this is so cool yet disgusting but still cool

--
The magic moment is the moment when a 'yes' or a 'no' can change our whole existence.

Hahaha! Thanks for the comments.

--
Do you follow the path of reason?

Ooookeyyyy... you have officially done for Darwinian debate what "Borat" did for international docudramas. As a friend of mine put it, a definate "What The FUCK!?!?!" moment.
If you have the patiance to read the following, (and your attention span is in doubt, so I wonder), you might find a sensible answer, if not agreeable, to severl issues you, apparently, are tackling. As for me, we should not be teaching "inteligent design", we should be teaching "The Apostle of Common Sense" (and, paradoxicly, nonsense).

A DEFENCE OF NONSENSE

There are two equal and eternal ways of looking at this twilight world of ours: we may see it as the twilight of evening or the twilight of morning; we may think of anything, down to a fallen acorn, as a descendant or as an ancestor. There are times when we are almost crushed, not so much with the load of the evil as with the load of the goodness of humanity, when we feel that we are nothing but the inheritors of a humiliating splendour. But there are other times when everything seems primitive, when the ancient stars are only sparks blown from a boy's bonfire, when the whole earth seems so young and experimental that even the white hair of the aged, in the fine biblical phrase, is like almond-trees that blossom, like the white hawthorn grown in May. That it is good for a man to realize that he is 'the heir of all the ages' is pretty commonly admitted; it is a less popular but equally important point that it is good for him sometimes to realize that he is not only an ancestor, but an ancestor of primal antiquity; it is good for him to wonder whether he is not a hero, and to experience ennobling doubts as to whether he is not a solar myth.
The matters which most thoroughly evoke this sense of the abiding childhood of the world are those which are really fresh, abrupt and inventive in any age; and if we were asked what was the best proof of this adventurous youth in the nineteenth century we should say, with all respect to its portentous sciences and philosophies, that it was to be found in the rhymes of Mr. Edward Lear and in the literature of nonsense. 'The Dong with the Luminous Nose,' at least, is original, as the first ship and the first plough were original.
It is true in a certain sense that some of the greatest writers the world has seen—Aristophanes, Rabelais and Sterne—have written nonsense; but unless we are mistaken, it is in a widely different sense. The nonsense of these men was satiric—that is to say, symbolic; it was a kind of exuberant capering round a discovered truth. There is all the difference in the world between the instinct of satire, which, seeing in the Kaiser's moustaches something typical of him, draws them continually larger and larger; and the instinct of nonsense which, for no reason whatever, imagines what those moustaches would look like on the present Archbishop of Canterbury if he grew them in a fit of absence of mind. We incline to think that no age except our own could have understood that the Quangle-Wangle meant absolutely nothing, and the Lands of the Jumblies were absolutely nowhere. We fancy that if the account of the knave's trial in 'Alice in Wonderland' had been published in the seventeenth century it would have been bracketed with Bunyan's 'Trial of Faithful' as a parody on the State prosecutions of the time. We fancy that if 'The Dong with the Luminous Nose' had appeared in the same period everyone would have called it a dull satire on Oliver Cromwell.
It is altogether advisedly that we quote chiefly from Mr. Lear's 'Nonsense Rhymes.' To our mind he is both chronologically and essentially the father of nonsense; we think him superior to Lewis Carroll. In one sense, indeed, Lewis Carroll has a great advantage. We know what Lewis Carroll was in daily life: he was a singularly serious and conventional don, universally respected, but very much of a pedant and something of a Philistine. Thus his strange double life in earth and in dreamland emphasizes the idea that lies at the back of nonsense—the idea of escape, of escape into a world where things are not fixed horribly in an eternal appropriateness, where apples grow on pear-trees, and any odd man you meet may have three legs. Lewis Carroll, living one life in which he would have thundered morally against any one who walked on the wrong plot of grass, and another life in which he would cheerfully call the sun green and the moon blue, was, by his very divided nature, his one foot on both worlds, a perfect type of the position of modern nonsense. His Wonderland is a country populated by insane mathematicians. We feel the whole is an escape into a world of masquerade; we feel that if we could pierce their disguises, we might discover that Humpty Dumpty and the March Hare were Professors and Doctors of Divinity enjoying a mental holiday. This sense of escape is certainly less emphatic in Edward Lear, because of the completeness of his citizenship in the world of unreason. We do not know his prosaic biography as we know Lewis Carroll's. We accept him as a purely fabulous figure, on his own description of himself:
'His body is perfectly spherical,
He weareth a runcible hat.'
While Lewis Carroll's Wonderland is purely intellectual, Lear introduces quite another element—the element of the poetical and even emotional. Carroll works by the pure reason, but this is not so strong a contrast; for, after all, mankind in the main has always regarded reason as a bit of a joke. Lear introduces his unmeaning words and his amorphous creatures not with the pomp of reason, but with the romantic prelude of rich hues and haunting rhythms.
'Far and few, far and few,
Are the lands where the Jumblies live,'
is an entirely different type of poetry to that exhibited in 'Jabberwocky.' Carroll, with a sense of mathematical neatness, makes his whole poem a mosaic of new and mysterious words. But Edward Lear, with more subtle and placid effrontery, is always introducing scraps of his own elvish dialect into the middle of simple and rational statements, until we are almost stunned into admitting that we know what they mean. There is a genial ring of commonsense about such lines as,
'For his aunt Jobiska said "Every one knows
That a Pobble is better without his toes,"'
which is beyond the reach of Carroll. The poet seems so easy on the matter that we are almost driven to pretend that we see his meaning, that we know the peculiar difficulties of a Pobble, that we are as old travellers in the 'Gromboolian Plain' as he is.
Our claim that nonsense is a new literature (we might almost say a new sense) would be quite indefensible if nonsense were nothing more than a mere aesthetic fancy. Nothing sublimely artistic has ever arisen out of mere art, any more than anything essentially reasonable has ever arisen out of the pure reason. There must always be a rich moral soil for any great aesthetic growth. The principle of art for art's sake is a very good principle if it means that there is a vital distinction between the earth and the tree that has its roots in the earth; but it is a very bad principle if it means that the tree could grow just as well with its roots in the air. Every great literature has always been allegorical—allegorical of some view of the whole universe. The 'Iliad' is only great because all life is a battle, the 'Odyssey' because all life is a journey, the Book of Job because all life is a riddle. There is one attitude in which we think that all existence is summed up in the word 'ghosts'; another, and somewhat better one, in which we think it is summed up in the words 'A Midsummer Night's Dream.' Even the vulgarest melodrama or detective story can be good if it expresses something of the delight in sinister possibilities—the healthy lust for darkness and terror which may come on us any night in walking down a dark lane. If, therefore, nonsense is really to be the literature of the future, it must have its own version of the Cosmos to offer; the world must not only be the tragic, romantic, and religious, it must be nonsensical also. And here we fancy that nonsense will, in a very unexpected way, come to the aid of the spiritual view of things. Religion has for centuries been trying to make men exult in the 'wonders' of creation, but it has forgotten that a thing cannot be completely wonderful so long as it remains sensible. So long as we regard a tree as an obvious thing, naturally and reasonably created for a giraffe to eat, we cannot properly wonder at it. It is when we consider it as a prodigious wave of the living soil sprawling up to the skies for no reason in particular that we take off our hats, to the astonishment of the park-keeper. Everything has in fact another side to it, like the moon, the patroness of nonsense. Viewed from that other side, a bird is a blossom broken loose from its chain of stalk, a man a quadruped begging on its hind legs, a house a gigantesque hat to cover a man from the sun, a chair an apparatus of four wooden legs for a cripple with only two.
This is the side of things which tends most truly to spiritual wonder. It is significant that in the greatest religious poem existent, the Book of Job, the argument which convinces the infidel is not (as has been represented by the merely rational religionism of the eighteenth century) a picture of the ordered beneficence of the Creation; but, on the contrary, a picture of the huge and undecipherable unreason of it. 'Hast Thou sent the rain upon the desert where no man is?' This simple sense of wonder at the shapes of things, and at their exuberant independence of our intellectual standards and our trivial definitions, is the basis of spirituality as it is the basis of nonsense. Nonsense and faith (strange as the conjunction may seem) are the two supreme symbolic assertions of the truth that to draw out the soul of things with a syllogism is as impossible as to draw out Leviathan with a hook. The well-meaning person who, by merely studying the logical side of things, has decided that 'faith is nonsense,' does not know how truly he speaks; later it may come back to him in the form that nonsense is faith.

From "The Defentant" by G.K. Chesterton

And if my estimation is totally wrong, and you might actually read something substantial, then the following link might prove enlightnening. At least skim through it, I would very much like your opinion.
[link]

--
"...they rebel against they know not what, because it arose they know not when; intent only on its ending, they are ignorant of its beginning; and therefore of its very being." The Dumb Ox, by GK Chesterton -- Read GKC: [link]

I too have been touched by his noodley appendage!

--
Miss D says "Live while you can because if you can't that means you're dead!"
[link]

Well, I do have a short attention span but I did read that entire excerpt and some of The Everlasting Man and to be honest......so what?

Please don't hesitate to be clear and concise with your point.

--
Do you follow the path of reason?

It is literelly impossible to be both concise and clear (at least by this website's standardes) at the same time with any one point of Chesterton's books and essay's, as he was the most complete thinker of modern times, and the most prolific writer. Further more, I am a lousy editor, and therfore stink at selecting passages and quotes quickly. All I can ultimatly do is point you in his direction and hope his enjoyable writing style keeps you engaged long enough to comprehend his overall meaning.
But I will try to explain my self further anyway:
The "Defendent" essay was relevent in that it stands for your rights as a satirist, (one of unique imagination, I might add), and is of such universiality, that I find it hard to belive that any sane satirist, even a unique one, would not heartly enjoy such a brilliant defense of their art, the art of the absurd.
Second, The Everlasting man was written in response to two events, the writing of H.G. Wells' "The Outline of History" [link]
and the Scope's Monkey Trial.
That is the best I can do to keep it relativly short.
You are an exelent artist, and a unique controversialist, and so was Chesterton. That has got to be interesting.

--
"...they rebel against they know not what, because it arose they know not when; intent only on its ending, they are ignorant of its beginning; and therefore of its very being." The Dumb Ox, by GK Chesterton -- Read GKC: [link]

Thanks for the additional info. I guess the tone of your original response made me a bit apprehensive. I hadn't come across Chesterton before but I appreciate your recommendation and will look further into his work. Thanks for your comments!

--
Do you follow the path of reason?

Hug a pirate today! Yarg!

▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓
▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓
▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓░O░▓▓▓░O░▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓
▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓░▓▓▓▓▓░▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓
▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓░▓▓▓▓▓░▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓
▓▓▓░░░▓░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▓░░░▓▓▓
▓▓░░▓░.░░░░░░FSM░░░░░░░░░▓░░▓█
▓░░▓▓▓░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▓▓▓░░█
▓░▓▓▓▓░.░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▓▓▓▓░█
▓▓▓▓▓░░▓▓▓▓░░▓▓░░▓▓▓▓░░▓▓▓▓▓
▓▓▓▓░░▓▓▓▓░░▓▓▓▓░░▓▓▓▓░░▓▓▓▓
▓▓▓▓▓░░▓▓░░▓▓▓▓▓▓░░▓▓░░▓▓▓▓▓
▓▓▓▓░░▓▓▓▓░░▓▓▓▓░░▓▓▓▓░░▓▓▓▓
▓▓░░░▓▓▓▓░░▓▓▓▓▓▓░░▓▓▓▓░░░▓▓
▓▓▓▓▓▓▓░░░▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓░░░▓▓▓▓▓▓▓
▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓
▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓I▓▓HAVE▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓
▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓.BEEN▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓
▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓.TOUCHED▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓█
▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓.BY▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓
▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓.HIS.▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓
▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓NOODELY▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓
▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓.APENDAGE▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓
▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓
▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓

--
We must not only prepare our children for the world, we must also prepare the world for our children. -Luis J. Rodriguez

Visit my stock account pleeeeeeeeeeeeease [link] ^3^

Arrrghh!

--
Do you follow the path of reason?

rAmen

--
We must not only prepare our children for the world, we must also prepare the world for our children. -Luis J. Rodriguez

Visit my stock account pleeeeeeeeeeeeease [link] ^3^