Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9073 total)
79 online now:
dwise1, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), nwr, Tanypteryx (4 members, 75 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,241 Year: 4,353/6,534 Month: 567/900 Week: 91/182 Day: 25/38 Hour: 3/1

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Meyer's Hopeless Monster
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 4270 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 8 of 207 (139165)
09-02-2004 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Nic Tamzek
08-25-2004 9:56 PM


From the first link,
quote:
Meyer’s paper predictably follows the same pattern that has characterized “intelligent design” since its inception: deny the sufficiency of evolutionary processes to account for life’s history and diversity, then assert that an “intelligent designer” provides a better explanation.

if true and holds, then it, will, fit nicely in my up and coming FULL discussion of Shepard (of) "Natural Selection and Heredity" where I will between Meiosis and Metabolism DENY his probablisitc synthesis of Darwin's juxtaposition of sexual and natural selection IN THE SAME CONTINUM, which, likewise MUST biologically BE THE ONE AND ONLY any ID could product.

This time, unlike when Shepard wrote, IT WILL MATTER, not necessarily if THE BIRD fell on bedrock or softmoss but the cell that hit the ground in the population that clines such, and (in)this matter I will TRY (if I succeed) to unfold spontenously by metabolic energy what meiotically (not Shepard's natrual vs sexual selection via sterility dillusions etc and denial of Wright's notion of "enzyme")is statistically folded not by acceptance of a given mutation rate (Wright called for 10minus5(to the), but for frequencies that vary not with molecular clock suffiencency of quantum mechanics but with a loop of supramolecular strength no matter which bond was first mutated).
From Percy's link

quote:

To distinguish the latter case (phylogeny) from the former (ontogeny), Muller and Newman use the term “origination” to designate the causal processes by which biological form first arose during the evolution of life. They insist that “the molecular mechanisms that bring about biological form in modern day embryos should not be confused” with the causes responsible
&
quote:
Yet Muller and Newman insist that population genetics, and thus evolutionary biology, has not identified a specifically causal explanation for the origin of true morphological novelty during the history of life. Central to their concern is what they see as the inadequacy of the variation of genetic traits as a source of new form and structure.

While in the latter it is TRUE that in my op there is NO such identification and I feel ONE has been presented if not demonstrated here on EVC, I dont suspect the former division (of ontogeny and phylogeny) will avail if the goal was to label the variational sources that Meyer would need to discretely if not by attribution contribute. I will have to see if
as arising from constraints that limit the possible arrangements of matter. Specifically, organismal form arises (both in phylogeny and ontogeny) as possible arrangements of material parts are constrained to establish a specific or particular arrangement with an identifiable three dimensional topography
from
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177
can BE USED to put back Dakwins notion e/cwise AGAINST Gould's notion of mass extintion physicalities...

Wow, now there is more to write than I have read- what a change!

This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-02-2004 12:17 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Nic Tamzek, posted 08-25-2004 9:56 PM Nic Tamzek has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Loudmouth, posted 09-02-2004 4:13 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 4270 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 10 of 207 (139523)
09-03-2004 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Loudmouth
09-02-2004 4:13 PM


Yes, they are "only" in the essay as I noted by the choice of portions I quoated but by seeing the "words" used I am able to reason if not know (that will depend on what I subsequently post) that the "arrangement" being invariant under ANY SUCH constraint could be used to turn an e/c bias of Gould against his CONCEPTS in c/e by bloging out Dawkin's account e/c wise by the nonadaptive nature of Gouold's historical notion of developemental constraint ancestral area by territory.

I have not read further than I quoted so I ASSUME that these "ontogenic" constraints ARE ONLY IN NAME but since the article WAS PEERREVIEWED PUBLISHED my guess is that any cladistic relevance is likely substantial as well beyond simply naming some interval the arrangements might span. As you did not respond to my twice attempts (outside the baraminology thread which is probably where we will need (you and I then to take it up, continue...))to situate your notion of "distance" I can not be sure without futher reading the Meyer work if you simply notice the discretnees or my own attribution in somewhat agreement with this initial stance between you and me etc.

Your synthesis on language vs genetic sequences is interesting nonethemore and I will comment on it next. It may not be necessary to contrast as you did if something not linear binds the smaller approximation to the 20% etc. I will edit this info in later. It depends not on a straight line as has been prior distributed by best thinking biologists. This is from assuming Lewotin IS THE smartest biologist Gould knew however, so I will say exactly what I meant later. I dont know who is.

The issue for me came down to Campbell's following that I DO NOT take as insoluble,"Indeed I think that general considerations will suggest that the problem is insoluble. For let us return to the idea of a distorted series determined by a curve. Whatever form of balance we employ the general shape of the curve which represents the distorted series is fixed when wwe have made the members of the series represented by integral numbers. Now the members represented by q/p are those which would have been integral values if we had not taken 1/p as the unit. It seems impossible to devise any balance which will not give the same general form of distortion curve whatever unit is adopted. Accordingly the distortion curve on which the members q/p lie will be the same general form as that of the curve on which the integral memebrs lie; it will be merely drawn on a smaller scale. But the conditions that the q/p memebers must be consistent with the integral members is roughly equivalent to the condition that the q/p curve must fit the earlier part of the integral curve. But the only form of curve which is such that, if it is drawn on a reduced scale, it will fit the earlier part of the large-scale curve is the straight line. It is only if the distortion curve is a straight line and therefore represents only a change of unit that the q/p members will be consistent with the integral members"(Campbell p 326"Foundations of Science"Dover 1957). Instead I think that Dakwins' work can find this "unit" but IN Gould's conceptual terrain but this will only be finally inverted in any constraint Gould would want to call his own from this e/c thought to one c/e WHEN the straigt line is re-interpreted UNDER Gladsyhev's LAW through some linearity (not necessarily Pythagorian straight but Archimedian seqmentalable) which Croizat's method, I BSM, think, can even provide some non-perpendicularity to. If so- it will not be NECESSARY to rely on comparison's to Human Language but only to Natural Theology. Now IF ONLY Georgi's work relates in the assymetrical transitive relation the members still might be arranged under Meyer's naming sufficIently. I just dont know that Kripke wise as of yet. It was NOT MY fault that psychiatritis and society only saw this flexibility as one attributable monopolarily at worst and bipolarlly only extended. Life is actually too diverse for the non-physical to be the only chain of cause and effect here.

This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-03-2004 10:05 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Loudmouth, posted 09-02-2004 4:13 PM Loudmouth has taken no action

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 4270 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 19 of 207 (141033)
09-08-2004 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by PaulK
09-08-2004 10:50 AM


Re: BSOW Distances Itself from Article
I started to look a little further into Meyer's "review" and in light of Percy's e-mail I would like to say that I have always found a rather strained use of English in the discussions by evolutionists on the philosophical place in theoretical biology of the DIFFERENCE between preformation and epigenetics. I am not certain that Meyer has maintained this distinction textually throughout but if he did THEN contra the subsequent denial I will be able to find SOME MERIT technically in the article. Whence I start to think about this issue IN EVOLUTIONARY LITERATURE I FIND and will see if I still found, that it all depends on how much emphasis is placed on ecology vs behavior as the scale from the organism is expanded in the writing to whatever the "population" thinking is to have been renewed in thought by the author or seen from a new sample of the same.

I think the issue of the BAUPLAN was originally put in its modern treelike form by Woodger but because I tend now-a-ways to think with Georgi that classical entropy and not Shannon information contains the reverse flow from the large to the small in theor bio I will have a hard time with this article as I had with Loudmouth's recent comparision to Human Language in another thread but the use of the problematic between preformation and epigentics to say what the problems are BEFORE the affordance has been blue-printed may not be an error but indeed a difference in reading styles of biologists. My reading then would depend on a certain understanding of technology and this gets very difficult to bring across on EVC so it perhaps for the best that I confine my self to working on the design itself rather than for reasons to believe in the premonition of said.

The article had said

quote:
Yet, in their view, the “genocentricity” and “incrementalism” of the neo-Darwinian mechanism has meant that an adequate source of new form and structure has yet to be identified by theoretical biologists. Instead, Muller and Newman see the need to identify epigenetic sources of morphological innovation during the evolution of life. In the meantime, however, they insist neo-Darwinism lacks any “theory of the generative” (p. 7).

If I am correct about sister chromatid exchanges BEING the source of TEMPORAL HIERARCHIES in Macrothermodynamics then a source #would# have already been sent onto EVC but depending on how the codes figure into the difference of covalent and ionic boding supramolecularly it is anyone's guess as to how much is preformed vs what is epigentic strictly when it comes to the full diffential that must include the sink from the population as well whether this is via entropy as I tend to think or some other view of information that might have been discussed by Meyer.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177

This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-08-2004 04:28 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by PaulK, posted 09-08-2004 10:50 AM PaulK has taken no action

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 4270 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 51 of 207 (141998)
09-13-2004 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Ooook!
09-12-2004 6:30 AM


Re: LUCA ?
It would help *if anyone* ever figured out what I was saying!

I guess I am ready for your mill of o's,

The clue could be found in Gould's failure to follow Bateson INTO THE ORGANISM where the implication of disjunction was significant and determining (as to a wave or flucutation rather than a simple code for rate process relativity).

if you SEE ALL CURRENT EVO BIO as using a transilient environment that was materially when not particularly a divergence behaviorally. I will pick all this up on the gong show thread if one is really pressed to find the continuity where currenlty Gould threaded Galton orthoganilly in a pigeon without a hole. Sorry to be cryptic and name dropping but just remind me of my KNOWLEDGE of the diff specifically between the chemical mutation of R.paluestris and Pipens where I will attempt to open up more time to talk about this as a quasi-closed system you might if you were "mad" enough to keep from being but the open living system. There is this world of difference between the chance speciation of a frog calling its toxicity and the knowledge that a human can divide amphibians discretely & genetically this way. We tend to have it currently taught that Fisher gained the continuity particulate wise and that these data divisions specify our taxonomic knon seperations maintained differently by baraminologists and cladists say but we dont (unless we tried to USE macrothermodyanmics) have a way to say that the different subspecific geographic distribtutions vicariances ARE the pariculate differences NOT THE genome letter divisions Gould would still be teaching were he alive to this way laid day of Provine's childhood chicken difference of inbreeding in the field (for any Mendel) vs brood chamber and hen house. I know that the two frogs I mentioned are subjectively different and THIS is why we tend to think of ONE life but I DONT KNOW in the same way, just becuase molecular phylogenies can be restructed that they are of the same degree UNLESS I TAKE IT THAT the continuity IS ONLY of the FISHER PARTICULATE GRADE. IT IS NOT on my view.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Ooook!, posted 09-12-2004 6:30 AM Ooook! has taken no action

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 4270 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 57 of 207 (142040)
09-13-2004 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by PaulK
09-13-2004 11:36 AM


Maybe its because THE FORM, is not extinct. When Gould looked at Romer's T-Rex he ^thought^ "Ohhhh now I get it, it is no longer-it was, it is NOW extinct". When I saw the drawing in my book, I IN ADDITION saw in the corner of the page, at the feet of the RECONSTRUCTION, a colored (rex was all bones in B&W) turtle and some other herp and I ^thought^ 'well at least something survived!'

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by PaulK, posted 09-13-2004 11:36 AM PaulK has taken no action

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 4270 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 103 of 207 (142761)
09-16-2004 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by AdminNosy
09-16-2004 2:32 PM


Re: Clarity
Perhaps this would then be about what was recently reported in ACTS AND FACTS that ICRers were able to speak with IDers without conflict.

see
http://www.icr.org/pubs/af/pdf/af0409.pdf

"Dr. Vardiman and Dr. Humphries discovered that the presentation of objective evidence...were able to avoid rhetoric..." when speaking at an ID conference.

The coverage was on page Four.

This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-16-2004 01:47 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by AdminNosy, posted 09-16-2004 2:32 PM AdminNosy has taken no action

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 4270 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 121 of 207 (143104)
09-18-2004 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by RAZD
08-26-2004 12:18 AM


" to Gishlick et al. in due course" (of course!) why didnt i...
Quote from link
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2004/ZZ/400_more_on_meyer_9_3_2004.asp

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by RAZD, posted 08-26-2004 12:18 AM RAZD has taken no action

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 4270 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 125 of 207 (144991)
09-27-2004 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Nic Tamzek
09-25-2004 11:22 PM


Re: a response to Meyer's critics
Kantian "intuition" nor mathmatical Browerintuitionistics? ARE NOT taught in biology classes as far as I know. GO figure! It seemed to me that Mayr's attempts to distance teleology BY teleomatics was the first explict attempt to DISCONTINUE via discipline IN ARISTOTLE's "distributive" justice of/or pedagogy (for any form biologically (and Mayr KNEW these better than many))but it really does not seem in Dawkins' "Chaplin" but only in Gould's resistence (again an "in"sistence) to *probablistic* materialism that such difference of final and proximate causes makes sense of the hoped for data.

The issue of IC has to do MORE with Wolfram's cease and desist order to overselling of Natural Selection than it does with the what economic order will control the TEACHING of evolutionary theory. Knowledge of biogeography is one thing but faliure to cross its landbridge an/other. Salthe ENTIFIED hierarchy thought and Gould continued this line but process views that ARE PROGRAMMABLE in any steps show that where this WAS metaphysical it really ontologically only is the money used to AFFORD the Darwinian Individual.

There seems to be a hopless link of elitism (post Aggaissiz Harvard biology etc) and various psychologies of statistical ratio IQs that indeed there IS NOW reason to question the ubiquity to teleomatics of the individual Darwinistically but this does not mean that Dawkins is correct either. I still refer back to Einstein's clock not being a rod. Oh, well...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Nic Tamzek, posted 09-25-2004 11:22 PM Nic Tamzek has taken no action

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 4270 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 182 of 207 (147197)
10-04-2004 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by Percy
10-01-2004 10:30 AM


Re: personalFact Check
Catmoose provided a link from which I extracted,
quote:

Sternberg said he was concerned that some in the science community have labeled him and Meyer as creationists. "It's fascinating how the 'creationist' label is falsely applied to anyone who raises any questions about neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory," he said. "The reaction to the paper by some [anti-creationist] extremists suggests that the thought police are alive and well in the scientific community."

Which made me wonder if in the cognition of origin of information if this rather than amount of info of/on taxogeny is the real problem (on either "side" of whatever is 'false'.)? When I made ALL THINGS ORDERED (my version of video format creationism/evolutionism trying to be fair to any 'side')I was very clear to indicate that my own ideas were DIFFERENT than ICR standards (which I was using as/for "talking" points"") and it IS the application of this false labeling that I have used here and elsewhere on the net to organize some of my responses. It also seems that because information is often taught biologically as being IN DNA that IF a creationist were to USE this notion (same thing as Price did with GEOLOGY in the past but interms of computers and society but not phones) to propose INTERVALS where information EXISTS and IS BOUND BY DNA then indeed one MIGHT NOT have said anything on taxonomy (see also old evolutionist issue of nonadaptive traits) but instead something indeterminant but real.

Analyzing this gets very difficult and it quickly becomes easier to simply synthesize some understanding than being able to recover any sense. So perhaps the issue IS ONLY the simple QUESTIONING of NEODARWINISM. The difficulty is that THE QUESTION matters IF the probability is GIVEN but the ANSWER matters if the sample space is put in question. This is how it can be that a "Debate" on EVC continues despite the needed use of different probabilities by creationists but part of THIS problem is the higher learning needed to reach this kind of Statistical Discussion as is in some ID and yet I know by my own history that this WAS stifled. I dont think it was because I was more a creationist but because I simply thought the collateralization of taxogeny differently than my teachers. I tried to show that it is true that fringe biology (panbiogeography, phenomenological thermodynamics, neophenogenics, topobiology) ALL SUFFER becuase of the negative climate/atmosphere that this IS. Even willing it to be other will not work. My lover STILL calls me lovingly (after decades) despite the absurdity of such a personal call given the illegality involved. That however involved designs, purpose, 4 ways around painting and things that are not obviously part of the sociology that gave rise to the barrier.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Percy, posted 10-01-2004 10:30 AM Percy has taken no action

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 4270 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 188 of 207 (182924)
02-03-2005 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by Percy
02-03-2005 3:55 PM


Re: A response to Sternberg's accusations against the Smithsonian
As far as I can tell ID can only be science if

Kant's "permissibleness" be true and the next paragraph IDONT type exist.(Critique of the Teleological Judgement) "Here it is permissible for the archeologist of nature to derive from the surviving traces of its oldest revoutions, accoording to all its mechanism known or supposed by him, that great family of creatures (for so we represent them if the said thotoughgoing relationship is to have any ground). He can suppose the bosom of mother earth, as she passed out of her chaotic state (like a great animal), to have given birth in the beginning to creatures of less purposive form, that these again gave birth to others which formed themselves with greater adaptation to their place of birth and their relations to each other, until the womb becoming torpid and ossified, limited its births to definite species not further modifiable, and the manifoldness remained as it was at the end of the operation of that fruitful formative power. Only he must still in the end ascribe to this universal mother an organization purposive in respect of all these creatures; otherwise it would not be possible to think of the possibility of the purposive form of the products of the animal an vegtable kingdoms."p 208 Hafner Publishing Co. NEw YOrk.

is univocally within a Darwinian individual. Evos only can doubt this as we have not seen evidence of a living creature taking physical advantage of its "mother" fossil form, ie has a Darwinian advantage by utilizing the "niche"(sic!) of its ancestors taphonomic death made solid geologically. Should we find this, man can construct the adaptibility ON PURPOSE for any comparable creature just as we should not make life just to take it. Adaptationism has NEVER hardened for this race as Gould proposed however. We dont have this data. It could exist in the creatures living in Rocks. And should life ever be found OFF EARTH, I would suspect even more that this could be found here."

We individually at evc have seen more diversity than that. So somewhat amazingly I agree pretty much with captial PeRcY.

I predict ID can not stand short of EVC and ALL OTHER websites like it NOT continuing. In other words we have *SOME* ground, we dont have the sky that goes with it. I pray it is our generations race that resolves this difference of opinion. Many evos proceed by not thinking on purpose. They should. Its easy to play defense that we. We have seen THAT since the 60s. Its a differnt game on offense. Computer forms should have given them the spur if the change did not already. I know that biologists' thought that by making an organicist teleomatic a new philosophy was supplied that need not fear being a state of ID where there is but this "pushing back" of said mother earth abstracted but it is not much materially to think that plants and animals are MORE seperated given the plethora of computer logic self replications being discussed WIHTOUT an older philosophy of science of the 18th century. We are stuck on the 19th but live in the 21st. The numbers dont match the letters.

This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-03-2005 17:06 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Percy, posted 02-03-2005 3:55 PM Percy has taken no action

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 4270 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 189 of 207 (183967)
02-08-2005 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by JonF
02-03-2005 11:40 AM


Re: A response to Sternberg's accusations against the Smithsonian
Meyer is on Janet's just now
http://www.jpamerica.com/
over the whole Sternberg thing.
quote:

Tuesday, 2/8/2005

Hour 1
A new controversy has erupted in the ongoing debate over Darwin's theory of evolution and the idea that challenges it--Intelligent Design. We'll talk about this with the Director and Senior Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture at The Discovery Institute, based in Seattle, Stephen Meyer, and the President and Founder of The Discovery Institute, Bruce Chapman. These gentlemen offer a wealth of expertise in this area, and they'll help make the complex understandable. We'll give you straight answers about this new development in this ever-changing discusssion.


This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-08-2005 14:41 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by JonF, posted 02-03-2005 11:40 AM JonF has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Percy, posted 02-10-2005 2:02 PM Brad McFall has taken no action

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 4270 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 197 of 207 (184433)
02-10-2005 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by PaulK
02-10-2005 2:31 PM


Re: Interview with Meyer and Chapman of Discovery Institute
quote:
Chapman: Behe is a highly respected microchemist in his field, and he has shown there are no Darwinian explanations for what he sees in the cell.


Percy is correct that that is what I heard most of all. But this does not make Janet an "accomplise". That would be a difference of Meyer and/or Sternberg.
I "see" things in the cell too. That is why I posted on today's Janet's and ICR's this month stem cell impact issue.
see@www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=14&t=490&m=15#15 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=14&t=490&m=15#15">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=14&t=490&m=15#15
But you might notice if you had known me better than my mom that I did not and was not planning on even reading that Impact article. I had got it in the mail and shelved the whole thing.

I do have an open mind so I would be curious to know what you consider a lie? was it in the text Percy quoted?? One of the hardest thing in writing e/c is to get into the c/e position. I had a hard"" time with listening to Janet for a while, when say she had on Hugh Ross etc but if you listen to her enough it is not hard to seperate her believes from her feelings. I think of her broadcast from the Republican Convention in NYC etc etc etc. Sure

quote:

Janet: One would think the Smithsonian would be a bastion of liberalism and openmindedness, but apparently when someone with two PhD's like Richard Sternberg dares question Darwinism he is sunk into the primordial ooze fighting for his job. If you touch Darwinism then you're going to have a shambles of your professional career. Sternberg is trying to save his career because he has been so vilified by the Smithsonian.

sounds"" bad to ears that cant hear etc(THE SECONd DPH) but trust me that is only said in a way that can only HELP those that even would disgree with her (as opposed to the subject (Meyer and Sternberg etc)) as it sets up the difference so that you as a listener can judge. I think the piece while showing perhaps by hear say that there WAS religious discrimination it still remains that if ID IS SCIENCE it has to have the evidence. I think more than anything the only real point in it so far was that it is NOT to be a 'personal' disagreement. This I would agree to. That is how I have the balls to keep posting here, because it seems to be nothing but a "personal disagreement" between me and other Cornell profs that prevented me from becoming so far an evolutionist. How much creationism I have picked up is not the evolutionists fault but due to the good will of creationists. No I dont think the world gives us much of a chance to HAVE a free will but sometimes I pretend it is. Making babies to kill them only shows that even these moments are being bought at the secular price limit. That is sad but not what this post is about.

Janet lives a little bit NORTH of my brother and I have listened to her show from Maryland, so I know that her propaganda is just that, a prefix to a word the IMpRaMature was already said for for the "in" or "con" there of. Sorry if that was gibberish but I can hear her shows VERY well.

Obviously being the most cited email is not necessarily a judgement on the scientific soundness. We know that and so do ""they.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by PaulK, posted 02-10-2005 2:31 PM PaulK has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by berberry, posted 02-10-2005 4:40 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 4270 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 199 of 207 (184453)
02-10-2005 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by berberry
02-10-2005 4:40 PM


Re: Interview with Meyer and Chapman of Discovery Institute

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by berberry, posted 02-10-2005 4:40 PM berberry has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022