Below originally written yesterday before the thread. I'm progressively
reading the entries.
On Jed's topic, yes, life would have to have started somewhere but it
doesn't mean that every bit of life had to start ab-initio. Where's the
logic in that?!
What I'm trying to say (below) is that
Hi All,
Normally I refrain from contributing to this type
of thread; but I am compelled to ask where is
there any evidence for Intelligent Design, in
some benign sense?
We, the Lords of Creation, have backs that are
often unsuited for bipedalism, immune systems
that kill or cripple us with their
I'm too important to be mere chance the other I'm
too important to have been created.
The truth is out there.
R.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Taylor J. Smith
Sent: 09 August 2005 13:49
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Intelligent
and moral systems
Are. There never was any 'perfect' human design to reference.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Taylor J. Smith
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 8:49 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Intelligent design
Hi All,
Normally I
R. Sez:
...
I was saying to my Dad that the 'Creator' must have a
bloody great sense of black humour, drought in Niger and
floods in India.
It's a bit like a pathetic fallacy. You are trying to
ascribe human self-importance to the rationale of things.
BOTH OF YOU - Creationists and
Wesley Sez:
orionworks Sez:
Question: Why do I have an appendix?
Answer: As a one month old baby you would die without it. Its not a
vestigial organ its lift over firm babyhood. Its just as essential to
milk digestion for a baby as any other organ. We only just discovered
what its
Wesley Bruce wrote:
Answer: As a one month old baby you would die without it. Its not a
vestigial organ its lift over firm babyhood. Its just as essential to milk
digestion for a baby as any other organ. We only just discovered what its
for because some idiot darwinist doctor removed them
Jed sez:
Wesley sez:
Answer: As a one month old baby you would die without it. Its not a
vestigial organ its lift over firm babyhood. Its just as
essential to milk digestion for a baby as any other organ. We only
just discovered what its for because some idiot darwinist doctor
From: Jed Rothwell
And no biologist claims that we
understand all organs and functions.
And this is certainly the case with what's left of our caecum:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vestiges/appendix.html
Now, if we become vegans, will our caecum re-evolve?
On Tuesday 09 August 2005 12:52, Terry Blanton wrote:
From: Zell, Chris
It's starting to look more and more like we were patched together by
some ET's over a period of time.
Here's a few dozen historical references which could support your position:
Message-
From: Standing Bear [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 4:58 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Intelligent design
On Tuesday 09 August 2005 12:52, Terry Blanton wrote:
From: Zell, Chris
It's starting to look more and more like we were patched together
- Original Message -
From: Jeff Kooistra
He's absolutely right. I pointed this out in a column once--God
is not a requirement for ID to be under consideration.
Except for the obvious semantic problem whatever that ID
impetus or intelligent force turns out to be - the hidden
C Macaulay
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 11:37
PM
Subject: Re: intelligent design
I have seldom enjoyed a discussion like this thread
has produced.
Computers There is an effort
underway to produce a system of "quadratic computing" t
--- RC Macaulay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Man went
into caves later.. they didn't come out of caves
later.
Yeah. First they had to figure out how to evict the bears.
__
Do you Yahoo!?
All your favorites on one personal page Try My Yahoo!
Back in the days of the CompuServe forums, where some of us met, this
evolution versus creationism argument came up. Whilst I think microevolution
is obvious (legs getting longer, camouflage getting more effective etc) I am
not so sure about the giant leaps. Back then the eye was brought up as
Jones Beene at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Nick Palmer
one example
that has always bothered me, to whit the process of
butterfly
metamorphosis. Inside the chrysalis, the body of the
caterpillar breaks down
almost completely and reforms into something very
different and, on the face
One? Perhaps there a few more examples.
But why so few?
Why are there no walking plants?
Plants and animals both evolved from single celled organisms.
Is there something about the first plant cells that prevented
them from evolving the motor abilities of their animal cousins.
Were the
At 01:22 pm 05-01-05 -0500, you wrote:
Jones Beene at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Nick Palmer
one example
that has always bothered me, to whit the process of
butterfly
metamorphosis. Inside the chrysalis, the body of the
caterpillar breaks down
almost completely and reforms into
well yes. the plant cells gained energy from the sun and dyes, the
animal like cells fed on sugars and other cells, thus those that had
methods of movement fared better. plants still have CELLULAR
MOVEMENT.
as for intelligent design. i dont doubt the possibility. BUT ITS NOT
SCIENTIFIC. its
Nick Palmer wrote:
snip
However, I posted one example
that has always bothered me, to whit the process of butterfly
metamorphosis. Inside the chrysalis, the body of the caterpillar breaks
down
almost completely and reforms into something very different and, on the
face
of it, more complex. I
Mike Carrell wrote:
Harry Veeder wrote:
snip
Here is a another.
Why aren't there any plants which have the motor ability of animals?
There is a counter example, a single celled organism called Euglena, which
has self-mobility and carries chloroplasts, so it is both plant and animal.
I have seldom enjoyed a discussion like this thread has
produced.
Computers There is an effort underway
to produce a system of "quadratic computing" that will be the step beyond
parallel computing. The complexities of writing the siftware may seem impossible
to overcome..
BUT.. they will
22 matches
Mail list logo
