tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3004069192536581829.post6475921364430502959..comments2024-03-21T03:09:04.479-06:00Comments on Atheism is Dead: GUEST BLOGGER: "Evidence" for Evolution is Evidence for IDKenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16478151742674353783noreply@blogger.comBlogger90125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3004069192536581829.post-42391115353207437342009-06-14T15:27:58.761-06:002009-06-14T15:27:58.761-06:00Thanks for that anonymous tip, Doeboy.Thanks for that anonymous tip, Doeboy.kh123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3004069192536581829.post-80445250669738652612009-04-25T05:01:00.000-06:002009-04-25T05:01:00.000-06:00^go educate yourself. Also nice strawman.^go educate yourself. Also nice strawman.Johnboyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01428622628537697916noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3004069192536581829.post-19052638600371672642009-04-25T04:21:00.000-06:002009-04-25T04:21:00.000-06:00Amazing. All this spiel to convince folks that fin...Amazing. All this spiel to convince folks that <I>finch beak variation</I> on the Galapagos Islands somehow proves that all or life's complexity - more compact and complex than the laptops these folks were salivating over and typing on - somehow arose from a rock, accidentally, with a little lighting thrown in for good measure... all over unobserved millions of years past.<br /><BR>No wonder the West is failing in education. And no wonder Las Vegas is still raking in the cash - with faith in those kind of odds, I'd be hitting the crap tables too.<br /><BR>Then again, there's that intimate connection between macroevolution and <I>rolling the dice</I> (or crap, for that matter).kh123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3004069192536581829.post-1321341749543153332009-02-25T08:35:00.000-07:002009-02-25T08:35:00.000-07:00You can improve on it if you want and I might feel...<B>You can improve on it if you want and I might feel the need to reply.</B><BR/>Most words in the dictionary have more than one definition, and yet, for no discernible reason, you insist that "species" must only have one. Why? Nobody knows and you won't say!<BR/><BR/>Then you go on to draw the absurder conclusion that science fails because it can't meet this arbitrary and irrelevant linguistic condition you made up out of thin air. <BR/><BR/>And all of this histrionic yokel-fodder is coming from a born again Caliban who can't provide a single usable definition of your own supposedly superior technical word of choice: "kind"!<BR/><BR/>That is errant intellectual dishonesty.Masked Marauderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01610999225403384359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3004069192536581829.post-41604078370769452102009-02-25T07:51:00.000-07:002009-02-25T07:51:00.000-07:00I'm done with freelunch.<A HREF="http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/2009/02/freelunch-is-emptyheaded-troll.html" REL="nofollow">I'm done with freelunch.</A>Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3004069192536581829.post-56153157396814150312009-02-25T07:43:00.000-07:002009-02-25T07:43:00.000-07:00freelunch,That wasn't even a good try. See you la...freelunch,<BR/><BR/>That wasn't even a good try. See you later.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3004069192536581829.post-47435909473439557362009-02-25T07:41:00.000-07:002009-02-25T07:41:00.000-07:00Stop accusing me of telling lies about science (wh...<EM>Stop accusing me of telling lies about science (whatever that means) and start showing why I'm wrong.</EM><BR/><BR/>I read your post. It shows no understanding of or interest in science. Tell me what scientific predictions ID makes. Tell us specifically what we should find with ID that would not be found with the current theory of evolution. Tell us why the folks who advocate intelligent design have not formulated a scientific theory to be tested. Tell us why they never do any science. Tell us why they ran away from Dover and then tried to blame others when the religious nature of ID was made clear in that trial. Tell us why you expect answers from scientists (many of which have been provided but you seem unaware of) when you don't expect the proponents of ID/Creationism to do anything at all to defend their claims. <BR/><BR/><EM>"Most scientists would say you are" - an argumentum ad populi/from authority is not a good answer.</EM><BR/><BR/>I'm not certain what your quote is referring to, since you aren't quoting me. My points were that anti-science creationists show either an ignorance of science or a willingness to lie about it or both. It is foolish to accept the opinion of anyone who shows that he is ignorant of or lying about the topic.Free Lunchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12272965187978654322noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3004069192536581829.post-69059980373998552132009-02-25T06:23:00.000-07:002009-02-25T06:23:00.000-07:00And MM, I'm happy to let your last comment stand a...And MM, I'm happy to let your last comment stand as its own refutation and failure to be a refutation of my points. You can improve on it if you want and I might feel the need to reply. If not, nice talking to you.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3004069192536581829.post-44972688163114450812009-02-25T06:22:00.000-07:002009-02-25T06:22:00.000-07:00And freelunch, feel free to actually interact with...And freelunch, feel free to actually interact with my points in the post sometime. Stop accusing me of telling lies about science (whatever that means) and start showing why I'm wrong. "Most scientists would say you are" - an argumentum ad populi/from authority is not a good answer.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3004069192536581829.post-21421627782812245342009-02-24T18:24:00.000-07:002009-02-24T18:24:00.000-07:00kh123,Why are there a bunch of religious folks her...kh123,<BR/><BR/>Why are there a bunch of religious folks here who tell lies about science? Don't you think that those who care about science should be allowed to defend science against the lies told about it, particularly when the liars attribute their lies to God?<BR/><BR/>By the way, scientists don't 'prove things beyond a reasonable doubt'. They just collect evidence (something ID/Creationists refuse to do), develop models that are both consistent with that evidence and make predictions about other items that will be discovered (again, a step that the ID/Creationsts refuse to do), present their work for review by others who understand it (again, never done by ID/Creationists, since they refuse to do any sceintific work) and repeat the process. <BR/><BR/>Feel free to critique evolution when you understand it.Free Lunchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12272965187978654322noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3004069192536581829.post-7767701828208205272009-02-24T18:17:00.000-07:002009-02-24T18:17:00.000-07:00... why the huge influx of internet evolutionists ...<B>... why the huge influx of internet evolutionists coming here to sound off on it?</B><BR/>I can't speak for everyone else here, but for myself, I don't much like the obscurantism, willful ignorance and aggressively intellectually dishonest shenanigans Creationists resort to in places like this.<BR/><BR/>Belive it or not, not everybody considers the Enlightenment a dark time, or ignorance a virtue. Go figure!<BR/><BR/>We wouldn't want an innocent passerby to see this stuff go uncontested and mistakenly conclude therefrom that Creationism is legitimate.Masked Marauderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01610999225403384359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3004069192536581829.post-39412221087577242292009-02-24T17:51:00.000-07:002009-02-24T17:51:00.000-07:00So if macroevolution's been proven beyond all reas...So if macroevolution's been proven beyond all reasonable doubt, why the huge influx of internet evolutionists coming here to sound off on it? Sounds to me more like a large number of folks (between their World of Warcraft sessions) attempting to prove to themselves that their <I>faith</I> in life emerging accidentally from a rock is - against all reason - somehow correct. <BR/><BR/>Well, <I>Star Wars</I> always had its diehard fans, even when the story went south of cheese.kh123https://www.blogger.com/profile/15230935976084971917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3004069192536581829.post-81885369338086024732009-02-24T12:54:00.000-07:002009-02-24T12:54:00.000-07:00Left undealt with, there is little "evidence" for ...<EM>Left undealt with, there is little "evidence" for Darwinianism at all.</EM><BR/><BR/>You have demonstrated that you do not have any idea what you are talking about. It is interesting to see people who clearly don't know what scientists know telling the scientists that they don't know enough. <BR/><BR/>Please learn some science before dismissing it. Please also remember that the Discovery Institute does not do science, so you can be sure that whatever they tell you is riddled with errors.Free Lunchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12272965187978654322noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3004069192536581829.post-46127362469903488242009-02-18T16:50:00.000-07:002009-02-18T16:50:00.000-07:00Rhology: OK. You heard it here first, ladies and g...Rhology: <B>OK. You heard it here first, ladies and gents. Giraffes and bananas are not obviously different kinds of organisms. Thanks, MM. You're a weird guy.</B><BR/>I said that there are different meanings for "different" and expressed some frustration that you refuse to use any of them. Yes, giraffes and bananas are different. So are giraffes from each othere and parents from their own offspring. Since you won't make up your mind about "kind" I'll do it for you and resolve one of your challenges right now: <I>a good way of judging when the line of organism has become a different type</I> is when it reproduces. <BR/><BR/>There's one of your objections disposed of.<BR/><BR/><B>That's a simple case of special pleading, ruling out creationist-oriented biologists w/o benefit of argument.</B><BR/>No special pleading here other than ruling out undefined terms. If you want to talk about kinds its your job to define "kind". We aren't mind readers.<BR/><BR/><B>I have identified mistakes in the underpinning philosophy and methodology.</B><BR/>In your dreams, boyo! In your dreams.<BR/><BR/>You can't topple a philosophy when you don't know what it is.<BR/><BR/><B>Why would you think there ought to be a single "def" of "kind"? </B><BR/>I don't think any such thing. But I do know that there needs to be at least one definition for sensible conversation and that you haven't settled on any. I'm trying to discuss this in English, not Glossolalia.<BR/><BR/>Back to you. Why do you think there should be only one "def" of "species"?<BR/><BR/><B>Let's say I grant that it's not a moral question. Still irrelevant, b/c we're asking IF THERE IS a Designer, not what said Designer was thinking or intending.</B><BR/>And that question can't be answered until you define discernible criteria by which a designer can reasonably be inferred. Purpose is one possible such criterion. If there is no perceptible purpose in the world, as we both agree, then it just makes a designer that much less likely an explanation for anything. Dig your hole deeper.<BR/><BR/><B>Sigh. Maybe you forgot that we were talking about an omnipotent Designer.</B><BR/>And maybe you forgot that omnipotence is not a necessary property of designers. Certainly none of the designers I know, or know of, are omnipotent. It appears that omnipotence is just another warrantless assumption you tossed into the stew for a lark. Its certainly not a meaningful argument for anything.Masked Marauderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01610999225403384359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3004069192536581829.post-42843840389236858982009-02-18T14:04:00.000-07:002009-02-18T14:04:00.000-07:00OK. You heard it here first, ladies and gents. G...OK. You heard it here first, ladies and gents. Giraffes and bananas are not obviously different kinds of organisms. Thanks, MM. You're a weird guy.<BR/><BR/><I>The word "kind" doesn't appear in biology as you seem to want to use it.</I><BR/><BR/>That's a simple case of special pleading, ruling out creationist-oriented biologists w/o benefit of argument.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>. Clearly, you are claiming deeper insight than is available to the "big shots", so what do you think you know that we don't?</I><BR/><BR/>I have identified mistakes in the underpinning philosophy and methodology. That requires a mind that is open to possibilities other than the ones you've apparently limited yourself to. It doesn't require a huge amount of technical know-how. I have instead invited you to show me how I'm wrong. Should've been easy to do since you're up against a layman. Nothing so far, though.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Why would you think there ought to be a single "def" of "species"? </I><BR/><BR/>Why would you think there ought to be a single "def" of "kind"? <BR/><BR/><BR/><I>it isn't a moral question and it isn't irrelevant</I><BR/><BR/>Let's say I grant that it's not a moral question. Still irrelevant, b/c we're asking IF THERE IS a Designer, not what said Designer was thinking or intending. <BR/><BR/><BR/><I>you can't claim there's a purpose unless you can can perceive a purpose.</I><BR/><BR/>Maybe the purpose was to invent entertaining playthings to watch. Doesn't matter.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>That he could do it is an assumption on your part</I><BR/><BR/>Sigh. Maybe you forgot that we were talking about an omnipotent Designer.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>it doesn't follow necessarily that he ever actually did anything with his alleged magical super powers.</I><BR/><BR/>True, it doesn't follow. But there does exist SOMEthing, and given that you've presented no arguments that would lead me to doubt that many/most experimentation done by science on the issue of evolution actually supports ID, I'd rather seek out more fertile pastures to find the answer. Pity you're too biased to follow the evidence too.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3004069192536581829.post-59291755573607997232009-02-18T11:18:00.000-07:002009-02-18T11:18:00.000-07:00Rhology: Why did I choose to answer your question ...Rhology: <B>Why did I choose to answer your question about "what do you mean by different kinds?" with "a banana is a different kind than a giraffe"? I suppose b/c it's blatantly obvious.</B><BR/>No, it is not "blatantly" obvious. You seem to be using it in a vaguely categorical way whereas the word "different" is not so constrained in meaning. A parent is different from it's offspring. A child is a different kind of organism than it's own adult phase. An acorn is different from the oak tree it fell from. A brick is a different kind from a frog. The word "kind" doesn't appear in biology as you seem to want to use it.<BR/><BR/>Your original challenge remains meaningless and unanswerable until you can explain what you're trying to talk about.<BR/><BR/><B> Again, your side has all the funding and the big shots and the universities.</B><BR/>But you're the one complaining that contemporary biology is inadequate somehow. Clearly, you are claiming deeper insight than is available to the "big shots", so what do you think you know that we don't?<BR/><BR/><B>Come to a sensible consensus on the def of "species" and get back to me.</B><BR/>Why would you think there ought to be a single "def" of "species"? Its one thing to complain that people can't answer questions you yourself can't ask sensibly, its an altogether higher level of confusion on your part to demand that we solve problems that aren't problems.<BR/><BR/><B>That's a moral question, not relevant to my post.</B><BR/>No, it isn't a moral question and it isn't irrelevant; you can't claim there's a purpose unless you can can perceive a purpose. What is it?<BR/><BR/><B>Point is, He COULD do that and therefore accounts for it, end of discussion for the purposes of this post.</B><BR/>That he could do it is an assumption on your part, and not an explanation, you see, without evidence. Further, even if he could do it that wouldn't account for anything at all because it doesn't follow necessarily that he ever actually did anything with his alleged magical super powers. For the purposes of this or any other post.Masked Marauderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01610999225403384359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3004069192536581829.post-60642626974444120092009-02-18T10:25:00.000-07:002009-02-18T10:25:00.000-07:00I have not begged any question, since my points we...I have not begged any question, since my points were true by definition, as I have pointed out. I think that you do not understand what that phrase means.<BR/><BR/>Now answer my point, please.Paul Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13361948689477122420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3004069192536581829.post-72834344315058854202009-02-18T10:17:00.000-07:002009-02-18T10:17:00.000-07:00I post these questions only to demonstrate to "the...<I>I post these questions only to demonstrate to "the reader" that your arguments are devoid of merit</I><BR/><BR/>As long as you continue to beg questions in such a manner, I'm not worried.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3004069192536581829.post-1354660604599726772009-02-18T10:14:00.000-07:002009-02-18T10:14:00.000-07:00Prove that pain is a "problem" and that problems a...<I>Prove that pain is a "problem" and that problems are bad.</I><BR/><BR/>Back pain is by definition a problem. A design which causes problems is by definition a bad design. Tell you what, why don't you ask me to prove that all bachelors are unmarried and then dance a little victory jig?<BR/><BR/>You're using your usual diversionary tactics to avoid answering my question. The theory of evolution explains back pain by pointing to the tension between our bipedal present and our less-than-bipedal past. What have you got?<BR/><BR/>I don't expect an answer. I post these questions only to demonstrate to "the reader" that your arguments are devoid of merit and your personality devoid of charm. Your responses continue to meet those requirements.Paul Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13361948689477122420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3004069192536581829.post-81120114693912571032009-02-18T09:30:00.000-07:002009-02-18T09:30:00.000-07:00Hi all. Sorry for the delay, been busy at ERV and ...Hi all. Sorry for the delay, been busy at ERV and with other things. <BR/><BR/>Andrew T. said...<BR/><I>Rhology: If your argument is that it is not possible to test for ID scientifically, I don't think I would argue with you.</I><BR/><BR/>I guess we're still arguing then. Or at least I haven't really made a statement one way or th'other on that count.<BR/><BR/><BR/>MaskedMarauder said:<BR/><I>What metric space are you using, and why do you choose that one and not another? </I><BR/><BR/>Why did I choose to answer your question about "what do you mean by different kinds?" with "a banana is a different kind than a giraffe"? I suppose b/c it's blatantly obvious. Again, your side has all the funding and the big shots and the universities. Come to a sensible consensus on the def of "species" and get back to me.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>You demanded rules for determining 'different types', not me. </I><BR/><BR/>Precisely, so get on it. A good start would be to define species consistently.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>If you claim that all living things are the product of intelligent design then the miscreant plasmodium strains responsible for malaria and the misery it brings must have been intelligently designed.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, fine, it makes no difference. I grant it for the sake of this discussion, which has been narrowly-focused since the OP.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>"By whom" and "for what purpose?" are very natural, relevant and important questions</I><BR/><BR/>Fine, and I'll be happy to provide some input once we agree that the OP is right. Until then, irrelevant. You're wanting to discuss all of ID, I'm not (not here).<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Sickle cell trait distribution across lineages needs little explanation under ToE and NS</I><BR/><BR/>God made it that way. Not that hard. It's pretty pitiful to see this kind of argumentation, to be perfectly honest. Your side rarely if ever troubles itself to actually think a little bit about the implications of the other side's position, whereas my side does it all the time. That's what I'm doing in this very post!<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>your god theory lacks a compelling explanation for why He deliberately inflicted</I><BR/><BR/>That's a moral question, not relevant to my post. I've been dealing with this type of question for years <A HREF="http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/search/label/morality" REL="nofollow">on my blog - I invite you</A>. Point is, He COULD do that and therefore accounts for it, end of discussion for the purposes of this post.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Wouldn't it have been much easier not to have created plasmodium in the first place? </I><BR/><BR/>You'd have to ask Him. Once again, you fail to even think thru my own position to an elementary degree. As if "easier" or "harder" holds any meaning for an omnipotent being. Please.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Paul C asserted:<BR/><I>Far from my personal preference, back pain is an endemic problem in the species - an obviously bad design. </I><BR/><BR/>Prove that pain is a "problem" and that problems are bad. I don't grant these assumptions (since you're expressing a naturalist worldview).<BR/><BR/><BR/>adonais said:<BR/><I>No offense, but you don't know enough about the subject, let alone science in general, to offer any "critique" deserving the epithet.</I><BR/><BR/>Prove it. Respond to my points.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Scary Jesus said:<BR/><I>ICOC was that I felt very seriously that people needed to be saved or they were going to hell. </I><BR/><BR/>Then the ICOC with which I have some experience is nothing like the part in which you were involved. My apologies for extrapolating out too far. Would that your Darwinian friends would apologise for their own unjustified extrapolations.<BR/>This is the same denomination as the Church of the Open Arms and Barry Lynn? Huh. Learn sthg new every day.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>And if that isn't the main point of Christianity, I don't know what is.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm happy to let you know that is not the main point. The main point is:<BR/>God created the universe and you, and you are under His law. You have broken it a million times... per week. God loved you enough to send His only Son to leave the glory of Heaven and live a perfect life on this stinky earth, die a horrible death in your place, and then rise from the dead. You can either bear the just punishment for your lawbreaking or Jesus offers to bear it for you if only you will repent of your lawbreaking and trust Jesus and Him alone to save you from it and give you eternal life. <BR/><BR/><BR/><I>I just don't think people are taking this post seriously Rho</I><BR/><BR/>True, but I've had enough fun here. <A HREF="http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2009/02/ooooooooh_we_are_gonna_have_aa.php" REL="nofollow">The ERV thread</A> is more fun anyway, and the commenters are better at gratuitous nastiness.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>What qualifications do you believe you have to judge what is christianity and what isn't?</I><BR/><BR/>I can read, and I read the Bible. There are some things that define Christianity's essence and some things on the periphery. <BR/>Surely you'd grant in principle that I can't <BR/>1) Hold that there is one God, and Muhammad is his prophet.<BR/>2) Hold that Jesus is the Son of God and died to satisfy and provide the propitiation for God's wrath<BR/>3) Hold that atheism is true<BR/>4) and be fully consistent and intellectually honest.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>nd what do you know of the ICOC to say it isn't Christianity? </I><BR/><BR/>I have experience with several ICOC clergy in my area and with Barry Lynn. They by no means teach Christianity. They teach liberalism, and <A HREF="http://www.biblebelievers.com/machen/" REL="nofollow">that's a different religion</A>.<BR/>Mormonism is not Christian, no. It's a diff religion.<BR/>Lib Theology is not Christian, no. It's a diff religion.<BR/>Calvinism is Christian, yes. It teaches the central doctrines of Christianity. <BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Peace,<BR/>RhologyRhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3004069192536581829.post-80229994543134345372009-02-11T21:37:00.000-07:002009-02-11T21:37:00.000-07:00Ok Rho, one more thing, since I have no sense of r...Ok Rho, one more thing, since I have no sense of restraint. What qualifications do you believe you have to judge what is christianity and what isn't? And what do you know of the ICOC to say it isn't Christianity? Are Mormons Christians? Liberation Theology guys? Calvinists? Maybe you should do a chart for us, ones that are Christian, ones that dip into it sometimes, and those that are right out.Scary Jesushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06326231813656061256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3004069192536581829.post-47069444304804544662009-02-11T19:45:00.000-07:002009-02-11T19:45:00.000-07:00I just don't think people are taking this post ser...I just don't think people are taking this post seriously Rho.<BR/><BR/>Ok I'll stop spamming.Scary Jesushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06326231813656061256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3004069192536581829.post-85023352986757042009-02-11T19:43:00.000-07:002009-02-11T19:43:00.000-07:00At any rate, this post is an internal critique of ...<B>At any rate, this post is an internal critique of naturalistic evolution, nothing more. Given that few have actually engaged the points (beyond expressing their incredulity at how cheeky I could possibly dare to be, to question Modern Science®), one would hope you're honest enough to see that at least.</B><BR/><BR/>I see that, I'm just being self-indulgent in my earlier posts, forgive me. But hey I gotta be me.Scary Jesushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06326231813656061256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3004069192536581829.post-14799096111793641532009-02-11T19:29:00.000-07:002009-02-11T19:29:00.000-07:00"At any rate, this post is an internal critique of...<B>"At any rate, this post is an internal critique of naturalistic evolution, nothing more."</B><BR/><BR/>No offense, but you don't know enough about the subject, let alone science in general, to offer any "critique" deserving the epithet. All you've been doing is flaunting your ignorance. You obviously need to read something basic: perhaps Jerry Coyne's recent <A HREF="http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/" REL="nofollow">Why Evolution is True</A> would be something for you. Until you go to the minimal trouble of teaching yourself a modicum of the basics, you will only sound ridiculous. Assertions are not a substitute for knowledge.adonaishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18185868178574457667noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3004069192536581829.post-13743748979543610462009-02-11T19:24:00.000-07:002009-02-11T19:24:00.000-07:00Rho, I should add that I was a confirmed Lutheran ...Rho, I should add that I was a confirmed Lutheran (Missouri Synod of course!), went to an Assemblies of God high school for two years, an Episcopal shool my second two years. I was in a Mormon scout troop, I was a methodist very young, a Catholic when we lived in the philippines as a child.<BR/><BR/>I'd say that my eventual attraction to the ICOC was that I felt very seriously that people needed to be saved or they were going to hell. And the ICOC took that very seriously. My Lutheran parents wouldn't walk across the street to try and make a disciple. So yes I'll agree it turned out to be horsecrap, all of it. And I really, really tried.<BR/>This passage meant very much and I took it very seriously:<BR/><BR/>To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some.<BR/><BR/>And if that isn't the main point of Christianity, I don't know what is.<BR/><BR/>Maybe I should have said I know the "religion" gig pretty well.Scary Jesushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06326231813656061256noreply@blogger.com