"Not only for the verb design, but also for the verb love"
what?! Hilarious. Its absolutely clear you arent quite right. You wont answer reasonable questions and are simply a massive waste of time. You are the best advert for ID ever.
Actually, Gerald's logic is very well spoken and laid out. I actually don't disagree with his terms, his verbs, and their referents, and hence apply them. Consistently. Doing so carries us where it carries us,
I just told you: Because of an un-searchable array of Networks, an ontological history of becoming, verbs, the referents of those verbs, nature's fundamental causes/forces, and semantic consistency. Perhaps you can read the previous X-hundred or so comments here to tease that out. It's too much to copy/paste. I mean, really.
"Because of an un-searchable array of Networks, an ontological history of becoming, verbs, the referents of those verbs, nature's fundamental causes/forces, and semantic consistency."
But that is meaningless waffle.
I mean "ontological history of becoming"? Just ridiculous clever sounding GARBAGE - I know my philosophy, and science, and you do not.
I kind of liked those terms and nuances. Gerald is very insightful. And his writing is just fun to read, being adept at it as he is. He's worth reading.
It's all the same. From the universe with the minded observer all streaming from the epicenter of Big Bang cosmology to Network after Network after Network to Laptops to Ford Edges. It's not I.D. It's un-searchable array of Networks, an ontological history of becoming, verbs, the referents of those verbs, nature's fundamental causes/forces, and semantic consistency. It's not I.D. It's semantic consistency constituting the verb "design".
It's all the same. From the universe with the minded observer all streaming from the epicenter of Big Bang cosmology to Network after Network after Network to Laptops to Ford Edges. It's not I.D. It's an un-searchable array of Networks, an ontological history of becoming, verbs, the referents of those verbs, nature's fundamental causes/forces, and semantic consistency. It's not I.D. It's semantic consistency constituting the verb "design".
Not only for the verb design, but also for the verb love, FWIW.....
Posted by: scbrownlhrm | June 14, 2016 at 05:57 AM
"Not only for the verb design, but also for the verb love"
what?! Hilarious. Its absolutely clear you arent quite right. You wont answer reasonable questions and are simply a massive waste of time. You are the best advert for ID ever.
Posted by: Mike | June 14, 2016 at 07:13 AM
It's not ID.
It's wide arrays of converging Networks.
Posted by: scbrownlhrm | June 14, 2016 at 07:22 AM
What?
So its Intelligent "wide arrays of converging networks"?
What. on. earth. are. you. on. about.?
Posted by: Mike | June 14, 2016 at 07:39 AM
Ask Gerald.
Posted by: scbrownlhrm | June 14, 2016 at 08:12 AM
You are so odd it is impossible to have a conversation with you. You won't state what you think apart from incoherent and inaccurate philosophy.
What others online have said about you online is entirely accurate. Your posts are confused, rambling and over verbose.
Posted by: Mike | June 14, 2016 at 09:11 AM
Actually, Gerald's logic is very well spoken and laid out. I actually don't disagree with his terms, his verbs, and their referents, and hence apply them. Consistently. Doing so carries us where it carries us,
Posted by: scbrownlhrm | June 14, 2016 at 09:47 AM
Round and round and round........
So why do you think biological organisms are designed?!
One last attempt to get you to answer a straightforward question.
Posted by: Mike | June 14, 2016 at 10:56 AM
I just told you: Because of an un-searchable array of Networks, an ontological history of becoming, verbs, the referents of those verbs, nature's fundamental causes/forces, and semantic consistency. Perhaps you can read the previous X-hundred or so comments here to tease that out. It's too much to copy/paste. I mean, really.
Posted by: scbrownlhrm | June 14, 2016 at 11:32 AM
"Because of an un-searchable array of Networks, an ontological history of becoming, verbs, the referents of those verbs, nature's fundamental causes/forces, and semantic consistency."
But that is meaningless waffle.
I mean "ontological history of becoming"? Just ridiculous clever sounding GARBAGE - I know my philosophy, and science, and you do not.
Ok you are an utter waste of time. Bye.
Posted by: Mike | June 14, 2016 at 01:25 PM
I kind of liked those terms and nuances. Gerald is very insightful. And his writing is just fun to read, being adept at it as he is. He's worth reading.
Posted by: scbrownlhrm | June 14, 2016 at 03:06 PM
It's all the same. From the universe with the minded observer all streaming from the epicenter of Big Bang cosmology to Network after Network after Network to Laptops to Ford Edges. It's not I.D. It's un-searchable array of Networks, an ontological history of becoming, verbs, the referents of those verbs, nature's fundamental causes/forces, and semantic consistency. It's not I.D. It's semantic consistency constituting the verb "design".
Posted by: scbrownlhrm | June 24, 2016 at 11:40 AM
Add the word "an" ....
It's all the same. From the universe with the minded observer all streaming from the epicenter of Big Bang cosmology to Network after Network after Network to Laptops to Ford Edges. It's not I.D. It's an un-searchable array of Networks, an ontological history of becoming, verbs, the referents of those verbs, nature's fundamental causes/forces, and semantic consistency. It's not I.D. It's semantic consistency constituting the verb "design".
Posted by: scbrownlhrm | June 24, 2016 at 11:44 AM