If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
"Building The Perfect Beast" wrote in message
... Hey Pac, you a Traveling Man? Any of you for that matter? I can use the tools. Rich S. |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Valid points. As you say, the materialist worldview is an article of
faith. I've said it before and I'll say it again - neither the existence nor non-existence of God can be proven or disproven. QED. That said, the belief in macro-evolution does seem to be an "unassailable belief." Just look at what happened in Kansas when the state school board voted to allow teachers to discuss criticisms of evolution. Not to mandate the teaching of only literalist Biblical six-day-creationsism, just to allow teachers to present the fact that not every scientist agrees 110% with Darwin. They were pilloried and mocked, and ultimately driven out of office. The term "intelligent design" was coined specifically to gain some distance from the NON-scientific young-earth-ultra-literal crowd. Saying that the universe shows evidence of intelligent design is NOT the same as insisting that it was created in 144 hours. Though materialists continually attempt to lump us together, but we're rather different. I commend to you Don Stoner's book, "A New Look at an Old Earth." If he hadn't written it, I probably would have had to, someday. Occam's Razor certainly applies. But the question is not merely whether it's more logically simple that a universe preexisted or was created by a preexisting diety; it's whether it's logically simpler that an infinitely complex, beautiful, and *functional* universe "just happened" or whether it was designed by some Cosmic Engineer. Occam's Razor cuts the other way when you look at the question in that light. I certainly agree with using inductive reasoning - to look at the evidence and draw conclusions based on fact. Deductive reasoning - beginning with a philosophical premise and then proceeding - only leads in logical circles. The problem I see with most materialists is that they claim to be inductive, but they begin with a deductive assumption that the physical world is all that exists. That is simply and demonstrably not true. Can you devise a scientific test for love? How do you know that you love your children? How can you prove it - scientifically? Science is not the be-all and end-all. Those who put their whole faith in science often claim that it has a pretty good track record for explaining things. I beg to differ. For every question that science answers, it raises three more. Science increases uncertainty, enlarges the realm of that-which-is-not-known. (There's got to be a pun somewhere in there about curiosity killing Schroedinger's cat...) Not everything is scientifically testable. The origin of the universe is not an experiment that can be repeated. That's where the tools of the historian come into play. For me, it all hinges on whether Jesus really rose from the dead. If he didn't, then it's game over as far as religion is concerned. If he did, well, that raises a whole 'nother set of questions. A resurrection is not a repeatable experiment. Science is of minimal value. (Beginning the investigation with, "he didn't because we know that dead people stay dead" doesn;t work, because it's beginning with an assumption that precludes one whole line of investigation. If an all-powerful God really does exist, and Jesus really was His son, then a one-time resurrection - to prove a point or to accomplish some great work - is certainly possible.) For me, Occam's Razor leads me to the conclusion that the Resurrection was indeed a real, historical event. I'm leaving out the evidence and reasonings, but I'll be happy to share them if you're interested. But FWIW I started out as a skeptic, trying to disprove the historical claims of Christianity. As I said, that leads to a whole other set of questions, including the conclusion that the materialist worldview is erroneous. That doesn't mean I'm superstitious or non-scientific, and it's insulting to suggest that I am. I have examined the evidence - more objectively than a grreat many skeptics I've spoken to - and come to certain conclusions based on that evidence. It's fine to disagree about the evidence, reasoning, and conclusions - that's what intelligent, civilized people do. Corrie "Eric Miller" wrote in message v.net... "Corrie" wrote Proponents of intelligent design theory don't engage in pseudo-science. Like our materialist coutnerparts, we observe the evidence and predict outcomes. (Testing evolutionary hypotheses is done by observation, since you can't very well set up experiments over timescales of millions of years, no matter what your persuasion.) We simply come to a different conclusion. But the materialist orthodoxy is so entrenched - is mind-controlling too strong a term? - than any deviation from Darwinian Holy Writ is labeled heretical. Futher, the heretics are made the target of viscious, mean-spirited ad hominem attacks. That's bigotry, plain and simple. Evolution - macro-evolution between phyla or orders - IS only theory. It is NOT proven. The evidence can be interpreted in more than one way. But it is taught to children as established fact, and those who dare deviate are persecuted. Yeah, I have a problem with that. It's Scopes in reverse. Someone said something about people should be able to make informed choices? From a purist standpoint, *anyone* entrenched in a belief system, no matter what their title or beliefs, is not engaging in science. Period. Science is open to criticism. Faith (and that includes faith *in* science) is not. By definition, there are no unassailable beliefs in science. My comments about pseudo-science not observing and predicting was a general comment directed especially at the pyramid-crystal-magnet-homeopathic crowd that couldn't conduct a double-blind study if they performed their tests at midnight in a coal mine after plunging red-hot spikes into their eyes... (Now, ask me how I *really* feel ) Testability is a cornerstone of science. And while macro-evolution doesn't lend itself well to testing, in theory it could be tested, demonstrated and proven.You can *not* test and prove intelligent design, that's an article of faith. Untestable hypotheses are useless and are the hallmark junk science. The classic cases are mediums, spiritualists and mentalists whose powers mysterious vanish when subjected to controlled conditions citing "hostile" environments. "Some things have to be belived to be seen" is not an acceptable tenet of scientific inquiry. Personally speaking, I see no tautological difference between saying first there was a creator who then created the universe and saying first there was the universe which exists without a creator. For God's sake (pun fully intended ), use Occam's razor and cut out the middle man! We should find the anthropomorphic principle to be mutually acceptable. Acceptable to me because I can interpret it to state that if conditions *weren't* just right, we wouldn't be here right now (discussing evolution on RAH). Acceptable to you because you can interpret it to state that some higher power made the conditions just right (so we can discuss evolution on RAH). Remember the word "theory" has different meaning in the vernacular than it does in the scientific community, and this causes a lot of confusion. In common parlance, "theory" means unproven, could be true, who knows? Scientifically, "theory" means a generally accepted principle without any major contradictions. You don't hear much controversy over the Pythagorean Theorem I wouldn't exactly call creationists (honest question: is that the old term for intelligent design theorists?) persecuted. However, the fact is they *don't* practice science and for that reason have excluded *themselves* from the scientific community. If you don't play by the rules, you don't get to join the club; it's that simple. If I use steroids, I can't try out for the women's Olympic track and field because a) steriods aren't allowed b) I'm not a woman and c) I'd get my butt whooped regardless of a) and b)... However, that doesn't equate my exclusion from women's track and field with bigotry. Again, personally speaking, I'd rather children were taught that the world is subject to change and here is a mechanism which can explain it, than they were taught the world was created 6007 years ago, hasn't changed since and BTW God is a big trickster (for creating fossil records, background radition, etc)... YMMV Eric |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Bryan Martin wrote:
It is quite clear even from a cursory examination of history that the founders of the United States strongly believed that the State and the Church should be separate entities; that the State should not dictate religious beliefs to the people and the Church should not control the political process. That was the situation in England; the Anglican Church was the official religion of England all others were banned and their adherents persecuted. This was one of the reasons people came to America and one of the reasons for the revolution. Ironically, it was New England Baptists who were concerned about separation of church and state because those same original colonial Puritans held a hegemony that wasn't in the Baptists' best interests. On the other hand, it is not the job of government to keep religion out of the public schools but the government may not sponsor religion in the public schools nor allow religious displays to cause disruptions of classes in public schools. In short, there is no low prohibiting prayer in public schools but it is unlawful to stand up in the middle of class and start shouting sermons. Heck, I recall old Stormin' Norman Johnson doin' a lot of secular hollerin'. A couple others too. Then there was the math teacher who used to whack us on the head with his college class ring when we'd get out of line. I've seen a couple preachers as demonstrative as these guys, but I dunno if I'd care to see 'em again. ;-) - Scott |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Great Stuff Eric,
This Rah "firing line" is a good diversion from all the broken things on my honey-do list. She's starting to get jealous though.... since I'm having such a good time with the computer. Oh well, when the sun goes Red Giant, who's going to care anyway? :-] pacplyer Eric patiently explained Well, saying that teachers in Kansas "couldn't discuss criticisms of evolution" is a bit disingenuous. The Kansas State Board of Education voted to eliminate teaching the theory of evolution entirely... it wasn't exactly the time to get into the fine points The theory of evolution is established and accepted. Does that means it's a complete and finished work? No, nothing in science ever is. Does that mean it's above and beyond critique? Of course not. But it is the "state of the art" and I'd *expect* teachers to teach what's current, not about phlogiston, the four (or five) elements of nature, the four humers of the body nor the world being supported by pillars which are resting on the back of a tortoise. And if they *don't* teach what's current, they deserve to pilloried, mocked, and fired for being incompetent of performing their jobs in a responsible fashion. I'm sure 6-day creation was "state of the art" at one time, but that time has past. Fundamentalist countries are known for burying their heads in the sand, ignoring the present and attempting to force the clock to simpler times. But guess what? Tempus Fugit (woot! a flying reference!), and you can't legislate sand to make it flow up an hourglass. Occam's razor certainly does *not* mandate the existence of a creator. I refer you again to the Anthropomorphic Principle. Start with an infinite number of universe, each with their own sets of rules and eliminate the ones that are inconducive to the existence of RAH (which is, after all, the highest form of life as we know it). Ice gets denser as it freezes and doesn't float (making bodies of water freeze from the bottom up)? Gone! Cosmological constant too large and big bang collapses too soon? Later! Carbon doesn't have the correct angle and number of covalent bonds? Vamos! Hey, there are a million complex and interdependent values. I can't design a plane much less a universe (another obligatory flying reference ), but does that mean there's an intelligent force behind it all? Not at all. The exact set of rules necessary for intelligent life might also necessitate the inarguably complex, beautiful, and functional universe. If everything is just right, we exist to banter about it; if not, we don't; it's that simple. But the beauty of the AP is that it comes in two flavors, one of which says you're free to believe in intelligent design, the other says I'm free not to. I believe that the physical world is all that exists. If there's more, and it can be demonstrated, "Boom!" it's part of the physical world. If not, it's mumbo-jumbo and can safely be ignored. Can you devise a scientific test for love? Of course. Would any sane person put themselves into jeopardy, whether short and immediate - like running into a burning building, or long and protracted - like the fiscal hardship that children cause, otherwise? You say "love", I say "survival trait", to-MAY-to, to-MAH-to Regardless, I don't recommend faith in science, it's spiritually devoid (for those seeking spirituality) and subject to change. Faith is best left to dogma. The fact that science raises more questions than it answers is a *good* thing! That's a strength, not a weakness! And it does *not* mean that science increases uncertainty because the questions raised are about more and more minute things. Haven't you heard the expression "the more you know, the more you realize you don't know"? That's not an argument against learning in the first place! Meanwhile, religion has brought us such logical wonders as: discussing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin and testing for witchcraft by water immersion (if she sinks and drowns, she's innocent; if she floats and lives, the water is rejecting her because she's a witch, kill her!). Though the Muslim's did do some good things with religion... witness how it drove them towards better math and astronomy. The other thing which confuses non-scientists (the first being the usage of the word "theory") is that there is no single, central, scientific authority that decides what is and isn't correct/accepted. If one theory is more useful, can explain/predict more things, more accurately, and has fewer deficiencies then it "survives" (sorry, couldn't resist) while others fade into obscurity. This doesn't have to be all or nothing either. The Bohr model of the atom is simple and still useful, even though Quantum Mechanics is more comprehensive (at the expense of complexity). Without attacking Christianity one iota.... it doesn't make sense to hinge your belief in creation on Jesus, seeing as how he didn't show up until somewhere between 4,000 and 15 billion years after the universe was made (depending on who's counting). And certainly no Jesus is *not* the end of religion... it's not even the end of religions based on variations of the Old Testament. And frankly, if resurrection isn't a repeatable experiment, then it can't be used to make further predictions, rendering it useless. On the other hand, nothing about cosmology says other universes cannot be created, so it *may* be repeatable. Stay tuned! BTW you *do* know that the two differing stories of Genesis were stolen from the Egyptians and Babylonians (who didn't believe in one god), and that the story of Eve is based on an ancient Sumerian pun, right? OTOH I saw a great show which used some passages of Genesis to pinpoint the probable location of the Garden of Eden If you read again, you'll see I didn't call you either superstitious or unscientific (and still am not)... I never make ad hominem attacks, as they a sure signal you've already lost the argument And I'll finish (somewhat insensitively) with... Winning an argument on the Internet is like winning the Special Olympics... in the end, we're all still retarded. Eric |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
|
#66
|
|||
|
|||
"nafod40" wrote
Good books, both. Wolfram has the world's biggest ego. The big questions is... was his ego created or did it evolve over time? |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
"Bob Olds" wrote
Corrie wrote There's plenty of supporting evidence [for the existence of God], but conclusive proof would preclude faith. And faith is important. There is no such supporting evidence. And to quote my previous post, "you have to belief to see" is unacceptable. If you step off a cliff, gravity doesn't care what you believe, you're gonna fall. You're quite right, Bob. If a person is determined to disbelieve, then no evidence can possibly change their mind. Their worldview forces them to either discount or reinterpret every piece of evidence shown to them. Likewise, it's not possible to convince the informed, thoughtful believer that they are wrong, because they can answer the skeptics from within their worldview. (The skeptics may not be satisfied with the answers, but that's not the point.) I don't think you can choose to believe or not. Either you do or you don't. I think people stop believing because they've seen the light of truth and have finally learned something. I'm sure you feel the same way about people who start believing. I adopted a Christian worldview after a long period of study and reflection, and after considering every oher major worldview (and a few minor ones). My studies convinced me that Christianity is coherent, explanative, predicitve, internally consistent, externally verifiable, and even - like any good scientific hypothesis - falsifiable. Corrie Just what exactly does Christianity explain and predict that's useful? And if it's falsifiable, what evidence would be accepted which could prove it false? If you're wrong you have NOTHING to lose and EVERYTHING to gain. If the "Scientist" is wrong he loses EVERYTHING! Eternity is a LOOOONG time!! Bob Olds RV-4 flyer Again, there's no choice in what you believe. And I would hope that a higher power could see through any posers Eric |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
I agree with you Corrie; If you're wrong you have NOTHING to lose and EVERYTHING to gain. If the "Scientist" is wrong he loses EVERYTHING! Eternity is a LOOOONG time!! Bob Olds RV-4 flyer Charleston,Arkansas +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Hardly a unique response or argument. But, certainly a very predictable self serving one, if you are obliged to hedge your bet. It is quaintly known as..... fire insurance. Do not pass go. Do not collect $500. Go directly to..... Hell. 8-D Barnyard BOb -- |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Clever anonymous handle.
Thanks, I choose to remain so at this time. Not so I can snipe or gripe, I just prefer to do it this way. Heck, it's not like you're just the picture of honesty and openness yourself. You wanna prang me about anonymity you really oughta sign your posts yourself. Mturner ain't gonna get the mail delivered. I've posted under my own name for years. And it was verifiable. And some on this board have actually met me in person. Can you write the same? You really are a spineless common loser aren't you? Whoa big boy! To quote John Belushi in the Blues Bros, "Well what did I do to **** you off this time, baaaaby?" Do you read some threat or slight in my asking a simple question? Which, by the way, I think your response answers. But spineless? Me? Hehe, you don't know what you're writing. If anything I push the envelope a little too hard at times. And no, I am not a loser, and by no stretch of the imagination common. I just found it to be a humorous anti-spam device. I actually tried common winner first, but there aren't enough fields in the AOL spam block. Probably didn't get enough cool-aid at the Jim Jones camp. You can kiss my highly-traveled ass. I'm just gonna assume that you woke up on the wrong side of the bed. Either that or your anger management classes were cancelled and you were upset. :^) I asked because you had referenced the Masons in one of your posts. I thought I knew the answer to my question because you wrote of them as Free Masons. Not to quibble, but it is Freemasons. Since you did reference the Freemasons in the designing of the United States Government, in particular the Separation of Church and State, I find it interesting to point out that at no time has a man been allowed admission into a Lodge of Freemasons if they did not profess belief in a Supreme Being. Same for the early patriots. Atheists need not apply. |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Interleaved responses lead to long posts. Oh, well - it's the nature
of the beast ;-D "Eric Miller" wrote in message t... "Corrie" wrote: Your (deductive) argument on the Anthropomorphic Principle still begs the questions of why and how this particular universe came to be. Well, like I said before, there's no tautological difference between starting with a creator and starting with one or more universes. How and why does the universe(s) exist? How and why does the creator exist? It's the exact same question. The difference being, I don't think the universe cares one whit about us, whereas a hypothetical creator cared/was compelled at least enough to create in the first place. Agreed. It seems that in your worldview, the question "why are we here?" has no meaning. And if you ask it, the answer is, "there's no reason - we just are." But if the question and its answer are both meaningless, then why can we even ask it? Augustine dealth with the same point - if it cannot possibly exist, how can it be imagined? What is the probability of intelligent life existing in the universe? Impossible to calculate Actually, the Drake equation breaks this down quite nicely. Now, all the coefficients might not be known, but that's just a detail Ahh, and you know who's hiding in the details ;- (The term species is pretty vague, btw. Last I counted there were 17 separate, sometimes mutually exclusive, definitions.) I've never heard any disagreement over the basic definition of species, which is "a population which can interbreed". That's just the biological defninition. But it doesn't always work. For example, dogs and wolves are generally considered two separate species, but they can interbreed. Same with horses and donkeys, though the offspring are sterile. Also, you can't apply the biological test to extinct creatures; you have to use other definitions. But I haven't seen any evidence that the same process results in changes to phylum or order. That's an assumption based on a faith-belief in macro-evolution. It's a much smaller leap in logic to state that we can observe evolution on a smaller scale and conclude that macro-evolution occurs in the same/similar fashion than to state "Haven't seen any macro-evolution today," give up, and conclude a creator made everything. You would expect to see a LOT of evidence for macro-evolution, but you don't. You know, this is *exactly* what ancient, superstitious and unscientific man did, because he was controlled by (instead of controlling) his environment. Whenever he came across a phenomenon he didn't understand, he created a god and credited the deity with causing it. Sun, moon and eclipses in the heavens? Lightning kill your uncle? Storm sink the family fishing boat? Drought wipe out the harvest? All gods and more gods. And you know what? As we learned about how things work, gods started disappearing one by one. Now there's just one mystery left "Where do we come from?", which is why there's just one god left. (Where we go after we die isn't a mystery... people just don't like the answer ) We have genetic evidence of a common ancestor for modern humans - the so-called "genetic Eve. No need to discuss, since a genetic Eve is consistent with both materialism and intelligent design (to use your terms). Similar evidence for a common ancestor for birds and reptiles has yet to turn up AFAIK. Now come on, are you deliberately ignoring the evidence of Archaeopteryx? Not one, but at least eight different fossil specimens from around the world of an organism which is neither dinosaur nor bird but has some of the features of both. This is *exactly* what you'd expect from a transitional fossil. Is the platypus a transitional creature? Or just an example of a wierd combination of features (a designer playing around?) Archaeopteryx is an interesting creature, but it is a true transitional form? Maybe it was the platypus of its time. You'd expect to see a lot more transitional forms, say, right above the KT boundary, when the small surviving dinos began to grow feathers. But they're not there. Another topic - I've asked this question in a number of forums, and have yet to get an answer - why is it that according to the fossil record, the pace of "evolutionary" change seems to increase the more complex that life forms become? One would think that as complexity increases, the likelihood of a random genetic mutation resulting in a large-scale beneficial change would decrease, yet we see just the opposite. How does materialist evolution explain that? Can't speak with authority here, but there's nothing inconsistent with that; in fact, I'd think you'd expect it. Start with one "specie", apply change, get two. Apply change to two, get four etc. No, this isn't a matter of arithmetic progression. It's a question of complexity. A single change to a complex system will be less visible than the same change to a simpler system. Now, then, the mathematics of complexity and chaos can come into play here - a small disruption can have an unpredictably large effect - but the fundamental principle remains. It's easier to change a simple system than a complex system. Not all mutations are beneficial, but neither are all so detrimental that they result in the end of line for the mutation. True. My point exactly. A single mutation to a simple organism is likely to have a much greater effect than a single mutation to a complex organism. Yet the fossil record shows that simple organisms remain stable for scores of millenia, while complex organisms mutate rapidly. Further, the worth of a mutation may not be demonstrated until long after it occurs. If *that's* the case, then natural selection doesn't work! Either that or you're buying into Lamark's notion that animals will themselves to change in order to achieve some future goal. Say it ain't so, Joe! Also, be very careful of trying to figure things out by common sense, because not everything is intuitive. That's why we perform experiments. In orbit, you have to slow down to descend and speed up to reach a higher orbit, if you try to move up/down only the shape of your orbit will change. Inflate two balloons, one 25% full, the other 75% full and connect them with a closed valve. What happens when you open the valve? Two balloons 50% full? No, one balloon 5% full, the other balloon 95% full. If you know all the laws of physics involved, you'd figure those out. Same with pitch-for-speed, power-for-altitude. (Gotta get an aviation reference in!) And by looking at the evidence, you'd be able to figure out the laws involved. So that's what I'm asking - how is it that complex prganisms evolve more rapidly? I've yet to see an explanation. Microbes have developed drug resistance over a period of about 200,000 generations. (50 years @ 12 generations/day). Now, those are not new species - penicillin-resistant E. Coli is still E. coli. It's like the difference between a wolf and a German Shepherd. Less, actually, since we're talking about the difference of a few molecules in the cell wall. The oldest hominid fossil (Sahelanthropus tchadensis) is about 470,000 generations old (7 million/15). Only twice as many generations, with a vastly more complex organism, but the physical differences between us and "Toumai" are far, far greater than the differences between normal E. coli and penicilin-resistant E. Coli. It just doesn't add up. First of all, bacteria develop drug resistance a *lot* quicker than 50 years; try a week if you're irresponsible and quit taking your antibiotics as soon as you feel better instead of emptying the bottle as instructed by your physician. I'm talking about the general worldwide population of microbes. Fifty years ago, the resistant mutation was very rare. If you stopped taking your meds early, there might not be enough of them to reinfect you - your body's defenses would take over and finish the job. Today, the resistant mutation is a lot more common, so you have to really hammer the bugs in order to kill them off. And to the best of my knowledge, the oldest recognized hominid is Ardipithicus ramidus, dated at 4.4 my. I'm using Toumai in an attempt to be conservative, giving the "human mutation" more generations to come out. Time is *your* ally, right? If we use A. ramidus, then my argument actually gets stronger. Remember what I said about common sense.. it doesn't have to seem to add up. 2 hr vs 15 yr long generations. Simple vs complex organisms. All things aren't created equal. Whoah now. If that is the case, then you've just made MY argument stronger: that the process that gives us weiner-dogs from wolves DOES NOT explain the difference between cats and dogs. Can't have your cake and eat it, too. :-D Short generations allow for rapid adaptation to the environment. Simple organism - there's less there, less to change, less that *can* change and still be viable. Oooh, you're treading on very dangerous ground, now. :-) Ever hear of "irreducible complexity?" A system that, if you try to "devolve it" - come up with a simpler antecedent - simply stops working? Some folks use the eye as an example - bad example. Very simple photo-sensitive cells can convey a survival advantage. But look at something like mitochondrial protein transport. That's a VERY complex little series of chemical reactions inside your cells, and it's necessary for life. Further, you can't make it any simpler and have it keep working. Complex organism - we share 99% the genetic structure with chimpanzees, and Ardipithicus ramidus is the point where we branched off, so we can't be more than 1% different from him. That's a statement of faith until there's a genetic study of A. ramidus. AFAIK all we have is fossilized bone. Perhaps the same 1% difference between bacteria 50 years ago and now... in about the same number of generations? Except that the difference in bacteria only resulted in drug resistance. Resistant E. coli is still E. coli. It's still a facultative anaerobe, still flourishes in the same environments. It's simply more resistant to a certain threat. But the difference in primates is HUGE! Enough to call us and ramidus not only separate "races" or "breeds" or "strains" and not only different species, but a different genus! As far as us having 99% genetic commonality with chimps - is that evidence of a common ancestor, or evidence of a conservative designer reusing proven systems? What I don't understand is... how can the previous statement be acceptable but yet somehow the idea of an intelligent designer that created everything *using* the mechanism of evolution is somehow so repugnant? I don't have a problem with that, philosophically. The problem is that it's a statement of faith that's been presented as fact. If you gave me ironclad proof tomorrow of clear common ancestors, obvious and numerous transitional forms, etc., it wouldn't shake my faith one whit. And clearly the lack of proof doesn't seem to affect the faith of secular fundamentalists. It's just so ironic that they mock people who believe in God. Talk about missing the log in your own eye... Enjoying the conversation! Corrie |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Alright, All You Dashing, Swaggering Bush Pilots | Larry Smith | Home Built | 22 | August 14th 03 10:03 PM |