[Xrow]

That told me nothing of value.

"Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand." -Einstein
Einstein says your being close-minded.

"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination." -Einstein
Einstein says I'm truly intelligent.  He also says you aren't, as all you have done is source others.

"Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere." -Einstein
Einstein says your still sitting on B, wondering how I got to X.


Hmm, didn't Einstein have something to do with physics..?

[Iridion]

u guys mad lol

[mmiicc0]

u guys mad lol

You have to admit, they are quite funny. 

[Optimism]

That told me nothing of value.

"Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand." -Einstein
Einstein says your being close-minded.

"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination." -Einstein
Einstein says I'm truly intelligent.  He also says you aren't, as all you have done is source others.

"Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere." -Einstein
Einstein says your still sitting on B, wondering how I got to X.


Hmm, didn't Einstein have something to do with physics..?

But...I have an imagination; quite a vivid one. Point nullified. For you to assume that any human being lacks imagination, results directly back to the previous link. Your arguments are full of fallacy -- continuously.

A drunk on the street tells you he is seeing pink elephants (this man in what many would call, a "bum"). Quite an imagination he has there. Now, ask him to derive an equation. A true sign of intelligence indeed. Its clear that you've applied these quotations to substantiate a sole point; however, these quotations have a plethora of implications that can be used several different ways. In my opinion, one who claims either ends of the spectrum of belief lacks "imagination". As you know, I am agnostic, which enables ample imagination regarding the origin of the universe. Here is an example of a rather crude encounter between two opposing mindsets regarding creations origins. I don't commend the way Dawkins conducted himself, albeit correct, in the least. The man speaking to him is human and at the very lease, deserves respect; something that wasn't given:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfcYRKk0sa8&feature=player_embedded

Now, back to the point I will make, eventually.

You realize you are having a heart attack -- your medication is lying on the counter (beta blockers / nitrates). What do you do? Hrmm...

We both know what "truth" is within this world -- it is substantiated through the tangibles (you would take this medication that is derived from my proposed method of ascertaining truth), whether you wish to agree or not, I could care not .  You avoiding these critical points for this conversation to move forward is rather pathetic. If any half-witted individual views this conversation, he or she would immediately understand the fallacy within your argument...RED HERRING

Lastly, within any research paper, what must be done to prevent academic misconduct from occurring? The 10,000 dollar answer: sourcing. Siting and providing links is simply a means to facilitate your understanding of the matter. Moreover, when I wish to learn something I am vaguely familiar with or have no knowledge of what-so-ever, I research. If this knowledge is being applied in a paper, I source that knowledge that I previously lacked. Since you seem rather unwilling to look things up yourself, or take my word for it, I provide links for you. I will continue to do so.

Follow my link and better yourself. I'm done here XD.

http://www.pearsoned.ca/highered/divisions/text/troyka/help2/logicchart.html

[Iridion]

i decided to call you optisaurus

[Optimism]

i decided to call you optisaurus

l
m
f
a
o

>.>.

[thugzy]

some of u guys are fked in the head

[Iridion]

l
m
f
a
o

>.>.

and a new account optits

[Xrow]

HERE WE GO WOO

But...I have an imagination; quite a vivid one. [I'm not seein it. I have seen a lot of other peoples opinions though - thus the three links you've posted so far.] Point nullified. [Iiiiiin your opinion.] For you to assume that any human being lacks imagination, results directly back to the previous link. [At least your partially sourcing them] Your arguments are full of fallacy -- continuously. [Yeah, you like to talk out your ass, but your ass always lacks pertinent examples and uses a thesaurus far too often.]

A drunk on the street tells you he is seeing pink elephants (this man is what many would call a "bum"). Quite an imagination he has there. Now, ask him to derive an equation. A true sign of intelligence indeed. Its clear that you've applied these quotations to substantiate a sole point; however, these quotations have a plethora of implications that can be used several different ways. In my opinion, one who claims either ends of the spectrum of belief lacks "imagination". As you know, I am agnostic, which enables ample imagination regarding the origin of the universe. Here is an example of a rather crude encounter between two opposing mindsets regarding creations origins. I don't commend the way Dawkins conducted himself, albeit correct, in the least. The man speaking to him is human and at the very least deserves respect, something that wasn't given:

[Well I watched it. And unless there was some deeper, subsurface meaning, I do not see how it was very pertinent to this argument.]
[Those Einsteinian quotes were not without reason. It is one thing, Opti, to have knowledge\\intelligence. It is another to have true imagination. I do not know you well enough to truly judge, but from what I have seen here, you know what you've read, and that is where your thought process ends.]
[Einstein's quote, "Problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them" is certainly applicable to more than just problems - it is a live value. It means that you cannot discover with a static chain of thought. Without imagination, exploration is just an answer to questions that are being asked, not those that will be asked. I am merely asking you to think outside the box.]


[As far as the universe is concerned, some believe it is finite, others believe it is infinite. I personally find it easier to believe that it is infinite; for if it is finite, then what lies beyond it?
On top of that, I have heard that space is the lack of. It is nothing. If space is indeed nothing (and not dark matter, as some believe), then the universe must be infinite, because whatever lies beyond space would also be nothing, and therefore space.][I am not basing this off of any scientific study, it is my own thought - I don't believe science can prove an absolute in relation to the universe at this time.]

Now, back to the point I will make, eventually.

You realize you are having a heart attack -- your medication is lying on the counter (beta blockers / nitrates). What do you do? Hrmm...

We both know what "truth" is within this world[Ah, but one mans truth is another man's lie.] -- it is substantiated through the tangibles (you would take this medication that is derived from my proposed method of ascertaining truth), whether you wish to agree or not, I could care not .  You avoiding these critical points for this conversation to move forward is rather pathetic. If any half-witted individual views this conversation, he or she would immediately understand the fallacy within your argument...RED HERRING
[Lucky for me, the United States is lacking in half-witted people :). And I'll be honest, I don't know what the eff most of this has to do with my original thesis, LOL. Pretty sure we just started arguing about arguments.]

Lastly, within any research paper, what must be done to prevent academic misconduct from occurring? The 10,000 dollar answer: sourcing. Citing and providing links is simply a means to facilitate your understanding of the matter. Moreover, when I wish to learn something I am vaguely familiar with or have no knowledge of what-so-ever, I research. If this knowledge is being applied in a paper, I source that knowledge that I previously lacked. Since you seem rather unwilling to look things up yourself, or take my word for it, I provide links for you. I will continue to do so.
[I watch your dang links and look up my own, sir. I enjoy learning and bettering myself - but I also enjoy CREATIVE DESIGN.]

Follow my link and better yourself. I'm done here XD.

http://www.pearsoned.ca/highered/divisions/text/troyka/help2/logicchart.html

And maybe I used RED HERRING, but you've used AD HOMINEM, CIRCULAR ARGUMENT and RED HERRING.  I mean, your the one that deviated from the subject in the first place, sir.

[Optimism]

I'm not pretending to know the origin of the universe, because I don't. I'm not pretending to know the answers to life, because I don't. What it all comes down to is this. There may or may not be absolute truth, but for the sake of argument, lets say that there is. Of all the life-styles and points of view held on this planet now and in the past (probably millions), each, according to the individual who believes in their own way-of-life is correct. If we look at this holistically and base the probability of only one being truly correct (none may be correct thus far, or there may not be a greater purpose for the human race period), then we must designate each with a percentage of correctness. Given that these millions of cultural beliefs were believed true by the individual that followed them (they hold the same conviction of "truth" that you hold to your way of life), then we should assign each an equal percent of being correct, so what are the odds your way of life is the truth? Slim to none. What are the odds that my way of life is correct? Slim to none. I'm willing to come to terms with this. Those who are religious are not (for reasons I won't state, as this is another argument entirely). There is no such thing as pure objectivity. Each individual's belief is purely subjective. Given this, there is always the chance that a way-of-life is "incorrect" or an "untruth". Always. It all comes down to what satisfies one the  most. However, I choose to pursue a way of life that provides myself and fellow man with tangible progression, not dogmatic adherence that often leads to regression.

[Xrow]

Life is a mystery.
If you read this, delete it from your quote and be silent or contact me personally. I have always been a thinker, and I fear that most are not. I am a Christian. At times I wonder why animals are said to be virtually worthless in comparison to humans, while humans are of incomparable importance. Are we really?