Posted on 02/08/2005 3:50:43 AM PST by PatrickHenry
It puts no knots in my mind.
not bloody likely is an understatement, it would never just happen.
it has gotten a bit goofy the last 100 replies or so.
Race, he was obviously talking about the Old Testament.
I'm not sure, I don't think I said it was a problem that people thought too much. I may have, I would be wrong if I worded it that way. My intent was to say that some people over think some things.
"never" is a BIG concept, and AFAIK impossible to demonstrate.
avoid absolute statements and stick to what you can demonstrate, and you'll be at least slightly scientifically credible.
otherwise... you stray into superstition.
and a book-case right next to the desk...and another book-case...and another...
my personal library made moving a real PITA
That signals the evolution of a higher form of organization, a new Mandelbrot scale.
?
The classic example is that the bacterial flagellum could not have evolved.
Now, there are those who say this has been rebutted after an article by Sharon Begley based on claims by Kenneth Miller appeared, ironically, in the WSJ that the pump part of the flagellum shares 10 proteins with the secretory system of some bacteria. So what about the 30 protens unique to it? Then according to gene squencing, the flagellum motor came before the pump which would mean that the pump (and secretory system) evolved from the motor.
And that's what the debate has come down to.
yes not NEVER, but "damn well bloody unlikely to the millionth degree". How's that? Could that be ALWAYS right to say? Would EVERYONE agree with that? Or would NO ONE?
Is the a list words I need to see for when I became concerned about straying into superstition? Did you mean to say "straying into supossition"?
Straying into Lacanian paranoiac classification groups. Don't let the cinema film stop.
Now, if the creationists will try to understand, THIS FINDING DOES NOT REFUTE EVOLUTION!
If more evidence occurs to substantiate this finding, the hypothesis that mitochondrial DNA is inherited ONLY through the mother will be descarded.
This contrasts to Noah's Ark which has been shown to be nonsense, yet is never discarded by the literalist cults.
okay, if you have something to say, just say it.
A. It appears to have been peer reviewed under SOP
B. Credentialed people are objecting
Now, isn't safe to conclude that these credentialed people are emotionally reacting to a challenge to deeply held beliefs?
I stated and meant: superstition
belief in result without mechanism, belief in that which cannot be demonstrated
it is generally unwise to use absolute descriptors, and seldom required.
If they admitted that it was not, they would lose their reseach funding ...
Okay, this has been fun but has grown kinda tiresome. Think I'll go to a North Korea thread, big news out of them today. Or I may finish Gingrich's latest book. A good read, I recomend it to all. Thanks one and all, for all your thought provoking posts. One parting thought, because a person is hesitant to swallow the evolution theory whole hog does not make him a whacko.
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.