My faith has been re-affirmed

<nospam@all.please.net> wrote in message
newsan.2005.11.12.21.14.49.4174@all.please.net.. .

> http://www.venganza.org/

Beat you to it, long ago.

=:-p

Dr Yak wrote:

> Intelligent Design can't predict anything.


Besides that, the commonly cited examples of "intelligent design" clearly indicate
that they aren't the work of a being with anything remotely approaching unlimited
intelligence. Unless perhaps we aren't the favorite species, and were just a draft
for the important work.

--
Steve

The above can be construed as personal opinion in the absence of a reasonable
belief that it was intended as a statement of fact.

If you want a reply to reach me, remove the SPAMTRAP from the address.

"Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote:

> "-hh" wrote:
> > First off, Darwin's scientific theory was that evolution takes place
> > relatively slowly...this is now known to be incorrect.
>
> That'd look more like a modification, rather than an invalidation of
> Darwin's theory.

I agree that it is a modification.

However we are trying to converse with individuals whose intellectual
blinders can only resolve Black -or- White: they are an evolutionary
dead end who's incapable of perceiving even but one shade of grey.

Since those that cannot adapt tend to become violent, to placate them a
tiny bit by saying that Charles Darwin was "wrong" on parts of evolution
is just like how Albert Einstein was "wrong" on parts of his theories of
relativity.

Nevertheless, there's still genetic adaptation based evolution taking
place, just like how well all know that Atomic bombs do indeed "Go Boom".



-hh

"-hh" <{NOSPAM-rm_to_reply}rec-scuba2005@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
news:{NOSPAM-rm_to_reply}rec-scuba2005-9ADC51.09313713112005@news.isp.gigane
ws.com...
> "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote:
>
> > "-hh" wrote:
> > > First off, Darwin's scientific theory was that evolution takes place
> > > relatively slowly...this is now known to be incorrect.
> >
> > That'd look more like a modification, rather than an invalidation of
> > Darwin's theory.
>
> I agree that it is a modification.
>
> However we are trying to converse with individuals whose intellectual
> blinders can only resolve Black -or- White: they are an evolutionary
> dead end who's incapable of perceiving even but one shade of grey.
>
> Since those that cannot adapt tend to become violent, to placate them a
> tiny bit by saying that Charles Darwin was "wrong" on parts of evolution
> is just like how Albert Einstein was "wrong" on parts of his theories of
> relativity.
>
> Nevertheless, there's still genetic adaptation based evolution taking
> place, just like how well all know that Atomic bombs do indeed "Go Boom".

Pat Robertson, Oral Roberts, Jim and Tammy Baker, Al Sharpton, Jesse
Jackson, et al are all shining examples of religion and faith gone far
wrong.

If they bothered to read the Christian Bible they would learn that Jesus
didnt share their views of anything;

Mr 12:17 And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things
that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled
at him.

Science is so often wrong and disproven as to be almost a religion in
itself.

If one does, in fact, believe in God, wouldnt the fact that humans are
capable of such analytical thought, capable of asking and answering
questions be a tribute to the magnificence of Gods creation?

It is always illuminating to ask these boneheads if they think God was happy
when his children set foot on the moon.

Steve wrote:

>
>
> mike gray wrote:
>
>> And those of us with grey hair have seen much of the "science" we
>> learned debunked, while the Almighty remains constant.
>
>
> Yup. That's the great thing about real science. Unlike blind,
> unsupported faith it welcomes change that's supported by good evidence.
> The almighty remains constant because there is no more evidence now than
> there was when the first organisms evolved.

First organisms evolved from what?

Yer sounding a lot like Genesis now.

"mike gray" <omgray@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:XMOdf.94300$zb5.90722@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

>> Yup. That's the great thing about real science. Unlike blind, unsupported
>> faith it welcomes change that's supported by good evidence. The almighty
>> remains constant because there is no more evidence now than there was
>> when the first organisms evolved.
>
> First organisms evolved from what?

From non-organisms: polypeptides. Otherwise you have a chicken and egg
problem. Is god the egg or the chicken?

Perhaps that's the answer. God is nothing but a polypeptide. But being
just a simple polypeptide, he is within us all.

Greg Mossman wrote:
>
> "mike gray" <omgray@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:XMOdf.94300$zb5.90722@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>
>>>Yup. That's the great thing about real science. Unlike blind, unsupported
>>>faith it welcomes change that's supported by good evidence. The almighty
>>>remains constant because there is no more evidence now than there was
>>>when the first organisms evolved.
>>
>>First organisms evolved from what?
>
>
> From non-organisms: polypeptides. Otherwise you have a chicken and egg
> problem. Is god the egg or the chicken?
>
> Perhaps that's the answer. God is nothing but a polypeptide. But being
> just a simple polypeptide, he is within us all.
>
>
>
Well, that's what the Bible says but I don't believe it.