From: eastsidetraks@soothpark.net
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 23:27:39 -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.
>
>As I said, the question doesn't make sense, no matter how much bleating and
>braying about it you employ. The process of general observation of natural
>processes and phenomena that over the centuries evolved into science does
>not answer such questions or any other questions that involve a form of "why
>are we here". That is the domain of numerous mystics, seers, psychics,
>paranormalists, priests and other peddlers of fakery and bullshit.
>
>>>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?
>
>I have to be clairvoyant to notice that the person who asks a loaded
>question of "why [...] primordial slime [...] evolved [...]" is unmistakably
>a god peddler?
It's a loaded question because you cannot answer it? LOL!
>That is more than obvious even without knowing your history of spamming this
>newsgroup with Ron Paul and Christian God bullcrap.
>
>>>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?
>
>Join your neighborhood library and loan "The Blind Watchmaker" for starters,
>then you may begin to realize "how I figure". It's that simple.
>>
So that is your bible, and Dawkins is your priest, right?
Wasn't he the guy who was fucking Ms. Garrison?
And you call ~me~ religious. LOL!!
> >>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.
>
>Why so defensive? I am not accusing you of being religious per se. However,
>I am accusing you of being deliberately close-minded to the point of
>rejecting the objective scientific reality in favor of the supernatural
>mythology which is based on wishful thinking and which was written 5000
>years ago by some illiterate bronze age goatfuckers.
Yet you accuse ~me~ of being defensive? LOL!!!
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
