Here's my theory of Purpose

The question of how life, and the universe "got started" is totally irrelevant to Evolution. You are another victim of ICR.Go here and it will clear all of your misconceptions about evolution and the like if you are willing to see:The Talk.Origins Archive Index

It is not all in how one asks the question any more. This is the students domain but the WRITING of science does not stay within this bounds of the question mark as simple reading of Harvard gathered sources of chem reads YALE is not suprising but THIS is what we dO at Cornell so unless you are able to make a fiasco of classical anaxgoraian scholarip LP WIlliams will still deflunk your better biology than Provine.Computers took the mark away. Creatve computing can put it in and ICR IS doing some of the preliminaries if not the prediction. THERE is not "vic of ICR. WhAt trees are you talk ing of NOS? Awhat specific complexity??

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brad McFall:
It is not all in how one asks the question any more. This is the students domain but the WRITING of science does not stay within this bounds of the question mark as simple reading of Harvard gathered sources of chem reads YALE is not suprising but THIS is what we dO at Cornell so unless you are able to make a fiasco of classical anaxgoraian scholarip LP WIlliams will still deflunk your better biology than Provine.

​

Computers took the mark away. Creatve computing can put it in and ICR IS doing some of the preliminaries if not the prediction. THERE is not "vic of ICR. WhAt trees are you talk ing of NOS? Awhat specific complexity??

---

?????

Are you willing to call me on my view of "history of science" that with Wolfram digestion brings out not the bioloigcal future of the information age but a comptuer assisted (just like the information age came with the use of telephones etc)error decreasing imaging ability? (The difference of physical and then chemical-psyshological procdures would have to recieve a proper molecular biological historical "babtism" first for me to still rather talk to you than Roger Williams's apple tree that ate his own rot.

[/b]These things are irrelevant to evolution just as they are to gravity. Natural science does not deal with 'love', 'feelings', 'morality', or 'spirit' so they have no place in this discussion. I mean, you wouldn't ask a seismologist studying the plasticity of the components of the Mohorovicik Discontinuity how his work led to better understanding of 'love' and you wouldn't ask the botanist studying the orchid I mentioned how his work contributed to the concept of absolute justice and morality. Science does not bother with these things, that is the responsibility of philosophers and theologians to debate. It always will be. If natural scientists did try to involve such abstract concepts as 'love' and 'morality' in their work, it would destroy their impartiality. The idea is to understand the universe the way it is, not to try to force on it abstract, human values.
(QUOTEwhat do you think then of Richard Dawkins'use of the word 'selfish' in 'The Selfish Gene?'genuinely curiousthe cat