Death is not something to be feared! (page 5)

With your getting struck with HOW and WHY, you think you nicely buried the BIG question: WHY did life evolve from non-life, why did it reach up to homo sapiens only to disappear?

This is a question no one can answer, and no one will ever answer. In fact this is a question that angers all the evolutionists I have come across in my life.

iconoclastic

Why is only Carl Sagan singled out? Why does no one touch Abraham Linclon, Shakespeare, Will Durant?

LoveUniHateExams

Death is not something to be feared!

Try telling that to an armed robber when he puts a gun to your head

Vidiot

Sagan was scientific, articulate, charming, and smart as hell; the American public f**king loved him.

There's been no real successor to his legacy in the public's eye since he passed (although Neil deGrasse Tyson comes close, IMO).

Saintbertholdt

(although Neil deGrasse Tyson comes close, IMO).

Yeah he has inherited the title of chief science communicator :)

Why is only Carl Sagan singled out? Why does no one touch Abraham Linclon, Shakespeare, Will Durant?

I'll touch Will Durant. You didn't half quote him but generally I disagree with his prediction of secularism causing society's downfall. He looks to Greece and Rome but he ignores the fact that those cultures did not replace religion with secularism, but mainly replaced religion with hedonism. On the other hand Durants fear is actually a good cautionary phobia which modern society should still take note of.

stuffwotifink

"I didn't mention philosophy."

I did.
I'm aware what begging the question is, formally - but thanks anyway.

... Either your point stands upon the shoulders of the assumption (and silent claim therein) that there are no teleological answers - Or it does not. (Remember, context, I'm not claiming you claimed it)
If it does, which it seems to quite baldly, to me; you would be ignoring the point being communicated to you.
No doubt it is a big "If", but it is what motivated my comment.
If your comment doesn't rest upon that point - it is as redundant in this thread as a comment saying "blue skies sometimes have clouds"... If it is in any way a response to the OP, the implication is there.

"Regardless of what he meant, he was wrong."

Nice. Just, yeah, nice. Good luck with that.

"Perhaps you should discuss what I actually wrote instead of construct a faulty argument around what you mistakenly think I wrote."

I was quite clear about the fact that I was questioning an assumption I believed you rested your statement upon, not accusing you of expressing said assumption. Perhaps you also should take care.
And honestly, really, if I did "mistakenly think" you wrote something, how on earth would I be able to "discuss what I actually wrote" with you?
I'd be labouring under the misapprehension that I was doing just that.

Whatevz yo, have yourself a good one.

steve2

Oh dear! It is so easy to misunderstand what someone else has written, or, if understood, making assumptions about the other that are harshly personal. Whatever happened to agreeing to disagree? Isn't it okay for either side - or both - to simply acknowledge they have different opinions and views sometimes based upon the very same facts? And to charitably just Let It Be?

cofty

WHY did life evolve from non-life,

That is like asking "what does the number 31 smell like?"

It's a nonsensical question. How did life arise from non-living matter? is a sensible question. However the fact of evolution is not dependent on an answer.

This is a question no one can answer, and no one will ever answer.

Only somebody who is not keeping up with progress in abiogenesis could make such a silly assertion. When did you last read a book or paper on the topic?

In fact this is a question that angers all the evolutionists I have come across in my life.

I don't know what an "evolutionist" is.

Anybody who accepts the fact of evolution and who has taken the time to study the evidence is likely to get irritated by your wilful ignorance.

Viviane

I was quite clear about the fact that I was questioning an assumption I believed you rested your statement upon, not accusing you of expressing said assumption. Perhaps you also should take care.

Well, you were wrong.

And honestly, really, if I did "mistakenly think" you wrote something, how on earth would I be able to "discuss what I actually wrote" with you?

I dunno, by correcting your mistaken belief, I guess.

Either your point stands upon the shoulders of the assumption (and silent claim therein) that there are no teleological answers

Oh, and, out of order, but, in case you don't get it, this is completely untrue. I never made any claim about the existence of teleological answers. That's where you're going off the rails.

stuffwotifink

"Well, you were wrong."

Sweet, I can live with that.

"I dunno, by correcting your mistaken belief, I guess."

When I'm being a smart arse I guess I should be more pointed, I meant in regard to the comment I'd already made, I could hardly have done so retroactively, after all. Seems pithy wit is not my forté, dagnabbit.

"I never made any claim about the existence of teleological answers. That's where you're going off the rails."

I never claimed you made a claim. I simply asked if the claim was not implicit.

I am quite happy to accept your word on the matter. It seems my attempt at specificity has come across as argumentative or picky... Or something the like.
I still think that my misunderstanding is understandable - given the context of the statement - But am happy to stand, as I said, thoroughly (I always want to spell that "thouroughly") corrected as to your intended meaning.

Hmm, in case that sounds a little mealy mouthed to you (a la JW.borg), which it does to me: I accept your correction, you know what you meant far better than I.

Death is not something to be feared!

With your getting struck with HOW and WHY, you think you nicely buried the BIG question: WHY did life evolve from non-life, why did it reach up to homo sapiens only to disappear?

This is a question no one can answer, and no one will ever answer. In fact this is a question that angers all the evolutionists I have come across in my life.

That is like asking "what does the number 31 smell like?"

It's a nonsensical question. How did life arise from non-living matter? is a sensible question. However the fact of evolution is not dependent on an answer.

Only somebody who is not keeping up with progress in abiogenesis could make such a silly assertion. When did you last read a book or paper on the topic?

I don't know what an "evolutionist" is.

Anybody who accepts the fact of evolution and who has taken the time to study the evidence is likely to get irritated by your wilful ignorance.

Share this