From: eastsidetraks@soothpark.net   
      
   On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 23:04:04 -0800, Charles & Mambo Duckman   
    wrote:   
      
   >Kenny wrote:   
   >   
   >>>>>>	When you get around to explaining ~why~ a collection of primordial   
   >>>>>>slime ever evolved into an upright, walking, self-aware being that   
   >>>>>>uses thought, reason, language, dexterity, and develops tools of its   
   >>>>>>own creation to contemplate and make use of the wonders of the   
   >>>>>>universe into which it evolved, be sure to get back to us, won't you?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>Evolution   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>	That's the "how".  I asked for the "why".   
   >>>   
   >>>Why what? Why do chemicals react with each other and create other chemicals?   
   >>>Is that what you're asking? Or are you begging the question?   
   >>   
   >> 	Just admit that the answer is over your head and be done with   
   >> it.   
   >   
   >   
   >"The answer" cannot possibly be over my head because there is no answer to   
   >the question that doesn't make sense.   
      
      
   	So anything that does not make sense to you, personally, you   
   summarily dismiss?   
      
   	That is not what I would call intelligent thinking.   
      
   	It actually appears to be merely a cheap cop out for your   
   inability to answer the question.   
      
      
   >In your paragraph above you are begging the question by assuming that there   
   >is a purposeful and a goal oriented method to the origin of life and its   
   >evolution, and then you proceed to imply a supernatural cause of it.   
      
      
   	And you are quite sure of this assessment of yours?   
      
   	Do you thereby claim some personal clairvoyance to the point   
   that you can remotely read the minds of others?   
      
      
   >Not only is this metaphysical bullshit, it goes against every piece of   
   >scientific evidence derived from observing the theory of evolution - there   
   >is no higher goal, no higher purpose, no logical and methodical process in   
   >it suggesting any "guidance".   
      
      
   	Really?  How ya figure?   
      
      
   >You'd know that if you bothered to read a scientific book on the subject   
   >instead of your church's pamphlets.   
      
      
   	You seem to assume many things about which you have no clue.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)