I shamelessly plagerized your profile and put your Microsoft Forger graphic on my profile page.
Posted on 08/20/2005 5:45:53 PM PDT by Nicholas Conradin
By SEATTLE - When President Bush plunged into the debate over the teaching of evolution this month, saying, "both sides ought to be properly taught," he seemed to be reading from the playbook of the Discovery Institute, the conservative think tank here that is at the helm of this newly volatile frontier in the nation's culture wars.
After toiling in obscurity for nearly a decade, the institute's Center for Science and Culture has emerged in recent months as the ideological and strategic backbone behind the eruption of skirmishes over science in school districts and state capitals across the country. Pushing a "teach the controversy" approach to evolution, the institute has in many ways transformed the debate into an issue of academic freedom rather than a confrontation between biology and religion.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
"Do you know anything about biology and evolution? At all?"
Do you?
Yes.
You already know this, but others missed that day in math class: The square root sign is a stylized 'r', meaning radix, or root.
"...theoretically possible for advanced beings to create mini-universes..."
Theoretically possible? Advanced beings?
Sounds like angels operating in God's power as He directs. That is what you mean, isn't it? :)
I was reading the other day that the American Economic Association that awarded Krugman its annual award in 1992
Professor Paul R. Krugman of the Department of Economics has received the prestigious John Bates Clark Medal, given biannually by the American Economic Association to the economist under 40 who has made the most important contributions to economics.was founded by Christian socialists who were trying to undermine the influence of Darwinian thinking in economics. It is especially ironic considering Krugman's recent editorials attacking conservatives as being religious nuts and anti-science while "liberals" are rational and scientific.
Gosh, I gave up my subscription to Nat'l Geographic so long ago because the ex needed more space in the laundry room.
Well, no matter, I gave up on my allusions for a career in Geology anyhow because I found the prerequisite courses in Whalesong to be so daunting.
Too bad also that the old SA rag kept getting in the way of the laundry area.
Raising your voice does not improve your argument. What you are touting is commonly referred to as the anthropic argument, and it's very persuasive, if you are preaching to the choir, but it ain't science--It is flights of fancy, just like ID. Other explanations, that are on equal footing with respect to the available evidence have been put forth, and until there is some overwhelmingly good reason to prefer one over another, and we start seeing the questions booted about in refereed journals, discussing real experiments, or critically differentiating field studies, it is so much entertaining wind.
I wouldn't make that leap.
I shamelessly plagerized your profile and put your Microsoft Forger graphic on my profile page.
Why is it necessary for every step in a sequence to be known? Do you need to know all the primes that come before 1213 to know it is a prime? What does the question you asked have to do with the poster I was responding to having a poor grasp of evolution?
So you are aware that biological fact and evolutionary theory are not necessarily synonymous.
You have an 'explanation' then of the 'theoretically possible' and the 'advanced beings'.
I am aware that as far as science is concerned, "biological fact" does not exist.
[Pi is essentially undefined]
Pi is defined as the ratio of the circumference of a circle to the diameter.
Just because it cannot be expressed as a ratio of two integers (it is an irrational number) doesn't mean it cannot be defined exactly.
"it might be theoretically possible"
Now there's something to bet the farm on.
Of course, your post does wonders to make your side appear intelligent.
"If lack of a fossil record and transitional creatures is a prediction of ID"
Why would it be? ID requires a fossil record and transitional creatures.
Many evolutionists believe in a creator. It is the wacky creos that are trying to perpetuate the myth that it is not possible.
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.