Posted on 07/27/2006 3:00:03 PM PDT by BrandtMichaels
And even if science did seek ID, we still can't know everything because we don't have the Mind of God. The universe will remain unintelligible.
But computers are still pretty cool. I wouldn't want to have to give mine up.
But it probably amused you, and I only psst for my own amusement meself.
You posted a list of questions - I then responded with the list of answers that SpongeBob gave when taking the verbal portion of his boating test for the 38th time ;)
I thought you probably had a good reason. Otherwise I would have posted the bunny wearing a pancake pic.
I had a reason, would not call it a good one ;)
Your post has no bearing on the correctness of evolution.
Any reason you can walk away from, is a good one
What flaws? Describe them.
As you and I have pointed out, the areas of controversy in biology do not include the things that anti-evolutionists concern themselves with, such as the age of the earth and common descent.
Stephen Gould. - He wrote numerous books on that exact subject.
Philosophy is written in this grand book - I mean universe - which stands continuously open to our gaze, but which cannot be understood unless one first learns to comprehend the language in which it is written. It is written in the language of mathematics, and its characters are triangles, circles and other geometric figures, without which it is humanly impossible to understand a single word of it; without these, one is wandering about in a dark labyrinth.Galileo (1623)
And answered the question.
? Huh? Please don't put words in my mouth. I said what I meant, and meant what I said: If you're truly interested, you can find them just like I did.
Your attempt at ad hominem attacks are proving my point.
The fact remains there are serious, thinking people who have problems with Darwinism.
Calling them "anti-science" is demagougery, and doesn't deal with their observations.
I won't try and convince you otherwise, you can find it yourself if you want to be open.
Otherwise, I'll engage people as I encounter them and plant a seed.
Good luck.
More sophomoric psychobabble musings? You really need to learn the subject at hand.
Yeah, I'm kinda wishing that I hadn't said "one-and-only". They did contribute more than one thing to the civilized world long ago, but I can't think of anything recent. In any case, "one-and-only" is just flat wrong.
You had to go back almost 500 years to find an example, eh? By the 19th century, Jews in Germany were largely emancipated, and were surpassing other Germans in many fields (creating jealousy in the process; leftism is largely the politics of envy). They contributed greatly to Germany's advanced state of technology, and fought for her in WWI. You want to know the real source of Nazi ideology? Look into the academic climate of 19th cent. Germany (that's a little closer to Hitler in time, isn't it?), especially Marxism, which was the economic foundation of National Socialism. That's why the left prefers the contraction Nazi: to disguise the fact that the movement was socialist. Marx was a vicious anti-Semite. Look it up, right here on FR.
You're playing dodge ball again. We were talking about eyes and complexity (or simplicity, in the case of plants). Try answering my question: Do you know how a plant "knows" to turn its leaves toward the light?
Let's turn that around, shall we:
"Until some EVO researcher actually produces some POSITIVE evidence for the evolutionary appearance of first forms, then evolutionists do not have a dog in this hunt."
At this point, EVO's usually recoil in horror and whine, "Evolutionary Theory doesn't deal with first forms, you six-day-creation-believing Luddite!".
Indeed, it does not (and I do not believe the universe was created in six 24-hour days, and certainly am not a Luddite). Intelligent Design does, however, account for first forms and can also explain why there are physical laws and constants in the universe. Indeed, without these laws and constants it is unlikely the universe would exist at all. And ID can well include micro-evolution as part of the intelligent design ("Why not macro-eolution, you uni-brow, mouth-breathing, fundamentalist?", the EVO's question angrily. Well, EVO's are very big on empirical evidence, and we have no evidence that any kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, or species has evolved into an entirely different kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, or species. You see, evolution must account for not only how a white moth became a black moth, but how plants became animals, or vice versa. Now show me THAT is the fossil record and I might begin to question my beliefs, lol! And I have two eyebrows, I only mouth-breathe when I have a stuffed-up nose, and while a believer, I am certainly not a fundamentalist in the way some EVO's define bitterly spit out the word). Evolution is a rather beautiful part of ID, if you ask me. If nothing else, ID is a much more complete explanation of how we got here today, in our present form.
There. I think I've made a salient point or two without once hurling an insult.
If I were to put a little sand in the oyster of some of the EVO's here at FR, I would ask Mr. Henry why the SCIENCE ping list is "an elite subset" of the EVOLUTION ping list, rather than the other way around? Now tell me, who's got a "religion", lol??
And I might also suggest, just to help the oyster make another pearl, that perhaps certain Freeper EVO's might recognize their elite-subset selves in red text on this thread and its sequel.
Okay, EVO's! To arms! To arms! You know the drill!
Find the misspelled word in my post or minor grammatical error that will allow you to rationalize discrediting me entirely! Maybe it's early in the post, and you can comment on how "you read no further"!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.