That sounds fair, though i doubt for a second z ever examined rm's arguements, beyond the sufist level. Or anyone elses. Look, i got nothing better to do than post junk in chit chat, particularly over xmas and stuff. I read darwin, i read everything, and you know what? Dont mean shite what conclusions you may have come to, coz some CLOWN-SHOE-WEARER like z will pop up and spoil your highly considered, relevant, and possibly even relevant , or humanistic, or, god forbid, LOGICAL opinions, or arguements. This is what Z10 is really about, spoiling xmas and new year. The grinch,u see. Far fetched? Well, lets see the munificent benevolence of Zs arguement over the next few days. Oh, and do let us know what you think of darwins OTHER works, ZZZZ.
There really should be an ET hall of fame for those moments of pure brilliance that occasionaly surface here. I don't usually look behind the scene for motivation -- I'm just trained to move the chess pieces in a manner that keeps my opponent in check until either his credibility is destroyed by his contradictory statements on the record, or he cracks and spills his guts under the strain of continued interrogation. But, you have watched from behind the one way glass and you have seen the light. If you're not a psychologist then you need to go back to school and become one because you are a natural.
I mean, 9500 posts in at most 450-475 days? Look at our posts counts. Mine was about 500 until a couple of weeks ago when I found this guy. Z will never go on ignore though - it will be too much fun to follow him around ET and post excerpts from this thread, such as or, when it is pointed out that he cannot even provide evidence, much less proof, that there exists an intelligent designer http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=60861&perpage=6&pagenumber=22 I think I may provide a compendium of this type of nonsense and post it here so that we can have a handy reference to it. The thread is now quite long and it's hard to keep track of all the marvelous obfuscations attempted by Z. In that way, anyone who needs a reference when Z attempts more of this type of thing on other threads can come here and cut and paste.
Of course. My position is laughable because I can't find a shred of logic in your arguments, while your position is a fountain of sanity, because you seek to subject public school students to an inquiry into how the tooth fairy makes news species appear out of a puff of smoke.
OH MY GOD Guys, just had to share this one with you. This is a quote from Z from the very first page of this thread. Can you believe this one?? BWAAAAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHA!!!!!!!! Is this not the absolute cherry on top? The King has spoken. Z - your credibility is GONE http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=60861&perpage=6&pagenumber=1 I am just weak with laughter over this - it's the funniest thing I have ever seen on this site. Mods, please... for the love of God...end this farce. roberk, even you have to admit that this should signal the end of this thread. By the way, roberk, I did read and appreciate your last post here, and I would like to respond to it.
"Complexity of theory is not a necessary indicator of a truth, quite the reverse is often, as greater complexity often takes us farther and farther away from axiomatic thinking." Just thought i'd share a ZZZZ goodyism. Blast, it was just starting to get fun-Im certain, ZZ is feverishly studying the astonishing complexity of darwins work, beyond the origin of species, to the good bits that integrate his theory with semi creationist philosophy. It may do him good........ But i doubt it. Hey, if someone can explian sufism.........
Hi roberk I readily admit that the scientific viewpoint involves its own set of assumptions and even prejudices. As I have said, theoretical physics have shown us that assumptions made by (especially old-style materialist or 'Cartesian-type') scientists can be shown to be untenable in certain situations. Western medicine with its 'medicate or operate' modality has a hell of a lot ot learn from holistic medicine (if my arm has been caught in a thresher, though, I'll take a Western style emergency room every time). There are as many examples as we care to list. Ok, that's fine... to me it isn't but that's cool. See, this is where we might disagree. I don't think the fact that science is emerging from its 'epistemological crisis' means that there exists a 'cultural split'. The fact that scientific norms needed to be adjusted and that the Cartesian view of the world as a big machine which can be understood by tearing it apart and reducing it to its component parts turned out to be wrong doesn't, in my mind, create a need to introduce mystical belief systems as an alternative to science. Because in the end, the assumptions we made, those wrong, Cartesian ones, don't mean that the reality of the world isn't knowable through investigation and the search for evidence!! We simply need to change the way in which we investigate. The scientific method isn't invalid, it just needs to be tweaked. If there is a cultural split, IMO it is between the philosophical underpinnings of eastern and western thought, not mystical vs. scientific belief systems. We found in investigating sub-atomic phenomena that Eastern philosophies already had a language in place that described better than our own the 'realities' of the physical world when viewed on the sub-atomic level. But 'realities' is in quotation marks, because the nature of reality is elusive. It can't be defined, in many ways. Now that is a new concept for scientists. Let's say that you want to point out to students that Hindus believe that everything in the material world is actually an illusion, Maya, and that our lives on earth are essentially a process of working out in this life events from a past life. Fine! No problem. But let's call it religious studies and keep it out of the science class. What underlies the scientific method is the most valuable thing. Should we tell our kids that some people believe that the earth was 'created out of pure potentiality by magistrates', and that we know the earth is exactly 1,967,574,731 years old, and that these statements are in the same category as the statement that water boils at 100 degrees celcius? No. In my mind, it is enough to tell them that there are people with faith-based belief systems who feel that scientific explanations for natural phenomena are invalid. That would take 1 paragraph in the textbook. There is nothing to be 'taught' in scientific terms. Let them explore these things if they and their families wish it. Offer them religious studies classes which cover all religions, not just Christianity. Christ... Chris... Chrish... Chrishna.... Krishna....Christ...?
Apologies for taking this thread off course, but I think it's important to say it publicly that JohnnyK is one helluva guitarist! You may continue....
"The scientific method isn't invalid, it just needs to be tweaked." Optimising methodology? In what feild could such a thing possibly be condoned?? Blasphemy!!! Hey, why didnt someone mention johnnyk could play guitar? (oh, i remember now) Z loses.
Do you have a sample of his work that we can hear? Actually, I should ask the author. Hey, JohnnyK, can you post/send an audio file of your solo guitar work?