which, in their opinion, requires a God for explanation. They could be said to be justified in believing in that God. That's all fine and dandy.



Hollow words indeed. On JREF, those people are laughingly referred to as f**cking retards.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by hammegk
Hollow words indeed. On JREF, those people are laughingly referred to as [expletive] retards. No, we normally refer to him as 'hammy'.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Technically the Invisible Pink Unicorn isn't a good example to reference, as it's a exemplar for logical invalidity.



As is the god of the Bible. That's the best part about the IPU.

In the bible, we learn, by direct passages that,

God is love
God is a jealous god.
Love is not jealous.

If needed, I can find the three verses in the canon of that bible that says these exact things. Hence, the god of the bible is logically contradictory. Just like the IPU.

Now, the fact that most people don't realize it doesn't make it any less true.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


As is the god of the Bible.

Is teaching that "that god" must be responsible for the intelligence of intelligent design part of the Ohio curricula?

If not, so what?

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by hammegk


Hollow words indeed. On JREF, those people are laughingly referred to as f**cking retards.

By whom? I hope you can demonstrate how those words are "hollow" coming from me.

For detail work, I recommend a slightly smaller 1-inch brush...

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by hammegk


Is teaching that "that god" must be responsible for the intelligence of intelligent design part of the Ohio curricula?



Are you suggesting that the god of the bible is not a possible "intelligent designer" that is indicated in ID?

To use someone else's logic (yours, in fact) just because they do not specifically state that the intelligent designer is the god of the bible does not mean that he isn't.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


To use someone else's logic (yours, in fact) just because they do not specifically state that the intelligent designer is the god of the bible does not mean that he isn't.
Er, yah, that is exactly what I averred. Now what?


Dear Joshie & the rest of Hal's Pals: Your words themselves demonstrate the hollowness of your understanding of the materialism/atheism, and at times Brightism, you parrot.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by hammegk

Dear Joshie & the rest of Hal's Pals: Your words themselves demonstrate the hollowness of your understanding of the materialism/atheism, and at times Brightism, you parrot.

I'm not an atheist, nor have I yet decided I'm definitely materialist. And if you had ever been on Paltalk, you would know that my disdain for the "Brights" movement is extreme, paralleled only by TLN's (thus far).

Of course, it's not your fault that you don't realize this (though I've posted that I'm a deist many times - not only here but on my website as well), because I'll concede you may have had no possible way of knowing. What is your fault is your assumption that I'm atheist or materialist, or that I fancy myself one of these "Brights", simply because I support the scientific method.

Or am I mistaken? Is your assumption based on something else - a specific lapse in which I referred to a "believer" as a f***ing retard, perhaps? No, there is no such instance. There is an instance in which Penn's comment at TAM2 (in which he used the f***ing retard label) was debated on the board, and I seem to remember posting my disagreement with Penn's statement.

I think you're either simply mistaken, or simply making things up. I'd much rather believe the former.

[pupdog]

But the real problem is, the students are being cheated. They are being cheated by a group of people who have a common religious philosophy and a common cause--to spread that philosophy/religion. They are misrepresenting the science (very likely engaging in fraud, in that their errors have been pointed out to them repeatedly) and misrepresenting the scientific method. The Wedge has failed to accomplished one of its high-priority agenda items--they have not yet published, in a respectable, peer-reviewed professional journal, any research concerning biological diversity in which Intelligent Design has provided any explanatory utility.

[Brown]

I was hoping to find a link to the actual lesson plan. Can anybody find one?

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Technically the Invisible Pink Unicorn isn't a good example to reference, as it's a exemplar for logical invalidity.


You have no idea how long I've been saying that. (Well, you actually do have an idea because you can see when I started my account.) Apparently the unicorn isn't pink in the sense that it is invisible because it is only visible to whoever is making the argument, and it appears pink to them. Then you only have a scientific improbability to deal with. Or so I'm told.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi

What is your fault is your assumption that I'm atheist or materialist, or that I fancy myself one of these "Brights", simply because I support the scientific method.
I support the scientific method too, and I made no assumption of your personal beliefs. Your words -- again that you parrot -- contain the usual scientism circularity. I.E. Assume it true, rationalize the universe, proclaim it true.

This unbending bs is now drawing return fire; in this thread in the form of ID being taught in schools.



....I seem to remember posting my disagreement with Penn's statement.
Nice of you. As long as you disown it, that makes it ok. As a deist -- who was also called a FR -- you at least took a baby step away from the absolute certainty of prevailing physicalist scientific dogma.


I think you're either simply mistaken, or simply making things up. I'd much rather believe the former.
I'm often mistaken. Am I in my statements above?

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by hammegk

I support the scientific method too, and I made no assumption of your personal beliefs. Your words -- again that you parrot -- contain the usual scientism circularity. I.E. Assume it true, rationalize the universe, proclaim it true.

This unbending bs is now drawing return fire; in this thread in the form of ID being taught in schools.

I really have no interest in "truth"; that's a philisophical (and semantic) pursuit, one among many, that I've sworn off as of late. Instead, when it comes to science all I'm interested in is "fact" - statements and theories the accuracy of which is dependent upon the current state of our knowledge. Very little in science is (or should be) axiomatic, except in cases of pure logic (such as math). Rather, every statement in science carries the unspoken prefix "to the best of our knowledge...". And as our knowledge changes, so do those things we hold to be fact.

As it relates to the ID argument, it's simple - in science class, you teach science stuff. There's a process by which that stuff is considered eligible for being taught in science class, which has nothing to do with dogmatism or maintaining the "establishment's" view (which should be obvious, because the most famous scientists are the ones who successfully disprove mainstream theories). Since every other thing taught in science class is subject to this process, it is only fair and consistent that ID be subject to it as well - and, barring any revelations of which I'm aware - it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. So it would be unfair to teach it in science class and give it time which has been denied to other points of view that have been similarly rejected for the same reasons.

I submit, and so do many here, that there is plenty of room for comparative creation stories in social studies classes.

Originally posted by hammegk
Nice of you. As long as you disown it, that makes it ok. As a deist -- who was also called a FR -- you at least took a baby step away from the absolute certainty of prevailing physicalist scientific dogma.

I'm often mistaken. Am I in my statements above?

I believe that more people would disagree with the idea of scientific "certainty" than you realize.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by hammegk
Your words -- again that you parrot -- contain the usual scientism circularity. I.E. Assume it true, rationalize the universe, proclaim it true. Um, that's not how it works.

We're presented with a world that appears a certain way. We seek explanatory models that are consistent with our observations and allow us to make useful predictions. We find that the concept of evolution is not only vastly more consistent with what we see than any other hypotheses but that its predictive power is significantly greater than the others. So we proclaim that the evolutionary hypothesis as a Theory.

Why don't you just admit that you're a Creationist Theist and quit pretending to be a philosopher, hammy? You clearly don't understand how science works - or the difference between the scientific method and scientific knowledge - or even what the current scientific knowledge actually is.

[holds envelope to forehead] Hammy will now insult our intelligence, contradict himself by pretending he had always agreed with us on certain points which he will now change, and ask when we'll be interested in joining the debate.

It's timestamped, everyone. Let's see how long it takes for my prediction to come true.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

While we're waiting, I'd like to point out that part of our confusion stems from this invisible pink unicorn urban legend. The damn thing is an invisible pink hamster! It orbits Neptune. Unicorns are fictitious creatures.

~~ Paul

[Reaver]

Originally posted by Brown
I was hoping to find a link to the actual lesson plan. Can anybody find one?

Is this it?:
http://www.ode.state.oh.us/academic_content_standards/sciencesboe/pdf_setA/L10-H23_Critical_Analysis_of_Evolution_Mar_SBOE_change s.pdf

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


Rather, every statement in science carries the unspoken prefix "to the best of our knowledge...". And as our knowledge changes, so do those things we hold to be fact.
So true; now if the dividing lines between belief, faith, and certainty were definable, the point would be moot.

The scientific method provides a very very good description of the world that is perceived stretching from bosons up through the universe. The "apparent" (and imo imaginary) dichotomy shows itself in the human macro world as HPC -- body vs mind -- at micro micro levels as particle vs wave, and at other times non-life vs life. When science decides the axiom "Objective, Physical, Reality exists" rather than "Objective Reality Exists", a choice has been made. Again, define "energy", with the best description being the math defining an infinite-in-extent field.


As it relates to the ID argument, it's simple ...
That's the point where materialists/atheists part ways with most of humanity. The argument concerns the non-existence vs existence of what we call god (for lack of a better term).


I submit, and so do many here, that there is plenty of room for comparative creation stories in social studies classes.
And I submit you are entitled to your opinion as are the rest of us. When you define what and what not will be taught in schools, without noting the shaky underpinnings on which you stand (although as you mentioned, scientists admit this candidly to each other) we arrive at one of the current hotly disputed points, ID for lack of a better term.


I believe that more people would disagree with the idea of scientific "certainty" than you realize.
And if more "scientists" would candidly admit same, again the point would be moot.

And I looked; guess he comes back off ignore if there is any non-zero chance of an actual contribution -- the following approaches that criteria imo.


Originally posted by Smarmy (aka Bill)


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by hammegk
Your words -- again that you parrot -- contain the usual scientism circularity. I.E. Assume it true, rationalize the universe, proclaim it true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So we proclaim that the evolutionary hypothesis as a Theory.

And a good one it's been, although closer to butterfly collecting than predictive science.


Why don't you just admit that you're a Creationist Theist and quit pretending to be a philosopher, hammy? You clearly don't understand how science works - or the difference between the scientific method and scientific knowledge - or even what the current scientific knowledge actually is.
You believe I lie when I state I'm an Objective Idealist? Why?

Am I an expert in any scientific field of endeavor? Nope, nor do I recall making that claim.

Do you have any facts to present to demonstrate that that I "clearly don't understand how science works - or the difference between the scientific method and scientific knowledge -"?


[holds envelope to forehead] Hammy will now insult our intelligence, contradict himself by pretending he had always agreed with us on certain points which he will now change, and ask when we'll be interested in joining the debate.

It's timestamped, everyone. Let's see how long it takes for my prediction to come true.
LOFL. Please provide a fact when you find one.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by hammegk
When science decides the axiom "Objective, Physical, Reality exists" rather than "Objective Reality Exists", a choice has been made. The two statements are equivalent. "Physical" is defined in terms of what exists.

That's the point where materialists/atheists part ways with most of humanity. The argument concerns the non-existence vs existence of what we call god (for lack of a better term). Liar or fool? I can't decide. Either way, you're mistaken yet again. Do you really think that you can derail the argument that easily?

[Brian the Snail]

Reaver, the link doesn't seem to work when linking straight to the pdf. Let's try it this way:

http://www.ode.state.oh.us/academic_content_standards/sciencesboe/scisboe_contents.asp

and scroll down to Grade 10, "Critical Analysis of Evolution."

First of all, it doesn't teach ID, but it does require students to look at criticisms of evolution. Nothing wrong with that, but their examples seem to be pretty much lifted from the ID literature, most notably Jonathan Wells' book Icons of Evolution (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/). Look at Attachment A to see what I mean. Coincidence? I don't think so. They also place far too much emphasis on the microevolution/macroevolution divide, as well as presenting a couple of examples of genuine debates within the science as though they are arguments against evolution itself, when it is not the case. For example, the punctuated equilibrium/gradualism debate. This kind of stuff is typical of creationist arguments.

I guess I'm also cynical about the reason why they chose evolution in particular, when you could just as well "critically analyze" any other science. Why not a "critical analysis of plate tectonics" lesson?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Smarmy (aka Bill?)
The two statements are equivalent. "Physical" is defined in terms of what exists.[/b]
Yeah, that stuff we perceive.

Liar or fool? I can't decide. Either way, you're mistaken yet again. Do you really think that you can derail the argument that easily?
May I say "false dichotomy"? Mistaken? Perhaps.

As usual; all innuendo, no facts.

[Brown]

Originally posted by Brian the Snail
Reaver, the link doesn't seem to work when linking straight to the pdf. Let's try it this way:

http://www.ode.state.oh.us/academic_content_standards/sciencesboe/scisboe_contents.asp

and scroll down to Grade 10, "Critical Analysis of Evolution."Thanks for the link. Some of the material in the lesson plan is not objectionable, but some of it would be laugh-out-loud funny if it weren't being offered in such earnest.

The term "intelligent design" is not used in the actual lessons, but you get stuff like this: "Some scientists think similarities in
anatomical and genetic structure reflect similar functional needs in different animals, not common ancestry." Assuming the "Wow, that was pretty lucky, eh?!" explanation isn't going to carry much weight, then one is left to ponder that some sort of designer must have chosen the "same tool for the same job."

[fishbob]

From the link:
the theory of universal common descent desrcibes the historical pattern of biological change.

I have never heard of this "Theory of Universal Common Descent" that is ascribed to Darwin in the Instructional Procedures section. Is UCD Theory legit, or is the lesson plan setting up a Straw Man argument?

[Brian the Snail]

Originally posted by Brown
The term "intelligent design" is not used in the actual lessons, but you get stuff like this: "Some scientists think similarities in
anatomical and genetic structure reflect similar functional needs in different animals, not common ancestry." Assuming the "Wow, that was pretty lucky, eh?!" explanation isn't going to carry much weight, then one is left to ponder that some sort of designer must have chosen the "same tool for the same job."

Well wouldn't convergent evolution do the same thing? In fact, I think the problem is even more basic- it appears to present a false dichotomy in that leads to the notion that similar structures imply similar functional needs and that they imply common ancesty are two sides in a debate, and that the latter is some kind of argument against evolution. Evolutionary biology considers both possibilities as valid. From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homologous):

In biology, two or more structures are said to be homologous if they are alike because of shared ancestry. This could be evolutionary ancestry, meaning that the structures evolved from some structure in a common ancestor (the wings of bats and the arms of humans are homologous in this sense) or developmental ancestry, meaning that the structures arose from the same tissue in embryonal development (the ovaries of females and the testicles of males are homologous in this sense).

Homology has to be distinguished from analogy; for instance, the wings of insects and the wings of birds are analogous but not homologous. These similar structures most likely evolved through different pathways, a process known as convergent evolution.

Also you have this from Talk origins (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html#Vertebrate-limb-homology):

in a nutshell, homology is detailed similarity of organization that is functionally unnecessary, meaning the similarity is unnecessary (the trait in question may be, and usually is, functional).

which seems to completely refute the argument in the link- the point is not that homologous structures have the same function, it's just that they are similar when they don't need to be to do their jobs.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

If it mentions the concepts of macroevolution and microevolution seriously, it's already deeply flawed. That distinction does not exist in the evolutionary theory, and isn't a justified distinction. 'Macroevolution' is the result of 'microevolution', inevitably.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by fishbob
I have never heard of this "Theory of Universal Common Descent" that is ascribed to Darwin in the Instructional Procedures section. Is UCD Theory legit, or is the lesson plan setting up a Straw Man argument? I believe it's just a long-winded way of stating the hypothesis that all life may have come from the same source, that is, all living creatures had a common ancestor.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Smarmy (aka Bill?)
Macroevolution' is the result of 'microevolution', inevitably.

Great hypothesis. However, the meaning of the facts at hand are subject to discussion, inevitably.

At this moment non-materialists/atheists are doing what they can with school curricula, inevitably.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by hammegk
Great hypothesis. However, the meaning of the facts at hand are subject to discussion, inevitably. It's not a hypothesis, it's the logical result of changes at the genetic level.

Speciation will occur whenever smaller changes add up so that two organisms can no longer easily transfer genetic information between them.

Don't you ever get tired of misrepresenting other people's positions to make yourself look smart, hammy? You don't seem to do anything but lie about what science actually suggests is true, lie about what science is, and present identical but differently named positions as if you were addressing some great division of thought.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Brian the Snail


Well wouldn't convergent evolution do the same thing? In fact, I think the problem is even more basic- it appears to present a false dichotomy in that leads to the notion that similar structures imply similar functional needs and that they imply common ancesty are two sides in a debate, and that the latter is some kind of argument against evolution. Evolutionary biology considers both possibilities as valid.

Moreover, how does ID handle the concept that sometimes, things with similar functions are very different in their structure?

Consider for example all the versions of eyes. The squid eye is very different from the human eye. The dog eye lacks the cones, so it can't see as well in color. So if the designer had an eye that works, why go through all the variations?

It seems to me that the big question is not how do we account for the similarity, but how do we account for the different structures for the same function?



Why is a dolphin a mammal and not a fish? The designer had a perfectly fine working model for a swimming creature in a fish, but then creates a mammal that swims, without using the fish design? I mean, aside from having eyes on the outside of the head and a mouth, dolphins and fish are basically nothing alike. Fins, tails, breathing, they are all different.

The only ID explanation is "that's the way the IDer wanted it."

And that is being passed off as science.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
If it mentions the concepts of macroevolution and microevolution seriously, it's already deeply flawed.

Don't you know, it's a distinction that creationists use so that they can still deny that evolution can be directly observed.

They want it both ways. They want to say that evolution hasn't and cannot be observed, and they've promoted the idea of "microevolution" as being merely small, negligble changes that while experimentally demonstrable, do not contribute to macroevolution.

It's the old gaps in the fossil record fallacy. The more fossils you find, the more gaps they can claim.


Microevolution and macroevolution are scientific terms that are used by serious scientific endeavors, however. Just because it mentions them doesn't mean it's an anti-scientific point of view.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

I've never heard those terms used outside of an ID discussion, frankly. Where and when are they used as part of biology?

[Brian the Snail]

There's an interesting article about macroevolution here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

Basically it says that the term is used in biology (indeed it originated there) but it's not used much. Basically it has been co-opted by the creationists who try to say that there's some kind of big difference between it and microevolution.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Thank you - due to your efforts, I am now more knowledgeable than I was before. A more-significant achievement on your part than you may realize! :c)

I see that the word 'speciation' is generally used instead. That makes much more sense. There's really no reason to distinguish one from of genetic change from the other, since one follows from the other.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Thank you - due to your efforts, I am now more knowledgeable than I was before. A more-significant achievement on your part than you may realize! :c)

I see that the word 'speciation' is generally used instead. That makes much more sense. There's really no reason to distinguish one from of genetic change from the other, since one follows from the other.

The problem with the term macroevolution as used by creationists is that they basically mean "evolution between kinds." Now, getting them to describe what is a kind without having them resort to examples ("See, there is the dog kind, and the bird kinds, just look at them, it's obvious") or to a circular argument ("Kinds are the groups of animals created by God between which there hasn't been any evolution") is a separate issue.

They have a real challenge on their hands because they know they can't claim that kinds are species, because speciation is known, and they can't move it back to genus, either, because that would require evolution at an amazing rate to generate the diversity we see today.

I have always wanted to know, are bats and mice the same kind? They sure look the same to me...

[hammegk]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


I have always wanted to know, are bats and mice the same kind? They sure look the same to me...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11999322&dopt=Abstract

Some fair amount of similarity, apparently. The article also hypothesizes about speciation (or as some call it, macroevolution).

[pupdog]

Microevolution--macroevolution...Independent creation of phyla, top-down/bottom-up evolution, &c.

But when you stop and think about, the higher categories are products of our way of thinking and viewing and classifying the world--they're not real things. How does what the Creationists offer explain the diversity of life? The Ohio Plan does not provide any such explanations, but merely allows for the Creationists' tired, oft-refuted, erroneous and misguided criticisms of evolution to be introduced to the classroom. There should be no problem in presenting alledged arguments to evolution--after all, they are so often raised (by those who don't know better [and by many who do know better])--as long as they are not introduced as new science about to "overthrow" accepted knowledge. Just like, in a physics class, there could be a discussion about the common attempted marketing of free energy devices. their promotors provide lots of hot air, but no science.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by hammegk

The scientific method provides a very very good description of the world that is perceived stretching from bosons up through the universe. The "apparent" (and imo imaginary) dichotomy shows itself in the human macro world as HPC -- body vs mind -- at micro micro levels as particle vs wave, and at other times non-life vs life. When science decides the axiom "Objective, Physical, Reality exists" rather than "Objective Reality Exists", a choice has been made. Again, define "energy", with the best description being the math defining an infinite-in-extent field.

The choice has been made in that fashion only because the scientific method only applies to the physical; thus, science can only concern itself with the physical. There is no popular method for dealing with things "beyond the physical", thus everyone is free to make his own choice about those things. If you have something that can't be physically proven, you can't expect any scientist to account for its existence. It's like going to an auto mechanic and asking him to perform a trachaeotomy on you. You're talking to the wrong guy.

Originally posted by hammegk
And I submit you are entitled to your opinion as are the rest of us. When you define what and what not will be taught in schools, without noting the shaky underpinnings on which you stand (although as you mentioned, scientists admit this candidly to each other) we arrive at one of the current hotly disputed points, ID for lack of a better term.

It stands to reason that "science" is what would be dealt with in a "science" classroom...perhaps I'm missing something there, but I doubt it. We learn about the scientific method, its strengths and weakness (including ultimate uncertainty) around fifth grade. Who is 'not noting the shaky underpinnings'? Scientists don't just admit this to each other; they freely acknowledge it to the world at large. Remember, the most famous scientists are the ones who disprove important scientific concepts.

Here's the quick and dirty on "ID": all it really does is try to expose said "shaky underpinnings", but the ones it "exposes" usually don't exist, or are incorrectly presented, which is why it's so easy to deal with. On the other hand, it never tries to justify the first part of itself. For example, much ado is made about the (untrue) notion that an eye could not function if any of its parts didn't exist at the particular developmental stage they do now. This concept has been shown the door plenty of times...but even if it weren't, there's no word on why that particular "fact" would necessitate an intelligent "designer".

Originally posted by hammegk
And if more "scientists" would candidly admit same, again the point would be moot.

They do, so it is.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


The choice has been made in that fashion only because the scientific method only applies to the physical; thus, science can only concern itself with the physical. There is no popular method for dealing with things "beyond the physical", thus everyone is free to make his own choice about those things.
So close to reason! What you managed with that comment is force the choice into a monism. Due to the vagaries of Language, physical vs non-physical is one way to express it. If "physical" is the choice, by any logic either a meaningful god cannot exist, or god, if such exists, is physical. Science does not answer the Questions: Does god Exist? Does god Not Exist ?

Science does state that it can explain a very high percentage of what we perceive by our "perceived physical body" as "what-is".

Denial of solipsism then provides the framework I think, you think, lot's of things (maybe everything) think, at the most basic level in the sense a given existent may, or may not, react to a given stimulus.



It stands to reason that "science" is what would be dealt with in a "science" classroom...perhaps I'm missing something there, but I doubt it. We learn about the scientific method, its strengths and weakness (including ultimate uncertainty) around fifth grade. Who is 'not noting the shaky underpinnings'? Scientists don't just admit this to each other; they freely acknowledge it to the world at large. Remember, the most famous scientists are the ones who disprove important scientific concepts.
True. The problem is that science does not answer the god-is god-is-not question, although as taught Theory of evolution implies the correct amswer is god-is-not. That is what is being objected to.


They do, so it is.
Sure, that's why this thread, and topic exists. That is, the perception that they do not is stronger than the perception that thay do.

Again, the statements God Does Not Exist, and Science Can Explain The Stuff We Perceive Without Any God are not equivalent.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by hammegk
So close to reason! Yes you are! Unfortunately, you keep missing it. Keep trying, hammy!

What you managed with that comment is force the choice into a monism. Due to the vagaries of Language, physical vs non-physical is one way to express it. If "physical" is the choice, by any logic either a meaningful god cannot exist, or god, if such exists, is physical. Science does not answer the Questions: Does god Exist? Does god Not Exist ? Nonsense. Those questions are as answerable as any other. 'Existence' indicates interaction with the world, and it's this interaction that we call 'physical effects'.

You don't seem to understand that 'physical' is not a preconceived concept. It's not a defined set with limited characteristics, from which we can distinguish 'non-physical' things. It's a category into which we place all events that exist - we don't make any further assumptions or claims about their nature. Things outside the universe may exist relative to themselves, but they don't exist to us. If gods aren't physical, they don't exist. This is a tautology.

If you would only abandon your 12th-century ideas about physicality, you'd realize that point.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm

You don't seem to understand that 'physical' is not a preconceived concept. It's not a defined set with limited characteristics, from which we can distinguish 'non-physical' things. It's a category into which we place all events that exist - we don't make any further assumptions or claims about their nature. Things outside the universe may exist relative to themselves, but they don't exist to us. If gods aren't physical, they don't exist. This is a tautology.
We agree that if god exists the existence does not occur outside the universe. That's why I am an objective idealist while so far as I can tell you are an objective physicalist.

Language again. Sure, you & I can, and do, agree that in some strict sense "physical" is not a pre-defined concept. Do you claim we could or should convince a significant portion of humanity we are "correct" and their understanding is "incorrect". That is, any form of duality is illogical, so "mind" & "matter" are undifferentiated?


If you would only abandon your 12th-century ideas about physicality, you'd realize that point.
LOL. Innuendo as usual.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by hammegk

Do you claim we could or should convince a significant portion of humanity we are "correct" and their understanding is "incorrect"...?
Regardless of what we think we should do, ideas will continue to compete against one another in memespace, subject to natural selection. Our role is merely as temporary vehicles. But the types of selective pressures ideas must endure will always vary from one area of memespace to another. Ideas with a strong emotional appeal will thrive in a certain type of vehicle, while in another, those relying on evidence and logic to achieve an evolutionarily stable strategy will always have the advantage.

[hammegk]

Agreed, D.

May your 100% left-brain world not occur for a few more years.


Following Edit simultaneous with Dymanic's following post -- whoops.

We still lack a book we need: The Scientific Basis for Ethics & Morals. When written and once the great unwashed agree, utopia will be reality.

:D

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by hammegk

May your 100% left-brain world not occur for a few more years
I don't see there being much risk of that.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by hammegk


Again, the statements God Does Not Exist, and Science Can Explain The Stuff We Perceive Without Any God are not equivalent.


Science makes no such statement. Neither statement.

What "science" says is: so far, the scientific method has been the best tool we have for seeing how the universe works.

God or no God, airplanes STILL FLY, without magic, and without supposing that an invisible magical force created by God holds the little birdies up in the air.


I'm sure that if God wanted His presence known, He could find a way for science to find Him. Funny that He hasn't.

And if God were making His presence known, science would be the FIRST tool to detect it. By telescope, microscope or radio antenna. By biology, geology or astronomy. If God wanted to be found, He could make His presence seen and heard and felt worldwide, and science would PROVE it to be so.
Science isn't mute on the existence of God. God is mute.

Science is about doing experiments, and making predictions based on hypotheses, and TESTING those predictions.

Name me one prediction that Creationists have made about the natural world that would prove even ONE ASPECT of Creationism.

You can't. And they can't. If God used Creationism, he didn't want the results to be detectable by human beings.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Silicon


Science makes no such statement. Neither statement.
Maybe Science needs a better PR firm. I have the feeling a lot of people disagree with you. I know I do.


If God used Creationism, he didn't want the results to be detectable by human beings.
My, my, what a terrocentric anthropomorphic god you have identified.

I agree that the the god-is god-is-not question is not in the purview of Science. Or did I miss publication of acclaimed-correct-by-all tome, The Science of Philosophy?


I repeat, Objective Idealists have no quarrel with science and the scientific method as it examines the perceived 3rd person world.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by hammegk

So close to reason! What you managed with that comment is force the choice into a monism. Due to the vagaries of Language, physical vs non-physical is one way to express it. If "physical" is the choice, by any logic either a meaningful god cannot exist, or god, if such exists, is physical.

Not at all. Being "non-physical" does not necessarily mean that thing X does not exist; it just means science cannot be the authority which makes the determination regarding its existence. All it can say is "it appears not to exist".

Originally posted by hammegk
Science does not answer the Questions: Does god Exist? Does god Not Exist ?

It simply cannot.

Originally posted by hammegk
True. The problem is that science does not answer the god-is god-is-not question, although as taught Theory of evolution implies the correct amswer is god-is-not. That is what is being objected to.

Nonsense. Evolution implicitly or explicitly says absolutely nothing on the existence of God, which is why the vast overwhelming majority of theists have absolutely no problem with it. Evolution does contradict one or two very specific concepts of God (which is what makes some people upset), but that doesn't mean God doesn't exist. At the most it simply implies that "God isn't that way". When peoples' individual concepts of the non-physical stray into the physical (such as the beginning of life as portrayed in Book X), science can observe nature and say "wait a minute...that's not true. See, look..." because the concept then falls within science's perview. If it stays in the non-physical, science can't touch it.

Originally posted by hammegk
Again, the statements God Does Not Exist, and Science Can Explain The Stuff We Perceive Without Any God are not equivalent.

Who is arguing with this?

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

There is no debate after the decodification of the human DNA secuence. The junk DNA shows clearly that all life on earth have a common ancestor

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


Not at all. Being "non-physical" does not necessarily mean that thing X does not exist; it just means science cannot be the authority which makes the determination regarding its existence. All it can say is "it appears not to exist".
True, although "science provides no answer to any question of the reality of any existant external to our universe" would be closer to the truth.


Nonsense. Evolution implicitly or explicitly says absolutely nothing on the existence of God, ....... See, look..." because the concept then falls within science's perview. If it stays in the non-physical, science can't touch it.
The problem here is that materialists and immaterialists both agree interactive dualism is logically impossible. If it effects or affects "what-is' it IS "what-is", not "something else".


Who is arguing with this?

The mass of humanity who never hear the actual truth of the "matter", and imo have faith that Scientists -- when it is actually materialists/atheists -- make the claim "God Does Not Exist".


Luci: haven't seen you lately, hi. Re your claim, phooey. All hat, no cattle, as some folks say. The analysis of DNA / Evolution / Science can certainly say "science can rationalize -- nearly completely -- that all life on earth has a common ancestor.

[pupdog]

Silicon:Name me one prediction that Creationists have made about the natural world that would prove even ONE ASPECT of Creationism.
"The World will end tomorrow!"

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by hammegk

Luci: haven't seen you lately, hi. Re your claim, phooey. All hat, no cattle, as some folks say. The analysis of DNA / Evolution / Science can certainly say "science can rationalize -- nearly completely -- that all life on earth has a common ancestor. [/B]

Hi, I've mostly lurking. Let's see the papers.
http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/poolearticle.html

Maybe there were 2 or 3 LUCA's. So the creationist history now could be stated as ""God created 3 replicators, at the beginning" :P

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by hammegk
True, although "science provides no answer to any question of the reality of any existant external to our universe" would be closer to the truth. Your concepts are muddled. Things outside our universe cannot be said to exist relative to it. The answer is no, these hypotheticals do not exist.

The problem here is that materialists and immaterialists both agree interactive dualism is logically impossible. Again, your thinking is confused. There is no "materialist/immaterialist" division. The two groups you perceive are one.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm


Again, your thinking is confused. There is no "materialist/immaterialist" division. The two groups you perceive are one. [/B]

So you assert. We have 2 groups, those who have faith your evidence makes that the correct assertion, and those who don't.

Say, maybe you could provide the chain of logic that would prove your assertion to everyone's satisfaction!

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by hammegk
So you assert. We have 2 groups, those who have faith your evidence makes that the correct assertion, and those who don't. No, we have those who recognize that there is no distinction, and we have hammy.

Say, maybe you could provide the chain of logic that would prove your assertion to everyone's satisfaction! Things are ultimately defined by their properties, and their properties are how they interact with the universe. It doesn't matter whether we consider stuff to be "things" in themselves (what you would call 'material') or abstract representations of another system (what you would call 'immaterial'): they behave in exactly the same way and are the same. To use theistic terminology, there's no distinction between being part of the mind of god and being part of a creation of god: they're just two equivalent descriptions of the underlying reality.

It's elementary. Perhaps you would care to offer counterdefinitions of the concepts you reference so often, that is, material and immaterial?

[hammegk]

Luci: Thanks for the interesting link.

I noticed
Carl Woese, one of the key players in the bid to reconstruct the tree of life, has added another twist to the LUCA puzzle. He has got researchers fired up by suggesting that:
LUCA was also into gene swapping, and on a much larger scale than what we observe in modern bacteria
gene swapping was once more important than inheritance from parent to offspring, and that early archaea, bacteria and eukaryotes each emerged independently from a 'sea' of gene transfer8
It's not clear how his claims could be tested, but they are certainly food for thought -- if he's right there never was a single LUCA, but more of a community of genes loosely associated with cells.
should give OECs all the "kinds" they would ever want. Whoops!


:D

by Smarmy (aka Bill??)
..there's no distinction between being part of the mind of god and being part of a creation of god: they're just two equivalent descriptions of the underlying reality.
Can't see the oneness of mind, more-than-oneness of a creation?

OK by me.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by hammegk
Can't see the oneness of mind, more-than-oneness of a creation? Oh really? In what way does that "more-than-oneness" manifest? What difference does it make?

Can you offer an example of a situation in which the implications of the first conceptualization differ from those of the second?

[hammegk]

Nope. Wish I could. It's a form of 1st person/3rd person dichotomy at our level, Life vs Non-life at another. The only person who can assist you in this effort is you. So far as I can tell, no one else "knows" what another "knows", or the premises & logic that might convince that other person.

Complain to our buddy Witt. who last addressed at least part of the difficulty. Sorry. :(

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by hammegk
Luci: Thanks for the interesting link.

I noticed
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Woese, one of the key players in the bid to reconstruct the tree of life, has added another twist to the LUCA puzzle. He has got researchers fired up by suggesting that:
LUCA was also into gene swapping, and on a much larger scale than what we observe in modern bacteria
gene swapping was once more important than inheritance from parent to offspring, and that early archaea, bacteria and eukaryotes each emerged independently from a 'sea' of gene transfer8
It's not clear how his claims could be tested, but they are certainly food for thought -- if he's right there never was a single LUCA, but more of a community of genes loosely associated with cells.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


should give OECs all the "kinds" they would ever want. Whoops!


:D

Gene swapping was the most usual method of DNA exchange in the early earth. Remember that sexual reproduction is relatively modern. but there are 2 important things to remember:

1.- Complex organisms can't swap genes!.
2.- Carl's claim is contrary to Occam's razor, so he had to have more convincing proofs to be taken into acconut.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by hammegk
Nope. Wish I could. It's a form of 1st person/3rd person dichotomy at our level, Life vs Non-life at another. The only person who can assist you in this effort is you. So far as I can tell, no one else "knows" what another "knows", or the premises & logic that might convince that other person. In other words, your justification is the same as Ian's: of course things have free will and psi ability, it's trivially obvious, you just can't offer an explanation or even an argument.

Your convictions are unassailable, protected from the cruel glare of rational discussion and reasoned debate by walls of ignorance and arrogance. I hope you find life in your pseudo-philosophical shell to be pleasant.

[hammegk]

Back to the usual billsh*t and innuendo I see. Freewill? If compatabilism suits you, okeydokey with me. PSI? I don't recall ever discussing the subject, other than to note that I've never seen a scientific validation of those purported phenomena. I also wish you the best as a materialist/atheist (if that is actually what you are). Do even you know?

Care to offer a fact, or even a conjecture, that might have a modicum of relevance to the discussion?

[geni]

Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale
1.- Complex organisms can't swap genes!.


Hasn't it been argued that virues can perform a simular function?

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by hammegk
PSI? I don't recall ever discussing the subject, other than to note that I've never seen a scientific validation of those purported phenomena. That's Ian's position, you dope.

Care to offer a fact, or even a conjecture, that might have a modicum of relevance to the discussion? Aha! And thus the final part of my prediction has come to pass!

Here's a fact: you're insisting upon a distinction that you can't offer an argument for, while there's is a simple and powerful argument that shows it's invalid.

Here's another one: you can't actually explain any of the assumptions you're making, and you resort to insults and obfuscation when you're asked to do so.

[hammegk]

Yeah, we do seem to have a wee problem. I contend "thought exists", you contend "non-thought exists". If you can handle that assumption of yours best fitting the facts as you understand them, sobeit.

So far as I know, there is no other difference in any of our assumptions, although some are and will always be just assumptions.

Can A and not-A both be true? Modern physics is ambivalent about the answer. Consider particle/wave ambiguity, or implications of the Bell/Aspect results. Use your simple argument to wave them away. (Perhaps into the aether??? :D )

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by hammegk
Yeah, we do seem to have a wee problem. I contend "thought exists", you contend "non-thought exists". Oh, really? Could you point out a post where I made such a contention?

If you can handle that assumption of yours best fitting the facts as you understand them, sobeit. This is a theme you return to often. We're discussing logic and reason, hammy - what we're "happy with" is irrelevant. Either an argument is valid, or it is invalid. Whether we like it makes no difference.

So far as I know, there is no other difference in any of our assumptions, although some are and will always be just assumptions. And what assumptions do you assert I'm making, hammy? C'mon, explain what your axioms are and how you're confident I share them.

Can A and not-A both be true? Modern physics is ambivalent about the answer. Consider particle/wave ambiguity, or implications of the Bell/Aspect results. Use your simple argument to wave them away. (Perhaps into the aether??? :D ) Ah yes, bringing quantum physics into the debate. Nice woo-wooism there.

The simple answer is that they can't, but the world never fit into the categories of A and ~A in the first place.

[Renfield]

Originally posted by hammegk

Yeah, that stuff we perceive.


May I say "false dichotomy"? Mistaken? Perhaps.

As usual; all innuendo, no facts.

He never claimed there was a dichotomy, so countering by saying its a false one doesn't make much sense.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Renfield


He never claimed there was a dichotomy, so countering by saying its a false one doesn't make much sense.

Ya know, fumduck, I finally found what I said, in context, that you casually strung together willy-nilly.

Does *anything* make sense to you, ever?


Originally posted by Smarmy

Oh, really? Could you point out a post where I made such a contention?
Of course not. Your contentions remain hidden, unspoken, and implicit so there is never a need to defend them.

And what assumptions do you assert I'm making, hammy? C'mon, explain what your axioms are and how you're confident I share them.
You know, the ones our local genius BillsHite trots out from time to time. Are you saying he is wrong? If so, go argue with him.


but the world never fit into the categories of A and ~A in the first place.
Far out, bro! We might find some common ground yet.


what we're "happy with" is irrelevant.
Farther out! Are you sure you're not over- or under-medicating? Suit yourself, but your acquaintances, friends, & family must lead "interesting" lives when around you.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Strange... it seems to me that my points are always explicit and up-front.

If you'd like to present an argument that I have other claims I'm not mentioning, feel free to do so. Until then, perhaps you should find topics more worthy of your intellectual skills.

[hammegk]

Strange. I notice you continue with innuendo rather than fact.

I find your unwillingness to address any of the points I raised in this thread interesting. How about taking a swing at something?

Do you disagree with any BillHoyt axiom? However, once you agreed that A and not-A may not be exclusive, do you see where logic disppeared entirely? What counterclaim do you propose to my claim "thought exists"?

You brought an interesting point to the table elsewhere. How about adding one here.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

You don't get it. The categories of A and ~A may not have applied to the universe in the first place. That doesn't mean that logic is suspended.

Y'know, I'd like to respond to your statements, but they seem to require significant interpretation first, and you don't seem to be willing to elaborate on some very cryptic and seemingly nonsensical statements. I'm still waiting for an explanation on why anyone, or myself in particular, would reach different conclusions when thinking about certain questions from either the 'materialist' or 'immaterialist' perspectives.

[hammegk]

As usual at an impasse. I have no idea how to even begin to clarify my assertion in terms that might bring a eureka! moment to you. Your assertions that "you're wrong" add no value to me to aid in my understanding/misunderstanding.

I will do my best to answer specific questions. As we sit I have no idea why you fail to see a dichotomy we could be discussing.

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by geni



Hasn't it been argued that virues can perform a simular function?

Define complex :confused: