Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationism Road Trip
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


(4)
Message 230 of 409 (680421)
11-19-2012 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by Faith
11-19-2012 1:57 PM


Re: Getting to the details.
This Flood was huge. It rained torrents for 40 days over the entire earth, the whole globe. A heavy rain now for just a few days in a local area can cause terrible mudslides, so multiply that effect appropriately. There was also another source of water, the "fountains of the deep" and the water covered the entire land mass of the earth and stood there for months. This can't just be "some erosion" or anything on a scale we can compare to our own time.
Indeed, this Flood is so incomparable to even large-scale "conventional" flooding that it seems to have magic properties.
Apparently this magic Flood was capable of not only depositing the entire geological column in one go, not only turning sediment into rock at an impossible pace, it also managed to perfectly preserve nests of eggs without breaking or separating them, sorted the "Sediments" universally such that we never see human fossils below a certain level, preserved footprints in appropriate sediments again never displacing human footprints into levels associated with dinosaurs, and managed to separate completely layers of sand from layers of volcanic rock from layers of limestone containing oceanic fossils.
It's almost as if you feel you can explain absolutely any configuration of the geological column with "the FLood did it." Even in the hypothetical, there is no scenario, no geological evidence that we could ever find to make you say anything other than "the Flood did it." Neither can you provide any mechanism by which the Flood would do these things - you just say it's a "special Flood."
"Special," because it exists only within the human imagination. Like other magic.
When you can equally predict any outcome, you have zero knowledge. An actual hypothesis explains a particular set of phenomenon...and cannot explain other sets. For example, the current theory that the Earth orbits the Sun and that the East - West traversal of the Sun through the sky is the result of the rotation of the Earth cannot explain an observation of the Sun rising in the West, or of the Earth ceasing its rotation for a time before resuming. Those are hypothetical observations of course, but if they were to occur, our current model of the solar system would need some revisions.
Your "Flood" model, however, is just nonsense. You're using the word "Flood" as if it actually offers an explanation, but it does not; you've attributed to that word unknown mechanisms and seemingly magic powers that make absolutely no sense.
How does a flood of any kind, moving the amount of material you're claiming it to have moved, manage to perfectly preserve egg nests without even separating or breaking them, and then turn the surrounding sediment into rock?

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.
- Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of
variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the
outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Faith, posted 11-19-2012 1:57 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by xongsmith, posted 11-20-2012 11:54 AM Rahvin has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


(6)
Message 297 of 409 (680648)
11-20-2012 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by Faith
11-20-2012 12:02 PM


Re: Getting to the details. -- biblical references please
Faith - How does a Flood, or any flood, deposit sediment with perfectly preserved footprints in the intermediary layers? If, say, a given hundred meters of sediment were deposited, and we find a footprint (doesn't matter what from) fossilized at a 50-meter depth, how does your Flood explain that? Wouldn't the footprint be destroyed, or never even have existed, if that sediment was all deposited in the Flood?

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.
- Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of
variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the
outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Faith, posted 11-20-2012 12:02 PM Faith has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


(1)
Message 300 of 409 (680655)
11-20-2012 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by jar
11-20-2012 12:13 PM


Re: The Flood dissolved stuff but ROCKS? Hardly
Fertile soil is largely decomposed plant material, not just ground-up rock - that would be "sand," which is different.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.
- Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of
variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the
outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by jar, posted 11-20-2012 12:13 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by jar, posted 11-20-2012 1:37 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 302 of 409 (680668)
11-20-2012 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 301 by jar
11-20-2012 1:37 PM


Re: The Flood dissolved stuff but ROCKS? Hardly
Depends on the plant. Algae grows in free-standing water, and lichens and even some flowers grow on basically bare rock. Excepting the flowers, these forms of plant life preceded soil-growing plants, and indeed even soil. No sand required.
Regardless of how you want to spin it though, your actual point that time is required for the creation of soil is accurate. I'm just being nit-picky.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.
- Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of
variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the
outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by jar, posted 11-20-2012 1:37 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


(3)
Message 307 of 409 (680690)
11-20-2012 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 306 by RAZD
11-20-2012 4:25 PM


Re: still not seeing biblical references ...
Hi Faith,
I still don't see any biblical references for your assertions.
She won't provide any; she doesn't believe they are necessary.
Remember, Faith's real position here is simply that the Flood happened literally as depicted in the King James Bible; it was global in scope, occurred around 4000 years ago, lasted about a year, and was survived by Noah, his family, and the animals on the Ark. She believes this to be unquestioningly true.
Her own statements make no secret of her thought process. She has little understanding of geology or physics or really any form of science. She doesn;t think she needs to understand the science.
It is her fervent belief that, if science currently supports a model that invalidates the literal Biblical story, then that scientific model will, some day, be falsified and the Biblical narrative vindicated.
So she doesn;t think particularly hard about the "how." She "knows" the big picture of what happened, and the rest is speculative minutia, with only the Bible being the final arbiter of what may or may not have happened.
That's why her model as presented is unfalsifiable; that's why she responds to everything with "the Flood did it." She knows the end result, she is unaware as to the specifics of the mechanisms involved, and to her those mechanisms happened however they happened and really don't matter because the ultimate conclusion she maintains is that the Biblical story is literally true.
We can go on for quite some time as to how that reasoning is logically fallacious. We can present page after page of evidence invalidating every mechanism she can come up with, like when she says the "land mass was dissolved." It doesn't matter, it will have no effect on her.
The only Biblical references that matter to her are Genesis 7-8. She attempts to "reasonably infer" from that text the mechanisms and specifics of the global Flood, but her inference is wholly detached from observations of the real world. To her mind, the real-world observations will eventually be interpreted "correctly," so why bother with an in-depth thoughtful consideration when the result will be what she already "knows?"

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.
- Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of
variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the
outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by RAZD, posted 11-20-2012 4:25 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


(1)
Message 372 of 409 (680956)
11-21-2012 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 368 by Faith
11-21-2012 6:40 PM


Re: The Flood dissolved stuff but ROCKS? Hardly
Mud is dissolved stuff.
...No, it's really not. Mud is a mixture, not a solution.
You're using terminology that has a technical meaning in ways inconsistent with that technical meaning. Mixtures and suspensions are very different from solutions - solutes must be precipitated out of solution, the most common method for which being to evaporate the solvent.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.
- Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of
variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the
outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 368 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 6:40 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 376 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 7:02 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


(1)
Message 373 of 409 (680958)
11-21-2012 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 367 by Faith
11-21-2012 6:38 PM


Re: The Flood dissolved stuff but ROCKS? Hardly
Ah well, the iron grip of a paradigm.
The projection, it burns...

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.
- Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of
variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the
outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 6:38 PM Faith has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


(4)
Message 375 of 409 (680963)
11-21-2012 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 374 by Faith
11-21-2012 6:51 PM


Re: The flood and the geological column
Faith, you would probably be far better served to abandon making specific statements about the geological mechanisms involved in the Flood and stick to what you (according to your interpretation of the Bible) "know:"
You've claimed that the FLood happened as described in Genesis; that it was global in scope; that the Earth is some thousands, and not millions or billions, of years old. Most importantly, you've said that while the current scientific models for geology, biology, physics, chemistry, etc all contradict this view, you are utterly confident that the scientific models will be proven wrong at some later date, and the Biblical record (as you interpret it) will be vindicated as wholly accurate.
Just stick with that. You can say "I have no idea how the rocks were all formed; I have no idea why fossils appear where they do. All I know is that the Flood happened, and anything that contradicts that fact must be wrong, even if nobody yet knows precisely how. The currently accepted models of science are based on faulty data, and some day this will be borne out."
There's nothing wrong with saying "I don't know." All your inference has done thus far is provide specifics for your opponents to tear down as hopelessly wrong according to all demonstrable scientific models, as well as opportunity for you to misuse technical terms.
Since you're already taking an apologetic stance and placing the conclusion (the Flood happened) prior to (and regardless of) evidence, why bother trying to fill in the blanks? "God said it, I believe it, and that's the end of it" would more concisely encapsulate your argument in this thread.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.
- Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of
variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the
outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 374 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 6:51 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 378 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 7:04 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


(1)
Message 383 of 409 (680975)
11-21-2012 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 376 by Faith
11-21-2012 7:02 PM


Re: The Flood dissolved stuff but ROCKS? Hardly
In my ordinary world, mud is dirt dissoved in water.
But it's not. It's really, really not. Words have meanings, and if we can't use the actual definitions for the words we use, communication of ideas is impossible.
I learned the difference between mixtures/suspensions/solutions in junior high; this is the equivalent of arguing over whether you can just call a shark's skeleton "bone" (sharks are cartilaginous, they do not have "bones"). It's just wrong, and when you use a technical term incorrectly to that degree, it's like painting a giant bullseye on your argument that says "I have no idea what I'm talking about from a scientific perspective."
If you're going to talk about the science of geology then you have to use the scientific terminology correctly. The alternative is this: a large percentage of the messages in this thread revolve around telling you that sediment/mud/rocks/soil do not dissolve in water.
What you actually mean when you refer to such "dissolving" and "breaking up the land" is (presumably) that the moving water would progressively sweep away particulate matter like sand and soil and carry it along until the turbulence subsided and allowed the particulate matter to re-settle. If you had said this and not insisted on repeatedly using the word "dissolve," there would have been far more discussion on the topic.
This is all "ordinary English," Faith - it's just a matter of using the actual meanings of words. If you want to convey the meaning you have in your head to other people, you have to use words that we understand in the same way.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix quote box.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.
- Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of
variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the
outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 376 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 7:02 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 384 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 7:35 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


(2)
Message 387 of 409 (680981)
11-21-2012 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 378 by Faith
11-21-2012 7:04 PM


Re: The flood and the geological column
In other words, Faith, give up all your reasoning about how the Flood happened because we don't agree with you.
Not at all.
Is it not true that, if you were sufficiently convinced that one model or another of yours were impossible, that you would maintain your belief that the Flood happened, and that all the refutation would actually mean is that you (and by extension, "we") simply have not arrived at the correct understanding yet?
I mean, let's be perfectly honest: there is absolutely nothing, not one thing, that we could say or that you could observe that would dissuade you from the position that the Flood happened as literally described in the King James version of Genesis. You hold that belief as a certainty, and if that belief comes into conflict with any other extra-Biblical belief, you know which belief is wrong even before consulting any evidence because you know that the Biblical version is correct.
You've stated as much. You;ve also expressed a certainty that eventually scientists will probably happen upon the truth and overturn their currently false models in favor of a young-Earth and the Flood.
I'm just saying that it's okay for you to accept that you don't have a very good grasp of geology (I'm not trying to be insulting, I'm just being honest - your comprehension of geology as demonstrated in this thread would have failed my 7th-grade Earth Science class), it's okay for you to say "well, maybe the Flood didn't do that, or maybe there was another mechanism we haven't thought about yet," without giving up your belief in the literal Flood. You've already decoupled your belief in the Flood from observable evidence, it's all about the Bible to you, so what does it matter if one hypothesis or another gets knocked down? Why become so utterly defensive over an indefensible model of absolutely, demonstrably inaccurate geology when it doesn't even matter?
If your first dart throw isn't a bullseye, just accept it and keep throwing - keep hypothesizing until you find a model we can't easily falsify. You already know that you've won the prize, so to speak, so why become so attached to the intermediary steps of reasoning?
This isn't a matter of opinion, this is a matter of what can be demonstrated through evidence. We do not disagree with you - observable reality does.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.
- Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of
variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the
outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 378 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 7:04 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 388 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 7:46 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


(1)
Message 389 of 409 (680983)
11-21-2012 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 388 by Faith
11-21-2012 7:46 PM


Re: The flood and the geological column
But the thinking about the Grand Canyon, while I love playing with it myself and coming up with my own ideas about it, is pretty much what other creationists also think, including GEOLOGISTS. So I'd say it's pretty well worked out except for the details.
But it's not, as has been well-demonstrated in this thread. For instance: how does a Flood transport a complete nest of eggs, completely intact, to deposit it in sediment? How do footprints wind up in between layers that were supposed to have been laid down in the Flood? Why isn't everything in the Flood-deposited layers sorted by buoyancy, like what happens in literally every other case where matter is deposited over a brief period of time from standing water
The "other creationists, including GEOLOGISTS" is just an appeal to a nameless authority - it doesn't lend your argument an ounce of credibility when your model simply cannot explain a particular set of observations. If your sources have worked out mechanisms to explain those observations, your job is then to relate those ideas to us - else all we see is your argument, refuted by an observation that falsifies your model.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.
- Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of
variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the
outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 388 by Faith, posted 11-21-2012 7:46 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 396 by Faith, posted 11-22-2012 3:10 AM Rahvin has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024