dido
Abaddon- first of all i am not playing the `dumb` card, but i hate it when science boffs quote stuff which the average person doesn`t have a clue about. Whether they are trying to impress others with their `intellectual` mind comes into question.
Don't you think it is a little unreasonable to (in a discussion about science) have a chip on your shoulder about those who have studied enough to know what they are talking about? This is not me dropping sesquipadalian into a conversation about cheese. This is me talking about science using science words, which is as neccesary and reasonable as talking about cars using car words.
After believing in creation for all my life, and not ever contemplating evolution, i admit i don`t know a lot about it, but why should all my assumptions be false?
The ones you've used thus far in arriving at some of your questions ARE false. That doesn't mean all your assumptions regarding evolution are false, just the ones you've displayed so far
Another example of dogmatism if you ask me!
I think expecting to talk about a complex subject in kiddy-terms and expecting to understand something without study is arrogant.
Okay, give me one example of something that is still evolving, as i don`t know one?
Bacteria. Any organism undergoing selection pressure.
Also, i actually agree with the `creative myth` that women are `unclean` while menstruating.
Your issues, not mine; menstural blood is sterile. I have to point out that that the Mosaic Law (where such nonsense as that is contained) is not a creative myth, it is just attributed traditionally to the same bronze-age goatherd as the Biblical Creation myth.
Well, i`ll put that in laymans terms, women need a break from sex during that time of the month, but selfish men don`t see it that way.
What you mean to say is YOU (and some other women) don't like having sex during your period and rather than just saying that (which is fine) point to the scribblings of a bronze-age goatherd to justify what you don't need to justify. Why don't you just say 'I don't like having sex when I am on my period'? The way you handle this now actually makes it look like you condmn the choice made by women who like sex during their period or don't care either way, and makes you universally condemn men. Thanks a lot; I suppose it's okay for you to throw around dogmatic as an insult but how about self-rightous comin back at you?
I already said you're not dumb; it's your making excuses for your lack of knowledge about the subject I am calling you on. Read a book on the subject. Look at some of the links you've been provided on this thread; the links to SNG's series of posts is a classic example, all there in laymans terms.
Beardo
Is it anti-intellectual week or what? I always find it hysterically funny when someone in a discussion resorts to insulting someone or being sarcastic because they think they're dealing with someone they obviously think of as an intellectual.
I kinda think when all you have to say (in effect) is "you're being an intellectual" you simply don't have anything better to say.
Eschatology? When we discuss the final destiny of humankind (we haven't so I wonder why you raise it) your opinion MAY be as valid as mine. Alternately you may sincerely believe we will be eaten by a mutant sky-goat, in which case I'm pretty sure my views on eschatology will be more valid than yours.
You also clearly stated you were not god. How can you not be god when you are part of god? It's like not being a baseball player when you are on a baseball team. Maybe you were tripping...
I was unsure whether you were being sarcastic, thus the question. Why do you find hiding behind vaugness and unknowability so comforting? For a start,. there is not nearly as much vaugeness and unknowability as you seem to make out. For seconds, even where there is vaugness and unknowability there is a definate order of probabilities.
Your comments to dido and her reply are classic. You both want to talk about the subject and have people treat your opinions as something of value, but neither one of you is willing to actually bother learning about the subject. We thus have to listen to clueless opinions put forth by people too arrogant to learn something as they're too self-satisfied or lazy to go to the effort, but who at the same time want to be taken seriously in a discussion about the subject. You poor little diddums you!
It is white-collar bias. Any person with no knowledge of carpentry who told a craftsman with thirty years of study and work in shaping cabinets from raw wood they're wrong would be thought of as arrogant, absurd and laughable.
It someone who know nothing about a 'white-collar' subject like science tells someone with thirty years of study and work in shaping their particular field of knowledge they are wrong, then they get all upset if people think they're unqualified and arrogant to pass such judgement.
I suggest you go off to a discussion board about nuclear physics and tell the physicists where they are going wrong, or a discussion board for oncologists and tell them where they are going wrong. You both seem to have the personality and knowledge for it.
And you call me arrogant! LOL. Yes, I may well be, about areas I know enough to be sure of my opininions, You guys are sure of your opinons even when you don't know enough to relaibly form one.
Quit with the condesending attitudes and we might even have a descent discussion.