Done!
Posted on 01/28/2005 4:28:41 PM PST by metacognative
Who was Cain's wife's mother?
Easy to tell when the creationists are losing it.
For me, I just went down the lines of intellectual attack with a well-sharpened and hardened sword of cynicism until there was nothing left. Nothing could be be believed, nothing could be proven.
Evereything shattered and crushed -- every belief, every fact a vanity. A mite of dust all was. I was then just a surfer of the waves of currency, caring only to stay on top of my board -- for I dislike drowning, and I found I loved life. Survival instinct. The difference between Camus and Satre.
With age I found I liked people too, and loved them, despite my strongly developed cynic's detachment.
I tried helping people -- little things, saving lifes at risk of my own and all that. I suffered and hung with it.
For me there was no god -- not Science, not Logic, not Church, not Despair, not G-d, Himself. How could I accept ANY of them -- my intellect's sword had erradicated every one.
You see Ichysaurus has replied to me fore and aft of your post -- he worships Science, it is his god at nonce. He thinks he has lampooned me for the sake of his god. Yet he reads his own imagination of me, and not me. Yes I studied 1850's mathematics, and 1970's too. High level stuff, my footing is sure as a goat's on the mountain.
I understand algebra -- my teachers included some of the best in the world. And I didn't need a Godel or a broken Turing machine to tell me what I had already come to understand, that the final proof is outside any box. And so too the First Postulates.
With age, with the age granted me, thank G-d, some providence gave me to pursue the search for Proof again. I was tickled by Roger Penrose's work, by fractals, by numbers so innumerable no algorithm or description could ever touch them -- the modern Zeno. And I took up that search again -- that it was, with age's wisdom, *intuitively* more likely there was a G-d than not. I came to find that intiution is not necessary -- acceptance is for ,,,
Truth sings to the bared Soul.
Takes a lot more faith to believe in one guy setting around on an island with a scratch pad looking at a lizard than a Bible full of proven historical facts and eye witnesses.
For starters, it is condescending. It assumes those whose opinions you are critical of are somehow not thinking individuals, that you are somehow smarter. It is less than a sophomoric attitude. It is, well, junior.
I am not quite sure what your point in making such a statement can be. It can not be with the intent to sway people to your side, to educate them to accept your view. It is offensive and people rarely respond to that.
And anyone looking in on the discussion that might be swayed is going to see your accusation as lazy. It does not explain anything. It only makes a declarative statement without the least bit of support.
If you really believe you are smarter than those who disagree with you but (1) do nothing to explain to them why or (2) believe it without having done any assessment of their intellectual capabilities, then you really are not as smart as you might think you are. That is only a large measure of arrogance.
Your approach may sit well in your mind but rarely if ever is it accepted in anyone else's. Even those that agree with you will think of you as correct but a little twit just the same.
Of course, you are not a twit. You have studied the issue. That I feel rather certain about. And probably a very intelligent person. So, don't be so lazy. Explain yourself. Contribute to the discussion and the learning.
But if you are here only to throw barbs. Well, there are other more appropriate places where you can go to make yourself feel good besides doing it here in public.
And all the aggravtions and frustrations do not magically disapper. Maybe they are tougher, even. Hard to say. It is just very comfortable and happy to know they have a reason.
Done!
Thanks. Somehow that monkey seems more dignified than what it supposedly becomes after that drink.
Uh, that was geometry, not algebra you posted the "postulate" on.
You are the arrogant one that has not read any of the very long postings providing details and explanations on evolution. The religious fanatics have been given loads of explanations which they reject completely.
The number "4.5 billion years" (or in Sagan's case, "4.5 BuhBuhBuhBillion years") is thrown out as if it were something approaching eternity and therefore almost anything is possible. But that isn't science, it's myth-making just as surely as someone making up religious stories. Where is the math? If the math doesn't work, the mechanism doesn't work. If you don't have the math, you don't have the argument.
Believe me, I am not the arogant type.
And on the reply above, you make my point exactly. Someone does not accept your point so you resort to ad hominem attack? If they have rejected your explanations completely, it could be because you were not convincing, you did not make a good case or they are so entrenched in their beliefs they are not willing to consider another view.
And why are you getting testy with me? I simply answered your question. I'm trying to offer you a little advise, to be nice, and you are jumping down my throat.
I would venture to guess that it is not your views that are being rejected as much as it is that no one is willing to consider them because or your attitude.
And yet there is evidence, even on this thread, that his statement was true. One side cannot seem to understand that the Theory of Evolution does not cover the origin of life.
And I backed up my assessment by quoting you. Your language would have fit right in at the inaugural protests. Congratulations.
That's not what I said, and you know it. Or, maybe you don't. I've noticed an inability in you to actually understand concepts more complex than black-or-white. Let's try this again: Evolution does not deal with "higher" or "lower," it simply deals with adaptability to environment. A "germ" may be more adapted to certain environments than a human being is; the converse may also be true.
Response: "Who was Cain's wife's mother?"
Obviously, Eve. Why do evolutionists have such trouble grasping the obvious?
Sounds like a disagreement over terms, something to be defined for the purposes of discussion. Not something to start throwing spears over. If someone has not studied evolution to the point that you have, certainly they are not going to have the same handle on the terminology. Either you have to explain it or adapt your language to fit the discussion, make sure that everyone is talking about the same thing.
Actually, your bringing up the point of Evolution vs. the Origin of Life is a discussion I might find interesting. But not if one of the professors is going to start calling me names and telling everyone else I am some sort of fanatic because I don't get it.
Do you see my point?
Yeah it is hard to imprison all the homosexuals and burn all the porn under secular rationales so you need to "scientifically" establish a certain view of Christianity in order to get people on your side. But consider that you actually feel it necessary to scientifically establish the truth of the Christian worldview - wouldn't God be capable of providing all the scientific proof necessary.
This is another scientific theory that was just proved wrong a few months ago by the re- election of President Bush .
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.