Evolution? How?

Spendi wrote:

Setanta had said,and it was on another thread I think, something of the order that ID was invented to provide a patina of scientific respectablity (whatever that is) for creationism.

That was a teleogogy as I pointed out and showed why.

No, that was the fact--but the response does give me a new, poignant sense of the term "invicible ignorance." That you follow that with another of silly, puerile misogynistic rants is yet another typical example of your inability to make a coherent response, because of your penchant for wandering off into your twisted fantasy world.

0 Replies

http://www.psychophysics.org/

0 Replies

Rex wrote:

At what stage do we perceive a noticeable change in something?

Depends on how much Gentleman Jack you have ingested.

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

Rex wrote:
At what stage do we perceive a noticeable change in something?

Depends on how much Gentleman Jack you have ingested.

As it is said, "The difference between a dog and a fox is a few hours, a few beers, and a couple of shots".

0 Replies

This is beginning to read like a discourse on General Semantics under the influence. Drunk

When is a chair a chair? Very Happy

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

0 Replies

Rex wrote-

Quote:

So no one wants to go out on a limb and describe in their own words what the "Great Mystery" of the Bible is?

I was hoping you would forget about it Rex. I don't think it is a suitable subject for a family thread. Nancy Mitford once offered and they ushered off into the rose garden quickstyle.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote-

Quote:

That you follow that with another of silly, puerile misogynistic rants is yet another typical example of your inability to make a coherent response, because of your penchant for wandering off into your twisted fantasy world.

One can only conclude that Setanta has either never been taken advantage of due to "the weakness" or, if he has, is blissfully unaware of it.

0 Replies

Rex linked us up to-

Quote:

http://www.psychophysics.org/

I told them that last week Rex but they thought I was nuts.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

This is beginning to read like a discourse on General Semantics under the influence.

When is a chair a chair?

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

And all this time I thought General Semantics fought in the The War of the Words

0 Replies

General Semantics and Dianetics are husband and wife and it's not a good marriage. It does work for those who are into psychophysics and having absolutely no idea how to practice it, they are actually candidates for cognitive therepy. The desire to see things change evolve before their very eyes brings us in a circle back to, you got it, David Cooperfield. They are fascinated by the fakery of magic, but especially the fakery of the Bible.

0 Replies

I know very, very little about General Semantics, Dianetics, psychophysics, cognitive therapy, or David Copperfield nor why you referred them all in the same post. You can explain if you wanna.

0 Replies

It's all the same voodoo and hocus pocus that's in the Bible. No need to explain -- people get bored, even smart people, and begin to invent things. Religion is one of the unfortunate products. It's unnecessary in the ultimate scheme of things. Have a good life, enjoy it, relish it, and stop trying to explain to others that your way is the best way. That's egotistical to the point of making any imaginary god blush.

0 Replies

All well and good then, thanks.

0 Replies

Somehow, I don't think that's that last I'll hear of this. I have a personal philosophy of life and like anything else, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Now if other people weren't involved -- but, that's not going to work because that's how idiots who consider themselves effective polticians think -- GWB, for instance. A consumate failure as a person and as a President.

0 Replies

Do you think the more moderate people who voted for Bush knew he would leverage the right wing religious wackos out of their Pandora's Box?

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Do you think the more moderate people who voted for Bush knew he would leverage the right wing religious wackos out of their Pandora's Box?

The next election will tell -- after all, social Darwinism may be alive and well in politics. The problem I have with that is the survivors are often the least fit to hold office.

Back to evolution -- there's been no serious debate on the side of the "believers" to debunk it all happened as Darwin originally set down. The details may be hard to determne but it is definitely the answer. I state, go ahead and believe in whatever you want to belive in -- don''t even belive in yourself if that is satisfying.

0 Replies

I wonder if it's an inevitability of sentience to instill meaning even when none exists.

0 Replies

Chum, I think it has a whole lot to do with the individual's environment; culture, family and friends.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

General Semantics and Dianetics are husband and wife and it's not a good marriage. It does work for those who are into psychophysics and having absolutely no idea how to practice it, they are actually candidates for cognitive therepy. The desire to see things change evolve before their very eyes brings us in a circle back to, you got it, David Cooperfield. They are fascinated by the fakery of magic, but especially the fakery of the Bible.

How about the fakery of science, actually, science is what is strictly "observed"...

Point.

God is the magician..

0 Replies

Rex wrote:
"How about the fakery of science,..."

And this guy doesn't have any criticism against his comic book, the bible, that's full of errors. omissions and contradctions.

Jeesh! Talk about "fake." LOL

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know