Posted on 04/14/2002 12:31:25 AM PDT by sourcery
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"/>
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||
Stephen King has written far more than 20 books and you don't take him seriously, do you?
I may not "take him seriously", but I DO know who he is, while noting writing twenty books or so happens to be an accomplishment NO MATTER who one is or isn't.
Aren't you Roman Catholic?
I can't vouch for or comment on the quality of any of his other writings, but the posted excerpt shows someone seriously ready for a change in medication. He actually managed to bring into his paranoia -- all at one shot -- the Greeks, evolution, the occult, mysticism, the Garden of Eden fable, Hinduism, witchcraft and reincarnation.
I've never seen that done before, and it really tastes of the "they're all out go get me" syndrome.
There's a guy in Brazil who's written several hundreds of books. He is known for being able to churn out an entire, rather thick, novel overnight. The novels are completely formula, devoid of any real literary value, yet he can meet your requirement in less than a month.
BTW, Isaac Asimov wrote over 400 novels, serious and fluff fiction and serious nonfiction (his works on the Bible and Shakespeare are quite insightful and show serious research and study), and yet that doesn't make the fundies here respect him any more because of his atheism.
Yes, thus my point to jennyp concerning who gets to decide what "reality" is, since we both apparently agreed that there were over 250 million "datasets"(I will assert all different) in the U.S. alone. The correct answer, in my opinion, is a personal one, and being such denies the necessity of both a committee and fiat definition.
Yeah -- impressive ain't it? ;-) If you care to check out this particular book, which also delves into the scientific, spiritual and historical dynamics of UFOs, Ghosts, Drugs (coincidently), critiques of Christian sects and their ties to the "occult", and other goodies, the book is called 'Occult Invasion'.
It is possible to be both entertained and enlightened by either Isaac Asimov OR Dave Hunt without "respecting" either one I suppose.
Any particular non-tautological version is a proposal for a "theory of fitness" (at least in a restricted setting), and thus exactly the kind of thing I insist is needed, and the kind of thing which, when provided in general will supply more order than will support the argument-from-no-design.
And Panda by Fiat is even less so.
Dave Hunt, Leading Anti-Catholic Fundamentalist
Of course, I don't know who Aufill is either.
Such is only a tie that's made by those who have an anti-intelligent design agenda.
The intelligent designer of the ID theory can as easily be an advanced race elsewhere in the universe. It does not have to be a "god."
The proposition, quite simply, is that the ID math model says there's too much complexity on earth for the allowable time in which all this complexity is supposed to have arisen.
Just so long as you're not flashing ...
... That platypus of yours isn't pretty.
Unfortunately, ID ultimately means God. Did those advanced beings evolve naturally? If so, why couldn't life on this planet evolve naturally? If those advanced beings are supernatural, you come around again to God.
That does not follow.
It makes sense to accept that the origin of life in another part of the universe could have a more readily demonstrable explanation to which we could all say "Aha! If only I'd known about this process, then I could see how it all fit together.""
Who says earth has to be the center of the universe?
It would be like finding a research station on Antarctica and trying to force an explanation of its origin by insisting that we use only the conditions available on Antarctica.
I am, perhaps, being a little too scornful in calling it a "just-so story". I call it this because it is claimed to be a "prediction" of a general theory--which I would argue it is not precisely because evolutionary biologists would behave as I have indicated. In fact, the account given is a proper scientific theory in its own right, which can be tested and falsified (by finding a population of slowly reproducing 'immortal unless slain' organisms), modified to account for the contrary data (provided the new modification is still testable) and so forth.
Is that a platypus in your pocket, or are you happy to see me?
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.
n the last decade or so, creationism has grown sophisticated. Oh, the old-fashioned creationists are still around, especially in the Bible Belt. They're the ones who believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old, that God created it and all its inhabitants in six days and that fossils are a product of Noah's flood. In the early 1990's, however, a new breed of creationists appeared. These ''neo-creos,'' as they have been called, are no Dogpatch hayseeds. They have Ph.D.'s and occupy positions at some of the better universities. The case they make against Darwinism does not rest on the authority of Scripture; rather, it proceeds from premises that are scientific and philosophical, invoking esoteric ideas in molecular biology, information theory and the logic of hypothesis testing. 