Posted on 01/28/2005 6:50:34 AM PST by Heartlander
You don't but you were quick to dismiss the only person willing to be quoted for attribution because he was not a "disinterested observer".
And I don't know the all the facts either which is why my first post to you was posed as a question and not a statement. If Coddingtons remarks have been faithfully reproduced then my question will become a statement.
That's why I don't give him the benefit of the doubt - he's not a disinterested observer. If he's telling the truth, there's plenty of time to find it all out in the inevitable discrimination case, so I'll wait for that, when there's some real fact-finding going on.
Time to go change the alternator belt in my fossil of a jeep.
....so that we can destroy their careers as well.
Is that how it works in the world of insurance?
A fossil alternator belt could cause even more trouble. They really are all they're cracked up to be.
The universe itself could be conscious. Who are we to say it is not?
Have you ever been interviewed for a news story? Dan Rather is honest and competent compared to most.
Bad map. Go sit in the corner.
Rather cryptic. Spit it out js.
By the way, have you found the wrongness in my statement to physicist yet?
Which post to Physist? (Number???)
I was merely commenting that it is sane not to talk to reporters under most circumstances.
We shall see what happens but the fact remains, only one person was quoted for attribution and that person knows this is headed to a court of law. Government employees do not have to pass a religious test. Whane it gets to the court we'll find out just waht went down.
Several days ago you commented on a thread to myself and Physicist wondering why I posted something if I knew it was wrong. I asked you what I wrote that was wrong.
You must have missed it. It's not important but you can find it by self searching if you want.
There are several things being asserted on these threads that I think are wrong, but I can't recall if any apply to you. So I will shotgun it, and list my peeves. If none apply to you, I appologise.
I'm sure there are more, but that's a start.
Try somebody else.
The problem is that the entire concept of ID lacks any scientific credibility. The inductive method cannot test such an idea. And if it could, then what was the origin of the designer. Failing to account for that means that ID fails to account for the origins of life. ID postulates that someone designed life, but that life, beign a product of design and of the designer, must ultimately come from the designer's origin. ID just puts off the answer of where life came from. It doesn't answer it.
That is a circular arguement. Bioengineering is performed by people who are the product of evolution. Therefore, something biopengineered indirectly came into existence from something that did evolve and, therefore, owes its existence to evolution. The problem, like I've mentioneed before, is that ID does not answer the questions of the origins of life. It passes those questions onto a designer whoes origins are not questioned. Bad science.
In any case bioengineering is intelligent design. No getting around it, by circling or otherwise.
I've realized how ID is the opposite of a theory.
Creationists find a flaw in evolution theory and automatically assume that proves their theory.
That's not how a proof works.
ID is a falsification of random evolution. If random evolution is falsified what does that mean?
That evolution contains non-random elements.
(Sorry, just popping in.)
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.