Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dover science teachers refuse to read ID disclaimer
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 61 of 164 (185617)
02-15-2005 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by xevolutionist
01-13-2005 3:23 PM


Re: Who writes this stuff?
in the same SCIENCE article (Science Vol 37 28 Jan 2005) that discusses the Dover area situation Mervis went so far as to say "the Supreme Court rules in 1987 that teaching of creationism consitutes an illegal dose of religion in the classroom" & linked "Dover" with the issue over in Georgia about validity of hypothesis non fingo or its rather real proposition under the labeling with stickers "a theory rather than a fact." The author JM attempted to write about this judgement by affirming the judge in the cases' statement that the stickers represented affinity for "religiously motivated individuals".
Unfortunately I would not disagree with you as just this last week I got this
higlighted and labelled BY MY MOTHER which belies that no matter the hypothesis the illegal dose was seeing evolution as IN FACT a theory.
I know this might seem garbled but I will reexplain all this again as we have gone past this problem on EVC but my mother, being "religously motivated" is the reason that the stickers were needed. But removing the stickers or not reading the ID document and not talking about it can not be the answer as long as middle america still is able to raise good citizens no matter what the "dose" is. Yes my mother was and is wrong. She will use this as evidence that I must see evc her way. I cant, she doesnt know much compared with yous all here.
The pic and highlighted area is from Newsweek Feb 7, 2005
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-15-2005 16:24 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by xevolutionist, posted 01-13-2005 3:23 PM xevolutionist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by berberry, posted 02-23-2005 5:01 AM Brad McFall has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 72 of 164 (187781)
02-23-2005 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by berberry
02-23-2005 5:01 AM


Re: Who writes this stuff?
If the stickers didnt say, or there werent any, "EVOLUTION IS THEORY NOT FACT" then my mother would not be able to maintain her position but she also couldnt think that a simple quote as she highlighted IN FACT verifies here progressive evolutionist BELIEF but she raises good kids nonetheless and there IS NO REASON people like her or her eggs should be squestered in society just because she would like NOT TO think all the science details in , that is why some people become doctors, lawyers, politicians etc rather than BEING submitted to the causality of/in science.Sociology opened up this larger anthropology but I do agree it would be a mistake to legislate in current schools NO TALKING about ID Ev etc but my experience is when Carl Zimmer and I were the first students in the first gifted and talented Biology class at Hunterdon CentralHIgh School. I was told that my "talk" about biology is part of the reason the class was introduced when it was but I was oblivious to that just as I am to the game of "tag"-yourIT, I think i see people participating in on this board.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by berberry, posted 02-23-2005 5:01 AM berberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by berberry, posted 02-23-2005 2:10 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 74 of 164 (187812)
02-23-2005 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by berberry
02-23-2005 2:10 PM


Re: Who writes this stuff?
I am sorry if I confused you into her beliefs. Yes she DOES think them compatible but it in a sense that ICR does not support. I had to learn that that IS ICR's position and I continue to not agree with her. It seems that seperate magesteria is really the only way it might work and I cant see that but I thought I personally saw something different in the Pope's actual published words. That is for another thread and has been discussed here in the past. I was needing the stickers so that she could see that she can not assert her position out of fact but ONLY in theory. She holds to it like a religion or fact when it is likely but an expression of her faith. I dont want to deny her that. Its hard to say as she doesnt give it all Soomuch thought. She certainly doesnt think about as much as the average EVC poster.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by berberry, posted 02-23-2005 2:10 PM berberry has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 82 of 164 (244207)
09-16-2005 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by crashfrog
01-13-2005 1:10 PM


Science Friday
NPR had NCSE on Science Friday today.
Science Friday
They tried to support their notion of BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION BECAUSE of cosmological evolution and they did say as you have here "it isnt even a theory". They used an astromer's will to claim the universe was existed on second ago to ANSWER a caller who wanted to talk about DOVER before their own programing realized its object, to say BOTH that there was "no legitamate scientific controversy" IN BIOLOGY and that it will be argued in the Dover case that there is "no necessary conflict". This is very manipulative and thanks to the admins on EVC we are not permitted this freedom to so post without possible banishement. NPRs sounds DOES fall within your question mark.
It is interesting to see that DESPITE their likely knoweldge of how manipulative they were they reconized WHY the Discover Institute will likely not be presenting legal theories at the court. They KNOW that that IF Pandas and People IS ID then DI need not respond suffiently. But what they dont seem to understand is that the legitamcy they refer to is to my out of wed lock child and not the act of intercourse that gave rise to him. Your notion of "legtamacy" is likely different.
All they explained today was why the admins and not the teachers would be reading the disclaimer.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-16-2005 04:31 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by crashfrog, posted 01-13-2005 1:10 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 103 of 164 (254856)
10-26-2005 7:24 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by RAZD
10-19-2005 5:21 PM


Re: "Astrology is Scientific" - Michael Behe
This phrase "external community" is rather curious. I guess it means there IS an "internal community". I happen to agree with some one thing that Will Provine said
EvC Forum: Prof Denies Human Free Will
when questioning Behe on science not ID, asking him, if he did not have a problem giving the same ANSWER for the difference of hundrends or thousands of proteins. Behe said he had to think about it according to Will and then said no, he had no problem with that. Will responded that if that is what the sceince WAS to have been about then it would be boring and he would not be attracted to the field. I would also not be.
Now as to what IS this difference in the community (Gould used to use the phrase "within" etc). It is interesting to note that Will Provine debated Meyer at the National Press Club and interestingly Meyer used the adjective "perfect" with DNA and Will, if I understood the interchange properly said that Meyer should have been talking about something OUTSIDE the organism, IN THE ENVIRONMENT, not inside. If Will abstracted correctly he was correct. I will eventually get some more details on this talk by Will on EvC later. This indicates to me that there can not be a clear sense of "external" as Behe used it unless he simply IS refering to clear sources of creationism. There is nothing necessarily wrong with that, though.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 10-26-2005 07:25 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by RAZD, posted 10-19-2005 5:21 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by RAZD, posted 10-26-2005 7:33 AM Brad McFall has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 106 of 164 (257060)
11-05-2005 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by RAZD
11-05-2005 10:31 AM


Re: Closing Arguments
It is true the analogy "collapses" on inspection but I can not agree that it is "little". It collapses because it is too big (colossal) to maintain in apprehension very long not because its truth or falsity lies in a very small (bound) level of magnitude. It is not hard to judge but because it still collapses in society (due to differences in the sources of creationism in the US) it is hard to say if it should be retained until it does not pedagogically. If the judge was confused by the view that evolution (IN NATURE) is really but an engine of atheism the functionaries of the court briefed incorrectly. It was not for no reason of only ART that Derrida referred to Creationism in the USA when plying, right around; four times:: a cartouche.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-05-2005 12:33 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by RAZD, posted 11-05-2005 10:31 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by RAZD, posted 11-05-2005 3:43 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 108 of 164 (257938)
11-08-2005 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by RAZD
11-05-2005 3:43 PM


Re: Closing Arguments, arguments missed?
On listening to Roberts' questioning I came to understand that a "favorable" Supreme Court Outcome might not be a bad thing if the hearing was based on actual results and not just for politics.
The Lousiana Legislature simply purported to ADD information to the curriculum but as I heard now how how now Supreme Court Justice Roberts,say/said it, the Lemon Test in effect, precludes the simple introduction of this "information" no matter how gained or how little science is actually in it just now. I can not see how there should be a LEGAL barrier to the introduction of additonal information, if that is what it is... So if it takes a US SUPREME COURT DECISION which really are about not just a majority opinion but if the court will decline further hearings after setting an informed precedent, I can not be against that. I can see clear secular purposes for creationism and ID if it was integrated in creationism better but this is not obvious to others when you have Will Provine insisting on being an authority of both the history and contemporary scene of evolutionary biology. What he lectured on at Cornell would NOT be possible to be discussed in school. He said it would become legal if Johnson had his way and schools on his opinion reverted back to his Provine child days where the teacher brought out a felt board and acted out Bible stories. Will even admits getting something out of it in his nore innocent mind.
Yes there is a potential that ID will not collapse in culture but at present it does for internal creational informed reasons not because it might motivate new and better science that could even help in regard to solving the population problem.
I need to see IDers NOT simply trying to get out from under the charge (made by Will and others) that IDers inherit a legacy of design in naturally selected organic forms. The design, if it exists, is in the artifically selected effects on migration through shifting balances. Will NOW thinks this is SCIENTIFICALLY not true. So if I am wrong I am gettin closer to falling off an Ithaca gorge. I do not think that will happen. I think he has to see how applied population thinking can be applied in meso evolution at worst ON PURPOSE.
More later.
What appeared to have been a faculty memeber was in the audience at Will's recent lecture and he said to Will, pretty much "told" him, that he did not have a problem with Will permitting IDers to debate in his classes, (this would be illegal at present in public schools on Will's testimony (under god etc , virgin mary (he also discussed)) but that Will MUST make the stipulation that the IDers could not be permitted to say that ID was science!
OK
But look what WIll said next, and I paraphrase, "I do not 'play 'that. I do not need to 'do' that. The other students in the class are more than able to point out what is science and what is not. 'And' they do." Will is very sly. He puts "blanks" where there is some issue of religion. He should know. His father went to Union Seminary and he has four generations of presbyterian ministers in his family. He did this Johnson saying in effect, all you get from Phil is "blank, blank, blank" and yet when he can not find the ability to hook up with me. Is it because I was also raised in the Presbyterian Church USA? I dont know.
WE do know that there is not enough science in ID but if students only can NOT say what science is and legislators can not add information that is what is illegal at present how is there any way for a final verdict of ID whether in science or out every going to occur? I would love for the pre EVC ID days but alas they are not coming back.
I'll talk later.
Thanks for your perceptive and plentiful comments on EVC!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by RAZD, posted 11-05-2005 3:43 PM RAZD has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 132 of 164 (271224)
12-20-2005 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Percy
12-20-2005 4:19 PM


Re: Key excerpts revealed "after" was not 'before' the COURT.
I thought I had noticed a change from creation science to scientific creationism but this appears to have come out misrepresentable at trial. ID came LATER(and religiously after the soul was already food for ANY scientific thought. I confirm this by lack of response to my query on EVC about the probabilities underlaying ID’s so-called master OR evos use of versimultude where plausibility is more probable(http://EvC Forum: Current status/developments in Intelligent Design Theory -->EvC Forum: Current status/developments in Intelligent Design Theory)) and then could not be avoided in public discourse, as do various schemas of creationistic history as far as I have read it.
quote:
insofar as creation science or scientific creationsm (and I do not know which nor is the distinction so clear in my mind as I type this today) has influenced my scientific attitude that
quote:
http://EvC Forum: why creation "science" isn't science -->EvC Forum: why creation "science" isn't science
quote:
that Creation Science is not SCience and that Evolution hasnt been given a chance to "evolve" with these two other guys I was talking to KNOWING that i knew more about evolution theory than either of them and yet I still think that IT CAN NEVER be said "ICR does not interest science" etc to parapharase you. Let us even say that Scientific Creationism is primarily evangelistic (it is not the same thing as Biblical Creationism which more properly IS)this does not mean that the DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS of the same evidence IN THE MIX do not lead to a yielded anthropology
quote:
http://EvC Forum: What is more faith than religion? -->EvC Forum: What is more faith than religion?
quote:
I undetstand the difference between Scientific Creationism and Creation Science but Ruse, maybe like you, thought this was something akin to a philosophers real word play. Problem is that philosophy of biology as philosophy of science has not done its job but remains attached largerly to the idea post-Russel that Kant had been chained out of all but asthetic interest. This was and is not true.
quote:
http://EvC Forum: One Question for Evo-Bashers -->EvC Forum: One Question for Evo-Bashers
quote:
there are undoubtedly better Scientific Creationists aboard this ark than me
quote:
http://EvC Forum: Lineage of Jesus -->EvC Forum: Lineage of Jesus
Using search words BRAD SCIENTIFIC CREATIONISM CREATION SCIENCE I find that the Court noticed in my sense
(2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID;
quote:
http://EvC Forum: Dover science teachers refuse to read ID disclaimer -->EvC Forum: Dover science teachers refuse to read ID disclaimer
(Percy quoting Jjones page 32)
that there IS a difference between creation science (appearing as ID) and scientific creationism but failed in my semantic tranferablility to even track out the difference to this fourth found link in the search that I wrote already, all ready back in 2003!!
For instance I do not think the Court would have been able to differentiate my sentence,
His citation of the Kinetic Theory of Gases could actually become a part of strict Biblical Creationism should Crooke's and others' rather mystical interpretation of the physicality underlying some of the experiments find a rigours creation science following scientific creationally...
quote:
http://EvC Forum: Creationists and molecular biology -->EvC Forum: Creationists and molecular biology
from any plausibility potential or actual for ID as it appeared in Penn.
I may have more to say as I read the material further but I doubt I will find any evidence that the trial furthered what I consider crucial for any progress;information related to “organizational complexity.”
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 12-20-2005 10:57 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Percy, posted 12-20-2005 4:19 PM Percy has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 140 of 164 (271469)
12-21-2005 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Silent H
12-21-2005 7:02 AM


Re: School board replies...
If the ID movement had already discriminated schematical and symbolic outworkings
quote:
All hypotyposis(presentation, subjectio sub adspectum), or sensible illustration, is twofold. It is either schematical, when to a concept comprehended by the understanding the corresponding intuition is given, or it is symbolical...There is a use of the word symbolical that has been adpoted by modern logicians which is misleading and incorrect, i.e. to speak of the symbolical mode of representation as if it were opposed to the intuitive, for the symbolical is only a mode of the intuitive.
quote:
I Kant @59 Dialectic of the Aesthetical Judgment
in evolutonary versimultidue, no matter what the probability was, the design of vicariantly CREATEABLE kinds, after the kinds, could be fathomed if the means of dispersal was a CHARM or ORNAMENT no matter what or how beautiful the forms of nature are transformed.
They could have been "robbed" without knowing what was taken. I suspect the purpose was robed rather in the robbery and the trainbearer got off with the torch bearing the silver spoon (in the conservatory). I have quoted this from Kant before,
quote:
But in order to regard a thing cognized as a natural product as a purpose also - consequently as a natural purpose, if this is not a contradiction - something more is required.
quote:
Analytic of the Teleological Judgement I Kant
The problem beyond probable plausibilites without the lack of contradiction having been revealed apparently is that the triple:
quote:
There are then(1)[1] for the cognigive faculty an antinomy of reason in respect of the theorectical employment of the understanding extended to the unconditioned, (2)for the feeling of pleasure and pain an antinomy of reason in respect of the practical employment of the self-legislative reason; (3) for the faculty of desire an antinomy in respect of the practical employment of the self-legislative reason; so far as all these faculties ahve their superior principles a priori, and, in conformity with an inevitable requirement of reason, must judge and be able to determine their object, unconditionally according to those principles.
quote:
(@57 Dialectc of the Aesthetical Judgment I Kant.)
are not being worked on by those who might be inclined to make a project of the words "creation science" into "intelligent design."
I would say if I had my way and had found the Court in my ball (since the ball is NOT in my court), humanity is still stealiing away from a better expression than Kant of
quote:
All intuitions which we supply to concepts a priori are therefore either schemata or symbols, of which the former contain direct, the latter indirect, presentations of the concept. The former do this demonstratively; the latter by means of an analogy (for which we avil ourselves even of empirical intuitions) in whch the judgement execercises a double function, first applying the concept to the object of sensible intution, and then applying the mere rule of the reflection made upon that intuition to a quite different object of which the first is only the symbol. Thus a monarchical state is represented by a living body if it is governed national laws, and by a mere machine (like a hand mill) if governed by an individual absolute will; but in both cases only symbolically. For between a despotic state and a hand mill there is, to be sure, no similarity; but there is a similarity in the rules according to twhich we reflect upon these two things and their causality.
quote:
@59 Dialectic of the Aesthetical Judgement I Kant.
I can only find the criticism, with perhaps a better but not an as wholly disproportionate result as in DOVER, only that, that, no such "a priori" exists. This however is not REALLY a religious question etc. The problem actually is for those who can not motivate the intuition and are stuck with divisions of magesteria (sic!) due to proper due regard to aesthetical deference ungrounded in the (an) end. Thus pain overcomes the desire and cognition remains less than before. Discursivity overcame systematic communication.
All quotes from Critique Of Judgment by I. Kant

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Silent H, posted 12-21-2005 7:02 AM Silent H has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 154 of 164 (281814)
01-26-2006 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Grizzly
01-26-2006 12:20 PM


Re: Discovery Institute vows the fight is not over...
While I agree that Irish Rockhound is not able to really breath fire by bacteria digesting his own to hydrogen gas or that Disney did not get the correct computer animation of a red winged flying dino in Fantasia, I feel somewhat compelled to comment on the religious reaction to Dover.
This past weekend the First Presbyterian Church in Ithaca
http://www.firstpresithaca.org/01_22_06.htm
had a sermon but while embracing creation ex nihilio the preacher, who formerly taught English in Kentucky REFUSED to show the CREATION side of ID. This is what is objectionable and it would be wrong for "science" to be no longer science by being negated by a religiously based Biblical Creationism of an equivalent theology that underlay what the preacher DID believe and think in.
To me, and I have not failed to make known on EVC my frustrations with the intelligence woven throughout ID, ID simply will never CHANGE 'science' but I can not be as confident that science will not change to where ID is seen as a needed adjunct in the economic development. ID needs to show only, in my mind, how the combination of it with science is more profitable for science, even if the profit science"" was to find morally acceptable were only in increased popularization because of a more enlightened studentship. IR thinks however that ID HAD made US populations' people look less well read, but if the continued creationist frustration with secularly slanting mass psychology, in particular having to do with biology, is a theoretical problem of a lack of instruction (which I often "feel" it is) and not a problem with the process of discovery (past and to be future) it would be clarity and not confusion that ID must bring if it is to appear as strong nationally once again.
quote:
Intelligent design now has snuck up on us in the last ten or so years, courtesy of a think-tank on the West Coast, that suggests that science and evolution are inadequate or incompetent explanations; that the natural world and the origins of Creation could not have occurred or arisen without the help of an intelligent designer - an unnamed Creator.
Indeed they are "inadequate" in the logical sense Kant USED in 1800 which makes more than post of the disjuction Henry used but that would take me out of the scope of getting over with Dover.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 01-26-2006 06:40 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Grizzly, posted 01-26-2006 12:20 PM Grizzly has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 155 of 164 (283073)
02-01-2006 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by JJPgac
01-19-2006 2:08 AM


Re: Discovery Institute vows the fight is not over...
I do not think it was about "getting ID out"
instead I think this:
The Institute for Creation Research
In one place Judge Jones wrote, "We find that while ID arguments may be true, . . . ID is not science." (p.64.)
Throughout the ruling, ID is equated with creationism, an equivalence which both sides deny. True, all Christian creationists believe in intelligent design, and have done so for decades, but not all ID proponents are creationists.
Theirs is a big tent which includes eastern religions, agnostics, and evolutionists along with some creationists. The Judge erred in assuming religious motives to all ID advocates. Some may be so motivated, but in America, what is wrong with that? In this country, the government serves the people, and in poll after poll it can be seen that the vast majority of Americans believe in some form of God-directed origins.
pretty much expresses what I was trying to say in this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by JJPgac, posted 01-19-2006 2:08 AM JJPgac has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by NosyNed, posted 02-01-2006 9:59 AM Brad McFall has replied
 Message 157 by Percy, posted 02-01-2006 10:50 AM Brad McFall has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 158 of 164 (283475)
02-02-2006 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by NosyNed
02-01-2006 9:59 AM


propostional attribute(s) BETWEEN ID AND Creation Science
It seems to me that artifical and natural selection can be defined as an existant tautology (the classic objection was {what is most fit evolves, what evolves is most fit}) if a new statistical division of variation remands the butterfly catastrophe conditioning representation of codable 1 - dimensional differences.
In response to Herepton on Mayr and Genetic Homeostasis &c. catching up with Halucingenia I will explain this further but given the logical nature of evolutionary theory thus displayed or to be displayed by me, I do not see , or hear, or find sound that, the elidation of the proposition (take this aforementioned of mine as a quantification one) to alter, even though the tone is different, the reasoned (and this is what the judge did not or could not find) intermediate (mediatable) attribute between CS(creation science) and ID{CS:ID}I learned from KANT
quote:
Stated in the form of judgments they would stand thus: Everything rational is a spirit; the soul of man is rational; consequently the soul of man is a spirit. This is an affirmative ratiocination. As to the negative, it is equally obvious that since I cannot always recognize clearly enough the inconsistency of a predicate and a subject, I must, if possible, avail myself of the aid of an intermediate attribute. Suppose there is proposed to me the judgment: the duration of God cannot be measured by any time, and that I do not find that this predicate compared thus directly with the subject gives me a sufficiently clear idea of the inconsistency, I avail myself of an attribute which I can immediately represent to myself in this subject, and I compare the predicate herewith, and by the help of it with the thing itself. “Being measureable by time” is inconsistent with everyting that is “unchangeable,” but “unchangeable” is an attribute of God, therefore, &c. Formally expressed, this would stand thus: Nothing unchangeable is measureable by time; the duration of God is unchangeable; consequently, &c.
quote:
p80-1 Immanuel Kant, Introduction to Logic
only by observing the difference of YEC and ID.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-02-2006 04:33 PM
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-02-2006 04:35 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by NosyNed, posted 02-01-2006 9:59 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024