Posted on 12/12/2005 8:01:43 AM PST by PatrickHenry
800
Speaking of "Whole Science", the theory that the lunar cycle has anything to do with a woman's menstrual cycle has a bit of a hole in it, insofar as it's new-agey crystal-gripping junk. The lunar month is 29-1/2 days, versus 28 days for a normal menstrual cycle - the cycles will be constantly drifting in and out of phase with each other.
[Astrology predicts PMS] placemarker
It's possible to generate a system that nearly "appears random." That's what Pseudo-Random-Number-Generators do. "Random" is more appropriately applied to a process, not the result of such process.
No written string of numbers is "random"; it merely is. The best one can do is say that a string of numbers obeys certain laws that randomly generated strings do.
Champernowne's number (.12345678910..., as you gave) does have the property that "any string occurs with the proper frequency." Thus (if mapped to a alphabet), it would contain the complete works of Shakespeare, the complete works of Shakespeare with one error, etc. (and the complete text of "Contact.") However, it can be proved (somewhere, I don't have access to review journals) that Champernowne's number does not obey the Law of the Iterated Logarithm. (I don't know how to generate a number that does except by ad hoc post hoc adjustments to the output.)
Astrology was not interested in the "forces", or if it was, it was a peripheral matter. It was interested in direct observation of both heavenly bodies and human behavior and then correlating the two.
I find it noteworthy that you allow the indirect observation of gravity to suffice as evidence of a force, but do not allow the direct observation of organized matter to suffice as indirect evidence of a designer.
. . . they predicted, as they do today, all sorts of things about love and romance, fortune or misfortune in wealth, the rise and fall of kings. That was the nature of the predictions made. These are all nonsense.
It would not be "nonsense" if they observed recurring patterns on a consistent basis over a large population for hundreds of years. It was the best they had at the time.
That has nothing to do with astrological aspects of their work.
Not if you want to distill astrology into sheer mysticism and superstition. Otherwise the analog clock is one of many tangible benefits of the direct observations of ancient astrologers.
But menstrual cycles occur at all different times of the month.
I always thought they were somehow connected to lunar cycles. I can assure you the menstrual cycle is one of many physical and direct observations discussed by astrologers from ancient times to this day. Did people need to see an astrologer to "know the schedule?" No.
I agree entirely with post 743.
Good shot, even if it took two.
The evidence is in the result. How could one assert a cause and evidence of the cause without either pointing to a result or indulging a tautology? You want me to say the Designer is evidence of a designer? Screw that.
Intelligent agent = cause
Organized matter behaving according to predictable laws = result = evidence for cause.
Understand?
Not entirely, no. But it would serve as good evidence.
If the phase of the moon affected menstruation then all women would experience menstruation at roughly the same time independent of other factors. If that were the case then births would also tend to clump together (note the use of the word 'tend'). What does affect the timing of menstruation are the pheromones released at that time. Women grouped together will tend to eventually have their periods clump together.
I've read that this happens in sorority houses. I imagine that this would be something to consider if one kept a harem.
"What evidence do you have for either the meaning or truth of your assertion?"
I can't say a rock or other inaninmate object as evidence since they're, well, inanimate.
I AM the source of the evidence.
Other people spin unnecessary words so they can experience temporary relief in the face of organized matter that behaves in accord with predictable laws (as designed from the beginning.)
Which will still have nothing to do with the lunar cycle, of course.
By ascribing detail to the "stuff," namely organization and predictbility.
This is so vague as to be meaningless. In any case, I can "ascribe detail" without resorting to ID. It contributes nothing.
Gumlegs: As it happens, I notice the air I breathe because I'm allergic to much of what it carries.
Is it all you think about? How about gravity. You may say it is "natural," but why? Is it because it is really natural, or only because you've lived with it all your life? The distinction between natural and supernatural is arbitrary, moreso than the distinction between species. It is not a scientifc distinction, but a semantic one that depends upon each observer.
Fester, you brought up air, not me. We have an explanation for gravity that is entirely natural. It doesn't depend on "intelligent designers" or angels pushing stray bits of matter to earth. You might want to read up on it before you lump it into the inexplicable.
Your post-modern critique is noted. Not respected, but noted. Were you one of those surprised that Alan Sokal's "Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity," turned out to be a hoax?
Gumlegs: Intelligent design explains nothing, it predicts nothing, and it has nothing to do with science.
As I said, intelligent design predicts organized matter that behaves according to predicatable laws will be found. That is far more than nothing. It fairly well fits everything. Take a single drop of water out of the ocean and descibe all of its attributes. The fact you can see it in the first place is but one small sign that it is designed. It's organization and predictability can be described in great detail.
Explains everything = explains nothing. You can spin this forever, but "organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws will be found" is meaningless. Your own claim, "It fairly well fits with everything" is as damning as it gets insofar as ID's being scientific.
Anything could be predicted with ID. Precambrian humans? The "intelligent designer did it." No precambrian humans? It's that ol' "intelligent designer." A change in allele frequency over time? It's the intelligent designer, for sure. A new generation of pigs sprouting wings (thanks, RussP)? Why, that intelligent designer is at it again. ID's predictive power is nil.
Gumlegs: Can you state something that ID doesn't explain?
Not yet. Can you enumerate something science can do with out making use of either intelligence or design or some combination of the two? I'm not surprised that you can't name something that ID doesn't predict. AFIK, it predicts everything and nothing.
I'm not going to dignify your question with an answer, except to note that you persist in confusing intelligence in humans with supernatural intelligence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.