Joined: May 2006
|Would you care to show me specifically WHY it's blather, since you obviously are smarter than me?|
I already did. You lacked the courtesy and knowledge to respond to what I had written, preferring to tell lies instead.
What is it about so many of the religious? Why do lies about others come out so readily into their posts?
|Or will you keep filling my thread with psycho-analysis?|
It's not "your thread", greedy businessman, rather it is a thread in which all may discuss. And it's hardly psychoanalysis, though you wouldn't know that either. It's more of an analysis based on social psychology, if more on the lines of Nietzsche than on Pareto, Weber, or Durkheim.
And since you have no evidence, or convincing arguments, there is little really to do except to point out the failings of you and many of your fellow believers. I do so in part because "our side" tends to argue with you guys as if you might soon begin to understand things sensibly, when it is clear that you will not.
While many are not really going to understand just why it is that you "think" your herd thoughts and how thoroughly entrenched your very patterns of cognition actually are, at least one might drive home the fact that worldviews are not easily changed. Particularly not in the self-satisfied bourgeoisie.
|One more thing, Glen. Talk really slow and refute my points one by one in simple layman's terms so that my "religion darkened brain" can understand.|
Don't imply that I consider religious brains to necessarily be "darkened". Norm Doering strikes at religion, I do not, except when religion has decided to make exceptions in accepted thought to accommodate their dogmas. Not even then, if they don't spread their nonsense onto the web and attempt to force it into schools.
And if you understood what I have written, you would recognize that I know that I can hardly get through to you. I have refuted any number of your points, and what I got in return were sneering lies from you.
What is more, I do not believe in trying to dumb things down enough for those who refuse to study. I might try to get through to someone who was curious and teachable, but not someone who really only wants to defend the nonsense that he got from pseudoscientific sites.
If you don't know that all of your points have either been refuted or explained to be without merit (but not "refutable" exactly), you're clearly not listening or unable to comprehend. That is why I think it more profitable to discuss the why of your failings, rather than try again and again to get you to see what you not only have not learned to see, but rather have learned to avoid seeing.
Quite honestly, and without malice, I can only recommend that you do some serious study into biology, and into the history of evolutionary thought. If you were to simply read, not react, and follow the thought processes of biological/evolutionary thinkers, you might begin to understand how the evidence is used scientifically to indicate that life was derived from other life.
And if you still did not accept evolution, at least you would not be using such faulty lines of "reasoning" and denial of evidence to "make your points". Then we might still disagree, but we could discuss things on an equal footing. It will not do to demand that we see things your way, when we have learned how and why the kinds of thinking that we were taught early on are not adequate.
I do know how to see the evidence like you do, I merely have to think back to when I was 14 and earlier. You need to learn, and it is not simple or easy, how scientists and/or philosophers think, if you want to have some traction on science forums.
Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy