Posted: Apr 14, 2012 6:32 pm
by Cito di Pense
Destroyer wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote: Because you deny or can't imagine or understand evolution from simple beginnings?

What do you think "evolution from simple beginnings" actually means?

A gentle tap from my clue bat, Destroyer: 'Simple' is taken relative to presently-observed complexity, which is what you get to observe. Or else, go study the lint in your umbilical scar and contemplate your origins. The reason that multicellular life forms are treated as 'complex' is because there is a sort of wall of simplicity at unicellular organisms, and the wall is defined in terms of a meaningful difference between 'one' and 'many' that yields different words for 'one' and for 'many'.

It works much the same way for cosmology. Now, if you want to give the word 'beginnings' some absolute meaning, I want to know why you think you have to do that. 'Beginning' is a human word, fronting an all-too-human concept. It's arrogant for you to pretend that wordplay somehow moves you beyond human semantics of abstract nouns.

You don't have any experiences beyond those of the empirical world with which to develop a semantics for 'evolution'. You can talk about your meditations, but I can call what you say 'anecdotes' unless you can do something empirical besides make noises.