A quote from my professor (1 Viewer)

[St. Widge]

And I stand by my observation of Ayn Rand fan boys. I saw a lot of people who were very certain of their own brilliant individuality, who seemed to identify with the Hank Rearden charachter and found validation in the philosophy.

No doubt those people exist. In fact, it's the reason I didn't read any Rand until later in life, but you can't just ignore everything someone wrote because you met some tools who liked it.

 

[Shockmo]

Nothing is what it is until it is what it is.

Since you're here i'm sure this thread will be flooded with responses.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

No doubt those people exist. In fact, it's the reason I didn't read any Rand until later in life, but you can't just ignore everything someone wrote because you met some tools who liked it.

i read ayn rand (anthem, atlas shrugged) b/c i was a huge Rush freak in HS. luckily for me neil peart was a much better drummer and slightly better lyricist than she was a theorist so i was able to hold onto my ridiculously naive progressive philosophy and still rock out

 

[SoggyBottomBoy]

i read ayn rand (anthem, atlas shrugged) b/c i was a huge Rush freak in HS. luckily for me neil peart was a much better drummer and slightly better lyricist than she was a theorist so i was able to hold onto my ridiculously naive progressive philosophy and still rock out

A Rush we can agree on.

 

[TheDeuce53]

This statement means more than what your professor said. Most of these college professors are jokes. Thank God i didn't have to go through these subjective classes and teachers.

Good one. I sometimes go through the EE boards and see all these topics and say to myself "you guys sure do think you are going to change the world."

I think most here, who are good writers, are fierce ideologues. Anti-GOD, evolution is correct, and stomp on others beliefs. You all think you don't but you all do. You all view if someone doesn't agree with you, they are all dumb.


There is mostly a force of elitism here and it is sad.

Thanks for editing my post. You keep going to school. Maybe when you teach, you indoctrinate your students with your shallow ideas.

This is more disconcerting than anything I have heard a prof say.

 

[mikaloyd]

The current correct pejorative for bashing or dismissing out-of-hand people who subscribe to Ayn Rand's social and world views is "Randroid".

 

[IowaSaintsFan]

Explain to me where evolution was ever in question? Tell
me you dont believe that creationism has merit?

Evolution is constantly in question; and even if the theory is correct, it fails to explain the origin of evolving life. At least creationism takes a stab at it.

 

[jpcdolphan]

Evolution is constantly in question; and even if the theory is correct, it fails to explain the origin of evolving life. At least creationism takes a stab at it.

In evolution's defense, it is kind of hamstrung by that whole "testable hypothesis" thing.

If they could just throw something out there regardless of the ability to test/prove it, scientists might be more in a position to "take a stab" at something.

 

[IowaSaintsFan]

In evolution's defense, it is kind of hamstrung by that whole "testable hypothesis" thing.

If they could just throw something out there regardless of the ability to test/prove it, scientists might be more in a position to "take a stab" at something.

I guess you could say scientists have taken a stab at it; two theories mentioned by famous Atheist Richard Dawkins: life started "on the backs of crystals" and alien seeding, which still doesn't explain life's origin (where did the aliens come from?).

I recently heard a fascinating lecture from an ID perspective on the subject of complexity vs. specified complexity. It asks a different question than what we're used to hearing. Instead of "where did life come from?", it asks, "where did genetic information come from?" It is maybe, from a materialist perspective, an even harder question to answer than the first.

 

[Ted]

This statement means more than what your professor said. Most of these college professors are jokes. Thank God i didn't have to go through these subjective classes and teachers.

Wow. Just wow. Heaven forbid someone have a serious ideologically challenging experience in college. Where would we all be if that would happen? Oh, wait, we'd all be seriously butt clenched.

 

[Vibe Merchant]

I guess you could say scientists have taken a stab at it; two theories mentioned by famous Atheist Richard Dawkins: life started "on the backs of crystals" and alien seeding, which still doesn't explain life's origin (where did the aliens come from?).

You can come up with something just as plausable as that. Now, if you say that that is the ultimate correct answer, then you have become a religion. Congrates on the tax exemption.

 

[Comus]

who are good writers, are fierce ideologues. Anti-GOD...

Anti WHO?

 

[IowaSaintsFan]

You can come up with something just as plausable as that. Now, if you say that that is the ultimate correct answer, then you have become a religion. Congrates on the tax exemption.

Love the tax exemption line. Thanks for keeping it light. My personal belief is that creationism and materialistic chemical evolution are equally illogical. Yet, one of them must be true.

Creationism is illogical because it presupposes one of 2 things: either Something came from nothing (God in this case), or Something has always, in some eternal past, pre-existed. If you're a Creationist, you have to believe one or the other.

But materialism or Atheism if you will, has the exact same flaws of logic. If you're Atheist, you believe one of 2 things: either something came from nothing (matter in this case), or something has always, in some infinite past, pre-existed. If you're an Atheist, you have to believe one or the other.

Both=flawed logic. Therefore, we have to use different criteria to answer the question.

To answer the question, we have to look beyond external observable science into the one thing we know the most about: ourselves.

 

[Vibe Merchant]

Love the tax exemption line. Thanks for keeping it light. My personal belief is that creationism and materialistic chemical evolution are equally illogical. Yet, one of them must be true.

Creationism is illogical because it presupposes one of 2 things: either Something came from nothing (God in this case), or Something has always, in some eternal past, pre-existed. If you're a Creationist, you have to believe one or the other.

But materialism or Atheism if you will, has the exact same flaws of logic. If you're Atheist, you believe one of 2 things: either something came from nothing (matter in this case), or something has always, in some infinite past, pre-existed. If you're an Atheist, you have to believe one or the other.

Both=flawed logic. Therefore, we have to use different criteria to answer the question.

To answer the question, we have to look beyond external observable science into the one thing we know the most about: ourselves.

No, the beauty of it is that I can believe and see logic in many answers. I feel no restriction to my "beliefs". Belief not being a religious word.
Do I think one answer holds more water than another, sure. But, that still does not conclude the question and still does not conclude the answer as well.

I can not begin to have the resources to be able to construct a logical conclusion to the answer where/when/how did life begin. I do not think anyone has those. I do not think it will ever be answered. There will always be a rebuttal.

Hope I don't sound mean with that. Not trying to.

 

[IowaSaintsFan]

No, the beauty of it is that I can believe and see logic in many answers. I feel no restriction to my "beliefs". Belief not being a religious word.
Do I think one answer holds more water than another, sure. But, that still does not conclude the question and still does not conclude the answer as well.

I can appreciate the beauty of logic in many answers. Algebraic problems,for example, can sometimes have more than one answer, I get that. Art, by nature, can and should have more than one interpretation. But this thinking doesn't amount to any practical value. It doesn't help me make the right moral choices. Sometimes among ten possible choices or a thousand possible moral options, only one is the correct one. Sometimes we know the right answer based on an internal human knowledge that cannot be explained by observation or experiment. So, we could waste our time observing the beauty of the many options surrounding whether or not to feed a starving toddler, for example--or, we could do the right thing and get them some food. It's not very "open-minded", but it works.