JohnW
Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,12:28) | | Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 02 2012,13:41) | | Quote | | I here have to ask you, because the theory I write/represent has no such dichotomy. |
Perhaps if you answered the questions anyway, and explained why that is as you go along that would help.
| Quote | | It's like me asking you whether your voltmeter can tell the difference between EMF and electricity. |
Except the difference is that we can go and learn about EMP and electricity from someone else other then you.
You are the only person who knows about your theory.
| Quote | | Your next likely reaction would be to wonder what the heck motivated me ask a question like that. |
In fact my next reaction is to wonder why someone who is trying to sell their theory would not take a moment to address a sincere set of questions that are obviously designed to elicit something of relevance.
The fact that from your lofty viewpoint these questions are like asking whether your voltmeter can tell the difference between EMF and electricity is beside the point. It's your theory, so deign to descend and explain it even if it's in the context of a set of questions that make no sense when considered from the framework of your theory.
If you can't make the person asking the questions believe that those questions do not make sense if they understand then theory by explaining the theory to them in that context then you don't even have something that you understand yourself. |
We're still making good progress. They were good questions to ask. I was at least quickly able to give a short answer, then the replies that came back made it easier to elaborate.
From what I can now sense, you are not used to an ID framework where there is no natural/supernatural dichotomy that makes the questions the same as asking whether you can tell the difference between apples and apples. That is why I am now trying to explain what I right away saw. Once you can look at it that way, you'll know what I'm talking about.
I'll try to think of another way to explain it. But the simple answer is that the way the science works out the intelligent designer also exists 24/7 in nature (especially through molecular intelligence) and all over the universe, not outside of it in some scientifically impossible realm.
As in any scientific theory, something either exists or it does not. Same here. But that might at first seem impossible, I guess. |
Gary, it would save everyone, including yourself, a lot of aggravation if you just told us what your fucking theory is.
Or you could continue with your "It's far too complicated, and you're not smart enough to understand my genius" line. In that case you might want to consider finding another forum: one more suitable to such a superintelligent, martyred prophet-without-honour.
Have you contacted Vox Day?
--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers
There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"... Â The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG
|
