Alien life found. turns out it's gay.
03-08-2011, 01:23 PM
#81
Is it me, or does the theory of evolution seem to have slowed down just like that God graph... hmmmmm...
...you would think we would have at least gained something positive (social tolerance) or lost something negative (judgmental segregation)
Its funny how people argue against the Bible (a book written) with a current book written by another author. Just sayin.
Another thing, do the hardcore in-yo-face athiests bother to read anything else that isnt written by an athiest? I, at the least keep an open mind, but it seems to me the bias opinion that is quick to bash religion has more of a closed mind than a hardcore roman catholic.
...you would think we would have at least gained something positive (social tolerance) or lost something negative (judgmental segregation)
Its funny how people argue against the Bible (a book written) with a current book written by another author. Just sayin.
Another thing, do the hardcore in-yo-face athiests bother to read anything else that isnt written by an athiest? I, at the least keep an open mind, but it seems to me the bias opinion that is quick to bash religion has more of a closed mind than a hardcore roman catholic.
Reply
0
0
03-08-2011, 01:26 PM
#82
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,026
Total Cats: 6,592
Jason, I've been holding my tongue on this for years, but I just can't take it anymore. You've done it twelve times in this thread alone.
If you're going to participate in a debate, then at least dignify us by taking the time to write out your own argument clearly and concisely, rather than just posting a bunch of links to articles and books written by others. Frankly, it's just not conducive to conversation if every time you want to make a point, we all have to order a book from Amazon, wait for it to arrive, read it, and then come back and respond to your post.
Would you do this in a real-life conversation with someone? If you and I were at a cockfight, having a discussion about the Peruvian export economy and came to disagree on some point, would you jot down the title of a book on the back of a 10 nuevos soles banknote and request that I leave the arena, go to a library, and read the book in question before returning to finish the discussion?
It's no better when it's a link to some article on the web, frankly. Expecting the reader to break out of the conversation and spend 5 or 10 minutes dredging through a report written by some extremist blogger or marginalized "researcher" whose kool-aid you have drunk may seem reasonable to you, but it comes off as lazy to the rest of us.
If you want to copy and paste an excerpt from someone else's article then I have no problem with that. It's what the INDENT tag is for. I have no problem with you saying that, according to the adoptive father of a certain 10 year old boy:
But don't just say that "If you read the whole blog, you will understand that the kid fits the description of the psychopath here:" That's arrogant, presumptuous, and rude. I'm not going to go sift through three years of some guy whining about the fact that his 10 year old boy behaves like a 10 year old boy just so that I can then buy and read some other book to see that you were right all along.
And don't think that I have a problem with citing references. If you want to take the time to posit an argument, and then say "To support the facts which I have claimed herein, I offer this article in substantiation: (link to article)" then by all means, feel free. In fact, I try very hard to insert a (source) link any time I post something which is particularly novel or apparently unsubstantiated. Endnotes are a perfectly acceptable for of scholarly citation, but they are not a substitute for actually composing a thought. What would a college prof have done to you if, in response to an assignment to compose a report on such-and-such, you'd handed in nothing but a page-long list of books that you feel the prof should read?
Articles and books are fine as SUPPORT for an argument which you are putting forth, but they are not a SUBSTITUTE for having an original thought.
Frankly, I'm just getting tired of this, and I'm about one step away from putting you on "ignore", which I don't want to do, as you really do make a huge and important contribution in the technical areas of this forum. But in the social and political arenas, posting a message that says "This book says everything I feel on the subject" doesn't make you sound literate and scholarly, it makes you sound like a 10 year old who just realized that he's got a book report due tomorrow morning and hasn't even opened the book yet.
If you're going to participate in a debate, then at least dignify us by taking the time to write out your own argument clearly and concisely, rather than just posting a bunch of links to articles and books written by others. Frankly, it's just not conducive to conversation if every time you want to make a point, we all have to order a book from Amazon, wait for it to arrive, read it, and then come back and respond to your post.
Would you do this in a real-life conversation with someone? If you and I were at a cockfight, having a discussion about the Peruvian export economy and came to disagree on some point, would you jot down the title of a book on the back of a 10 nuevos soles banknote and request that I leave the arena, go to a library, and read the book in question before returning to finish the discussion?
It's no better when it's a link to some article on the web, frankly. Expecting the reader to break out of the conversation and spend 5 or 10 minutes dredging through a report written by some extremist blogger or marginalized "researcher" whose kool-aid you have drunk may seem reasonable to you, but it comes off as lazy to the rest of us.
If you want to copy and paste an excerpt from someone else's article then I have no problem with that. It's what the INDENT tag is for. I have no problem with you saying that, according to the adoptive father of a certain 10 year old boy:
"Several days after Lucas had found some hard-core **** on the Internet, he started grabbing a girl’s bottom in school. He continued even after she asked him to stop."
And because of this, the boy is a psychopath.But don't just say that "If you read the whole blog, you will understand that the kid fits the description of the psychopath here:" That's arrogant, presumptuous, and rude. I'm not going to go sift through three years of some guy whining about the fact that his 10 year old boy behaves like a 10 year old boy just so that I can then buy and read some other book to see that you were right all along.
And don't think that I have a problem with citing references. If you want to take the time to posit an argument, and then say "To support the facts which I have claimed herein, I offer this article in substantiation: (link to article)" then by all means, feel free. In fact, I try very hard to insert a (source) link any time I post something which is particularly novel or apparently unsubstantiated. Endnotes are a perfectly acceptable for of scholarly citation, but they are not a substitute for actually composing a thought. What would a college prof have done to you if, in response to an assignment to compose a report on such-and-such, you'd handed in nothing but a page-long list of books that you feel the prof should read?
Articles and books are fine as SUPPORT for an argument which you are putting forth, but they are not a SUBSTITUTE for having an original thought.
Frankly, I'm just getting tired of this, and I'm about one step away from putting you on "ignore", which I don't want to do, as you really do make a huge and important contribution in the technical areas of this forum. But in the social and political arenas, posting a message that says "This book says everything I feel on the subject" doesn't make you sound literate and scholarly, it makes you sound like a 10 year old who just realized that he's got a book report due tomorrow morning and hasn't even opened the book yet.
Reply
0
0
03-08-2011, 01:31 PM
#83
... posting a message that says "This book says everything I feel on the subject" doesn't make you sound literate and scholarly, it makes you sound like a 10 year old who just realized that he's got a book report due tomorrow morning and hasn't even opened the book yet.
Reply
0
0
03-08-2011, 01:32 PM
#84
I'm Miserable!
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 583
Total Cats: -1
Jason, I've been holding my tongue on this for years, but I just can't take it anymore. You've done it twelve times in this thread alone.
If you're going to participate in a debate, then at least dignify us by taking the time to write out your own argument clearly and concisely, rather than just posting a bunch of links to articles and books written by others. Frankly, it's just not conducive to conversation if every time you want to make a point, we all have to order a book from Amazon, wait for it to arrive, read it, and then come back and respond to your post.
Would you do this in a real-life conversation with someone? If you and I were at a cockfight, having a discussion about the Peruvian export economy and came to disagree on some point, would you jot down the title of a book on the back of a 10 nuevos soles banknote and request that I leave the arena, go to a library, and read the book in question before returning to finish the discussion?
It's no better when it's a link to some article on the web, frankly. Expecting the reader to break out of the conversation and spend 5 or 10 minutes dredging through a report written by some extremist blogger or marginalized "researcher" whose kool-aid you have drunk may seem reasonable to you, but it comes off as lazy to the rest of us.
If you want to copy and paste an excerpt from someone else's article then I have no problem with that. It's what the INDENT tag is for. I have no problem with you saying that, according to the adoptive father of a certain 10 year old boy:
But don't just say that "If you read the whole blog, you will understand that the kid fits the description of the psychopath here:" That's arrogant, presumptuous, and rude. I'm not going to go sift through three years of some guy whining about the fact that his 10 year old boy behaves like a 10 year old boy just so that I can then buy and read some other book to see that you were right all along.
And don't think that I have a problem with citing references. If you want to take the time to posit an argument, and then say "To support the facts which I have claimed herein, I offer this article in substantiation: (link to article)" then by all means, feel free. In fact, I try very hard to insert a (source) link any time I post something which is particularly novel or apparently unsubstantiated. Endnotes are a perfectly acceptable for of scholarly citation, but they are not a substitute for actually composing a thought. What would a college prof have done to you if, in response to an assignment to compose a report on such-and-such, you'd handed in nothing but a page-long list of books that you feel the prof should read?
Articles and books are fine as SUPPORT for an argument which you are putting forth, but they are not a SUBSTITUTE for having an original thought.
Frankly, I'm just getting tired of this, and I'm about one step away from putting you on "ignore", which I don't want to do, as you really do make a huge and important contribution in the technical areas of this forum. But in the social and political arenas, posting a message that says "This book says everything I feel on the subject" doesn't make you sound literate and scholarly, it makes you sound like a 10 year old who just realized that he's got a book report due tomorrow morning and hasn't even opened the book yet.
If you're going to participate in a debate, then at least dignify us by taking the time to write out your own argument clearly and concisely, rather than just posting a bunch of links to articles and books written by others. Frankly, it's just not conducive to conversation if every time you want to make a point, we all have to order a book from Amazon, wait for it to arrive, read it, and then come back and respond to your post.
Would you do this in a real-life conversation with someone? If you and I were at a cockfight, having a discussion about the Peruvian export economy and came to disagree on some point, would you jot down the title of a book on the back of a 10 nuevos soles banknote and request that I leave the arena, go to a library, and read the book in question before returning to finish the discussion?
It's no better when it's a link to some article on the web, frankly. Expecting the reader to break out of the conversation and spend 5 or 10 minutes dredging through a report written by some extremist blogger or marginalized "researcher" whose kool-aid you have drunk may seem reasonable to you, but it comes off as lazy to the rest of us.
If you want to copy and paste an excerpt from someone else's article then I have no problem with that. It's what the INDENT tag is for. I have no problem with you saying that, according to the adoptive father of a certain 10 year old boy:
"Several days after Lucas had found some hard-core **** on the Internet, he started grabbing a girl’s bottom in school. He continued even after she asked him to stop."
And because of this, the boy is a psychopath.But don't just say that "If you read the whole blog, you will understand that the kid fits the description of the psychopath here:" That's arrogant, presumptuous, and rude. I'm not going to go sift through three years of some guy whining about the fact that his 10 year old boy behaves like a 10 year old boy just so that I can then buy and read some other book to see that you were right all along.
And don't think that I have a problem with citing references. If you want to take the time to posit an argument, and then say "To support the facts which I have claimed herein, I offer this article in substantiation: (link to article)" then by all means, feel free. In fact, I try very hard to insert a (source) link any time I post something which is particularly novel or apparently unsubstantiated. Endnotes are a perfectly acceptable for of scholarly citation, but they are not a substitute for actually composing a thought. What would a college prof have done to you if, in response to an assignment to compose a report on such-and-such, you'd handed in nothing but a page-long list of books that you feel the prof should read?
Articles and books are fine as SUPPORT for an argument which you are putting forth, but they are not a SUBSTITUTE for having an original thought.
Frankly, I'm just getting tired of this, and I'm about one step away from putting you on "ignore", which I don't want to do, as you really do make a huge and important contribution in the technical areas of this forum. But in the social and political arenas, posting a message that says "This book says everything I feel on the subject" doesn't make you sound literate and scholarly, it makes you sound like a 10 year old who just realized that he's got a book report due tomorrow morning and hasn't even opened the book yet.
Reply
0
0
03-08-2011, 01:41 PM
#85
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,026
Total Cats: 6,592
It continues to be of great puzzlement to me that "everyone" seems to beileve that the theory of evolution is inherently in conflict with the idea of intelligent (God-based) design.
Reply
0
0
03-08-2011, 01:44 PM
#86
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the length of time macro evolution takes.
...you would think we would have at least gained something positive (social tolerance) or lost something negative (judgmental segregation)
Its funny how people argue against the Bible (a book written) with a current book written by another author. Just sayin.
Another thing, do the hardcore in-yo-face athiests bother to read anything else that isnt written by an athiest? I, at the least keep an open mind, but it seems to me the bias opinion that is quick to bash religion has more of a closed mind than a hardcore roman catholic.
I'm not exactly an atheist, but the hardcore atheists I do know have read a lot more of holy books than most self proclaimed Christians. The percent of church going Christians that have actually read the bible cover to cover is pretty low. When was the last time you read the Koran, Book of Mormon, or a Sūtra?
Reply
0
0
03-08-2011, 01:46 PM
#87
I'm Miserable!
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 583
Total Cats: -1
If you haven't read much Quantum Physics, check it out. It's quite interesting and can seem magical.
And then there is free will and the nature of time. I guess you find out more when you die…or you don't.
Reply
0
0
03-08-2011, 02:04 PM
#91
I'm not exactly an atheist, but the hardcore atheists I do know have read a lot more of holy books than most self proclaimed Christians. The percent of church going Christians that have actually read the bible cover to cover is pretty low. When was the last time you read the Koran, Book of Mormon, or a Sūtra?
Reply
0
0
03-08-2011, 02:07 PM
#92
I'm Miserable!
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 583
Total Cats: -1
In Well's book…it was thought that the subterranean, cannibaloid Morlock creatures were originally the rich elites who lived underground for eons. Perhaps after some war or extinction level event, high society moved underground.
And the Eloi were the underclass who could not afford bunkers so they remained on the surface. So the poor were eaten by the rich in effect.
Of course, both were degraded humans.
Reply
0
0
03-08-2011, 02:15 PM
#94
So really it hasn't slowed down at all.
I don't follow. Are you saying an alien fossil proves over billions of years we have not at least gained something positive (social tolerance) or lost something negative (judgmental segregation) ?
Good! That's a lot more than most. Though there's no way to prove you did or are just making **** up to win an internet argument.
Because of this thread of an alien fossil found.
I have read the Koran, and the Sūtra. About 3 years from now... I stay away from mormons.
Reply
0
0
03-08-2011, 02:18 PM
#95
I guess... in theory.
Its the responses this thread received, which has no bearing to the thread itself.
Actually, the reason I did was because of debates like this, but between religions, not the God or no-God debate. I dont class myself in the whole "which religion am I" thing, but I do respectfully believe in a higher power, with an open mind.
Actually, the reason I did was because of debates like this, but between religions, not the God or no-God debate. I dont class myself in the whole "which religion am I" thing, but I do respectfully believe in a higher power, with an open mind.
Reply
0
0
03-08-2011, 02:26 PM
#96
Certainly, there are particular injustices that fall into and out of fashion -- chattel slavery is less popular in the Western world that it has been in centuries past, but on the other hand it's by no means eradicated or even diminished in many parts of the world.
Homosexuality has been an accepted practice in various cultures at least as far back as the ancient Greeks...I'm not sure we can take any pride in suddenly deciding that we are such open-minded thinkers in the 21st century.
Moreover, as history has rolled on, there's a disturbing trend of advances in technology simply being used as tools to carry out man's evil -- the massive death tolls of the 20th century (including wars, purges, revolutions, and man-created famines) argue against any kind of "new peaceful age."
Certainly, our civilization has advanced in wealth and leisure. But I don't know that one could convincingly argue for any demonstrable moral progression, at least not in a larger historical sense.
Reply
0
0
03-08-2011, 02:30 PM
#97
I think the idea that the human race has gained social tolerance or decreased in judgmental segregation over the last 2 or 3 thousand years is a difficult argument to make.
Certainly, there are particular injustices that fall into and out of fashion -- chattel slavery is less popular in the Western world that it has been in centuries past, but on the other hand it's by no means eradicated or even diminished in many parts of the world.
Homosexuality has been an accepted practice in various cultures at least as far back as the ancient Greeks...I'm not sure we can take any pride in suddenly deciding that we are such open-minded thinkers in the 21st century.
Moreover, as history has rolled on, there's a disturbing trend of advances in technology simply being used as tools to carry out man's evil -- the massive death tolls of the 20th century (including wars, purges, revolutions, and man-created famines) argue against any kind of "new peaceful age."
Certainly, our civilization has advanced in wealth and leisure. But I don't know that one could convincingly argue for any demonstrable moral progression, at least not in a larger historical sense.
Certainly, there are particular injustices that fall into and out of fashion -- chattel slavery is less popular in the Western world that it has been in centuries past, but on the other hand it's by no means eradicated or even diminished in many parts of the world.
Homosexuality has been an accepted practice in various cultures at least as far back as the ancient Greeks...I'm not sure we can take any pride in suddenly deciding that we are such open-minded thinkers in the 21st century.
Moreover, as history has rolled on, there's a disturbing trend of advances in technology simply being used as tools to carry out man's evil -- the massive death tolls of the 20th century (including wars, purges, revolutions, and man-created famines) argue against any kind of "new peaceful age."
Certainly, our civilization has advanced in wealth and leisure. But I don't know that one could convincingly argue for any demonstrable moral progression, at least not in a larger historical sense.
Bingo. I wish I could have come up with that myself.
Reply
0
0
03-08-2011, 02:40 PM
#98
I think the idea that the human race has gained social tolerance or decreased in judgmental segregation over the last 2 or 3 thousand years is a difficult argument to make.
Certainly, there are particular injustices that fall into and out of fashion -- chattel slavery is less popular in the Western world that it has been in centuries past, but on the other hand it's by no means eradicated or even diminished in many parts of the world.
Homosexuality has been an accepted practice in various cultures at least as far back as the ancient Greeks...I'm not sure we can take any pride in suddenly deciding that we are such open-minded thinkers in the 21st century.
Moreover, as history has rolled on, there's a disturbing trend of advances in technology simply being used as tools to carry out man's evil -- the massive death tolls of the 20th century (including wars, purges, revolutions, and man-created famines) argue against any kind of "new peaceful age."
Certainly, our civilization has advanced in wealth and leisure. But I don't know that one could convincingly argue for any demonstrable moral progression, at least not in a larger historical sense.
Certainly, there are particular injustices that fall into and out of fashion -- chattel slavery is less popular in the Western world that it has been in centuries past, but on the other hand it's by no means eradicated or even diminished in many parts of the world.
Homosexuality has been an accepted practice in various cultures at least as far back as the ancient Greeks...I'm not sure we can take any pride in suddenly deciding that we are such open-minded thinkers in the 21st century.
Moreover, as history has rolled on, there's a disturbing trend of advances in technology simply being used as tools to carry out man's evil -- the massive death tolls of the 20th century (including wars, purges, revolutions, and man-created famines) argue against any kind of "new peaceful age."
Certainly, our civilization has advanced in wealth and leisure. But I don't know that one could convincingly argue for any demonstrable moral progression, at least not in a larger historical sense.
Fortunately, we won't know 100%, since we currently do not have any focused scientific selective breeding programs to breed morality into/out of humans.
Though as mentioned earlier there have been behavior based breeding on wild animals that proves genes do have a significant impact on behavior.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox
Please note I'm not saying genes make a person bad or good, I'm not claiming any race is more moral than any other, and that environment has no impact. Just stating that genes do have an impact.
Reply
0
0
03-08-2011, 02:43 PM
#99
I'm Miserable!
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 583
Total Cats: -1
I think the idea that the human race has gained social tolerance or decreased in judgmental segregation over the last 2 or 3 thousand years is a difficult argument to make.
Certainly, there are particular injustices that fall into and out of fashion -- chattel slavery is less popular in the Western world that it has been in centuries past, but on the other hand it's by no means eradicated or even diminished in many parts of the world.
Homosexuality has been an accepted practice in various cultures at least as far back as the ancient Greeks...I'm not sure we can take any pride in suddenly deciding that we are such open-minded thinkers in the 21st century.
Moreover, as history has rolled on, there's a disturbing trend of advances in technology simply being used as tools to carry out man's evil -- the massive death tolls of the 20th century (including wars, purges, revolutions, and man-created famines) argue against any kind of "new peaceful age."
Certainly, our civilization has advanced in wealth and leisure. But I don't know that one could convincingly argue for any demonstrable moral progression, at least not in a larger historical sense.
Certainly, there are particular injustices that fall into and out of fashion -- chattel slavery is less popular in the Western world that it has been in centuries past, but on the other hand it's by no means eradicated or even diminished in many parts of the world.
Homosexuality has been an accepted practice in various cultures at least as far back as the ancient Greeks...I'm not sure we can take any pride in suddenly deciding that we are such open-minded thinkers in the 21st century.
Moreover, as history has rolled on, there's a disturbing trend of advances in technology simply being used as tools to carry out man's evil -- the massive death tolls of the 20th century (including wars, purges, revolutions, and man-created famines) argue against any kind of "new peaceful age."
Certainly, our civilization has advanced in wealth and leisure. But I don't know that one could convincingly argue for any demonstrable moral progression, at least not in a larger historical sense.
Reply
0
0
03-08-2011, 02:45 PM
#100
Jason, I've been holding my tongue on this for years, but I just can't take it anymore. You've done it twelve times in this thread alone.
If you're going to participate in a debate, then at least dignify us by taking the time to write out your own argument clearly and concisely, rather than just posting a bunch of links to articles and books written by others. Frankly, it's just not conducive to conversation if every time you want to make a point, we all have to order a book from Amazon, wait for it to arrive, read it, and then come back and respond to your post.
Would you do this in a real-life conversation with someone? If you and I were at a cockfight, having a discussion about the Peruvian export economy and came to disagree on some point, would you jot down the title of a book on the back of a 10 nuevos soles banknote and request that I leave the arena, go to a library, and read the book in question before returning to finish the discussion?
It's no better when it's a link to some article on the web, frankly. Expecting the reader to break out of the conversation and spend 5 or 10 minutes dredging through a report written by some extremist blogger or marginalized "researcher" whose kool-aid you have drunk may seem reasonable to you, but it comes off as lazy to the rest of us.
If you want to copy and paste an excerpt from someone else's article then I have no problem with that. It's what the INDENT tag is for. I have no problem with you saying that, according to the adoptive father of a certain 10 year old boy:
But don't just say that "If you read the whole blog, you will understand that the kid fits the description of the psychopath here:" That's arrogant, presumptuous, and rude. I'm not going to go sift through three years of some guy whining about the fact that his 10 year old boy behaves like a 10 year old boy just so that I can then buy and read some other book to see that you were right all along.
And don't think that I have a problem with citing references. If you want to take the time to posit an argument, and then say "To support the facts which I have claimed herein, I offer this article in substantiation: (link to article)" then by all means, feel free. In fact, I try very hard to insert a (source) link any time I post something which is particularly novel or apparently unsubstantiated. Endnotes are a perfectly acceptable for of scholarly citation, but they are not a substitute for actually composing a thought. What would a college prof have done to you if, in response to an assignment to compose a report on such-and-such, you'd handed in nothing but a page-long list of books that you feel the prof should read?
Articles and books are fine as SUPPORT for an argument which you are putting forth, but they are not a SUBSTITUTE for having an original thought.
Frankly, I'm just getting tired of this, and I'm about one step away from putting you on "ignore", which I don't want to do, as you really do make a huge and important contribution in the technical areas of this forum. But in the social and political arenas, posting a message that says "This book says everything I feel on the subject" doesn't make you sound literate and scholarly, it makes you sound like a 10 year old who just realized that he's got a book report due tomorrow morning and hasn't even opened the book yet.
If you're going to participate in a debate, then at least dignify us by taking the time to write out your own argument clearly and concisely, rather than just posting a bunch of links to articles and books written by others. Frankly, it's just not conducive to conversation if every time you want to make a point, we all have to order a book from Amazon, wait for it to arrive, read it, and then come back and respond to your post.
Would you do this in a real-life conversation with someone? If you and I were at a cockfight, having a discussion about the Peruvian export economy and came to disagree on some point, would you jot down the title of a book on the back of a 10 nuevos soles banknote and request that I leave the arena, go to a library, and read the book in question before returning to finish the discussion?
It's no better when it's a link to some article on the web, frankly. Expecting the reader to break out of the conversation and spend 5 or 10 minutes dredging through a report written by some extremist blogger or marginalized "researcher" whose kool-aid you have drunk may seem reasonable to you, but it comes off as lazy to the rest of us.
If you want to copy and paste an excerpt from someone else's article then I have no problem with that. It's what the INDENT tag is for. I have no problem with you saying that, according to the adoptive father of a certain 10 year old boy:
"Several days after Lucas had found some hard-core **** on the Internet, he started grabbing a girl’s bottom in school. He continued even after she asked him to stop."
And because of this, the boy is a psychopath.But don't just say that "If you read the whole blog, you will understand that the kid fits the description of the psychopath here:" That's arrogant, presumptuous, and rude. I'm not going to go sift through three years of some guy whining about the fact that his 10 year old boy behaves like a 10 year old boy just so that I can then buy and read some other book to see that you were right all along.
And don't think that I have a problem with citing references. If you want to take the time to posit an argument, and then say "To support the facts which I have claimed herein, I offer this article in substantiation: (link to article)" then by all means, feel free. In fact, I try very hard to insert a (source) link any time I post something which is particularly novel or apparently unsubstantiated. Endnotes are a perfectly acceptable for of scholarly citation, but they are not a substitute for actually composing a thought. What would a college prof have done to you if, in response to an assignment to compose a report on such-and-such, you'd handed in nothing but a page-long list of books that you feel the prof should read?
Articles and books are fine as SUPPORT for an argument which you are putting forth, but they are not a SUBSTITUTE for having an original thought.
Frankly, I'm just getting tired of this, and I'm about one step away from putting you on "ignore", which I don't want to do, as you really do make a huge and important contribution in the technical areas of this forum. But in the social and political arenas, posting a message that says "This book says everything I feel on the subject" doesn't make you sound literate and scholarly, it makes you sound like a 10 year old who just realized that he's got a book report due tomorrow morning and hasn't even opened the book yet.
-Here is MY view on the whole damn thing, misguided or not. If you look at how much work goes into making a computer, would you say that it could come together by itself, functioning, and energized? All of the elements are on the planet, no matter how precise you think a computer is, you, me, and every other being on the planet are exponetially more complex. So, why are there not computers popping out of the ground? A whole heck of a lot of effort has to go into one, that is why. They are thought out and engineered. So, the more logical solution to me, is that someone made it, as they did us. I would not work without a brain, or any other organ. On a more simple level, look at a single cell. The propulsion system in some cells, such as a flagellum, are very close to an electric motor but powered by ph instead. If it was missing just one part, your starter wouldn't work right? So, say we remove the armeture. Someone isn't going to work. There has to be a point where multiple things came together at once, then it was put into motion, or started, or energized. So, self replicating RNA came up with this perfectly engineered cell, and something started it. Those things aligned themselves, and transformed themselves into the correct cells to support a living being. Do you know how many different cells your body is made out of. There is only so far you can break stuff down with out it working any more. You can only make something so simple, and remove so many parts to where it is able to function at some capacity. I am not a biology guy, and I can't list off all of the parts of the cell, but there are quite a few, and even making them add up at the perfect level as far as material composition, and the atomic level is absolutely insane. Therefore, I think it takes MORE faith to think that some fluke of nature produced all life, than someone or something making it. I am a christian, true, but I am not saying you are wrong because you are not. How you want to,(or don't want to) sort that out is on you. Just don't post that kind of thing and expect a positive response, then everyone to jump on the band wagon because you posted something by the atheist conversionist army.
Reply
0
0
