But i'd say that the Universe is only a single universe in a mult-verse existence. So you could say things are IN this universe, and things are NOT in this universe. Gravitons bouncing back and forth and such. Obviously this is all very speculative science, but it's still possible.

Oh and a unicorn is a horse with a horn. We can imagine one, we can draw one, and we can portray one through cgi/illustrations. Something NOT a unicorn would be a horse.

another definition of natural:in conformity with the ordinary course of nature; not unusual or exceptional.

So natural is STILL defined by what is around the said object in question. So an elephant at the bottom of the sea would be unnatural. You're trying to argue the whole "nothing is un-natural" argument which doesn't make any sense because humans use the word "natural" all the time. Using your logic, why should humans EVER use the word natural, if something un-natural doesn't actually exist?

Quote :

"but then we'd have to just deal with the fact that some cacti can grow in the rainforest and redefine that bit in our understanding of nature."

But see that's where you are wrong. A cactus by definition is not going to grow in the rainforest. So it is therefore un-natural to the rainforest. Just like a dolphin isn't going to build a nest in a tree. It is un-natural for a dolphin to live in a tree. Plain and simple. I can't see how you reject the idea that something can be un-natural.

[Edited on August 3, 2007 at 4:11 PM. Reason : .]

8/3/2007 4:06:57 PM

I guess we're approaching this from two different angles. It seems to me that if we think cacti can only grow in the desert and not in the rainforest, then we find out they can grow other places, we have to decide that we were wrong and deal with it. If we just went around calling everything that conflicted with out preconceived notions of what was natural "unnatural," then pretty much everything we know now would be considered unnatural. The earth revolving around the sun, the earth being round, flies hatching from eggs rather than spontaneously spawning out of rotten meat... right?

8/3/2007 4:21:27 PM

Quote :

"Every single definition of religion consists of a supernatural, unexplained being or power and science would NEVER fit into the definition of what religion is."

that's funny. the first definition presented in this thread did NOT involve the word "supernatural." funny.

8/3/2007 11:02:40 PM

he didn't say every definition involved the word supernatural, idiot. he said they all contain a supernatural or unexplained being/power, which is basically undeniable.

8/3/2007 11:24:35 PM

it's not just peanut butter
it's super-peanut butter


this guy i know from high school was trying to argue about it to an extent a few nights ago....

he was arguing about vestigil organs being proof of selection not narrowing things down to one phenotype... needless to say he didnt really comprehend what selection does (if it's not helping or hurting it probably won't do anything) that and he was just arguing out of his ass for the hell of

8/7/2007 9:38:09 AM

8/20/2007 5:21:38 PM

"scientists"

8/20/2007 5:32:08 PM