Creationism vs reality

[Greg H.]

I'm almost certain the effectiveness of ridicule as a tactic for effective argumentation was not the original topic of this thread.

Edited February 25, 2014 by Greg H.

[Acme]

I'm almost certain the effectiveness of ridicule as a tactic for effective argumentation was not the original topic of this thread.

I am equally certain that neither is pointing that out. I at least have made a sincere effort to tie my responses to the specifics that Moontan laid out in the opening post and I have also introduced an historical perspective/argument on creationism vs. reality.

[StringJunky]

. The more people disposed to embracing some ideal or belief who see that ideal/belief and its proponents ridiculed, the more likely they are to rethink their position.

 

That approach might work If the majority consensus is disposed against that ideal/belief ...I think you are blowing into the wind.

 

 

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/03/09/study-24-of-americans-now-either-atheist-agnostic-or-deist/

[mooeypoo]

"Creationists are crazy" would be a stereotype; people with 'no obvious crazy showing through' is basically a witty way of saying I've met some crazy people, and I imagine he thinks some of the creationists are this crazy he spoke of. I bet he is not qualified to diagnose crazy in someone. What is his diagnosis based on? Nothing? Preferences? There should be nothing in the way if we are being scientific, we should be tackling creationists properly. I have ideas about a creator unlike any God written in the bible and realer than any of them, and I don't reject scientific discoveries.

 

Quick Creationist Idea That Doesn't Conflict With Science: What if outside the vacuum that our universe is in was infinity?

 

Actually, "X are crazy" is an observation, not a stereotype, when that observation is backed up by an explanation why -- which in this case it is. Now, I don't particularly agree with that observation, since "crazy" is a loose and quite derogatory psychological term, but the idea behind it is that Creationists insist on sticking to their beliefs at the expense of reality. That isn't a stereotype, it's the definition of creationism.

 

We have clear real and indisputable evidence that evolution takes place, so much so that evolution is undeniably accepted throughout all fields of science.

We have clear real and indisputable evidence that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. So much evidence, in fact, no one in the scientific community disputes it.

 

Creationism, by definition, is based on the belief that the Earth is only thousands of years old. This is proven wrong by science, shown to be clearly against objective reality, and hence, people who stick to their guns to insist that is true are ignoring reality. It might not be all that surprising to call that sort of mindset some sort of crazy.

 

I personally think they're uninformed and, sometimes (too many times) brainwashed, so I try to refrain from making such a statement about their state of sanity. But I can understand where the determination is coming from, and it isn't about stereotypes.

 

 

 

If you're a creationist, do you believe the earth was created only thousands of years ago? If that is the case, you can't claim you don't reject scientific discoveries, because all scientific discoveries, without a single lone exception, *ALL* discoveries reject that notion outright and without a doubt.

 

So which is it? You're either not a creationist (and reject scientific discoveries by definition) or you follow science, and reject creationism. The two notions simply do not coexist; one rejects the other.

That approach might work If the majority consensus is disposed against that ideal/belief ...I think you are blowing into the wind.

 

 

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/03/09/study-24-of-americans-now-either-atheist-agnostic-or-deist/

 

I think we should be careful to separate "belief" with "creationism", especially in the context of this particular thread.

 

We can argue about whether or not all belief can coexist with science (that's a different topic we might want to open a different thread for) but *Creationism* is radically different; it's not just "there's some higher power out there" with different levels of interpretations, it's the clear statement that the earth was created only thousands of years ago (4000 or 6000, depending on whose flavour of creationism you fancy) -- that goes *beyond* a choice of belief in a higher entity and into bunk claims.

[CharonY]

That is probably just a minor point, but I think that only young earth creationists believe that the Earth is a few thousand years old. Crationism basically just stipulates that all organisms are created as they are and reject the notion of evolution (which has equally been shown wrong).

[mooeypoo]

That is probably just a minor point, but I think that only young earth creationists believe that the Earth is a few thousand years old. Crationism basically just stipulates that all organisms are created as they are and reject the notion of evolution (which has equally been shown wrong).

Okay, accepted, but that is still different than "just" a belief in god/gods/higher power which is what that table represents.

[Acme]

That approach might work If the majority consensus is disposed against that ideal/belief ...I think you are blowing into the wind.

 

 

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/03/09/study-24-of-americans-now-either-atheist-agnostic-or-deist/

I realize you think that, but you haven't made the slightest effort/advance to support it. As I said to Chadn, if you want to discount my reference regarding ridicule as an effective tool/weapon then you need to address specifics in that reference.

 

As to the table, as Mooeypoo pointed out this thread is not about god belief but about creationist belief vs. reality. I'd also note that IIRC Chadn said -from his personal experience- that many/most Christians he has knowledge of are not and/or do not support creationists.

[Phi for All]

While I don't discount that ridicule may not be effective for changing the mind of an individual it is directed at, the effectiveness of ridicule is best realized when it is delivered publically to a wide audience. The more people disposed to embracing some ideal or belief who see that ideal/belief and its proponents ridiculed, the more likely they are to rethink their position.

 

This may be true but I think you encounter a polarizing effect; some may rethink their position while the rest become even further convinced of the belief.

 

 

Creationism, by definition, is based on the belief that the Earth is only thousands of years old. This is proven wrong by science, shown to be clearly against objective reality, and hence, people who stick to their guns to insist that is true are ignoring reality. It might not be all that surprising to call that sort of mindset some sort of crazy.

 

I personally think they're uninformed and, sometimes (too many times) brainwashed, so I try to refrain from making such a statement about their state of sanity. But I can understand where the determination is coming from, and it isn't about stereotypes.

 

 

 

If you're a creationist, do you believe the earth was created only thousands of years ago? If that is the case, you can't claim you don't reject scientific discoveries, because all scientific discoveries, without a single lone exception, *ALL* discoveries reject that notion outright and without a doubt.

 

So which is it? You're either not a creationist (and reject scientific discoveries by definition) or you follow science, and reject creationism. The two notions simply do not coexist; one rejects the other.

 

I think we should be careful to separate "belief" with "creationism", especially in the context of this particular thread.

 

We can argue about whether or not all belief can coexist with science (that's a different topic we might want to open a different thread for) but *Creationism* is radically different; it's not just "there's some higher power out there" with different levels of interpretations, it's the clear statement that the earth was created only thousands of years ago (4000 or 6000, depending on whose flavour of creationism you fancy) -- that goes *beyond* a choice of belief in a higher entity and into bunk claims.

 

When I think of creationism, I think very specifically about the young-Earth types who believe the Bible is without flaw, but can't seem to adequately explain the most obvious discrepancies. I also think about creationists like Tom Willis who misquoted archaeologist Donald Johansen out of context about Lucy's knee (that particular bit of deviousness is still being repeated almost 70 years later by many creationists who ironically and hypocritically use it to claim scientists are liars).

 

The attempts to discredit evolution and geology and most other sciences also pale beside the claim of Bible inerrancy. Reality says the Bible claims that Ahaziah was 42 years old when he became king, and it also claims he was 22 years old when he became king. This alone shows that numbers aren't to be trusted in a society that kept poor and inconsistent records, yet YEC believers use those numbers to determine the date their god made the universe, and then proceed to ignore the rest of reality that tells us all the Earth is much, much older. This isn't a belief system, it's a willful deception that's being perpetrated every day.

[mooeypoo]

 

The attempts to discredit evolution and geology and most other sciences also pale beside the claim of Bible inerrancy. Reality says the Bible claims that Ahaziah was 42 years old when he became king, and it also claims he was 22 years old when he became king. This alone shows that numbers aren't to be trusted in a society that kept poor and inconsistent records, yet YEC believers use those numbers to determine the date their god made the universe, and then proceed to ignore the rest of reality that tells us all the Earth is much, much older. This isn't a belief system, it's a willful deception that's being perpetrated every day.

 

Yes, well, inconsistencies in the bible go far beyond "just" numbers and "facts" (rabbits chew cud, etc). I think we have a couple of threads dedicated to those, and reopen them for additions every now and then.

 

But yes, the point remains: Creationism is, by definition, against science.

[StringJunky]

As to the table, as Mooeypoo pointed out this thread is not about god belief but about creationist belief vs. reality. I'd also note that IIRC Chadn said -from his personal experience- that many/most Christians he has knowledge of are not and/or do not support creationists.

OK. More specific:

 

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx

 

Edit: Inserted correct link

Edited February 25, 2014 by StringJunky

[Phi for All]

OK. More specific:

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/05/americans-believe-in-creationism_n_1571127.html

 

1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process,

2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process,

3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.

 

 

The third option is pretty loosey-goosey to me. "Pretty much", "at one time" and "10,000 years or so" are vague and give a great deal of leeway, whereas the first two options are much more rigid. If I believed in a god but didn't want to be pinned down by my answer, I'd opt for #3.

 

I'm not saying there isn't a large faction that prefers their god story to science, just that I don't think there are THAT many people in the US who are what I would call creationists.

[Acme]

OK. More specific:

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/05/americans-believe-in-creationism_n_1571127.html

If you can provide a link to the article the table appears in, I would like to see it in context.

Regardless, the table throws no light on Moontan's question in the OP, "How do you deal with people like this?". I understand you don't think ridicule works and that you can't or won't support that thinking with any kind of reference. Perhaps you can or will weigh in on what you do think works; supporting references would be nice.

Or is it you think creationism is A'OK? If so then by all means say so and give your supporting argument(s).

[overtone]

 

I feel I'm a bit confused. Are we talking about ridiculing people holding ideas, or the ideas themselves? Sometimes it seems someone is talking about one and someone else is talking about the other.

 

Also, is honestly saying what a belief entails ridiculing? Because that is what most of the animosity towards Creationism I witness (biases acknowledged) is

This point seems worth revisiting.

 

Is it possible to consider actual creationist ideas and creationism in general carefully, soberly, and explicitly, without appearing to most creationists to be ridiculing them personally?

[Acme]

This point seems worth revisiting.

 

Is it possible to consider actual creationist ideas and creationism in general carefully, soberly, and explicitly, without appearing to most creationists to be ridiculing them personally?

That's a question each creationist would have to answer personally. Let's carefully, soberly, and explicitly invite them to. Care to respond Mr./Ms. creationist?

[mooeypoo]

That's a question each creationist would have to answer personally. Let's carefully, soberly, and explicitly invite them to. Care to respond Mr./Ms. creationist?

I think the key is how we phrase our criticism or ridicule. Now, I'm not entirely a fan of ridicule; I understand it's a method that people use and I am not against it personally (except that it depends *where* you do it, as in some places it is inappropriate, or against the rules, etc) but it's something that I, personally, don't relate to. It isn't just about ridiculing religion, by the way. I'm not too fond of most other ridicule; I can find it funny, but it tends to bug me a bit.

Then again, that's a personal preference.

 

That said, I think there's a huge difference in how we phrase things.

 

For example:

 

• The idea that the Earth is 4000 years old is stupid.

  (ridiculing the idea)

• You're stupid if you believe the Earth is 4000 years old.

  (ridiculing the person)

These two are radically different, and while the first is somewhat accepted, I don't quite see how the second would gain any sort of traction with anyone, other than offending them, driving them to be defensive and by that getting them to competely block any other claim that might come up. It's unnecessarily personal.

 

It's not really necessary to be personal. It's enough to criticize (or, if we must, ridicule) ideas, not people. We don't know what led a specific person to hold a certain belief, so ridiculing the person is also short sighted in my opinion. They may be ignorant not by their own fault, or brainwashed.

 

 

My personal problem with most ridicule is that it tends to stop there -- at ridicule. It might be funny, but it isn't really helpful, not just to the person participating, but also to random observers that listen- or read-in. "This idea is stupid" is not helpful. "This idea is stupid *BECAUSE*..." is a little better. "This idea doesn't work because..." is even better, in my opinion.

 

I understand there may be cases where ridicule can convince people. I personally don't like it, it makes me feel like a cop-out, as if we don't have enough patience to not let emotions and frustration control debates that are, after all, fact-based.

[Acme]

I think the key is how we phrase our criticism or ridicule. Now, I'm not entirely a fan of ridicule; I understand it's a method that people use and I am not against it personally (except that it depends *where* you do it, as in some places it is inappropriate, or against the rules, etc) but it's something that I, personally, don't relate to. It isn't just about ridiculing religion, by the way. I'm not too fond of most other ridicule; I can find it funny, but it tends to bug me a bit.

Then again, that's a personal preference.

 

That said, I think there's a huge difference in how we phrase things.

 

For example:

• The idea that the Earth is 4000 years old is stupid.

  (ridiculing the idea)

• You're stupid if you believe the Earth is 4000 years old.

  (ridiculing the person)

These two are radically different, and while the first is somewhat accepted, I don't quite see how the second would gain any sort of traction with anyone, other than offending them, driving them to be defensive and by that getting them to competely block any other claim that might come up. It's unnecessarily personal.

 

 

It's not really necessary to be personal. It's enough to criticize (or, if we must, ridicule) ideas, not people. We don't know what led a specific person to hold a certain belief, so ridiculing the person is also short sighted in my opinion. They may be ignorant not by their own fault, or brainwashed.

 

 

My personal problem with most ridicule is that it tends to stop there -- at ridicule. It might be funny, but it isn't really helpful, not just to the person participating, but also to random observers that listen- or read-in. "This idea is stupid" is not helpful. "This idea is stupid *BECAUSE*..." is a little better. "This idea doesn't work because..." is even better, in my opinion.

 

I understand there may be cases where ridicule can convince people. I personally don't like it, it makes me feel like a cop-out, as if we don't have enough patience to not let emotions and frustration control debates that are, after all, fact-based.

 

I think I'm in Love!

 

To be clear, I'm not married to ridicule; we just have an occasional fling. Even then I don't go much for back-seat stuff but rather prefer wine, low lights, and Bolero.

I took up the argument largely on Chadn's broad-brush declaration that ridicule never works and have continued in that only insofar as answering his and other challenges.

That you say you aren't "entirely" a fan and find -some- ridicule funny is the chord I mean to strike. Even if after the impulsive chortle you feel some chagrin, the initial reaction is rather more honest in my opinion. As to patience, I like the leisure the forum posting communication allows and strive to be patient in crafting suitable replies whether employing ridicule or some other style. While I have been supporting ridicule here, I have actually employed it very little. Well, I did call names when I said anyone who disagreed with me was a poopy-head, but clearly -I hope- I was being facetious.

 

As to the topic of the thread it seems the majority of respondents, if not readers, agree that Moontanman's friend took a ridiculous stance and if we have given him enough choices as to "what to do about it" then our work here is done.

 

I remain your adoring servant,

Acme

[Phi for All]

This point seems worth revisiting.

 

Is it possible to consider actual creationist ideas and creationism in general carefully, soberly, and explicitly, without appearing to most creationists to be ridiculing them personally?

 

 

Here are two articles from the Institute for Creation Research:

 

DNA Proof That Neanderthals Are Just Humans (and descendants of the 8 people left after the Great Flood).

 

Speedy Glaciers Trample Multiple Ice-Age Theories.

 

Let's absolutely consider these ideas, supposedly backed up by PhDs and solid science, something creationists simultaneously claim to both hate and love.

 

It's very easy for creationists to argue that their claims are "rejected out of hand", making it seem like scientists won't even listen to them. But so many of their claims start with flawed concepts, like evolution = abiogenesis. When an argument starts out wrong, why should anyone listen to the rest of it? Fix the flaws before going further.

 

Another bit of hypocrisy is that creationists often claim science is too rigid in their grip on evolution, when in fact science can simply point to the preponderance of evidence that supports evolution. Creationists don't have that, and so ironically form the rigid opinion that evolution is wrong, and do so without any evidence at all.

[Acme]

Here are two articles from the Institute for Creation Research:

 

DNA Proof That Neanderthals Are Just Humans (and descendants of the 8 people left after the Great Flood).

 

Speedy Glaciers Trample Multiple Ice-Age Theories.

 

Let's absolutely consider these ideas, supposedly backed up by PhDs and solid science, something creationists simultaneously claim to both hate and love.

 

...

From the first link:

From a creationist perspective, these studies really add very little to the already clear genetic evidence showing that the Neandertals [sic] are nothing but another variant in the human lineage derived from the eight individuals who survived the global Flood as recorded in the book of Genesis. ...

As I pointed out earlier, the flood story in Genesis is a re-write of the flood story in Gilgamesh. Minus the extra gods and other such bothersome elements as did not fit the Genesis writers' agendas of course. (Note the misspelling of Neanderthal. d'oh! )

 

It is also incumbent on me to mention the repeated use of subtle ridicule by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D. in the article. E.G. "claiming that scientists", "would allegedly ferret out", "attempted to map", "then apply a majority rule approach", or "studies really add very little". Perhaps someone should tell them ridicule doesn't work.

[Phi for All]

From the first link:

 

As I pointed out earlier, the flood story in Genesis is a re-write of the flood story in Gilgamesh. Minus the extra gods and other such bothersome elements as did not fit the Genesis writers' agendas of course. (Note the misspelling of Neanderthal. d'oh! )

 

The article I cited claims that Neanderthals MUST be less than 4000 years old because they're typically found in caves rather than in the sediment left over from the Great Flood. A blatant Begging the Question fallacy, automatically assuming that the Great Flood actually happened.

 

Further, they attempt to refute the studies done based on assuming that any discrepancies in the way the segments were judged went to the scientific majority, which they claim "... the DNA segment could have gone either way—essentially meaning that it is all human DNA anyway". This is an extremely sloppy and ill-founded conclusion, but is consistent with creationist efforts to ignore the mountains of evidence for evolution. They simply claim it's wrong, using this type of rigor-free approach.

[Moontanman]

I'm intrigued by someone who asserts " evolution is a lie and made up by scientists" and "no Christian could possibly accept evolution"

 

Is she aware of this?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/4588289/The-Vatican-claims-Darwins-theory-of-evolution-is-compatible-with-Christianity.html

I realise not all Christians are Catholic, but does she really not know how out of touch she is, even with other mainstream Christian groups?

 

 

Unfortunately my friend asserts the bible as literally true, "each and every word" I pointed out the evil bits after she showed me her true colors and of course "things were different then" can pretty much excuse anything...

 

Welcome to the USA. I think we have fast food places now where you can watch televangelists and FOX News as you eat your Illogic Hypocrisy Wrap.

 

Or we will soon.

 

 

Already have them here, very annoying, I always use the drive through these days...

Moontanman,

 

I thought the science guy had the best approach when I heard a sound bite prior the debate, where he was suggesting his strategy and saying he was going to talk about dinasours, figuring there can't be but one or two kids on the planet that don't love dinosaurs. I thought at the time it was a slam dunk and I didn't even watch the debate, nor have I read any of the threads here on the debate, but this one.

 

But if fossils are a conspiracy to your soon to be PHD friend, have her go to the Grand Canyon, and give you an estimate when she returns of how long it would take the Colorado to erode that much rock, and have her give you a run down of the geological history that the layers exposed on the sides reveal, that must have occured BEFORE the grove was carved by the river.

 

If her whole story adds up to only 4000 years, and it is anywhere close to sensible (which it won't be) then I would agree with her, that creation 4000 years ago is remotely possible. But anybody standing on the rim of the grand canyon will "feel" its age and hence the Earth's age, and she will know it's been around for much longer than the creation story in the Bible, and the lineage depicted from Adam to Abraham and Moses and such would allow.

 

Which is true then. Every word of the Bible, or the Grand Canyon? There can be no conspiracy involved if its just her standing at the rim, and grasping what she is looking at.

 

Then perhaps you could ask her if she ever read the book, and whether she agreed with all the male oriented rules, and various proscriptions it laid down.

 

And just for fun ask her which books she figures the Bible should consist of, since the Tora seems to have some books not carried into the old testament that the new testament follows. Ask her perhaps the difference in truthfullness between the books the Council of Trent decided should go in, and which should be left out, and which translations with varying intent and meaning should be the "true" words of God.

 

Or just as well, ask her what the neatest dinosaur was. What was her favorite one?

 

Regards, TAR

 

 

She thinks it was made during the flood, I covered a lot of ground in a very velvet gloved manner and got back "God still loves you and we will be praying he will change your hardened heart", it took me several days just to convince her my stance wasn't predicated by anger at god....

[Greg H.]

Creationists have fallen into the trap of the false dichotomy between science and their belief, thinking that they cannot have both. They are unable (or unwilling) to accept that their religious text is fallible, like any text, and should be examined with the same critical eye that we would observe any scientific article. Speaking from personal experience, my in-laws fall into this "Infallible Bible" camp, and i very quickly learned not to try and reason with them on any topic that disagreed with their preconceived notions. They didn't want to hear evidence or stories that contradicted those beliefs.

 

As Epictetus said, It is impossible for anyone to begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows.

[Moontanman]

I can't express just how sad it makes me to hear that a person who believes Dinosaur bones are a conspiracy is soon to receive a PhD.

 

I have no choice but to assume (and hope, dear goodness) that her PhD is not in Biology, Geology, or Physics.

 

 

 

In any case, PhDs are relevant to their particular subject, no matter how much Ken Ham and his ilk try to convince everyone. "Oh look! This PhD person published a paper about how evolution doesn't make sense!" until you check, and see that the PhD is in something completely unrelated to Biology, the paper was published online without peer review, and its only valid claims are with badly-written logical fallacies.

 

So yes, she might have a PhD, but she *should* know that this doesn't give her authority on all subjects, and if her PhD didn't teach her how to consider *evidence* rationally and with critical thought (at the very least enough to avoid claiming authority on the subject of evolution at all), then the program she was in is worth diddly squat, and so does her authority.

"What would convince you?"

 

Bill Nye: "Evidence."

Ken Ham: "Nothing"

 

If a PhD candidate sees no problem with the second answer, her PhD should be stripped off and denied.

 

 

 

Sadly, as it turns out her PhD is from a "Christian school" of some kind I suspect is just a diploma mill, she cut off communication before i could find out for sure I do know her pastor is part of her teaching staff, I lost her when she asked me straight up if i believed in Jesus or if i thought he was a myth, dumb ass me had to be honest...

You claim to be an intelligent man but you don't even give a straight answer, you leave us flooded with evidence with no result. Your evidence that creationism is stupid is from a stereotype, you haven't given other creationists a chance to have their say. You use phrases like 'no obvious crazy showing through' showing us once again that you are someone who likes to stereotype. How do you deal with creationists? Shouldn't the scientist say it's the creationists that he's met and not every one, that's a very imprecise argument if not-- you're slacking.

 

 

You are correct, not having the time right now to go back and reread everything I've written about this the correct statement should have been Reality vs Young Earth Creationism but I think that can be inferred from the conversations so far considering evolution is the deal breaker for this person....

[Acme]

...

She thinks it was made during the flood, I covered a lot of ground in a very velvet gloved manner and got back "God still loves you and we will be praying he will change your hardened heart", it took me several days just to convince her my stance wasn't predicated by anger at god....

Why do you even keep bothering? Hardened heart? What about softened head? I mean really; what is so valuable about her friendship that you are willing to accept her affronts to you?

 

A quote from one of Phiforall's links:

Hence, todays rapidly surging glaciers are a subtle reminder of the Ice Age and the event that caused it, Gods judgment of the world by a global flood in the days of Noah. They also chip away at secular sciences assertion of multiple ice ages over millions of years.

source: http://www.icr.org/article/8007/

 

I note that of the 10 references for that article, 5 refer to other creationist articles and 3 of the 5 give a link. Of the remaining 5, only one link is given and that's to the pop-sci article the author means to chip away at. Still think you can convince the author there with patience Chadn? Really? If so, go ahead and just do it rather than just talk. Or at least instruct us how it should be done and we will carry out your instructions.

[Moontanman]

Why do you even keep bothering? Hardened heart? What about softened head? I mean really; what is so valuable about her friendship that you are willing to accept her affronts to you?

 

A quote from one of Phiforall's links:

source: http://www.icr.org/article/8007/

 

I note that of the 10 references for that article, 5 refer to other creationist articles and 3 of the 5 give a link. Of the remaining 5, only one link is given and that's to the pop-sci article the author means to chip away at. Still think you can convince the author there with patience Chadn? Really? If so, go ahead and just do it rather than just talk. Or at least instruct us how it should be done and we will carry out your instructions.

 

 

To be honest we went to high school together, I liked her a lot and when we got back in touch and i found out she was studying for her PhD I was thrilled for her. Maybe It's me with the soft head...

[Acme]

To be honest we went to high school together, I liked her a lot and when we got back in touch and i found out she was studying for her PhD I was thrilled for her. Maybe It's me with the soft head...

No no. It's you who has the soft heart for her. I think there's a pill for that. But just above when you credited s1eep with being correct... that was a bit spongy in the caranium.

 

Whether you call my heart affectionate, or you call it womanish: I confess, that to my misfortune, it is soft. ~Ovid

 

Whether you call their heads quarrelsome, or you call them knucklish, I convey that to our misfortune they are blocks. ~ Acme

Edited February 26, 2014 by Acme