misc lexeme morpholgy and semantic theory

Birds can fly.
​
Unicorns are birds.
​
Therefore, unicorns can fly.

Seems pretty logical and illusory to me.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Unicorns are not birds.Now, if you'll excuse me... I am going on vacation for a week!

That doesn't change the logic. Enjoy.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Of course there's no dilemma at all. Evolution is so much beter than the vagueness promoted by self-styled "design theorists" - who have yet to produce a theory that there is literally no contest.Feel free to give up morality and reality for your "design inference" if you wish. I prefer honesty and reality - and so evolution is the answer.

Just so you know, my post was not the usual complaint about your 'preachiness'. I am still trying to make the mental leap from 'theory' and 'theology', to inferred design. What I can make out reminds me of the technique of sermonizing or story telling, where the stage is set with little details that allow the grand finale more believability. My girl is a few days shy of 14 months, and I know the feeling well.I will let you go on with Nosy.

Maybe you got what I meant? Coherence is a page turner which provides the build up to a 'logical' conclusion. I probably read too many mysteries, but I think it is important as a Christian not to begin writing our own 'reality' script just because science is looming like a big, bad crow.Rob is getting near to the pantheistic concepts I mentioned in my 'Immanance' thread. ID verges on deism or a God detached from creation. I predict that Christianity will lose it's core altogether at the hands of its own proponants, or at the least, we will see new sects arise which identify themselves more by their scientific views than their theology.

Haven't left for vacation yet. Still preparing to leave tomorrow morning. Busy... but still with ya!Anastasia: I am getting the biggest joy out of PaulK's frustration with this...But I am suprised you're having difficulty... though you are a much more sophisticated politician than I, Ms. Adminastasia. A shrewd one you are... quite the diplomat.You see, as NJ agreed in Molbiogirl's thread on Behe, they will not allow us to use 'theological language'... they insist upon 'theoretical language' (which is the same thing with a slight difference). Theological language repects the living aspect of Reality's (God's) nature. Theoretical language only looks at it from a purely intellectual point of view. And that is the Pantheist view.That is why there is little difference between pantheism and secular humanism.The funny thing is, that in either case, design comes through loud and clear.As for pantheism vs christianity, there is much overlap... and much difference. There are things among all of our worldviews that we agree on, so really they all overlap at some point or another. But just because I would agree with a pantheist on some things, does not make me a pantheist.I will say this... IMHO, the pantheist is much closer to the truth than the atheist. In fact, it is a natural progression as we think through from atheism to pantheism to christ. That was the trail of C.S. Lewis.Read 'A Pilgrims Regress'... he looks back upon his journey.That was also my own journey so I relate strongly to it. Though ultimately it is the personal encounter that converts.Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Ringo:Your right Ringo... logic is only logic. so obviously it is not enough. Our assumtpions must be right as well, with which we use logic to theorize upon.Logical consistency
Emperical adequacy
Experiential relevanceWhen they converge you have something.Unicorns do not exist, and that is the rub in your critique. You're suggesting that God does not either. I understand...But that is just the thing... this peculiar man that I wouldn't mention here, actually existed.Now this is not what the topic is about, so we can hash out that kind of thing elsewhere ok?

No at all. I was just illustrating that logic can be illusory.The problem you seem to have with words is that you use little sound-bites like "logic and coherence is never illusory" as if they mean something - but you don't seem to have thought about the idea before you posted it. If you want to discuss the "definition of words" you need to learn to be a lot more careful about how you use words.You could start by using the word "assumption" properly. "Unicorns are birds" is not an assumption, it's a premise.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Thanks for the reply Rob, and I hope you enjoy your vacation. I am not any kind of politician, Mr. Scottness, and I don't have an agenda. I know what you are thinking, and it is not true. In many ways I believe in design. The problems arise when I try to guess where the design figures in in. Is it all conceived of at once, in some moment of creation, or is it guided in an unfolding process which is observed?I won't even bother to differentiate between creation and ID, as they are essentially the same minus whatever specifics come along with Biblical creationism. The point is not that you, Rob, are a pantheist. Rather, IMO, a belief that God started at A and got to B, without special creation and using science as we know it, can only result in the extremes of pantheism or deism. To maintain the integrity of the Christian tradition, the only logical option is to favor a panentheistic view. At least, that is my tentative conclusion. So, my next step was to rehash what we know of God's nature, Biblically or doctrinarily. Christianity has the unfortunate role of making it nearly impossible to comprehend God without Jesus. Christ is trememdous obviously in personal spirituality, but the current conflicts with science illustrate, to me anyway, how genuinely inadequate our picture of God is.I hope I don't get in trouble for mentioning the G word, but please understand that my comments are not repetitions of Paul's, or intended to slight your beliefs. I just see what I see, and I am not done looking yet.

Yes, we all must respect 'the word'. After all, the word means things.I am glad we agree on that. I'll be more careful...Your premise is flawed... a bat is not a bird, it is a mammal. I don't even know what a unicorn would be... but it would be great evidence of a transitional form.

Not The Word™. The words. Again, it's not about the premise. It's about the logic and the fact that logic isn't guaranteed to produce The Truth™. If you start with a false premise you get a false conclusion, like your false parallel between "theory" and "theology".

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

You've missunderstood me...I am undecided on YEC... but I lean toward it. I just don't know that it was six literal days. What is certain, is that it was a specific time period.The irreducible complexity aspects of life (a whole 'nother topic) assures me that life was created whole. I bvelieve we live in a dying world, and that life is 'de-volving' (not a good term) and adapting to the changing evironment.So I believe in natural selection, but it is not evolution... quite the contrary. And that is where you get me wrong.I am nowhere near the pantheist or evolutionary view. And i am still considering the options.God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. He could have created the universe in a millisecond if he wanted to.... But our test of soul, is made in the mystery. It reveals our motive.He has put enough in to make belief in Him a most reasonable thing. But has left enough out so as not to be evidenced on shear reason alone.

Decisions, decisions. Nothing is certain, and although this is horribly off topic, we don't know for sure that Genesis is even concluded. That is one which I am undecided on...the devolving part, as I am leaning toward life being 'started' rather than created. I didn't get you wrong, as I had no information about this part of your belief.Maybe I will make a creationist only topic to discuss specifics? Or, a Genesis-of-the-future topic? You know as well as I do that Genesis goes both ways.

quote:

---

I am getting the biggest joy out of PaulK's frustration with this...

---

Frustration is the wrong word. And I don't think you enjoy being caught in contradictions at all. It's just a brave face you put on in your attempts to escape the truth.