Silk here: It's a pity that many on this list are (1) either
pompous individuals in desperate need of attention or (2) just plain
childish! It's even a greater pity that this subject creation vs evolution
is so complex that we should spend our time attempting to arrive at answers
instead of playing mind games; "I'm smarter than you" type thing! You all
know exactly what I'm talking about! As to Assumptions: In the abscene of
any real proof if one is to make any headway they must resort to
"assumptions" or more specifically "Deductions"!
"If this does that often enough than this must be so"!
Like coming to grips with what electrons, neutrons & protons do let alone
"assuming" they even exist or like rubbing two sticks together & "assuming"
why a spark results & that into fire! You guys would make lousy teachers as
your main aim would be to impress the students as to how smart you were & to
[on purpose]
totally confuse them & then act dumbfounded as to how they couldn't
understand such a simple principle (one you knew inside out) Oh yes I know
your pathetic types! Sad, sad in the extreme! chao/Silk
Cris Cogan wrote:Subject: Ultimate premises: Note: I notice that Jones does
not answer my reasoning in my prior post on this topic, to the effect that
his own argument to the conclusion that ultimate premises must be simply
assumed is self-refuting, because *it*
must rest on premises, and ultimately on ultimate premises. If they are
simply assumed, then what reason have we for thinking that the argument is
sound?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 09 2000 - 13:21:58 EST