Missing sea creatures

You synthesized,

quote:

---

It gives them an advantage. Are you saying that if God were to make his supremeness unequivocal that all us humans would suddenly becomse stupid?

---

. I dont see how there can be much of a difference between "unequivocableness" and "undecidability".I think this IS what Kant meant with, "On the contrary, with all our knowledge of nature it remains undecided whether that supreme cause is its original ground, accoriding to a final purpose, or not rather, by means of an understanding, determined by the mere necessity of its nature to produce certian forms (according to the analogy of what we call art instinct in animals), without it being necessary to ascribe to it even wisdom, much less the highest wisdom combined with all other properties requisite for the perfection of its product."

quote:

---

Do you have any idea when humans realized they were on a planet?

---

I guess I'm with you a bit CK, I dont understand the double posting next to me and PurpleDawn as PD had in thread 33 the above quote and mine IS restricted to man no matter what kind of god is idolized.

That's correct and that is why Kant had "on the contrary" if I understood him correctly. He had wanted to use this to assert that "physciotheology is a misunderstood physical teleology, only serviceable as a preperation(propaeduetic) for theology, and it is only adequate to this design by the aid of a foreign principle on which it can rely, and not in itself, as its name seems to indicate." but I took it that that IS NOT what you had intended in response to Lam. Kant had said immediately prior, "Physical teleology impels us, it is true, to seek a theology, but it cannot produce one, however far we may investigate nature by means of experience and , in reference to the purposive combination apparent in it, call in the ideas of reason (which must be theoretical for physical problems). What is the use, one might well complain, of placing at the basis of all these arrangements a great understanding incommensurable by us and supposing it to govern the world according to design if nature does not and cannot tell us anything of the final desgin? For without this we cannot refer all these natural purposes to any common point...I should thus have an artistic understanding for scattered purposes, but no wisdom for a final purpose...If this is to be done theoretically, it would presuppose omniscience in me in order to see into the purposes of nature in their whole connection, and in addition the power of conceiveing all possible plans, in comparison with which the present plan would be with justice as the best. For without this complete knowledge of the effect I can arrive at no determinate concept of an intelligence ...Hence, with every possible extension of physcial teleology, according to the propositions above laid down we may say: By the constitution and priciples of our cognitive faculty, we can think of nature,...in no other way than as the product of an understaind to which it is subject. But the theoretical investigation of nature can never reveal to us whether this understading may not also, with the whole of nature and her production, have had a final design (which would not lie in the nature of the sensible world). ON THE CONTRARY, WITH ALL OUR KNOWLEDGE OF NATURE IT REMAINS UNDECIDED..."I only assumed either you or both you and Lam are intelligent. Thanks for helping me to decide. I either have a bit more wisdom in me or else I have become a bit stupider in the process.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-17-2005 21:10 AM

it was a compliment.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-23-2005 14:54 AM

It is less about me than about the creatures that thor opened with:

quote:

---

nothing more than the writings of men inspired by nothing more divine than their own exceptional imagination (possibly enhanced by smoking some serious ganja), then forgetting so many creatures is understandable.

---

but
Jeffereys METHODS OF MATHEMATICAL PHYSICS Cambridge 1950 p600

quote:

---

22.04 Diffusion as a limit. It is strictly meaningless to speak of the temperature at a point, since the temperature expresses the mean energy of random motion of a number of particles; if we speak about the absolute temperature as specified within a factor of 10^-3 we must be considering something of the order of 10^6 particles. In the strict mathematical sense, therefore, the space derivatives of the temperature do not exist. But if l is sufficiently large for the difference of temperature between two places [l] apart to be considerably more than its uncertainity we can convert the equation of condution into a finite difference equation, the one-dimensional form of which is.."

---

this physical possibilty that might even be taxanomically restrictable to cold-bloods seems to have gone unnoticed by MICK but not by SNIKWAD. It is true that I have quite an "imagination". Can we not leave it at that? I asserted that traditional herpetology gives a larger certainty than quantum uncertainty. My intelligence might be disproved in that understanding but thought BECAME the object when in fact it was BOTH the subject and subjetive. If a benefical mutation can be so thought underrestriction of the second law then indeed both DBLevns and Jacen were smart people indeed. Evolutionists because they spend too much time deflunking creationists are not educating students in THIS POSSIBLITY and thus not only short change humaninty in the end but obscure the means somewhat especially as this requires not the full apartus of math but just an ability to keep things in good working order. Claims that DBLevins and Jacen are not smart or that I am just simply using buzz words are simply are not true. What is happening that prevents the difference of telenomics and telematics from being clearly available online is that some educated people simply prefer to use MORE TOOLS than the 1-D would seem to sign. There is nothing wrong with be less efficient if ones got the dough. I just dont have the $ to keep up with that leisure despite my increased connection with clarity. The problem I KNOW is simply somethings about the difference of cold and warm blooded biology. It goes without saying- we all could be "wrong".