I don't know...

If I indulged the matter, I would first ask what physical reality is? And we both know that matter get's rather immaterial with regard to the quantum.

One thing I suppose we could agree upon, is that consciousness and physicality overlap at the very least. Please remember that I said consciousness 'transcends'... I did not say it is 'seperate'.

_________________
Bambi grew up to have horns

That's not what I'm talking about.

The tool of science gives us understanding of natural phenomena.

For example, science gave us the understanding of the natural phenomena of electricity.

This understanding has spawned an extensive and profoundly influential cornucopia of technologies which utilize electricity as an energy source.

What practical use of this kind has ID provided?

_________________
Life expectancy would grow by leaps and bounds if green vegetables smelled as good as bacon. ~Doug Larson

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.
~Richard P. Feynman

That's right.

Why do you fear death so much that you buy into the myth of eternal life after death?

Personally, I think being alive forever is a terrifying prospect.

_________________
Life expectancy would grow by leaps and bounds if green vegetables smelled as good as bacon. ~Doug Larson

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.
~Richard P. Feynman

There isn't any evidence that consciousness transcends physical reality.

_________________
Jesus was a liberal hippie

I thought this thread was about to be locked... but since it is not I might as well respond.

I already answered your question several pages ago nator. ID will neither add nor detract scientific discoveries any more than a materialistic view of science will.

jar talks an awful lot about palming the pea, but your tactic is an actual example as I will illustrate with the following proposition.

If you will tell me how the dominant evolutionary theory of the origins of the cosmos and life in general has anything to do with the discoveries you've mentioned, I will do the same for ID.

Unfortunately neither of us can, because those historical sciences have nothing to do with practical applications and observationsal sciences put to market.

Which makes me wonder... what is the real purpose of evolutionary theory?

And as to your other post... I do not fear death.

What I used to fear... is that there might actually be life after death, and that I might be held responsible for my choices and conscious motives.

_________________
Bambi grew up to have horns

Well, have you never seen a dead body?

_________________
Bambi grew up to have horns

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make there. That people die has no implication that consciousness transcends physical reality.

_________________
Jesus was a liberal hippie

Tough. If there is life after death you will be held responsible for your choices and actions.

That is also totally irrelevant and unimportant in relation to the topic.

I'll give you another chance to see if you can post anything that is related to the topic.

_________________
How pierceful grows the hazy yon! How myrtle petaled thou! For spring hath sprung the cyclotron - How high browse thou, brown cow? -- Churchy LaFemme, 1950

{preaching deleted}

Perhaps you should review this thread in EvC (you do remember EvC?) for how the theory of evolution has directly benefited humanity:

http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi? ... &t=677&m=1

Pay particular attention to posts 46 (Quetzal), 72 (Nator), 80, 82,84 (EZ science), 99 (mick) and 116 (Mark Austin)

Since some of these people are participants in this forum, I prefer to let them speak for themselves beyond this citation.

However, if you persist in stating: "those historical sciences have nothing to do with practical applications and observationsal sciences put to market (sic)," then I will have to create more topics to prove you refuse to support your own preponderances as in the case of 'Vestigial Muscles' in the biology forum.

_________________
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

I see nothing in those posts that has anything to do with origins. You see... what you guys like to make eveyone forget is that ID is not opposed to evolution as explained here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geytBw0ym1Q (the audio is in English)

It all depends on how you define 'evolution'. If it is simply change over time then great! But as your buddy jar has pointed out, evolution has nothing to do with origins.

Quetzal's post was the best indicator of the failed logic of your position. The premise is that because of an assumed evolutionary origin, we learned a great deal studying under that assumption.

Well, yes... we did learn a great deal. And we learned a great deal under the assumptions of many a theist in science past also.

What does that prove?

_________________
Bambi grew up to have horns

Understanding?

Sounds more like a philosophical excersize to me.

After-all what makes you think human 'understanding' has anything to do with reality?

Can we really 'know' what we are doing and what the natural word is?

Don't get me wrong, I believe we can... but not if we neglect the fact that there are some serious philosophical assumptions being made in the process. Assumptions that have an enormous impact on the nature of the purpose and meaning of life.

Science can move forward irrespective of those assumed meaning right?

Ah... no!

Depending on the meaning and it's implications, we close the door on certain... 'alternatives' don't we?

Think about it... because it works both ways.

This fight isn't about practical or observational sciences... it's about philosophy.

_________________
Bambi grew up to have horns

Closing this down. If anyone has more to say let's start a new topic.

_________________
How pierceful grows the hazy yon! How myrtle petaled thou! For spring hath sprung the cyclotron - How high browse thou, brown cow? -- Churchy LaFemme, 1950