One passage that remains with me from my Catholic schooling is Matthew 7:12 in which Jesus admonished that:

<In everything, do to others what you would want them to do to you. This is what is written in the Law and in the Prophets.>

While I've no complaints at all about the quality of our discussion, I sincerely hope never to read any more corrosive sarcasm emanating from your quill directed at anyone responding to <your invitation> to a discussion.

My friend, it does not become you.

of which the Holy Spirit has appointed you overseers,

in which you tend the Church of God

that he acquired with his own Blood.

I know that after my departure savage wolves will come among you,

and they will not spare the flock.

And from your own group, men will come forward perverting the truth

to draw the disciples away after them.

So be vigilant and remember that for three years, night and day,

I unceasingly admonished each of you with tears.

And now I commend you to God

and to that gracious word of his that can build you up

and give you the inheritance among all who are consecrated.

I have never wanted anyone’s silver or gold or clothing.

You know well that these very hands

have served my needs and my companions.

In every way I have shown you that by hard work of that sort

we must help the weak,

and keep in mind the words of the Lord Jesus who himself said,

Context
The Large Hadron Collider has been successfully tested as a particle accelerator on Wednesday 10th September. A beam of protons was accelerated and completed several loops through the whole structure (26,659 m),[ The sun take's 26000 years to come back , make one conclusion if you are interrested. N.C.] clockwise and counter-clockwise. (This first tests did not involve particle collisions, and the LHC will not be used as a collider before Spring 2009 because of a serious incident) When the power of this machine is discussed, the energy of each proton is often mentioned: The protons each have an energy of 7 TeV. What does that mean?

Einstein to the rescue
At low velocities (conceivable for human beings), the energy of a point object is measured by:

However, this formula can not be applied at speeds close to the speed of light. We must use Einstein's theory of Special relativity, which gives:

where ã is the Lorentz factor, defined as

When the particle is at rest (v=0), this yields the famous equivalence between mass and energy:

Speed of the protons in the LHC

With E = 7 TeV:

•v = 99.9999991% times the speed of light
•The Lorentz factor has a value of about 7460

<<whatthefat: What do you want exactly? There have been several experiments showing how various component molecules may have formed. >

OCF: Life may have come from Mars. Life may have come from primordial soup. Monkeys may have flown out of Piltdown Man's butt. And you expect me to believe a string of how many may haves with how many gaps in between and I'm moronic if I don't? Got it.>

~~~~

<twinlark: While I've no complaints at all about the quality of our discussion, I sincerely hope never to read any more corrosive sarcasm emanating from your quill directed at anyone responding to <your invitation> to a discussion. My friend, it does not become you. >

~~~~

Some time ago, I said this to OCF: <The pattern I see is that you get sarcastic (if not silent) when your only other choice is to admit that your argument is unsustainable.>. He dismisses his sarcasm with statements like this:

<OCF: I know I'm really prone to the sarcastic side, and am trying hard to reel that in.>

<OCF: I am well aware of my propensity to be sarcastic. I try to comfort myself by thinking I return it when I have been demeaned.>

<OCF: I am prone to fits of sarcasm and arrogance and try hard to keep them in check.>

However, I've observed that sarcasm is one of his primary devices of evasion (the other primary devices are silence and failure to process).

His sarcasm amounts to a strawman fallacy that goes like this: (1) Take your opponent's position, and use sarcasm to construct an exaggerated caricature of that position. (2) Feign indignation that that your opponent would actually expect you to believe it.

Anyone who follows these debates will see OCF use this device over and over.

English Standard Version (©2001)
<And the wall of the city had twelve foundations>, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
<And the wall of the city had twelve foundation stones>, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

International Standard Version (©2008)
<<The wall of the city had twelve foundations>, and the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the lamb were written on them.>

People's New Testament

<21:14 The wall of the city had twelve foundations. The twelve apostles of the Lamb are foundations of the Church, Jesus Christ being the chief corner-stone (Eph 2:20).>

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

14. <twelve foundations-Joshua, the type of Jesus, chose twelve men out of the people, to carry twelve stones over the Jordan with them, as Jesus chose twelve apostles to be the twelve foundations of the heavenly city, of which He is Himself the Chief corner-stone. Peter is not the only apostolic rock on whose preaching Christ builds His Church. <Christ Himself is the true foundation>>: the twelve are foundations only in regard to their apostolic testimony concerning Him. Though Paul was an apostle besides the twelve, yet the mystical number is retained, twelve representing the Church, namely thirty the divine number, multiplied by four, the world number.

<in order that the Scripture might be fulfilled.>>

But <now I am coming to you.

I speak this in the world

so that they may share my joy completely.>

I gave them your word,> and the world hated them,

because <they do not belong to the world

any more than I belong to the world.>

I do not ask that you take them out of the world

<but that you keep them from> the Evil One.

<They do not belong to the world

any more than I belong to the world.>

<<Consecrate them in the truth.

Your word is truth.>

<As you sent me into the world,

so I sent them into the world.>

<And I consecrate myself for them,

But there *are* links everywhere in nature -- logarithmic spirals, flower petals, seashells growth, and so on.

In simple numerical terms, take the Fibonacci series: 1, 1 ,2 ,3 ,5 ,8 ,13 ,21 ,34 ,55 , 89, 144 ... each term is formed by adding together the previous two. And, as the sequence goes on, the ratio between any two adjacent numbers gets ever closer to 1.618...

It's also a solution to the quadratic equation x^2 - x - 1 = 0.

Then this whole discussion has been a waste of time. Also, I'm relieved to see you've removed a couple of your recent posts.

So how about a changing the subject that's going absolutely nowhere in a handbasket?

The new poster boy in chess is Pavel Eljanov (I reckon it means Paul son-of-Jonah). He's exciting and he's leading the FIDE Grand Prix (2010) after nine rounds. He wins with Black and loses with white.

I don't think so. For all the charges of being an intellectual simpleton etc for believing what I do, I think that's been proven dead wrong. As for deleted posts, I have sent one previous post to my reviewer and await a response.

I hope <Eljanov> might turn out to be a Chucky with a better sense of when to cast a lightning bolt on the board.

No time now to look at the <Gashimov> game but will report back later.

<For all the charges of being an intellectual simpleton etc for believing what I do, I think that's been proven dead wrong.>

I must have missed that, and you have nothing to prove in terms of your intellect, only the standard of your arguments. Don't mix logic with faith. Each to his own I know but for me personally faith is something that fills the gaps left by knowledge and reason, and is never a substitute for either of these things, otherwise faith transmogrifies into superstition.

<Reminiscient of nothing, what would your response be if I came to your forum and spoke disparagingly of you in the third person?>

Theoretically? It depends upon what was said previously and whether I'd made a horse's arse of myself or not.

Having said that, your comment is clearly reminiscent of a recent post by someone who may have been a friend, or had been kindly disposed...personally I think the use of the second person would have been more polite, but you could also see the use of the third in that context as a measure of his alienation. My suggestion FWIW is ask yourself what you want to achieve, how you intend to do that, and how you'll know if you've succeeded or failed before you venture into these sorts of waters.

<I hope <Eljanov> might turn out to be a Chucky with a better sense of when to cast a lightning bolt on the board.>

I'll assume that it might be reminiscient of my post. :-)

And I'll admit that I had reservations about presenting my post in the third person manner.

However, I did so because I wasn't really addressing it to you specifically, but to anyone who happened to be following this debate. As a result, I think it may have come across as more 'disparaging' (to you personally) than intended.

My intent was to point out that we seem to have a disagreement over what constitutes logical argument. You use the device of sarcasm frequently, with the effect of excusing yourself not having to respond directly. Your recent example directed at <whatthefat> is just one example, I could mention others if you like.

I don't know if you use sarcasm intentionally for the purpose of evasion or not, but whatever your purpose is, you evidently do see it as a valid device to use in a debate. I don't.

I don't mind sarcasm in small doses if it helps make a point. But when used it as a substitute for a straight answer, then it's just the strawman fallacy. Thus, I was indeed making a disparaging remark about the quality of your argument methods (just as any debate judge should deduct points for fallacious reasoning).

<lark: One passage that remains with me from my Catholic schooling is Matthew 7:12 in which Jesus admonished that: <In everything, do to others what you would want them to do to you. This is what is written in the Law and in the Prophets.>

While I've no complaints at all about the quality of our discussion, I sincerely hope never to read any more corrosive sarcasm emanating from your quill directed at anyone responding to <your invitation> to a discussion.

My friend, it does not become you. >

However, I did so because I wasn't really addressing it to you specifically, but to anyone who happened to be following this debate. As a result, I think it may have come across as more 'disparaging' (to you personally) than intended. >

I really wasn't bothered by it. I am aware a post can come out different than intended. I know talking through another person can also come off as disparaging. I may have just done so in discussing your post with <twinlark>. Endless loop of hesitations, etc. So, I will stop this point now and address <twinlark> directly.

You have your posts peer reviewed?

<Sixthly, and this is as blunt as I can be, I think the entire Darwinism viewpoint is worthy of sarcasm and I have no qualms addressing it as such. I think it is so irrational that it should be ridiculed. I can show sarcasm used by those who proclaimed the gospel and consider it a legitimate argumentation tactic.>

Of course you think it worthy of ridicule, and you won't even bother to understand it. And of course others think the Bible is worthy of ridicule, and they won't even bother to understand it.

It sounds like two groups of people, but really they're exactly the same.

<And would it be outlandish for me to think every time someone finds themselves without an answer, they change subjects and address the sarcasm that apparently only comes from my side?>