I do think, and I could share my thoughts, but what makes my
thoughts better than yours? You feel that by insulting
anyone that disagrees with you that somehow they will share
yours. I'm sorry it doesn't work that way.

It's the arrogance of human reasoning that brought us
such disasters that post-modern man now rejects truth
derived from his own reasoning. Where we each get our
truths from is important to us individually, but we can't
impose our own limited human reasoning on one another.

A contemporary example--BIOLOGICALLY new life begins
at the moment of conception. That's the moment that
a new genetically unique individual is formed. That it
depends upon its mother for the next nine months does
not change its uniqueness. So why isn't it protected
in the US constitution? Because in our post-modern philosophy,
life is what we, individually (abortion is a decision
between the mother and her doctor, right?), define it to be.
The Supreme Court decided that because this individual is dependent
on the mother for nine months then the mother decides the truth about
when this unique genetic combination becomes meaningful.

If we all thought, and forced those thoughts on one another...

--Jerry <tangren at wsu.edu>



-----Original Message-----
From: TWEETERS-owner at u.washington.edu
[mailto:TWEETERS-owner at u.washington.edu]On Behalf Of Don Baccus
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 1998 12:33 PM
To: tweeters at u.washington.edu
Subject: Re: if anyone is still with us


At 11:26 AM 11/11/98 -0800, Jerry Tangren wrote:

>Belief in evolution is an anachronism. Because it is based on
>so-called human reasoning it carries less truth than one
>based on an ancient Hebrew myth.

If you can't see the circularity of this argument...

I know thinking makes your head hurt, but can't you at least
TRY?


- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza at pacifier.com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, and other goodies at
http://donb.photo.net