Dodging your self generated outing of your own anthropomorphism based view of "Universal Nature" as Her just cracks me up... You been caught fantasizing about Her with your little pee pee in your hands... Anthropomorphism is the attribution of uniquely human characteristics and qualities to nonhuman beings, inanimate objects, or natural or supernatural phenomena. Animals, forces of nature, and unseen or unknown sources of chance are frequent subjects of anthropomorphosis. The term is derived from two Greek words, ἄνθρωπος (anthrōpos), meaning human, and μορφή (morphē, meaning shape or form. The suffix '-ism' originates from the morpheme -ισμός or -ισμα in the Greek language.
Gee you get touchy when I talk about your boyfriend... if that's so it leaves you caught with your boyfriends pee wee in yours eww
Gee, stupid sure sounds homophobic... Now, when you make love with Her, what, do you fuck a hole in a tree?
Typical Z quality here folks. I notice that the Disgusting Troll's (repulsive) output has been mostly this kind of thing lately. Looks like being attacked for his constant assertion and hypocrisy has taken its toll.
Stu, Your responses to me are getting more and more incoherent. I suspect you are suffering from Darwinian dissonance. I suggest you read the next post.
Darwinian Dissonance? by Paul A. Dernavich It is safe to say that the creation/evolution debate will not be resolved anytime soon, and why should it? With the recent squabbles in states throughout America, and the Dawkinses and Dembskis trading haymakers with each other, things are only getting interesting. Although I am merely a ringside observer, I am here to blow the whistle on some apparent foul play which I have observed. It is up to you to determine whether any of the participants should be disqualified. Let's go to the videotape... Simply put, the language used by many of today's prominent Darwin defenders, at least as it appears in the popular press, is inherently self-defeating, as if they had a collective case of cognitive dissonance. They routinely describe non-human processes as if they were actual people. No sooner do they finish arguing that the universe could not possibly have an Intelligent Designer, that they proceed to comment on how the universe is so seemingly intelligently designed. No sooner do they discredit evidence for a grand, cosmic plan, that they reveal their anticipation towards what the next phase of it will be. Let me give you examples. Dr. Massimo Pigliucci, in his Secular Web critique of Intelligent Design theory "Design Yes, Intelligent No", utilizes several phrases whose "scientific" definitions, I assume, are sufficiently esoteric enough to obscure the fact that, as concepts, they defy common sense. He describes the natural world as being a result of "non-conscious" creativity, "non-intelligent design," and "chaotic self-organizing phenomena." If these terms mean something very specific to evolutionary biologists, it cannot be anything that is inferred by the actual words themselves. For the very notion of design cannot be thought of in any other terms than that of a conscious being with an intent, a scheme, a protocol, a plan, or an intellect. Each of the 21 definitions of "design" in Webster's pertain to a living subject, human by implication. This is not to say that random arrangements of things cannot be fantastically complex; but if they are not purposefully complex then the word "design" is incorrect. And "non-conscious" creativity is a cluster of words similar to "triangular circles": an excessively clever term to describe something that can't possibly exist. Other examples abound. A 1999 Time magazine cover story described human evolution like it was General Motors, replacing the "clunkers" with "new and improved" models: but doing it, of course, "blindly and randomly." Spare me, please, from blind and random "improvements." In the most recent Free Inquiry (the magazine of the Council for Secular Humanism), a scholar writes that both "Christians and humanists agree on one thing: that humans are the most valuable form of life on the planet," and that we are "the crown of earthly creation." That is precisely the one thing that a secular humanist cannot call us: the crown of earthly creation. And valuable? Valuable to whom, and on what basis? Another term which receives heavy usage is "success," as in a "successful" species of lizard. But in order for anything to be a success, it must have had some prior goal or standard to fulfill. If we cannot confirm a purpose for which life is supposed to have originated, how can we say anything is a success? What if chickens were supposed to fly? What if beavers were supposed to build A-frames? Naturalistically speaking, anything is successful if it exists. Even a pebble is successful at being a pebble. Finally, Robert Wright, in a New Yorker piece which dope-slaps Stephen Jay Gould for being an unwitting ally to creationists, proves himself to be a pretty solid creationist in his own right, as he goes on to refer to natural selection as a "tireless engineer" with a "remarkable knack for invention," even comparing it to a brain, indicative of a higher purpose, which stacks the evolutionary deck and responds to positive feedback. Maybe evolution is a focus group!? Whether it is by ignorance, defiance or the limits of our language, these Darwin defenders liberally use terms which are not available to them, given their presuppositions. One cannot deny the cake, and then proceed to eat from it!
am glad my taxes aren't paying for such humourless superficial articles as these... why we need that sort of shallow uninspired commentary - OMG i caught a scientist saying the weather is beautiful! he was trying to pass for human! - when we have bourdieu, baudrillard etc is beyond me... not worth the ink...
oh, and this blander than bland article was from when? 2001... no wonder teleo wouldn't provide links nor authors' background info... http://www.iidb.org/vbb/archive/index.php/t-89.html keep going teleo, with that sort of credentials u've been accumulating all along this thread, am sure your recruitment effort on ET is paying off i mean, who wouldn't be proud to be on yr team honestly?