>
>Bertvan:
>Hi Chris. I don't like to appear to I ignore you. Your arguments are
>always elaborate and well thought out, but our premises are so different
>that discussion would be difficult.
>
>Silk here: Why don't you guys take your gobblydegook on the road? In your
>juvenile & ever so desperate attempts to come off as "in the know" you
>simply make fools of yourselves!
>No offense intended by why can't you simply state your case simply? Why the
>riddles & double negatives? Why the laborius attempts at complication? Are
>you giving eachother a course & if so what is the course on? "I know more
>than you"????????? I could take the amount of actual "useful information &
>thus knowledge" passed on by the both of you & put it in a thimble & there'd
>still be room for a rattle.
Chris
Hmmm. Perhaps you need a remedial reading class.
Oh, and just where is *your* "useful information and knowledge"? Why has
none of it appeared in any of your posts?
Silk
> A little knowledge is a dangerous thing as you
>two so
>amply demonstrate!
Chris
This, from one who, apparently, is *proud* of how little he knows?
Silk
> An intelligent individual can explain complications
>simply.
Chris
And nearly *always* incorrectly, or with simplifications that invite
misunderstandings.
However, I *could* make the complexities "simple," but then it would take
far more space. The Universe is not simple. Dealing with it adequately
*requires* the ability to deal with complexities.
Further, I've found from experience that the ambiguities and inaccuracies
of such simplicity leave too many opportunities for people like Jones to
"misunderstand" what I'm saying.
Finally, I don't always have time to write even as simply as I might. It
takes longer in time to say something simply than it does just to say it.
But, for you, I'll state two my cases simply:
1. Evolutionary theory shows every sign of being essentially adequate, and
none, so far, of having any major failings.
2. Primary premises are cognitively validated by their logical necessity as
presumptions in everything else and by the impossibility of denying them
without assuming them. Thus, premises such as that one exists do not need
proof based on prior premises, nor can they be accepted on faith.
There. Having stated them thus, have you learned anything? No, probably
not. The learning is in understanding the qualifications, the underlying
principles, the objections and answers to objections. These cannot be
presented in a sentence or two. If your claim were true, the entire Library
of Congress could be reduced to a single line of type.
I'm sorry if you suffer from ADD or unwillingness to think to such a degree
that you are not able or willing to learn to read any argumentation that
requires some degree of logical thought. But, I have a suggestion for you,
nevertheless: Find a nice cave with no books, no reading matter of any
sort, no radio, no TV, no neighbors, no phone, no computer, and go sit in
it, huddled inside of some animal's skin. This way, you would not have to
contend with people who think.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 30 2000 - 20:09:56 EST