posted January 11, 2007 02:44 PM            

I don’t get the book review thing. How can anyone say anything about a book without reading the book?

I’m glad you like science, I like it too.
Careful, Erik, you’re starting to sound like a fundamentalist.

Scientist are just people.
Some of the “ID folks” are scientist.
Some Creationist are scientist.

Based on the Theory of Evolution, things evolve to a higher state through competition.

If you love the Theory of Evolution, you should be thankful for the Creationist.

You wouldn’t be getting a fraction of the funding you’re getting now if it wasn’t for those Creationist “terrorist”

Smile, be happy.

posted January 11, 2007 04:26 PM            

It’s a matter of semantics.
You say evolution = science.
I say evolution = atheist belief system.

There is no static “Theory of Evolution”.

There is only a massive group of assumptions, based on other assumptions, based on other assumptions, …etc.

Many of the assumptions disagree with other assumptions.
Many assumptions are proven wrong and replaced by other assumptions.

Many feel, even though the assumptions are always changing, it is The Truth.

We used to call these kinds of things, “myths”.
Times do change…

PS: I think that’s why Dr Patterson (Dr Rob Brady and others) considers devotion to an assumption as crippling to his branch of science, “I feel that the effects of hypotheses common ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring, … positively anti-knowledge.”

posted January 11, 2007 05:36 PM            

quote:

---

Based on the Theory of Evolution, things evolve to a higher state through competition.

---

Keith

------------------

posted January 11, 2007 06:07 PM            

I’m 100% agreement, Keith.

They’re looking for a direction but came seem to find it.
Something about “blind leading the blind”.