16 Jun 11
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseno its the materialist that are attempting to find the flimsiest of premises to substantiate his materialism. Why? to deny the plainly obvious, there is intelligence and design in creation. Lets ask ourselves just for a moment, did the bees reason on their dance? if i move in a figure of eight three times, that means the flowers are north east of the sun at its zenith? hardly, they are instinctively wise, the capabilities having been put there through an intelligent designer. All the materialists claims amount to nothing but postulation and conjecture the basis of which forms a kind of scientific dogma, they remain are as blinkered and as the meanest medieval church!
Therein lies the problem. Religious people HAVE to believe humans are the pinnacle of
whatever they think is the evolution of mankind and cannot accept the concept of ANY animal having ANYTHING like human intelligence. They cannot think otherwise. They consistently prove the concept of cognitive dissonance and anthropocentrism. I doubt they can even be bothered to look up the definitions, being blinded by religious indoctrination.
17 Jun 11
Originally posted by Penguinno its not my sticking point, its merely a vehicle for expressing consciousness. As for these other questions, those are for the erudite and philosophical amongst you, not a poor peasant farmer like myself
So language seems to be your sticking point. I think we have some questions to clear up then:
1. At what point does 'communication' differ from 'language'
2. Does 'language' require sounds and vocalisation? Surely a language is any means of communicating ideas?
3. Does consciousness really require language? I don't think it does. Consciousness may r ...[text shortened]... s demonstrated 'language' as defined by the answer to question 1 above.
--- Penguin
17 Jun 11
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt's more than postulating when they can take genes and insert them in another life form and create yet another, it's reasoning out what it takes to make life and then manipulating the genes inside to create that which was not here before. That goes way beyond speculation.
no its the materialist that are attempting to find the flimsiest of premises to substantiate his materialism. Why? to deny the plainly obvious, there is intelligence and design in creation. Lets ask ourselves just for a moment, did the bees reason on their dance? if i move in a figure of eight three times, that means the flowers are north east of ...[text shortened]... rms a kind of scientific dogma, they remain are as blinkered and as the meanest medieval church!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10132762
Like I said, all you are proving is your own anthropocentism and cognitive dissonance.
17 Jun 11
Originally posted by sonhouseyes because those genes assembled themselves in the perfect sequence from a pre organic 'soup', to make life possible, all by themselves, and dont even try to pull the self replicating RNA jive! no spiritual content AGAIN, simply base materialism.
It's more than postulating when they can take genes and insert them in another life form and create yet another, it's reasoning out what it takes to make life and then manipulating the genes inside to create that which was not here before. That goes way beyond speculation.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10132762
Like I said, all you are proving is your own anthropocentism and cognitive dissonance.
17 Jun 11
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAs for these other questions, those are for the erudite and philosophical amongst you, not a poor peasant farmer like myself
no its not my sticking point, its merely a vehicle for expressing consciousness. As for these other questions, those are for the erudite and philosophical amongst you, not a poor peasant farmer like myself
If you are claiming to be stupid, then please don't try to make definitive statements about what is possible, what is probable and what is likely. Either get yourself educated so you can make a useful contribution or shut the f*!k up!
--- Penguin. (I really should not allow myself to get so annoyed on my birthday)
17 Jun 11
Originally posted by PenguinYou must be two years old now.
[b]As for these other questions, those are for the erudite and philosophical amongst you, not a poor peasant farmer like myself
If you are claiming to be stupid, then please don't try to make definitive statements about what is possible, what is probable and what is likely. Either get yourself educated so you can make a useful contribution or shut the f*!k up!
--- Penguin. (I really should not allow myself to get so annoyed on my birthday)[/b]
Happy birthday!
17 Jun 11
Originally posted by Penguini claimed nothing of the sort, these petitions of yours hold no interest for me, it was a rather polite way of saying, your questions hold no interest for me and i am rather too busy to answer them at present. Difficult to discern i know, but then again, Burns was a peasant farmer and the simplicity of his work, like Fischers chess, had a lustre all of its own, which one would hardly term, stupid.
[b]As for these other questions, those are for the erudite and philosophical amongst you, not a poor peasant farmer like myself
If you are claiming to be stupid, then please don't try to make definitive statements about what is possible, what is probable and what is likely. Either get yourself educated so you can make a useful contribution or shut the f*!k up!
--- Penguin. (I really should not allow myself to get so annoyed on my birthday)[/b]
It seems that your claims of erudition do not stretch as far as the faculty of manners, have you never read that its 'manners that maketh the man'?, oh dear and here you are, demonstrating a rather glaring ignorance in this regard through your foul language and dogmatic tone, oh well, perhaps if you had cultivated qualities like self control rather than your materialism, you would not have become so annoyed, who can tell? Anyhow here is a verse from the Bible for you to dwell upon hopefully you can grasp the full import of its meaning.
(Ecclesiastes 7:9) Do not hurry yourself in your spirit to become offended, for the taking of offense is what rests in the bosom of the stupid ones.
have a pleasant day.
17 Jun 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieno spiritual content AGAIN, simply base materialism
yes because those genes assembled themselves in the perfect sequence from a pre organic 'soup', to make life possible, all by themselves, and dont even try to pull the self replicating RNA jive! no spiritual content AGAIN, simply base materialism.
It is what it is.
17 Jun 11
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYes, I did let myself get a little het up didn't I? I normally try to be civil and above such childish mudslinging. On this occasion though I failed. Sorry.
i claimed nothing of the sort, these petitions of yours hold no interest for me, it was a rather polite way of saying, your questions hold no interest for me and i am rather too busy to answer them at present. Difficult to discern i know, but then again, Burns was a peasant farmer and the simplicity of his work, like Fischers chess, had a lustre all r the taking of offense is what rests in the bosom of the stupid ones.
have a pleasant day.
these petitions of yours hold no interest for me, it was a rather polite way of saying, your questions hold no interest for me and i am rather too busy to answer them at present.
I'm not sure about this though. I have seen quite a few posts from you on the forum since that one. You seem to be posting with the same regularity now as you were before you said you were 'too busy' so I think it is more that you have run out of arguments but can't bring yourself to admit it. Two of the questions were pretty easy really:
1. Where do you think is the line between communication and language?
2. Does language have to be verbal?
The third one, do you think language is a pre-requisite for consciousness (and why), is maybe a bit harder.
--- Penguin.
17 Jun 11
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOf course there is no spiritual content in manipulating genes, the fundamental underpinnings of our life, these are scientists coming up with something your intelligent designer never did.
yes because those genes assembled themselves in the perfect sequence from a pre organic 'soup', to make life possible, all by themselves, and dont even try to pull the self replicating RNA jive! no spiritual content AGAIN, simply base materialism.
You don't even know what I meant by the last sentence do you?
You prove your own delusions.
You say intelligent design, short for creationism, is "Obvious".
There is NOTHING obvious about it.
18 Jun 11
Originally posted by sonhouseNOTHING obvious about it? You either have delusions or rocks in your head.
Of course there is no spiritual content in manipulating genes, the fundamental underpinnings of our life, these are scientists coming up with something your intelligent designer never did.
You don't even know what I meant by the last sentence do you?
You prove your own delusions.
You say intelligent design, short for creationism, is "Obvious".
There is NOTHING obvious about it.
18 Jun 11
Originally posted by PenguinHappy Birthday
[b]As for these other questions, those are for the erudite and philosophical amongst you, not a poor peasant farmer like myself
If you are claiming to be stupid, then please don't try to make definitive statements about what is possible, what is probable and what is likely. Either get yourself educated so you can make a useful contribution or shut the f*!k up!
--- Penguin. (I really should not allow myself to get so annoyed on my birthday)[/b]