Originally posted by lordtyp0
The above is rather a nonsensical statement. Interesting anthropomorphism on ideas. Very Plato.
umm ,,, ok.
Do you usually find nonsense "interesting?"
Just wondering if I may missing out on something
Either way, points for using the word 'poppycock' while blatantly trying to romanticize and redefine what science is.
mmm Poppycock again then!
,mmmm I see my ats points have not changed = (
Blatantly? Why would their be any other way?
The whole idea of my statement was how selective people are with what preposterous notions we have. A Christian thinks Shiva is preposterous
etc. Yet all religions have the exact same proofs going for them. Warm fuzzy feelings and old books that can’t be proven with anything but-warm
fuzzy feelings. Was a statement on cherry picking the lame. Unicorns = dumb. Talking snakes seducing a rib woman? Plausible. Etc. etc.
In spite of your limited knowledge of those long time ago "old text" ( as if speculation on what we could imagine we would see as oh say an
amphibian that comes out of the water on to land and becomes a lizard not just a long time ago but millions and millions of years ago. The 29 proofs
of macroevolution have been long debunked on many threads here and again most are speculation based on the mis used terminology for predictions when
they are more like playing armchair quarterback.
So this warm fuzzy feeling. This is curious, albeit it true, if I had even gained THAT much of a sensation reading Darwin’s Origin of Species, I
would probably never would have had it relegated to its final resting place as a coffee table coaster or occasional table leg leveler.
My reading the old texts was only an interesting love letter. A very LONG love letter but reading it in as educated context as I could, the books
central idea is very easy to grasp and when taking the steps for accessing the highest level of warm fuzzies, one may experience an epiphany of what
can only be quantified by experiencing it yourself.
Much like the illustration, you caught me attempting to use on you with the word love and why that request will go under the same line of thinking.
Love is a state and then to many Scientists it is nothing more than phenylethlamine.
So, just because we have a name for something, means its valid and real? That’s a super dangerous admission.
Mmm not sure, what you are implying I said. The same can be said for the word evolution too but that was why I was asking because many times we have
not seen things that are in fact real. Like Gravity for instance, it is invisible and a time long ago, we were taught how to prove its existence. I
was merely asking if this was just some silly sophistry I have seen said by many Atheist's here who seem to assume they have a better grasp of
science as not to allow me to redefine it ( as this seems to anger them when anyone trys to free it from its fixed opinions and religious like dogmas.
Are you talking pop-sci dimension? You talking mathematical representation to balance an equation? You talking the crappy movie company? By crafts U
am thinking you aren't meaning macrome and or scrapbooking?
mmm perhaps I am using the wrong approach or language.
Spanish? German? help any?
These are descriptions of states. Therefor no. They do not exist as absolute form. They describe the state of-presumably-a living intelligent creature
able to describe what they are experiencing.
But I counter this with self-imposed definitions. Can you describe "love" without saying "Love"?
Well there you have it then. it isn't the physical form I am housed in that defines me, it is my collective experiences that I have a knowingness and
a frame of reference. If I were to splice mine on to yours, and you felt and seen and remembered all the experiences I have ever accumulated, I think
you would have a much better appreciation for states as something more than a memeplex virus called religion. In fact, I know you would be acting a
lot like Dr McCoy does when Spock put his essence in his own.
To exalt the physical carrier we use to enable us, I have always been curious why such topics arouse such toxic defenses as if the automobile is so
much more worthy of study then those spiritual essences or souls perhaps that drive them.
This thread is about science and evolution-whether or not it is valid to argue against something that is integral in many sciences.
what right does anyone have to tell anyone what is integral in science or not? Science is a process, if they think it leads in only one genre or has
no frontiers outside what we think we already know is true, who are we to invalidate that. Once you have had been enlightened to the extent that you
can have confidence in death and know unequivocally it is nothing more than to discard what embodies your library of thoughts lessons and ideas, you
can begin to understand what faith means.
I have faith in what I have gained experiential confidence in.
It seems however a more compelling reason why anyone would not want to argue against evolution is the utter complete waste of time and energy it
requires on theory that may seem justify your need to be right when so many subscribing to this theory fear that need is in jeopardy.
Even while it like Darwin original theory from 1857 would not even be recognized by, chuck himself today.
If it is that important you have belief in this umm science, I know how important that is for whatever the reason, when we stand outside together at
high noon, the sun is going to shine on BOTH of us.
Now THAT says more to me about the real difference between you and me than my assaulting your stable datum with what you would only deem as my
ignorance of same.
You see, I do have what I can again say I have confidence in, and that is the knowing that what I am telling you, you may think is even more
ignorance, makes no difference.
I have confidence in the fact you will know what I know and agree as sure as I am sitting here sharing a seat with my rear end.
That does not make me right and invariably it makes me, in the eyes of many, somewhat of a lesser being. I can have faith in my having gained so much
confidence in what I know already and you will someday that it is no longer about what I know over you no more than it was to those who knew before
me. In the end, we all know and at that time, time does not matter so we all know it now. Regardless of what our "state"
Finally, I would say that last request asking I describe love without saying love.
[edit on 7-2-2009 by Aermacchi]