What to do with Brad? (Yet another Brad McFall topic)

Brad has shown effort - as he answered one of my questions plainly - in one of the Brad threads - wish I could find the link, but I think he gets picked on a little, because of his different posting style.Maybe if he wanted --> A boot camp thread in which he can only use three letter words, with a maximum of three vowels. Lol.Somehow I think he'd just write; " Gla - DI - she -v. " Seriously though - leave Brad alone or I'll get bibleGod onto you.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 10-20-2004 08:24 AM

Baramin hell!! Interestingly though, Brad's message was understandable, he is saying that he has knowledge - and our lack of it is the problem, not his debate style. I agree with Brad, if we aren't on that level - should he be blamed?

I love these wordages Brad. I don't know what they mean. All that matters is that they are poetically tongue-enticing. You said you were a YEC! Maybe you meant a Y.E.C. Your. Everpresent .Coherent-poet.

I think you have a vast amount of knowledge, pertaining to every factor involved, which furthers incoherency to the lesser mortal. So I am not going to say you are a YEC for the usual reasons, as that would be ignorant.I guess it means a different thing, for the fully endowed intellect. Your average YEC, hasn't even heard of Darwin's grandfather or Mendel.Do you know everyone? WHo was Cavendish? Answer now if you are omniscient! WHo was Baird? Is there a theory of televisions bringing forth biological life? If there is, I'm sure you support it.Just kidding Brad.

---

"All judgements come from ignorance, the well spring of assumptions, accepted as facts" -- The wiz,

Brad. This was a lengthy post you posited, so I done you your earning, and payed you your wages. I.e. I digested it all. I don't understand all of the post, because of my lack of knowledge. I can only make guesses, to make a workable abstract in my own mind, without having to learn all the words and names.It struck me that your post was very interesting.The quotes from Malthus, about nature providing life but not space, I would have thought indicated that infact there is either a contradiction in nature, which makes it seem like there is no plan, from looking at it. But look deeper and it seems that that could be the plan afterall, afterall, would God want planets full of worms, or do worms serve their purpose in their designated space? Which leads me to think about our exchanges pertaining to behaviour. I think at one time I even suggested that a niche is infact a designated place. Which give me a brainstorm. What if actual evolution is infact animals wandering from their behaviour, and going against the designated food-chain scenario?.I also know what you mean (somewhat) about the observabal confusion over change.As it stands, you seem to have a disgruntlement with the way new ideas are buffeted in favour of the preservation of absolutes. Unfortunately, people are prone to do this in all areas of life, or atleast, those that come to protect the grail. The problem is when you have politicians make rules for things like science. And you don't know whether the man who kicks you out, is a closet-politician.My suggestion; I will read your posts because I infact know you know what you are saying, but I might not come to know so much. It's fair enough though, just don't spend to much effort on this semi-intellectual fool-of-thought. (My computer restarted when I was reading yur post)/This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 11-19-2005 12:27 PM

It's all very interesting Brad, and I seek to understand more. "Environmental torque", I like it. I will go over your site when I have time. At the moment my internet access is somewhat restricted to sharing. I might post back to you in due course. Thanks much.

This is what I have been philosophically contemplating lately when I'm not drunk. That the very nature of the way things are, precede and therefore point to a future occurence of significance. A "making way" so to speak. As surely as God made a way, a preparation through the sea of reeds, so tell I you that this universal and biological reality of this situation, IMHO. yay!That's is the problem, as described in your website. That's we can't seperate what we think God's thoughts are, from "the way things are randomly", in the sense that any example that shows "thought" from a higher being, could be deemed as our own thoughts on the matter even though these are previously created conditions. And so anyone can see that it is thought, in reality.God bless Brad and the impending Bradmania thereof. (Tony's with me on this one, I think).

Lol. That was good, did you study for it? I think I done a Brad impression in honour of Brad's brilliance once. I'll dig it up some time.