Posted on 02/12/2006 10:32:27 AM PST by PatrickHenry
It is an interesting exercise to me to see how the wagons circle.
There's more to life than science. REally.
Amen brother. Look how these clowns react when one injects some actual fun in to it.
They are humourless and ignorant of the science they claim to champion.
Dour sourpuss timid souls.
Lemming like really.
Has it ever occurred to you that the emphasis on ID may be the beginnings of such a self-correction?
God built your soul. To me, that is enough.
That was actually one of the most impressive meltdowns I've seen, and I speak as someone who not infrequently posts while the ol' adrenaline is running hot.
Too bad he's pretending it was all in fun, ha ha. In order to achieve the state of FReeptori, you've got to embrace your rage, and become one with it.
Modern science declares Him irrelevant and unneeded, so you are making a distinction without a difference.
Nutbag bookmark
You mean, that, for example, they don't know that L-GLO is L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase? One would think that someone discussing the molecular genetics of primate evolution would know that.
An emphasis on ID will be able to begin when those who propose ID propose some science that might back it up or disprove it. Thus far even Michael Behe admits (under oath) that for ID to be considered science scientific standards would have to be relaxed to admit such phenomena as astrology.
Big difference. God is, by definition, irrelevant to science. In the same way, I am irrelevant to Malaysian politics. That does not mean that I, or God, have no relevance to other fields.
"Where's the proof? Every article I have read is based on silly conclusions like 'Gee, it's hot here in Miami...'"
_________________________________________________________
If you read fluff, you learn fluff.
Try this for starters: http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/msusci.html
The debate isn't about whether there is a temperature increase in the lower troposphere, it's why the increase is occurring.
Many creationists here reject something that they often like to refer to as "Junk Science". Upon examination the definition of "Junk Science" is usually "Science whose conclusions I don't wish to be true, for religious, social, or economic reasons." Data or evidence-based reasons for the rejection tend to be conspicuous by their absence.
Talk about setting the bar impossibly high! :-)
This is a perfect example -- "LGLO" is rather dinosaur as far as understanding of comparative genomics.
But because a number of years ago some prosyletite wrote up some tract with it as an example, that's about all anyone here knows about.
You stay in your box.
Now you initiate communication.
Can't you even keep your own resolutions?
Saved for later
I try to remember to do this. Since the admins will apparently not enforce requests not to ping, I have given up on such requests.
Five minutes ago you didn't know what it was. Now you're pretending to have enough knowledge of it to claim it's old hat and passé. You can see, surely, why your credibility is, ahem, somewhat risible.
However, we can look at the molecualr phylogeny of the sequence in detail, if you like.
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.