saying how everything man made is natural if we consider beehive's, beaver dam's etc to be natural then so are all the things humans make. i think i agree with him most of the things we make use products from nature so why not

read more here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Built_environment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_environment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature

And bacon, one of the biggest problems theologians have in their logic is that they cannot come to consensus definitions of things. So promoting defining nature how ever you want to define it will only lead to endless arguments that never come to a conclusion because people can't agree on step 1: the definitions of the terms being used.

If it was the case that we can define it however we want, then I define nature as a giant purple bunny, so by my logic, until I find evidence to the contrary, nature doesn't exist

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

matter in the universe has no purpose so by logic life and we have no purpose bada bing bada boom I've summoned back our old debate I'm evil LOL nah but as you in that old debate i don't mean the grand scheme here i mean at an environmental level if you know what i mean

So yes, I do consider a stone building natural. The stone was taken from the earth. But when we begin making things with elements that can only be made in laboratories, then at that point we begin to separate from nature.

There are natural objects and natural processes. Everything is natural when you consider the process. Many things are not natural when you consider the object itself and its function.

Humans changed the course when we became agents.

Even if the skyscraper was made out of synthetic material, still undergoes a natural process of construction (lifeforms building a social residence). But beings the skyscraper is constructed from synthetic material, it is itself not natural as a product.

i disagree and here's why. your comment presumes that atoms are the elementary particles in nature and that, as you know, is just flat incorrect. what about electrons, protons, and neutrons? and then we can go further. what about quarks? bosons? photons? etc. when humans "create" new elements they are simply doing what they did to create a computer only at a much smaller level, so it would be contradictory to call a computer or a stone wall natural yet call a man made element unnatural/supernatural/whatever. i think what defines entities that are natural is if we can or will someday be able to epirically test it. if it isn't testable it is supernatural and is therefore, to our knowledge, imaginary. so by this logic we can say that anything that is not natural is imaginary. that is why in math natural numbers are those that are not imaginary. imaginary numbers are those that, when applied to the real world, are impossible. an even root of any negative number is imaginary and is therefore not applicable to nature. this same logic applies to the very definitions of the words "nature" and "imaginary".

i agree that we have no (objective) purpose, but what does that have to do with this argument? words are symbols that we use to describe concepts and objects, so in that sense you could call nature anything you want, and for that reason me calling it a giant, purple bunny is just as valid as your definition, and it is true that over time consensus definitions change, but the scientific definition of nature, by consensus, is the collective body of that which exists, so anything that we can observe or provide evidence for it's existence, whether it is massive or non-massive, organic or inorganic, evolved or intelligently created, is natural.

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0