the mdc`s,unitas,and mobutu`s and renamo are not for this government or blacks and they too are a possible threat so its justified to call for the implementation of plan-b.

our intelligence has been ineffective since its inception waiting for its ,masters to instruct it whereas its it that should give instructions to them and all that their terrorism report contains its a lie and fraud.the rugby cup was not hosted by them but the nats and that`s why it went smoothly bec ause they invested in security.

lol, how on Earth did you make that leap? Did you honestly just call me a New Ager? Do you even know what New Age philosophy is about? It’s just so ridiculously funny and deliciously childish. It’s like I’m on a schoolyard, and for no reason, you just cried out “potato”.

But this is the funniest and strangest thing you’ve written all day:

“For one thing, the criterion (sic) of determining the poverty of any metaphor does not lie in your hands. You have to look at the point that I am making and as long as you get it (it matters little if you agree with it or not), then the point’s been made.”

I’m sorry what? That makes absolutely no sense. I have to say, you’ve really made an old man smile.

Anyway, read up on what I’ve told you, and when you’re better informed (and make sure you work on your English), we can chat again.

This was on New Year’s Resolutions. [sigh] Now I find myself having a back and forth discussion with a New Ager and I’m not amused.

For one thing, the criterion of determining the poverty of any metaphor does not lie in your hands. You have to look at the point that I am making and as long as you get it (it matters little if you agree with it or not), then the point’s been made.

I see I’ve made my point and it does feel like I’m handling poo every time I must respond, so allow me the freedom to go wash my hands, will you?

Adios and lighten up. If your grandpa is a chimpanzee, little wonder that you don’t make much sense. I don’t speak chimpanzee.

In any case, I think I understand where you’re making the mistake, ignoring the obvious elephant in the room (i.e. sheer ignorance). You’re actually confusing concepts; cosmogenesis (i.e. the creation of the cosmos) is not the same as the creation of life (biogenesis). Incidentally, understanding how life arose is really at the forefront of science today, and it’s keeping many young and old biochemists, chemists, biologists and biogeochemists busy.

You bring up an interesting tidbit about geology, yet you’ve completely missed the point, or should I say you’re misrepresenting the actual science?

In geology you have two very different techniques of dating rocks, sediment and fossils, a) relative dating or b) absolute dating. Relative dating is the more imprecise method, but it gives you a general idea of where strata is in time.

For instance (simplified for your benefit), if you have a sediment layer overlying a sandstone bed and granite, the sediment layer would be stratigraphically younger than the sandstone and the granite (according to the law of superposition). If there is evidence that granite intruded (considering that it is an igneous rock, think magma) into the sandstone (according to the principle of cross cutting relationships), the granite would be younger than the sandstone, because it’s cutting through the country rock. Therefore the correct stratigraphy would be (from oldest to youngest) sandstone, granite and then sediment.

The example you misrepresented is called biostratigraphy, in other words using the relationship between strata and fossils (dates for which have already been determined) to get an approximate fix on where things fall in time (It’s also called the principle of faunal succession).

Absolute dating on the other hands uses a number of really interesting (and dare I say it ingenious) chemistry and physics to determine approximate calendar dates. Generally, geologists would use the decay rates of radioactive isotopes. You’ve probably heard of carbon dating, or Uranium lead dating? Apart from radiometrics, they can also use a technique called thermoluminescence. All these techniques would have their strengths and weaknesses, so generally you’d use more than one. Similarly you would also use, relative dating methods in conjunction with absolute dating methods.

Simplified version: You never use only one dating method, and in many respects it’s a bit like figuring out a 3D jigsaw puzzle, where you’re trying to find out when and where events took place.

And in closing:
LOL @ your car big bang scenario. Another poorly constructed metaphor?

No….if you go thru all the conversations you will see that NDA and I are not always on the same wavelenght all the time nut have to say I am beginning to like Nda more all the time..

Lastly, notice that we HAD to have Henry Ford inventing and eventually designing the Model T. THAT is my point. No creation, be it animate or otherwise, ever came about by some cosmic accident so many billions of years ago.

If you get into the mathematics of probability (and mathematics is a hardcore scientific subject), the probability that animate life as we know it on this planet came about by chance is zero/nil.

If you look into geology, you find a lot of comical circular reasoning (e.g. Q: How do we know how old this fossil is, sir? A: By the stratum of the geological column in which we find it. Q: But, sir, how do we know how old the geological column to which you refer is? A: Um, well, er… We know that by the type of fossils that are found in that geological column).

Please! I wasn’t born yesterday.

If you really espouse reading widely, the best way to find your mind again is to deliberately read all the material that discredits your current position–and then try to refute it INTELLIGENTLY. You will have NO option but to recant your current position.

BIG BANG! Yeah, right!! LOL. When was the last time a brand new Model T ever came out of a horrific crash between a Ford Mondeo and a Ford Taurus? Better still, when was the last time you heard evidence that humans are actually getting smarter, since all empirical evidence points to the contrary? When was the last time that a new human being came out of an accident like that of the Challenger? When??

With all these small and big bangs of accidents happening all around us, and not a shred of new life emanating from ANY ONE of them, hasn’t it occurred to you that that is one of the reasons why the theory of evolution is still THE theory of evolution?

Come on! Grow up.

You write so similarly, are you sure you’re not the same person?

Anyway, I’m not sure if you’re aware of this but cars ARE NOT ALIVE, they CAN NOT REPRODUCE (unless of course you’d like to tell us that your car has just mated with a small ford hatchback, and produced a weird bakkie hybrid). Cars do not possess genes, DNA etc.. Therefore YOUR ANALOGY makes NO SENSE. In other words, it’s not VALID.

But let’s have fun with your analogy anyway:

Each car created and developed is based on a blueprint which is ultimately based on a previous model, therefore the old early 1900s Ford T is one of the many engineered precursors of every single combustion engine car today. We could probably go even further back in time to the first steam automobiles and horse-drawn carts.

This of course isn’t evolution (or natural selection), but merely engineering.

Let’s try this for the last time.

Every time I walk out of my house, I come across thousands of cars. The one I drive occasionally is an Opel Corsa bakkie. When I come across another Opel, it is crystal clear from its design that it came off an Opel workshop.

However, I also come across Mercedes Benz, Toyota, Mahindra, BMW, you name them. Interestingly, my Opel bakkie has two headlights. Using your line of reasoning (don’t be SO open-minded that your mind falls out, eish!), the Merc next door also has two headlights, so that must mean that, somewhere in the distant past (say, 20 million years ago), they shared the same evolutionary ancestors.

This nonsensical reasoning could go on and on, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

My point? Revert to my previous comments and your mind has been too open; it fell out some years ago. Only you have the burden of having to find it. The least I can do is to point out that an individual is still responsible for making intelligent decisions in a world that offers EVERYTHING (including nonsense) as a democratic option.

If you don’t have an idea of what I’m talking about, ask the ANC. It’s true in science as much as it is true in politics. You are responsible for making your personal intelligent decisions. You cannot be the cesspool of history, raking in EVERYTHING in the name of openmindedness. Discriminate! DISCRIMINATE!! Weed out the nonsense and keep what’s actually worthwhile. Eish….