[Agamemnon]

There will be a lot of weeping and gnashing of teeth in the Dawkins’ wing of the Darwin Party tonight!!!

Kind of reminds me of an experiment I composed on a thread a few months ago where I allowed any reader to try to demonstrate whether a computer could or could not self-assemble and it baffled all the "enlightned" evo-knuckledraggers at the time.

That was shortly followed by one of the "clearly-more- baffle-able-than-others" posing as though he had a PhD in something, but didn't know that "peer-reviewed" journals are largely published as magazines.

Evo-knuckledraggers around here are too often revealed to be just imposters and in more ways than just one.

FReegards!

[xcamel]

You can’t post anything without an insult, can you?

[metmom]

On the occasion of the 150th anniversary of the first publication of Darwin’s theory, this high-caliber panel discussion between evolutionists and Darwin critics will consider the question of whether the evolution of life on Earth is based solely on blind and unguided natural processes, or whether there is non-religiously based, verifiable evidence of meaningful and purposeful acts of creative intelligence in the natural world.

Which puts it smack, dab in the middle of a debate in ........

philosophy

That is not science. Science can deal with the mechanical and explain how, but is useless beyond that.

Yet it is a source of constant amazement the number of scientists who have the arrogance to make pronouncements about subjects outside their expertise using a tool totally inappropriate for the job.

Notice that they qualified the intelligent agent as in the *natural* world? Can't have any of that God creating stuff now, can we?

[alstewartfan]

It would seem more sane to me to believe that your single posting could assemble itself coherently over “billions and billions” of years, than atoms and molecules randomly forming fully-functional organisms.
BTW, “Agamemnon” appears in an Al Stewart song called “Helen and Cassandra”. Common knowledge, I assume? Bob