Evolution and Genesis

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

Indy's post generally describes my beliefs about the creation. I'm not going to publish a book about it ... if there's something you want to know, ask. Otherwise, stop your whining.

I spent three days asking you very specific questions about where you stand with respect to Genesis (specifically the creation account and the flood). You refused to answer then so I don't really expect anything different now.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

I spent three days asking you very specific questions about where you stand with respect to Genesis (specifically the creation account and the flood). You refused to answer then so I don't really expect anything different now.

That is the biggest canard you've said on this board yet. You alluded to literalist interpretations of Genesis as a part of a different discussion. I think you may have actually directly asked me about them once.

Stop letting your Tex-hate get in the way of rational thought.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

I think you may have actually directly asked me about them once.

That's just pure b.s.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

That's just pure b.s.

Listen ... you began this mess afresh by asking for a link indicating my position. When I provided it, you got all smarmy and acted like you didn't really want to know after all. What are you, a woman?

If you don't want to talk to me about my positions, fine. But then quit asking.

[creekster]

To those of you old enough, do you recall the end of Blazing Saddles where they start the big fist fight in the old west town and it ends up spilling out into the other movies sets and throughout the movie studio? That is what it is like to watch the remarkable stamina that Lebowski and Tex have brought to their on-going debate. The movie poster would say something like "See the fight that was too big for just one thread to contain!"

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by creekster

To those of you old enough, do you recall the end of Blazing Saddles where they start the big fist fight in the old west town and it ends up spilling out into the other movies sets and throughout the movie studio? That is what it is like to watch the remarkable stamina that Lebowski and Tex have brought to their on-going debate. The movie poster would say something like "See the fight that was too big for just one thread to contain!"

LOL. That was a great scene.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

Listen ... you began this mess afresh by asking for a link indicating my position. When I provided it, you got all smarmy and acted like you didn't really want to know after all. What are you, a woman?

If you don't want to talk to me about my positions, fine. But then quit asking.

Now I am confused. Am I supposed to ask or not ask?

By the way, you didn't really reveal your position. You just said that you "generally agree" with Indy. I am looking for a specific, unequivocal answer. But you know this of course.

Not too classy with that "woman" comment, BTW. Very sexist.

Let's stop adding to this long thread. I have responded to your request and asked a specific set of questions on this thread:

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthr...?t=9848&page=5

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Postmodernism is "unadulterated bullshit."

"But don't the postmodernists claim only to be 'playing games'? Isn't it the whole point of their philosophy that anything goes, there is no absolute truth, anything written has the same status as anything else, no point of view is privileged? Given their own standards of relative truth, isn't it rather unfair to take them to task for fooling around with word-games, and playing little jokes on readers? Perhaps, but one is then left wondering why their writings are so stupefyingly boring. Shouldn't games at least be entertaining, not po-faced, solemn and pretentious?"

--Richard Dawkins

http://richarddawkins.net/article,824,n,n

Dawkins says that postmodernists are "intellectual imposters with nothing to say." I read on FAIR boards that postmodernism has a strong attraction among "Mormon intellectuals." I'd say postmodernism is the last refuge of those who fear and loath empiricism.

Appearantly the irony of Dawkins comments and even whole book/works is not only lost on him but you? Postmodernists are laughing at him and not in a kind way. To call me even indirectly an "intellectual imposter" is a compliment!

I have a great deal to say, I just don't follow the rules and as your quote aptly points out I make up my own games becasue I don't need the imposed infrustructure of the establishment in order to spew my version of the truth.

You can cling to your manufactured, establishment sanctioned truth as much as you like and hope beyond hope that it will save you from yourself. Ultimately it will fail as it has failed every soul on this mortal planet:

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthr...00336#poststop

And please STOP framing every argument in imbittered LDS laothing terms. Argue honestly and not out of FEAR and ANGER. We all know deep down you feel the Church is good and true ... and that the intellectual imposter is you!

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Appearantly the irony of Dawkins comments and even whole book/works is not only lost on him but you? Postmodernists are laughing at him and not in a kind way. To call me even indirectly an "intellectual imposter" is a compliment!

I have a great deal to say, I just don't follow the rules and as your quote aptly points out I make up my own games becasue I don't need the imposed infrustructure of the establishment in order to spew my version of the truth.

You can cling to your manufactured, establishment sanctioned truth as much as you like and hope beyond hope that it will save you from yourself. Ultimately it will fail as it has failed every soul on this mortal planet:

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthr...00336#poststop

And please STOP framing every argument in imbittered LDS laothing terms. Argue honestly and not out of FEAR and ANGER. We all know deep down you feel the Church is good and true ... and that the intellectual imposter is you!

Ha! I don't think I'm the one who's bitterly disappointed at the religion of his youth now that he observes it with grown up eyes. You constantly project this sentiment on me, but look who's the real nihilist here. Let's start with this obvious proposition that ineluctably flows from you "postmodernist" cosmology. Why should anyone give any credence at all to your "testimony" that the Church is "good and true"? According to your own postmodernist philosophy, your "testimony" is just your own subjective truth, what you despartely want to be true, and, according to your own guiding philosophy, according to your own cosmology, it's as true as the theory of gravity, but only in your own mind, because you want it to be so! Just like speciation is only true in Richard Dawkins' own mind, and because he has made it a passing fad with some of us in the thrall of the establishment who wish to delude ourselves to be cool, someone else, say, a Muslim (whose tradition also includes bearing one's testimony that his relgious faith is true) has his own "testimony" of truth, which, like your testimony, and Dawkins' "theory" of speciation, is like confederate currency outside his own mind (and the minds of those he has brainwashed), but is unadulterated truth in his own mind. There is no absolute truth! A curious belief for a Mormon, but one that seems fairly commonplace among a certain class of them, it seems.

But you still are being disingenuous, by the way, because you are no self-restpecting post-modernist. By trying to brow beat me with presumed secret knowledge on my part that the LDS Church is "good and true" you are violating all that postmodernism stands for.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Appearantly the irony of Dawkins comments and even whole book/works is not only lost on him but you? Postmodernists are laughing at him and not in a kind way. To call me even indirectly an "intellectual imposter" is a compliment!

Of course he gets it. Postmodernists place all theories, propositions and beliefs on equal footing, so why not accept as true an article from a scientist made deliberately nonsensical to expose the pretentious nonsense pervading a journal of postmodernism. Though nonsense to its author the article is truth to those who decided to publish it. Postmodernists are laughing because they laugh at everything. Everything is both sacred and profane. The're laughing at themselves ultimately.