Evolutionary design---Why not by a superior civilization---
Joseki
ilbe...@gmail.com
> http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/paul_root_wolpe_it_s_time_to_questi...
Great...then where did this superior civilization come from ?! All
things lead back to a personal theistic Creator/Designer , and his
name is suitably called : God almighty. Even atheist guru Dawkins
admits to the superior civilization concept , or, intelligent design
from a higher source. You see...theres really no such thing as
'atheism' which depends on naturalism and materialism...all that was
just a hoax for the textbooks to jettison the obvious and necessary
personal Creator to our Cosmos and all within it. Get to know him
because he IS personal ... then you will be satisfying your ultimate
reason on being here...it isnt to lavish fun and pleasure,upon oneself
at any dangerous cost. Peace.
Ips-Switch
"IlBe...@gmail.com" <ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c33b43cd-3d80-445c...@w21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Your posts get dumber and dumber as time passes. You keep making
unsubstantiated claims and run away when proof or real scientific evidence
is asked for.
Joseki
Uh... What did you say?
Andy W
> On May 31, 10:48 am, Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/paul_root_wolpe_it_s_time_to_questi...
>
> Great...then where did this superior civilization come from ?! All
> things lead back to a personal theistic Creator/Designer
Great... then where did this theistic creator/designer come from? A
creator/designer of creator/designers? And then where did he come
from? And if he isn't needed, why would the first creator be needed
either?
Of course the biggest problem with this line of argument is that I
don't know how to make it simple enough for you to understand it.
Andy
Tronscend
"Joseki" <jabri...@gmail.com> skrev i melding
news:5c45d2aa-52fc-4833...@e26g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
...
> Uh... What did you say?
The essence of it is:
"Do not lavish fun and pleasure upon yourself."
"The whole of the Law and the Prophets is summed up in this Commandment" ...
T
Tronscend
"Andy W" <vor...@mailinator.com> skrev i melding
news:313944fe-ec87-4836...@w21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On May 31, 6:33 pm, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 31, 10:48 am, Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/paul_root_wolpe_it_s_time_to_questi...
>
>> Great...then where did this superior civilization come from ?! All
>> things lead back to a personal theistic Creator/Designer
>Great... then where did this theistic creator/designer come from? A
>creator/designer of creator/designers? And then where did he come
>from? And if he isn't needed, why would the first creator be needed
>either?
It could mean .... that God has a God, too. A Meta-God. And that the MetaGod
had a MetaMetaGod. And so on.
And perhaps MetaGod has given God a quota of souls, either to save or
condemn; and the injunction not to make any revelations in the age of mass
communication, to not revoke free will etc. are nasty handicaps enforced by
Meta(- MetaMetaMeta...n -)God.
That's why he's so angry sometimes.
The Cosmos as one big Ponzi scheme.
Slowly, it all makes sense ...
T
AllSeeing-I
> http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/paul_root_wolpe_it_s_time_to_questi...
They probably are from another civilization. Only it is vastly
superior to human civilization. They exist in a timeless dimension
that we cannot comprehend.
Jesus constantly referred to God's domain as a kingdom. He also told
Pilate that legions of Angels could protect him. This suggest there is
order, perhaps a military style to hos this kingdom is run, with God
as the king.
Of course, Jesus was just putting it into terms that everyone could
understand. However, the analogy is the same. There is a kingdom, it
is in the heavens, which is the sky. That further suggest somewhere in
space.
It is also clear that God has attributes that he gave to humans. "We
are made in his image". According to the old testament, God shows
anger, jealously, compassion, and a wide range of attributes that we
believe are exclusively human. But they are not. We are like him, he
is not like us. The difference between them and us is that they have
learned to master sinful behavior. Maybe this is a result of increased
intelligence.
The notion that humans are created, weather it was by genetic
manipulation, or other wise, surely makes more sense then a random and
unguided process like evolution being responsible for the origins of
the human species. No other process matches speciation. Has anyone
ever seen a rock diverge? How about the stars or another planet? For
that matter, has anyone actually observed species divergence take
place on the earth? The only truthful answer is, no.
So sure, why not by a superior civilization? One that is vastly
different. Like described in the bible.
Father Haskell
> Get to know him
> because he IS personal ... then you will be satisfying your ultimate
> reason on being here...it isnt to lavish fun and pleasure,upon oneself
> at any dangerous cost.
Why? What will happen?
raven1
>On May 31, 10:48 am, Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/paul_root_wolpe_it_s_time_to_questi...
>
>Great...then where did this superior civilization come from ?! All
>things lead back to a personal theistic Creator/Designer ,
That does not follow.
>and his
>name is suitably called : God almighty.
"God" is a title, not a personal name. Add your own religion to the
ever-growing list of things you know little to nothing about.
> Even atheist guru Dawkins
>admits to the superior civilization concept , or, intelligent design
>from a higher source.
There's nothing inherently impossible about an advanced civilization
genetically engineering life, but there's no evidence for it either.
> You see...theres really no such thing as
>'atheism'
Yes,there is, Dave. There are millions of people who don't believe any
deities exist. And it frightens you because deep down, you know we're
right.
>which depends on naturalism and materialism...
In the absence of any evidence for the supernatural, naturalism is the
default position.
>all that was
>just a hoax for the textbooks to jettison the obvious and necessary
>personal Creator to our Cosmos and all within it.
We don't find a creator in our science textbooks because there is no
evidence for it, and because science is about the natural world. It
doesn't address metaphysical woo-woo claims.
>Get to know him
>because he IS personal ...
Jahnu makes the same claim as you, only he'd insist that Krishna is
the real personal God, and that you're deluded. Got any reason we
should believe either of your claims?
>then you will be satisfying your ultimate
>reason on being here...it isnt to lavish fun and pleasure,upon oneself
>at any dangerous cost.
As I've mentioned many times, I don't do that. Why do you constantly
insist on projecting your own failings onto everyone else?
Father Haskell
>
> They exist in a timeless dimension
> that we cannot comprehend.
Then how would you know?
Dakota
Uncle Vic
wrote:
> On May 31, 10:48 am, Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/paul_root_wolpe_it_s_time_to_questi...
>
> Great...then where did this superior civilization come from ?! All
> things lead back to a personal theistic Creator/Designer
Why is it you can't provide evidence that supports this claim?
--
Uncle Vic
raven1
The same reason he can't present his list of "over 150+ razor edge
physics constants" that he keeps claiming he has: neither the evidence
nor the list exists. I don't think that he's a liar for Jeebus,
though: lying requires that the person know what they are saying is
untrue. His posting history, however, does seem to indicate that he's
really dumb and ignorant enough to sincerely believe there's evidence
for a deity, and that such a list of physical constants exists,
because he's been systematically lied to, and is incapable of
evaluating what he's been told. He's a perfect example of the
Dunning-Kruger effect in action.
SortingItOut
wrote:
> On May 31, 10:48 am, Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/paul_root_wolpe_it_s_time_to_questi...
>
> Great...then where did this superior civilization come from ?! All
> things lead back to a personal theistic Creator/Designer , and his
> name is suitably called : God almighty. Even atheist guru Dawkins
> admits to the superior civilization concept , or, intelligent design
> from a higher source. You see...theres really no such thing as
> 'atheism' which depends on naturalism and materialism...all that was
> just a hoax for the textbooks to jettison the obvious and necessary
> personal Creator to our Cosmos and all within it. Get to know him
> because he IS personal
In 48 years I've never seen him. Just how personal is he?
Parrish *~
"SortingItOut" <eri...@home.com> wrote in message
news:50fe9a62-2cc8-493c...@d1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
It's those voices he hears in his head. He thinks a God is talking to him.
He doesn't know he's schizophrenic.
--
Parrish *~
Speaking at 'Bible Students' convention in Winnipeg, Manitoba in the early
1920's, Rutherford (Jehovah's Witness) described a Jew as 'the hooked-nosed,
stooped-shouldered little individual who stands on the street corner trying
to
gyp you out of every nickel you've got.'"
AVOID THIS CULT LIKE THE PLAGUE!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Joseki
> "Andy W" <vor...@mailinator.com> skrev i meldingnews:313944fe-ec87-4836...@w21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On May 31, 6:33 pm, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 31, 10:48 am, Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/paul_root_wolpe_it_s_time_to_questi...
>
> >> Great...then where did this superior civilization come from ?! All
> >> things lead back to a personal theistic Creator/Designer
> >Great... then where did this theistic creator/designer come from? A
> >creator/designer of creator/designers? And then where did he come
> >from? And if he isn't needed, why would the first creator be needed
> >either?
>
> It could mean .... that God has a God, too. A Meta-God. And that the MetaGod
> had a MetaMetaGod. And so on.
There goes the laws of physics woosh down the toilet with that
reasoning.
Joseki
> On Tue, 31 May 2011 10:33:00 -0700 (PDT), "IlBeBa...@gmail.com"
>
> <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 31, 10:48 am, Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/paul_root_wolpe_it_s_time_to_questi...
>
> >Great...then where did this superior civilization come from ?! All
> >things lead back to a personal theistic Creator/Designer ,
>
> That does not follow.
>
> >and his
> >name is suitably called : God almighty.
>
> "God" is a title, not a personal name. Add your own religion to the
> ever-growing list of things you know little to nothing about.
>
Agreed.
> > Even atheist guru Dawkins
> >admits to the superior civilization concept , or, intelligent design
> >from a higher source.
>
> There's nothing inherently impossible about an advanced civilization
> genetically engineering life, but there's no evidence for it either.
>
Agreed, but it is more plausible than an old sky fairy flicking his
fingers---no?
Joseki
same evidence that support abiogenesis.
Joseki
I never met Alexander the great... he must not exist.
Joseki
If Michio Kaku says so.. would you believe him?
Devils Advocaat
Having the opinion that an alien species which evolved by Darwinian
mechanisms and then seeded this planet with life is not the same as
believing in some supernatural entity that poofed everything into
existence with a word.
AllSeeing-I
They ARE the supernatural entity that poofed everything into existence
Joseki
I think you are mis using the term supernatural a bit.
raven1
Considering that we already observe one civilization actively pursuing
the field of genetic engineering, while we do not observe old sky
fairies magicking things into existence, I'd have to answer "yes", it
is quite a bit more plausible. That said, there's still no evidence
that it has actually occurred in the past.
Andy W
And there goes the point whoosh miles over the top of your
dysfunctional head.
Budikka666
> http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/paul_root_wolpe_it_s_time_to_questi...
I'll tell you why, dimwit - because positing an alien creator gets you
nowhere since you then have to account for their origin: - was it
evolution? Was it a prior advanced race? If it was yet another
advanced race, then whence did they hail? Eventually you get so far
back that you have to resort to evolution. There's no way out of it
unless you want to run and hide behind a religious fairy tale.
Got it now Jokesi?
Budikka
Malte Runz
news:c33b43cd-3d80-445c...@w21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> On May 31, 10:48 am, Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/paul_root_wolpe_it_s_time_to_questi...
>
He's talking about man being able to manipulate his genes and create a
superior civilization. Improve 'God's perfect design', so to speak.
(snip)
--
Malte Runz
Joseki
And the Answer was? I thought so... poor Andy... start with
Classical mechanics from grade school, then get back to us.
Joseki
> On May 31, 10:48 am, Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/paul_root_wolpe_it_s_time_to_questi...
>
> I'll tell you why, dimwit - because positing an alien creator gets you
> nowhere since you then have to account for their origin: - was it
> evolution?
Actually I don't...
>Was it a prior advanced race? If it was yet another
> advanced race, then whence did they hail? Eventually you get so far
> back that you have to resort to evolution. There's no way out of it
> unless you want to run and hide behind a religious fairy tale.
>
> Got it now Jokesi?
here what you don't get.
If the Universe doesn't need a Creator.. why should a superior Alien
Life form? Or do you disagree with people who actually have the
credentials to make such statements like Hawkings?
Now Budikaka... read a book and get a real education.
Olrik
He was not the hero of a mythological story.
Lack A. Wockki
"AllSeeing-I" <allse...@usa.com> wrote in message
news:1d5912ed-5631-4e58...@j31g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And they're the ones who came and visit the earth in their UFOs?
Interesting.
--
"If all the atheists left the USA, it would lose 93% of the National
Academy of Sciences but less than 1% of the prison population."
~~ Scott Hurst ~~
SortingItOut
The claim is that God is personal. I'm questioning that claim. It's
apparent to me that he's not personal at all. Even when I believed in
God he wasn't personal.
Alexander the great is irrelevant. There is no claim that he exists
today and is personal.
Devils Advocaat
Dawkins was referring to a species that came into existence by
Darwinian mechanisms.
In other words a physical life-form and not a supernatural entity.
Do try and keep up maddy.
Joseki
You about him as if he was real...
Devils Advocaat
Poor maddy, the two concepts are completely different.
JohnN
> http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/paul_root_wolpe_it_s_time_to_questi...
Evidence of an advanced civilization in the universe is, like any god,
lacking.
JohnN
Andy W
See, I didn't give an answer because there wasn't a question anywhere.
I can see all of this is just getting to be too much for you. Perhaps
you should give it a rest for a while.
Tronscend
"Joseki" <jabri...@gmail.com> skrev i melding
news:7dcd6b14-ad0e-4596...@t16g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
>If the Universe doesn't need a Creator.. why should a superior Alien
>Life form?
Oh, good morning!
So, we step back from Creator to Alien Life form; but if we do not need
_any_ first beginning, why not just begin with your parents? Or even
yesterday, to quote David Bowie?
> Now Budikaka... read a book and get a real education.
Right ... "reading one book" = "getting an education" to you .... figures.
T
Tronscend
> You about him as if he was real...
This sentence no verb.
T
Devils Advocaat
You should get a good dictionary and look up the meaning of the word
"supernatural", because it looks like you haven't got a clue what it
means.
Joseki
name on "supernatural" event.
Devils Advocaat
I'm not the one with the problem regarding what is and isn't
supernatural.
AllSeeing-I
words can also have an 'implied meaning
Besides, if they created us, they would be super (above) natural
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Devils Advocaat
Implied meanings depend on context maddy.
>
> Besides, if they created us, they would be super (above) natural
>
If an alien civilisation from another planet seeded this world with
life.
They would be a part of nature and not above it.
Because following that line of reasoning, if a human being were to
create life that would make them a supernatural entity too.
Budikka
> If the Universe doesn't need a Creator.. why should a superior Alien
> credentials to make such statements like Hawkings?
You read an article on CNN and you think you got an education? My but
that's amusing!
Now let's address your putting words into Hawking's mouth shall we?
He said that a universe can spontaneously generate; he never said that
an alien can. Or do you disagree with people who actually have the
credentials to avoid making such statements like Hawkings did on this
topic?
So let's you and I debate origins shall we? I'll start, since people
on your side of the fence seem timid to the point of a phobia in
kicking off these things.
You see, a universe - at least as far as our experience informs -
arises from a singularity or something remarkably like one, but living
things do not arise from a singularity; they arise from pre-existing
cells, each of them massive compared with the size of the universe
when *it* began.
Do you see the difference? If not, I'm sure there are books which can
illuminate everything for you since you're such a good scholar
recommending books to me and such.
Now if you wish to demonstrate an equivalence between a universe and a
living alien, I'd be enthralled by it. Can I count on you for that?
Just let me point out something which might be of assistance to you,
because it's my theory (not a scientific theory, just a common-
parlance theory) that you're going to need all the help you can get
here.
Here it is: the *fact* is that quantum physics does indeed permit a
living thing to come into existence out of nothing, but the odds are
so massively against an entire, functional living being coming into
existence like that, that it never happens for all practical purposes.
But IF one did, that would be just one alien. It wouldn't include
means of space travel or energy sources for such, or tools, and
there's absolutely no guarantee that this alien would arise anywhere
near the vicinity of Earth. Or even on a planet. In fact, the odds
are so massively against such a spontaneous alien arising on *any*
planet that this putative alien would very probably suffocate and
freeze in deep space nowhere near any planet capable of supporting him
or her (or it).
I don't know if you know that, but I thought I'd pass it on in the
interests of full disclosure and vigorous debate.
So here's your task: demonstrate that an alien being and a universe
are equivalent. Hawking never said they were, so it's really all on
you.
I await your valued response with eager anticipation.
Budikka
Joseki
I don't seem to have one, because there is no such thing.
Joseki
Actually... No,
Joseki
> On Jun 1, 8:26 pm, Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If the Universe doesn't need a Creator.. why should a superior Alien
> > Life form? Or do you disagree with people who actually have the
> > credentials to make such statements like Hawkings?
>
> You read an article on CNN and you think you got an education? My but
> that's amusing!
>
No, My University background in electrical and electronic engineering,
with a minor in computer science and mathematic's and paper from
University that allowed me to be gainfully employed in my carrer says
that I have. That education enables me to understand the CNN article,
which seems to most of us not your case.
> Now let's address your putting words into Hawking's mouth shall we?
Sure
> He said that a universe can spontaneously generate; he never said that
> an alien can.
And?
> Or do you disagree with people who actually have the
> credentials to avoid making such statements like Hawkings did on this
> topic?
>
Your Point is?
> So let's you and I debate origins shall we? I'll start, since people
> on your side of the fence seem timid to the point of a phobia in
> kicking off these things.
>
And exactly who are "those"
> You see, a universe - at least as far as our experience informs -
> arises from a singularity or something remarkably like one, but living
> things do not arise from a singularity; they arise from pre-existing
> cells, each of them massive compared with the size of the universe
> when *it* began.
>
> Do you see the difference? If not, I'm sure there are books which can
> illuminate everything for you since you're such a good scholar
> recommending books to me and such.
>
First of all, what is the Origin of the "singularity"?
Second, you wrote: "at least as far as our experience informs" this
indicates that you agree, scientist don't have all the answers, and
may actuall run into something quite different, which may modify their
understand of the subject. I find it had to fathom your statement "but
living things do not arise from a singularity; they arise from pre-
existing cells"
My conclusion, you are not Budikaka, However I beg to ask, where did
these "cells" come from?
> Now if you wish to demonstrate an equivalence between a universe and a
> living alien, I'd be enthralled by it. Can I count on you for that?
>
Sure.
> Just let me point out something which might be of assistance to you,
> because it's my theory (not a scientific theory, just a common-
> parlance theory) that you're going to need all the help you can get
> here.
Not really.
>
> Here it is: the *fact* is that quantum physics does indeed permit a
> living thing to come into existence out of nothing, but the odds are
> so massively against an entire, functional living being coming into
> existence like that, that it never happens for all practical purposes.
>
> But IF one did, that would be just one alien. It wouldn't include
> means of space travel or energy sources for such, or tools, and
> there's absolutely no guarantee that this alien would arise anywhere
> near the vicinity of Earth. Or even on a planet. In fact, the odds
> are so massively against such a spontaneous alien arising on *any*
> planet that this putative alien would very probably suffocate and
> freeze in deep space nowhere near any planet capable of supporting him
> or her (or it).
>
> I don't know if you know that, but I thought I'd pass it on in the
> interests of full disclosure and vigorous debate.
>
Very good... Now what did you do the real Budikaka... I kind of miss
ranta anf the foaming of the mouth that drop on the keyboard.
> So here's your task: demonstrate that an alien being and a universe
> are equivalent. Hawking never said they were, so it's really all on
> you.
>
That Easy ... keep in mind I never said Hawking an Alien Being is
equivalent to the Universe.
> Budikka
Joseki
> On Jun 4, 9:28 pm, Budikka <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
Small note, ignore my grammatically error, English is not my first
language, But you knew this already.
Budikka
> My conclusion, you are not Budikaka
Correct. And I think it only fair to inform you that the fact that
you use Duke's reflexively juvenile terminology has lowered my
evaluation of you by several orders of magnitude. FYI, the handle is
Budikka. The funny thing is that you talk like there's only one,
which I admit does explain a lot of your embarrassing ignorance.
Pressing on now...
> On Jun 4, 9:28 pm, Budikka <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
> > He said that a universe can spontaneously generate; he never said that
> > an alien can.
>
> And?
All that university education and you can't grasp an explanation when
you're bitch-slapped with it?
Here, let me spell it out to you at an even lower level: You said that
if a universe can spontaneously generate, then so can an alien. What
is that if not an equation of an alien with the universe?
I find it interesting that despite all that pompous ranting about your
supposed "education", you still ran away from what I posted without
even finding the guts to address it. No real suprises there, but it
has caused me to significantly devalue the chances of getting any
intelligent exchange from you.
But hope springs eternal, so let me refocus you on that origins
debate. Are you going to accept and make a case, since you evidently
have a have a problem with mainstream science, or are you going to
keep running and tossing out these pathetic straw men? A simple "Yes"
and an opening argument (if you have one), or alternatively, a simple
"No" will suffice.
But please do dispense with the tedious, and childish, and
transparent, and vacuous straw men, will you?
Budikka
Joseki
> On Jun 5, 12:28 pm, Joseki <jabriol2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > My conclusion, you are not Budikaka
>
> Correct. And I think it only fair to inform you that the fact that
> you use Duke's reflexively juvenile terminology has lowered my
> evaluation of you by several orders of magnitude. FYI, the handle is
> Budikka. The funny thing is that you talk like there's only one,
> which I admit does explain a lot of your embarrassing ignorance.
>
> Pressing on now...
>
> > On Jun 4, 9:28 pm, Budikka <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
> > > He said that a universe can spontaneously generate; he never said that
> > > an alien can.
>
> > And?
>
> All that university education and you can't grasp an explanation when
> you're bitch-slapped with it?
>
Golly I feel better now.. it is you the budikaka of the net... a bit
refined, I guess you are growing up glad to see you reaching puberty.
I grasp the explanation very well. I wrote an opinion based on Hawking
statement. Which is not putting words into his mouth, an Educated
person would have seen this... a shame you did not not, but as you say
about "hope" and all that....
> Here, let me spell it out to you at an even lower level: You said that
> if a universe can spontaneously generate, then so can an alien. What
> is that if not an equation of an alien with the universe?
It is not. Look up and read very carefully the laws of mathematical
probability. The you will understand.
>
> I find it interesting that despite all that pompous ranting about your
> supposed "education", you still ran away from what I posted without
> even finding the guts to address it. No real suprises there, but it
> has caused me to significantly devalue the chances of getting any
> intelligent exchange from you.
>
Running? who? where? an inteliggent conversation with you? Well you
almost pass the Turing test.
> But hope springs eternal, so let me refocus you on that origins
> debate. Are you going to accept and make a case, since you evidently
> have a have a problem with mainstream science, or are you going to
> keep running and tossing out these pathetic straw men? A simple "Yes"
> and an opening argument (if you have one), or alternatively, a simple
> "No" will suffice.
>
Demand for a yes and No reply indicate the narrowness of your
question.
> But please do dispense with the tedious, and childish, and
> transparent, and vacuous straw men, will you?
>
> Budikka
An opinion is not a strawman. Please look it up.. both term or ask a 1
grade science teacher, they love to help children, it is their nature.
Devils Advocaat
I agree with that.
Humans can create life.
They do it all the time.
Are humans supernatural?
Joseki
ergo....
Devils Advocaat
Well, I was also going to add that animals and plants create life all
the time too.
Which raises the question are plants and animals supernatural too?
Budikka
> Running? who? where? an inteliggent conversation
That says it all, loser. Keep running. I'm done with you.
Budikka
Colanth
<mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> > Humans can create life.
>>
>> > They do it all the time.
>>
>> > Are humans supernatural?
>>
>> ergo....
>
>Well, I was also going to add that animals and plants create life all
>the time too.
>
>Which raises the question are plants and animals supernatural too?
Evidently nature is supernatural. (That's something like the proof
that 1 = 2.)
--
"Hoked on foneks wokd fur mi" - seeker on Usenet
Joseki
Translation: "I lost the debate"
How disappointing.
Joseki
Do I hear a budikahen going cluck, cluck, cluck?