>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
Chris
I disagree with Stephen's views on the ultimate premises issue. But, while
he is wrong, I see nothing *confusing* about his views or his expression of
them, and I certainly don't think mine are particularly confusing. If you
want to see something confusing, take a look at your own posts.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 09 2000 - 22:45:53 EST