Posted on 04/14/2002 12:31:25 AM PDT by sourcery
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"/>
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||
I like this one. It's always been that way, and it was usually quite nasty when the State was the Church.
But isn't this exactly what ID people support; that things always go downhill? :)
Ockham's/Occam's Razor is "entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity."
So in the spaceman/no spaceman case, we have two options:
I'm reading it now, seems pretty standard stuff you've already seen in English at talk.origins. Quite well put together though.
Unfortunately, the web pages are too long for the Babelfish to translate the whole thing into English.
As far as the model, I'll get back with you. Are you willing to buy the book? I'll send you the source address if you are.
I see it as completely possible, although not necessary. Ockham again.
I just finished this morning my budgeted monthly big book purchase at Amazon, so the book will have to wait, but I've got this bookmarked.
Babelfisch English ist Scheisse, aber!
Because then you just transfer the origin question one step further back, adding one more entity to your argument. I'm not saying it's not possible, just that it's not necessary. If there were scientific evidence for it, I'd be more interested in the possibility, but all there is so far are fairly lame attacks on an existing theory rather than evidence for ID. Unless your math says something new.
What I found curious however, was that a guy from Europe compiled these pages since there doesn't seem to be a significant Creationist movement on the old continent.
Or have you encounterd any Creationists in Heidelberg? ;-)
The theories expounded on by Hunt are the subconscience's suseptibility to spiritual hijacking (so to speak) during drug induced trances OR hypnosis OR even meditative trances in the quest to "see God."
BTW, your "supernatural" example of the Oracle of Delphi's ethylene gas booby trap is reminiscent of that scene from the 'Mummy', isn't it?
While it is true many Catholic rites and "Christian" holidays are derived from pagan origins, Hunt reveals :
-- The subtle incursions and stealth subterfuge of the "occult" (aka Satan and his forces) not only through the Catholic Church, but through other "Christian" churches as well.
-- How Satan's (if you happen to believe he exists) lies are being taught behind the academic respectability of Science
-- How demonic activities are presented as the path to "enlightenment though "alien" contacts and paranormal experiences
--How pagan religions are being promoted through ecology (see Al Gore) and "we are one" philosophies
--How evil is being reinvented as good by psychology AND the legal system...
Good book even if you aren't a Christian ;-)
Once one has a nice orderly system of differential equations governing the dynamics, the presence of a stochastic element in the genesis of biological diversity no longer makes a compelling counter to argument from design. Particle physics as presently understood has a stochastic element in the collapse of the wave function, but has such a beautiful, elegant feeling that no atheist brings it up as an anti-design polemic--it looks too much like the product of a brilliant mind.
My only real quarrel with Darwinism as science is the fact that its practitioners tend to formulate it in a non-falsifiable way (and I am a Popperian). My quarrel with certain Darwinists is that they are appealing to our ignorance of the non-stochastic part of what should be turned into a proper scientific theory (in the Popperian sense) when they draw philosophical inferences (the non-existence of God, the purposelessness of human existence, etc.) from the sketch of a scientific theory Darwin provided.
It's a scientific theory that's under political attack from people with another kind of fish on their cars. Think of the Darwin fish as a Sore-Loserman type parody.
There is no argument that could in theory counter design; **Any (living) thing** could have been designed. What observation could show otherwise?
Are you saying that evolution is true, but since it may one day be described by more-or-less elegant equations, the equations themselves are evidence of some sort of 'design'?
How about countless UFO sightings and suggestions throughout history? Seems like ETI still keeps an eye on us.
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. 