Biblical literalists may be making a mistake in pushing Intelligent Design into our schools. Let's take the theory at face value and consider it...

First, ID is decked out in the trappings of Science, which takes it out of the Belief category (Belief being 'knowing' something is true without proof), and into the realm of Science. Science allows for theories to be checked against real world observations.

Second, there is a logic gap here; if the Universe is intelligently designed, it does not automatically prove that the Biblical God did it. Other possibilities exist, some are:

The Universe is itself intelligent.
The appearance of intelligence is an artifact of our perceptions & mathematics.
Some other extremely powerful entity created the Universe.

We can now fairly competently observe the Universe, and the Earth, and the structural levels below us down to the subatomic scale. We can draw some interesting conclusions on the traits of any designing Intelligence, and compare them to our cosmological ideas. There are some things we shouldn't overlook.

Just a few:

All of the local atoms (in our bodies, on the Earth, in the Solar System) heavier than iron came from other exploding stars- novas.
The Hubble has seen so many planets around other stars that we can conclude that planets are not unusual, and perhaps most stars have them. We also see many novas out there, some in recent times, so we must conclude that not only is somewhat 'hard-hearted' recycling going on, but that Creation itself is still going on.

Human mapping (and the thinking it produces) almost always has the flaw of placing the 'locals' in the center of the frame. Page through an atlas and you'll find every country 'surrounded' by its neighbors, which of itself has caused many wars. The ancient Egyptians and Greeks knew and proved the Sun did not go around the Earth, altho it took two thousand years for everybody to accept the idea of not being at the center of things. Astronomers now are quite confident that our very ordinary star is on the fringes of our galaxy, which itself is part of a cluster far from the center of the universe.

What this implies is that we are not the primary focus of any Intelligent Designer, but just one 'project' among many.

Everybody knows about the big Dinosaur Die-Off, and paleontologists have found it is just one of many on Earth. Ice Ages have also pushed Life around pretty badly too- just look at Antarctica. (It's an urban myth that the dinos died to create oil for SUVs, they were not the source of the Earth's oil ).

At least on Earth, Life must struggle with the outcome uncertain. The dinosaurs existed for 100 times the span of humankind, and were then thoroughly erased. One must wonder about the purpose and implications of that within Intelligent Design. It is certainly a challenge to both designer-free Evolution and Omniscience in any designer. (During the heyday of Newtonian physics, people accepted the Great Watchmaker view of Creation, where the dinos were a botched experiment on the evolutionary road of progress to us.)

Within our biosphere, pretty much all Life must eat Life to survive. It wasn't always this way. The first critters in the primordial ocean took nutrients directly from the water, but as the eons passed they became first scavengers and then predators on each other- and then competition became a real life & death matter. We shouldn't be surprised that death and afterlife are at the core of all our religions, but what does this say about the designs of any Intelligent Designer? Chaos would be less cruel than our world is to all its creatures, with or without any afterlife.

Those proposing Intelligent Design must deal with all the knowledge we have of how our world works, or as it used to say in the Rosicrucian's comic book ads- this knowledge must die.

Much has been written on the forum on this issue.
If we're going with another thread, I would start by stating yet again that Intelligent Design is a silly concept, because its very nature is logically inconsistent.
Design requires Designer. In order to qualify as science, one would have to at least speculate on the nature of the Designer. At that point, one would have to explain the origins of the Designer. Without those two answers, in the form of testable hypothesis, there's nothing to the concept except ignorant superstitious antiscience nonsense. (That's not to say anyone isn't free to believe it. Believe away!)

just a note- this was originally in original essays & was moved here. It is not about politics, it is about what universal 'design attributes' we can prove, and what they suggest- hence a different topic than the religious wrangle in the other thread.

I agree that the concept cannot be proved! It is also true that it cannot be disproved!

Therefore it should not be taught in public schools! The concept (belief) should also NOT be ridiculed! Ridicule of a non-provable/non-DISprovable belief by someone professing to speak for science, is just arrogance, shows poor upbringing, AND is unscientific!

When someone comes in and says reality is how you percieve it, I suggest you post the definition of reality..... That which is real....
then post perception....that which is percieved, seen or taken in...
Then post the definition for delusion.....
Reality is not dependant on perception, this is 5th grade philosophy!!
The atom was real way before it was percieved, Reality is true, real, identifiable and fully supported evidence.
Perception is subject to delusions as well as reality.
They are independant things, and I have let this 5th grade philosphy go on way too long.

Both of the 1st two posts seem so obviously true and sensible, one must ask why does the issue persist? Why are people so affraid to question the judgement of their ancestors? As a present day adult have you not found that your parents were wrong about as often as they were right? Is it not obvious that knowledge is expanding at a very fast rate? Has it been your past experience that people who often and publically profess religious conviction are more trust worthy than those who do not. I think we will eventually find a ver high correlation between fear of
questioning one's past religious encultration and fear of terriorism. On the other hand people who throughly accept their humanness and the humanness of
others experience less debilitating fear.

I love my grandpa, may he rest in piece, he was very knowlegable in the bible, and one off the things he told me as a kid has stuck whit me ever since.
*If God createt the universe whit its stars and galaxies. then it would be the hight of hubris to say "We understand him" since our galaxy alone has more than 5 billion stars (Hubble has increased that number to more than 50') the mind and power behind that would be totally beyond our comprehension. it would be like asking a single amobae to fly and design a space craft, whit all off the calculations therein.
God as an Entity is impossible to understand and grasp, he is simply to big.*

The perception/reality debate goes beyond 5th grade.
In fact, it goes beyond the understanding of most humans, regardless of training.
At the quantum level, reality exists only as probability until probability "collapses" following measurement (perception)
At the macroscopic level, reality cannot exist beyond human perception, simply because perception defines it.
Is there such a thing a negative time?
Matter with negative density?
Meaningless concepts to a human, whether "real" or not.
My daughter asked me "Is there a color that no one has ever seen?" Of course not, because by definition color is radiation you can see. To say there's radiation out there perceived by eyes of other species doesn't make it "real" color. That's one small example.
There is no absolute reality indepedent of observation, and observation is nothing more than human perception. It is as simple as 5th grade philosophy, but in the other direction!

The color is real because it exists, anything that exist is real, its simple. Reality is not just what you percieve, its an all encompassing concept. Theres no way you can make this argument without creating a reality for each individual, and thats simply not true. Just because one does not see a fact, does not make it unreal. Its that simple. Your talking a whole bunch of hooey.Look up the definitioon of it,that which is real, true or historical. Just because a human does not "percieve" a reality does not invalidate it. If thats your argument we would have floated off the globe before Newton saw the apple. The atom never existed, and so on. There are surely many real discoveries to be made, conceptual or otherwise, but to claim they are not real till seen is a basically stupid statement.

A little judgemental, don't you think?
If someone tried to tell me the earth sprang forth from the belly of a giant snake, I would not ridicule them. I would politely say "That's nice."
If they wrote a book proclaiming same however, and told me it couldn't be disproved, I would call them silly.
If that's ridicule, so be it.
This is mainly a political forum. If someone said George W Bush is our greatest president, I would politely say "Interesting you would think that."
But if they published an article expressing same, and challenged anyone to disprove the claim, I would say they didn't understand history and were just plain stupid. That's not poor upbringing, it's the desire to bring logic into a discussion.

re·al·i·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-l-t)
n. pl. re·al·i·ties
The quality or state of being actual or true.
One, such as a person, an entity, or an event, that is actual: “the weight of history and political realities” (Benno C. Schmidt, Jr.).
The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence.
That which exists objectively and in fact: Your observations do not seem to be about reality.
Read the definition......

Nothing about being percieved to be real...


per·cep·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-spshn)
n.
The process, act, or faculty of perceiving.
The effect or product of perceiving.
Psychology.
Recognition and interpretation of sensory stimuli based chiefly on memory.
The neurological processes by which such recognition and interpretation are effected.

Insight, intuition, or knowledge gained by perceiving.
The capacity for such insight

Perception is a way to see reality I agree, but also shows delusion....
de·lu·sion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-lzhn)
n.

The act or process of deluding.
The state of being deluded.
A false belief or opinion: labored under the delusion that success was at hand.
Psychiatry. A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness: delusions of persecution.

Reality is a firm concept, one which man will never fully know. Lack of knowledge or vision does not make the real any less real. AND FAULTY PERCEPTION does not make real a delusion.

Therefore...reality is what you percieve or make of it....IS 5th grade philosphy...pure junk....

Reality is that which exists or is true.
If you misinterpret facts, its a reality that its your opinion, but it does not make your invalid conclusions real!! Thats the basic truth. Its 5th grade philosphy and is unsupportable by the basic definitions of the words.

The quality or state of being actual or true

Thats reality

perception is merely the way you see things be they reality or delusion.

To argue these facts is to deny ....REALITY

You seem quite emotional over this one. I suggest you read The Fabric of Reality by David Deutsch. It's the best book I've ever read connecting the quantum world to reality.
Let's not confuse undiscovered scientific concepts with non-reality. Your example proves my point. True, there was no comprehensive theory of gravity before Newton. And the "nonperception" of that didn't affect the reality of things staying attached to the ground. But the whole notion of gravity as an attractive force from a distance is based solely on human perception. General Relativity demonstrated that gravity is the bending of space-time. That concept is beyond human experience, so we have to rely on gravity wave detectors to prove it. And we're still waiting.
The 5th grader would define gravity erroneously, because his perception of it would be limited. So what is gravity then? What we humans perceive it to be, or what the differential equations tell us about reality?

Whether we or anyone percieve a real event, force, or concept, makes no difference. Its real. I'll take an old saying and switch it a bit.OK?

If a tree falls in the woods, and no one percieves it, its sound wave or anything abouit it, Did it really fall?
Of course it did. Reality is that which is real. Not that which man sees. Reality may in fact percieve itself, I dunno, but its a firm concept. Misinterpretations or lack of perception of reality do not put the tree back up, it truly happened and existed.

I think the point of us perception proponents is not that human perception is faulty, but that it is limited.
If you really believe this, how do you account for quantum phenomena? Wave-particle duality is not a delusion. Neither is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. These are physical realities that are observer dependent. Surely you must be familiar with this stuff!

Limited perception does not change reality. Reality is being formed and reformed every second, it is fluid. Uncertainty is a reality isn't it? Contradiction is a reality too?
My whole thing is reality is not how you percieve it, because perception is flawwed or limited, your actually making my point. Just because its a reality that your perception is flawwed does not negate realities you do not see, or see incorrectly. I have a twisted theory that reality proves itself, that which exists confirms itself, independant of all other beings or truths. It independantly exists, confirms itself and creates its own mark in history.
Just because I did not see things does not reduce their reality, this plays out on a much larger scale. Existence creates reality, not perception.

Love these examples! Actually the question is, If a tree falls in the woods, and No one HEARS IT, or MEASURES the waves, does it make a sound?
And the correct answer is.....No. Because "sound" by definition is auditory stimulation, and requires a receptor.
Simple hypnosis can demonstrate that principle. Can a cool match burn you? You bet! Does getting poked with a sharp object hurt? Not necessarily. Are those examples of delusions or reality?

Even your perceptions, whether true or not are a reality.....This does not make untrue vision correct, it merely says they exist. Which probably goes to your perception dependant realities too,If you percieve truth or lie or anything , it existed as a perception, yet does not change reality itself. It merely gets added to it. It encompasses everything that is real. Even thoughts. It doesn't validate them it merely points to there existence.

No the question was did it actually fall even if not percieved, and the answer is yes!!! Your now trying to change my words, I said if a tree falls and no one percieves it at all in any way, did it fall? AND IT IS REALITY THAT IT DID!! I merely took an old silly question and changed its form to prove this hokey 5th grade philosphy that reality is how you percieve it crap!! you just lowered yourself to changing my words now. You must be out of true arguments. You just fell below the standard of truth.

Absolutely! If you believe that, guess it's just a matter of where you put your faith. In the relative or the absolute.
I can't disagree there exist absolute truths, apart from perception. You win.

The reality is my GF is kicking me off the puter and I will not fight her.... I lose that one everytime, Im so whipped!!

But that is wrong too since that goes against the chaos princible, that a butterfly can course a hurricane, by flapping its wings, ergo the trees falls and we get to hear it in the form of an avalanche fks.

Oooo, you guys make me giggle!

Face it, none of us knows anything substantial about any of this. At all. But have fun trying!

i get your point regarding perception's role or lack of it in this discussion. but actual or true imply the existence of a yardstick in the process, that 'true' is measurable and the act of making the measurement demands perception.

i argue this at various times in varioius ways and tend to fall back to a great philosopher to convey the point that stepping back a notch brings you closer:

The quality or state of being or that which IS

then bill clinton steps in to muck things up...

:-)

My major fuss is this, reality is not what you percieve. Reality is not what you make it.
Perception is flawwed. While its a reality you percieve a delusion, it does not make the delusion truth! It merely confirms its your delusion existed. I would think in a way though that existence is the only method by which reality can be measured.If something does not exist, then it is unreal and unconcieved. If it exists, its existence confirms its reality, maybe reality confirms and percieves itself? By existing it becomes real. I don't know. Im just combatting the ignorant statement that reality is what you make it. Thats simply untrue.

At the RISK of making you feel threatened, :D I will venture to respond! Einsteins Special Theory of Relativity does indeed include perception into reality! Depending in which gravity feild an observer is standing in, it affects the passage of something as basic as time! Check it out!

All I was saying in the post you responded to was that manners, as well as scientific reality be practiced by all people, regarding other peoples beliefs!

Since the belief in the existance of a "Designer" of nature cannot be either proved or disproved, it should not be commented on by "science"! But beyond that, calling someone elses' belief 5th Grade, or some other insulting reference is boorish, at best!

I am the first to reject some one else from trying to impose their beliefs on my life! In fact I am somewhat famously "sensitive" about it according to your experience! I just believe that manners, and politics helps us avoid namecalling that can lead to worse in a society!

Well if gravity effects perception, its reality. Not a made up version of it.Im not saying theres no conflict either, conflict is a reality(one that I like) Im talking about a guy saying....REALITY IS WHAT YOU MAKE OF IT OR PERCIEVE!! thats hooey, Human perception is flawwed, and yes the flawwed perception is a reality, but the untrue conclusion does not become truth, it merely is a real misconception.

I am NOT going to argue Bill's arguement! :D But politically speaking it is not wise to be perceived as ridiculing a belief that millions of people ascribe to! That does NOT mean the belief is provable! If millions of people believed that the earth sprang forth from the belly of a snake! But that otherwise those same people were part of a nation that had produced secular stability and freedom of thought and scientific research! And you were a scientist in that society! Would you consider it WISE to ridicule their belief? A more mature response would be that you thought it "metaphore"!

Carl Jung has pointed out that Myth; is an explaination of reality that answers the needs of the human pscyhe, much more completely than science ever will!

Before you dismiss the needs of the pscyhe, remember it is that very pscyhe that seeks scientific answers also, and without which there would be no consciousness to begin with!

When I said reality is not dependant on perception, I meant it could be real without US percieving it. Not that it cannot be percieved at all. I think existence confirms reality. Isn't that the true measure of whether somethings real? Is it existing? Sure a lie is a reality in its form...as a lie, but it does not give truth or reality to its conclusion or statement. It merely exists as BS!! Either that or your saying Bush never lies.... In some other universe or gravity feild he is truthful? LOL

Whatta shambles!

As nobody wants to stay on the topic of what the Universe implies about it's possible Designer....

somebody mentioned color- that is human perception bound; but there is an electromagnetic spectrum that it is a part of; if there were space aliens with different perceptions they would agree that EM exists. Radio, TV, your microwave works- it exists.

We have only 5 narrow senses, tho we have expanded them with technology- telescopes, cameras, etc. Consider how an electric eel might perceive things, or a bat, or a dolphin. Imaginate to the scale of a Universe Designer; how might that Universe be percieved?

We also perceive Time at a certain rate. Think of timelapse movies, what if you perceived at a very different rate? A Designer who oversees the recycling of stars over billions of years, who designs species, might also perceive things differently than we do. If you imagine the universe 'in motion', the Big Bang is still going on, and the Universe is a very violent place. The question is, at that process level, what is the purpose? Hard to believe it is those little humans over in that galaxy in the corner, and that's the prob with Intelligent Design; it doesn't lead to a Biblical conclusion.

Different perceptions do not change the reality, they just change the veiw. You may see a ham sandwich and see lunch, I might see breakfast, a pig might see his mommy, but its still the same item, just veiwed through different eyes.

Thats perfect, it points to 3 seperate realities, now Imagine another guy seeing sandwich, as a rolls royce!!! I then say its not reality, its delusion, its unsupportable. He can't drive the sandwich home, we may eat, the pig may greive, all of us in reality, but the guy seeing a rolls royce is out of reality. Its a reality that he thinks its a car, but its not a car. Thats a delusion, this is my way of saying,,,,, REALITY IS NOT WHAT YOU MAKE IT OR PECIEVE IT TO BE.
Bill is wrong,,,completely, he thinks he can create a whole new reality just by stating it or "percieving" it. He thinks to use the media to feed people his ideas, they become reality, thats simply not true. Its never going to drive, his Rolls Royce is half eaten sandwich(I got hungry) ....

Different perceptions do not change the reality, they just change the veiw. You may see a ham sandwich and see lunch, I might see breakfast, a pig might see his mommy, but its still the same item, just veiwed through different eyes.

You missed my point. You might not see the sandwich at all, just like a dog can hear things you can't. Except in (perhaps) pure mathematics, Reality is affected by the Observer- the Uncertainty Principle, which brought you the computer you are seeing this on.

Believing in that super-Reality existing above observations is the 'religion' that Bill posted about. Reality happens, it doesn't 'exist'.

No, he said reality is what you make it, simply untrue. totally bogus. I cannot make that sandwich become a car just as he can't. If something exists that I do not percieve, it still exists, he tryed to argue that reality is only there if its percieved too, another bogus statement. Your not reading the whole conversation its in another post too.

Will add something that may be fraught with meaning as far as the Designer implications...

Life exists, we know it does be cause we do. Yet nothing that SETI or the Hubble has come up with demonstrates that there is Life elsewhere. What are the implications?

It depends on what you believe we (little humans) are! If you believe we are simply "meat automatons", with instincts programed over millions of years of evolution to propogate and survive, then yes it would seem absurd that we would be regarded by the "Designer of the Cosmos" as anything more than a marginally interesting development out on the fringe of IT'S grand project!

If however you believe that we are also "spiritual beings", who share in the consciousness of the "Creator", then we have some link to the design of the universe! I consider that the very existence of self-aware consciousness, capable of percieving the universe out of which we arose to be incredible itself!

"Man is indispensible for the completion of creation; that, in fact, he himself is the second creator of the world, who alone has given the world it's objective existence-without which, unheard, unseen, silently eating, giving birth, dying, heads nodding through hundreds of millions of years, it would have gone on in the profoundest night of non-being down to it's unknown end.

Human consciousness created objective existence and meaning, and man found his indispensable place in the great process of being".

Carl Jung

Well when Bill drives that sandwich down I84 I will listen to his reality is what i make it claim, till then have a great lunch, I gotta go to the pigs wake!!

You said its a religion, this reality is what you make it stuff, I then ask you, who is the leader? Whose reality is the one to be expressed? i think its a cultish type of thing. I say it, see it, think it, therefore its real? Perception that we speak of is flawwed and therefore subject to delusion. sure delusions are real, real delusions,they are not real in the sense of content, just in existence. I have no problem understanding the existence of competing realities or ones subject to the veiw or way they are veiwed, but I do object to the blanket statement that reality is what you percieve , its BS, and could easily be abused to form a cultish type organization. Im not for banning his right to think this, But I am also against banning my right to point out its flaws. Its a way to simplistic and distorted veiw of this idea. It digs only deep enough to satisfy its creator with a sense of intelligence and power that he only sees reality, And anything that refutes him is not. Simply not the case. Reality is not as you make it. Until you drive that ham sandwich you see as a car down the road,,,,your just a ham!!

All religions arise out of Myth! This is not to denigrate Myth as I have explained above! Myth satisfies the human consciousness more than scientific explainations, but both are reqiured and exhibited by the human pscyhe!

As the Beatles said; "I think I know a me, but , yes but , it's all wrong... at least I know when it's a DREAM!"

Myth and reality must not be confused! Each have their place, and should not be brought into conflict! Bill is exasperating, and goes too far IMO, about "reality is what you make it"! You also are exaggerating what he is saying IMO!

It is unquestionable that Bush a New England rich boy was sold to the American people as a "down home cowboy" perceived to braver, stronger than a "Real Warrior"!

That's not quite like driving a ham sandwich down the street, but it's close!

yes but which is reality, Bush a soldier or Kerry? And put a few Repub's on the spot, tell them in 1969 if you were in the war, and could be with someone of Kerry's experience, or Bush's, your life depends on it, you are in a battle, WHO DO YOU WANT? I bet if they answered honestly Bush would still be hiding in Georgia and Kerry would be by their side. Just because A lie is believed, supporeted or spoken, does not make it true.

Obviously reality destroys lies! When they are perceived as the lies they are! In the game of Rock, Paper, Scissors everyone playing knows that Rock breaks Scissors! But if the game is being reported by Fox News, you won't know who had the Rock, and who the Scissors!

I asked my brother, who voted for Bush, that very question about being in battle! To my chagrin he answered Bush! My brother is an intelligent man, well accomplished! For him to answer thus made me believe that he was gonna get into his ham sandwich and drive off!

We need to gain at least a measure of control of the Media that is feeding these false perceptions of reality! That is where I agree with Bill!

Yes we need truth in media, not our own reality, thats as bad as republican control of fox. Creating your own reality, is another word for dispensing propoganda, and must be stopped, no matter who does it. FDEmand true and accurate media news, this I can agree too. But opinion must be labeled opinion and not the new media scientologists reality, I will follow no group that takes that road. Propoganda and misuse of public information outlets is a bad thing. And I do not care if the emerging Scientology of media masters get mad about it, I call a bad idea a bad idea no matter where its fostered.

Agreed! So I guess we should both shoot ourselves now that we agree on something?

LOL

I think we ought to feed the Billster an idea seripticiously,,,,,start a movement for an APTV channel on cable, just the news, no commentary.

I can't believe this guy got everyone arguing over a misquote:

Why does thi person insist on misquoting me. I never said "Realitiy is what you make it." I said "Reality is what we make it." Big difference between "You" (individualistic, singular) and "We" (holistic, sum). CAN YOU READ? GO BACK AND CHECK WHAT I SAID.

OnlyinNY is arguing against a distortion of what I said. It isn't even on the topic of this thread.

Are you giving up so soon?

OnlyinNY doesn't want to admit that reality without perception is meaningless. Therefore the argument of what reality means without perception is meaningless.

OnlyinNY: How can we prove there are absolute truths, apart from perception?

BTW. Your stab about me stealing quotes, I never claimed to orginate the "tree in the woods" example, but it didn't come from this forum. Check the dates and times on posts.

Truth is self fufilling.Reality is true, that which exists, makes no difference if WE or YOU percieve it Existence proves itself. Perception is merely a way to see that which exists. No one gave up, I was not online you silly boob. you knew that, but wanted to sound tough???? LOL not working. Go ahead form your retarded cult Bill, but dont expect anyone to follow the HALE BOB comet with you...OK? Im not into matching NIKE shoes and purple blankets....LOL The reason I argue this point is becuase your to dumb to give up your MISPERCIEVED notion...YOU ARE THE FAULTY MEDIUM that incorrectly deciphered this reality into a delusion.... Reality is self confirming. The very essence of being creates the reality.

Only;

Come on now dude! Bill may be right about the misquote! I haven't read all the posts!

Bill, Only MAY have misquoted you, but you gotta admit, your "machine gun" posts with the "encripted" language sets you up to be misunderstood! Intelligence is usually measured by the rate at which one is able to process information! By that measure you are highly intelligent! I am NOT being patronizing, but you don't seem to slow down enough to "savor" your responses, as well as LISTEN and DIGEST other peoples responses!

I have experienced this myself! If you were more careful in what you are saying you might even convince Only!

Suggestion Bill;

Right out in the open! Why don't you start a thread to convince OnlyinNY about what you are saying!

I would certainly follow it! I would be willing to referee if both accepted!

It would be a challenge that would hone your skills, and if Only accepted the challenge it would be (searching for a word...) informative? (too dry)...entertaining?...(too shallow) How about a HOOT?

Your call guys!

OnlyinNY doesn't want to debate. He just wants to bring me down to his level. I'm going to heed Murphy's Law about foolish arguments in this case.

Enough people understand where I'm coming from that I don't need to play the noise game with OnlyinNY.

I think he should just accept that he doesn't understand the hard concepts, stop misquoting me, stop insulting me and everyone else, and stop the repetitive arguing semantics.

I also think he should apologize to ThomPaine for taking the thread off topic before it even got started. OnlyinNY made the thread about me for 2 pages before I even joined the thread.

Okay, so you guys are STILL at this...?! (sigh...)

Didn't you get this discussion out of your systems in college at, like, 2 a.m. over coffee (or perhaps some slightly more intriguing substance...)?

And you're still no closer to an answer! And neither is anybody else! DANG!!! (thank you Napoleon Dynamite, new temporary hero)

Just let me save you the trouble: You're all correct, and you're all mistaken.

Now go to sleep, and I'll check back to this thread again in, oh, a couple of weeks when it will still be RAGING ON AIMLESSLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :o