Actually, I believe you are the one asserting the origin of life is either creationism or Darwinism. Despite your assertions to the contrary from a few years back, that is a false dilemma.
The more we learn about microbiology and cosmotology, the more complexity we see and the more difficult it becomes to accept as fact that the origins of the universe and life are simply randon acts. Are you really satisfied with the Darwin explanation for the explosion of new life forms in the Cambrian period? Any idea how all those new life forms with new proteins and DNA strands full of info and instructions became available at the same time? You need faith in Darwinism to believe that it happened by chance. So, if it wasn't chance, what was it? That's one of the things ID wants to answer -- if all that intelligence didn't evolve by chance, where did it come from? -----Original message----- From: "mex sara" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 20:54:39 -0800 To: [email protected] Subject: [Stratalist-ot] Re: "Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed" > > francis a believe you are in the mist of a > "faux dyed lama" > > On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 4:15 AM, Brian Lawson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Nov 20, 2008, at 9:57 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> Heaven forbid should any scientist prove the existence of God. The > >> Darwinists simply can't have that. > > > > Darwin also believed in God and had a long internal struggle about > > publishing his findings because of his belief. He knew that people > > would misinterpret what he was saying and use it to deny the existence > > of a God. > > > >> Like I said, when you get to define ID, you get to knock in around > >> anyway you like. And, when we use different definitions to debate > >> the same topic, we can yell and scream and insult one another more > >> often. I'm rather sick to death of such crap, which is why I'm being > >> careful to describe my understanding of ID. > >> > >> But really, take a look at "Expelled," then ask yourself why > >> Darwinists are so ready to defend a theory that doesn't answer all > >> the questions it purports to answer, including the origins of life. > > > > Darwinism does not purport to answer the question of the origin of > > life. It only addresses the (On the) Origin of Species (see, it's > > right there in the title of his book) after life had begun. Why do ID > > proponents try to claim that he was addressing the beginning of life > > itself then when that answer isn't to be found (because he never > > addressed it in the first place) use that as "proof" that his theory > > is wrong? > > > >> Besides, how can you claim to completely understand the origins of > >> species without knowing the origins of life itself? I'm just as > >> fascinated by the evolution mechanism as any biologist, but I also > >> find the oringins of life fascinating. I'd like sceintists to > >> research that, too, and if ID is part of a multi-faceted approach to > >> answering that question, that's okay with me. > > > > I can understand the evolution of the universe as we understand it > > today without knowing the origins of the big bang. You have to start > > someplace in your attempts to understand anything and that is usually > > with what you know then you work backwards to what you don't know. > > -- > > Brian > > > > > > > > > > Francis Drouillard, PE Novato, CA 94945 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "StrataList-OT" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/StrataList-OT?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
