Comments on: Creationism

By: Scott

Scott — Thu, 17 May 2007 15:18:37 +0000

The moment everybody realizes that you can whip it up right there in the sink, the bottom will drop out of the market. That’s what they’re hiding.

By: Alan

Alan — Wed, 16 May 2007 21:32:53 +0000

And what about Love Potion No. 9? We know it smelled like India ink, but you never hear about potions 1-8. What is it they don’t want us to know?

By: Ralph

Ralph — Tue, 15 May 2007 03:15:33 +0000

You never hear about Chanel nos. 1-4. Must have smelled like butt.

By: Jim

Jim — Mon, 14 May 2007 00:45:19 +0000

I heard you smell good. But only if you’re No. 5.

By: Chanel

Chanel — Mon, 14 May 2007 00:24:30 +0000

Yall Crazi

By: Scott

Scott — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 16:19:56 +0000

Hey Steve Thompson,
Do you still check in here from time to time. Have you done any further reading?

By: scott

scott — Mon, 11 Dec 2006 15:15:35 +0000

Thanks anonymous. That pretty well sums it up. That was a vert concise version of one of my arguments in my paper. Just because you, me, or Paul, or anybody does not know the answer to a question, this doesn’t mean that there is no answer, or that it unanswerable, or that it defeats the theory.
Paul, look up the anthropic principle. In a roundabout way it answers your qustions.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 11 Dec 2006 05:12:25 +0000

Of course!

There are no three-legged apes or X-men. Therefore Darwin must be wrong.

Brilliant!

By: paul

paul — Sun, 10 Dec 2006 13:51:00 +0000

in the end its all teleology

you make the point that creationist wonder why other primates don’t evolve into humans. One question would be why is that various species of apes have evolved into only one human race? First if I understand evolution at all it is probably wrong to define any species since the minute something could be classified as human it would be moving on to something else. There is no goal in evolution. So any classification becomes a look at species genetics but only from our limited point of view. If evolution is the unstoppable movement of genetic mutations etc, why is it that there is only one race of walking, talking, self-aware creatures? Aside from color differences humans are all the same despite the impact of many different environmental factors.

The second part of my wondering is, if all species are in a constant state of flux moving without purpose toward the future why is it that we have no experiments gone bad on earth today. I realize they would not survive but is there any current day record? Why are there no measurable changes within species? I am not talking about natural selection changes, like parrot wings getting longer because the females are attracted to BIG wings but permanent genetic changes. Are there any creatures on earth at the moment that reflect this type of change? Is that only a question of time? But what are the odds that at this moment in 15 billion years not one of the species available happens to be a the point of making a change? I thought by definition change was inevitable. Shouldn’t there be one X-man or woman? Shouldn’t there be one three legged race of apes? Why are the parameters of change so limited?

By: Scott

Scott — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 20:37:05 +0000

There’s a fairly recent by book by Ruse that I was not aware of. It’s called “Can a Darwinian be a Christian”
And though I haven’t read it, knowing what I know about Ruse’s position, I would not hesitate to recommend this one.
http://www.amazon.com/Can-Darwinian-Christian-Relationship-Religion/dp/0521637163/sr=8-3/qid=1163968266/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3/102-3773464-2507335?ie=UTF8&s=books