Really, who the hell are you to tell them they're wrong? You weren't there any more than they were. You've got something you believe in, they have something they believe in. Why do you continue to bring this subject up? You're really an intolerant person.
- Matt ----- Original Message ----- From: "Larry C. Lyons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Community" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 2:37 PM Subject: Re: colour vision evolved to detect blushes? > "Phasmae Evolutionary Theory" > I like the sound of that one. > > The sad thing is that there are so many people who genuinely think > that things are no older than 6500 years. That some guy with a long > beard and white robe said let there be light. In other words biblical > literalism. > > Unfortunately for them that was rejected by the Christian church as > far back as St. Augustine. > > larry > > On 3/3/06, Jim Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 12:21 PM >> > To: CF-Community >> > Subject: Re: colour vision evolved to detect blushes? >> > >> > don't count on it. There's a reservoir of ignorance that almost >> > limitless. >> >> Oh - don't get me wrong - judicial decisions won't curtail ignorance. >> But I >> do think that they will change things. >> >> When the creationism-in-schools movement is dealt a big legal blow it >> tends >> to turtle itself for a while and then appear in a new guise. Remember we >> started with "Biblical Creationism" then moved to more generic >> "Creationism" >> then went to "Creationism Science" and ended up most recently with >> "Intelligent Design". >> >> What's next? "Architected Naturalism "? "Frameworked Biology"? >> >> Personally I think that they're going to take the current issues to heart >> and attempt to "embrace and destroy" evolution. Perhaps "Directed >> Evolution" or (to please the young-Earth folks) "Phasmae Evolutionary >> Theory". This would promote the idea that evolution does occur but is >> actually an unneeded side-effect of architected biology. >> >> You see - there's lots of ways to dress up the same idea and have another >> go >> at the courts! >> >> Jim Davis >> >> >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:198786 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
