...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Deshret
»
"Darwinists don't accept direction in evolution." -- Swenet
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Swenet: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: So you [b]claim that people operating in genetics are operating in a "newtonian" worldview, even though nothing about genetics is based on particle physics[/b].... This is what I mean. [b]Genetics is not about mass and atomic density or the nature of matter[/b] in its most fundamental sense. You are [b]mixing apples and oranges.[/b] The only way genetics or any other branch of modern science [b]is "newtonian" is based on the practice of the "scientific method"[/b] when it comes to observing the world and being able to create theories based on actual tangible "material" examples. (Which comes from alchemy and the observation of nature and the minds eye, meaning thought and contemplation). But [b]genetics as a field of science is not the same as "mechanics".[/b] Of course science deals with [b]tangible "material"[/b] in the real world. Would you fly a plane built by someone who hasn't done any [b]'material' experimentation[/b] to see if it would fly? Of course not. This is what I mean by apples and oranges. Science needs [b]tangible material[/b] proof and evidence in order to advance the tools and calculations related to working in the "material world".[/QUOTE]If by now you still don't understand the Newtonian worldview is not about Newton, Newton's religion, Newton's personal views, Newton's laws, the field of physics, particles, matter, etc. you have severe problems with words and language. All these things I've just mentioned, you've tried to equate with the Newtonian worldview, so we know you're just groping in the dark over several thread pages, trying to push back against a word you don't even understand. You obviously also don't understand what materialism means. I'm starting to realize some people on this site have deep-seated problems with words and concepts. And it's always the same people. The same problems with people not comprehending basic terms and explanations centering around basic terms keeps playing out over years and many threads. I've been here before many times, it's just some other word today. Tomorrow it will be another basic word or concept. It's simply not possible to communicate with people like you without wasting your time. You are definitely in the same comprehension boat as lioness. [/qb][/QUOTE]Swenet, you still aren't understanding what I am saying. I wasn't DISAGREEING with you for the most part. The problem is these ways of European thinking and seeking absolute answers to everything and pretending to "know it all" or "answer it all" that leads to these contradictory and illogical concepts and terms that people may buy into but not understand. Many of these terms are "loaded" with various meanings and contradictory interpretations because of the historical debates and battles between various camps or schools of thought. I don't believe in absolutism "either/or" arguments. And many of the references and citations posted on this thread and arguments elsewhere around this issue deal with absolutes do as well. That is the only thing I am arguing against. There are many ideas being explored that have merits without being seen as "absolute" end all and be all answers to everything. Humans will probably never get to that point and it is that "arrogance" of "western" thinking that creates that illogical quandry. Remember I never argued against "intelligent design" or the "conscious universe" as it is an old concept. But as a "meta physical" argument about cosmology it is not intended to be an argument AGAINST the material universe or against science in general. It is an ontological statement about the "meta" level processes and work in nature and reality which coexist with and operate well within physical reality in a theoretical cosmological statement of philosophy. I mentioned this concept back towards the beginning of the thread. The problem is trying to mix metaphysical philosophical and cosmological arguments or even deist arguments with scientific and material rigor and proof. Like oil and water they never mix. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3