I'm trying to understand #3, frankly. I guess the monkey-people one applies to me, but who believes we are gods? Do you believe you are a god, MM?

The idea that my ancestors were less evolved doesn't really bother my ego. I understand there's a lot of 'i dint cum frum no durn munkie' sentiment out there, but I've never really been able to understand it. Do people really feel so superior when they look at monkeys?

I don't know. When I look at people, and when I look at monkeys, I'm thinking if I had to take a random individual from both camps I'd be safer with my back turned to the monkey.

You cannot "disprove" a theory without contrary fact.

I think I said that. You cannot disprove ID, I cannot disprove random evolution. So you point is?

I think that is what gets me the most... it plainly states it is a theory, yet proponets of it state it like it is fact

I have the same problem with religion.

I think I said that. You cannot disprove ID, I cannot disprove random evolution. So you point is?

Huh? You said:

but you dont have to disprove a theory with fact.

And now you're saying you agree with my statement that

You cannot "disprove" a theory without contrary fact.

These are contridictory positions. So at this point my point would be, you cant rationally hold them both to be true.

BakerStreetNovember 6, 2006 18:26:44

I'm trying to understand #3, frankly. I guess the monkey-people one applies to me, but who believes we are gods? Do you believe you are a god, MM?

yup sure do! but since I like you, you may call me MM or elie.

It's a catch-22 situation anyway. Pig headed faux-scientists believe they can answer philosophical questions about the existence of God with science. They can't.

Then, though, people on the other side demand that science fulfill their philosophical demands. If you don't want their peanut butter in your chocolate, why does one side or the other keep on crossing the street to bump shoulders? It seems like to me that both sides are dishonest about wanting to be free of the other.

What they really want is to defeat the other, and the only way you can even meet in the arena is to portray what you are promoting as something it isn't. Religion isn't science, and science isn't philosophy.

baker?? I should have added people after GODS, but I thought most might get that it was infered.

OH, I see. You're right, the 'people' isn't necessary, but the possessive apostrophe in GOD'S might have helped .

I'm thinking if I had to take a random individual from both camps I'd be safer with my back turned to the monkey.

Hear, hear. Unless you had banana in your pants of course.

Reply By: ScoffPiggyThomlinsonPosted: Monday, November 06, 2006 I'm thinking if I had to take a random individual from both camps I'd be safer with my back turned to the monkey. Hear, hear. Unless you had banana in your pants of course.

now that's funny...

Reply By: BakerStreetPosted: Monday, November 06, 2006 OH, I see. You're right, the 'people' isn't necessary, but the possessive apostrophe in GOD'S might have helped .

this is where my total lack of formal education comes shining through, I just do not get English, punctuation, grammar, are all my nemisis.

fhghfhfhfhfhg