wiwiw

Eh? When I typed less complex, I don't mean less complete, I mean an eye that's not as well developed. Like seeing in color verses black and white. Parts of organs don't 'come about in halves' however, at one point they could have been more simplistic in their entirety. Flies spew digestive fluids on their meals because their guts aren't advanced enough to digest it internally, but they still function all the same. And...least we forget flying squirrels use skin flaps to glide. Of course there's going to be a hypothesis, but once it's been established the hypothesis was off the mark, then it's time to start rolling down another road. We no longer have a Darwin, we only have a Dawkin tackling an improbable mountain. Theories change...hey, you could even say they evolve. Last I checked, no part of Christianity is backed up by science aside from a bit about a fish being safe to eat if it has both fins and scales or some such, that hardly varifies an entire novel. It's a book of imperialistic morality, historical fiction, primitive psychology, and cultural parables meant to guide the reader in living, thinking, and acting in ways that would have pleased the writers. Heck, the bible doesn't even mention DNA, genetic inheritence, passive eugenics, or PHI. It's neither compatible with nor apposing science. It's like the left and right side of the brain. One side is used primarily for artsy stuff, the other is used for geometric stuff. At one point those who follow its teachings were honest enough to declair "if it says it's flat, it's flat!" Rather than stumbling through intellectual double backflip summersaults. What's changed? I mention project-steve because it's funny. Also, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, not nearly as majestic as the Invisible Pink Unicorn but certainly a potential contender in the near future. Oh come on, it's text on a screen. Smile

Well apothanein kerdos, you can do whatever you want: Then reap the consequences of those actions. There's nothing mystical or complicated about that. And when a scientist lets his own biased interfer with reality, then he's not being a scientist, he's being a religious zealot. Exactly what religious views does science backup? Eh, you ever hear of "Project-Steve"? Anyway, I like bananas, heck, I wouldn't mind being a banana, they rock. "Irreversibly complex"...a less complex eye is still an eye inn't it? A less complex digestive system still digests doesn't it? A skin flap works just as well for gliding as a fully developed wing doesn't it? "When they drop the big one, all that's going to be left are cockroaches and Cher"

In the simpliest of terms, using the most convenient definitions: fairies don't paint the autumn leaves elves don't open the rainclouds the stars are not lit by pixies, and are not the size of marbles ghosts have better things to do than hang out in old houses and occasionaly move light-weight objects around We are not reincarnated alien souls trapped in decaying mortal bodies. No seven headed hydras rising from the pits of Hades or Ghenna with harlots riding on their backs. No Witches nor Warlocks, Wizards nor Psychics, Telepaths or goblins... etc... Science is based on what can be measured, recreated, perceived with tangible senses, and adapts when new information is revealed rather than altering new information to fit a pre-concieved notions. Based on reason, mathmatical soundness, logic, and most of all: unbridled sanity. Religion is created when there's lack of evidence, the pre-existing evidence isn't evidence at all but personal experience and opinion, and when the human mind fails to cope with the reality that the only reason the species exists is to consume, breed, and then die, or the idea that no one person is any more special or incredible than the other 7 or so billion. Gotta log ego. Leggo my ego.

My take is that science and religion are mutually exclusive. Fine, teach them both...just keep them in the right catergories. If you want to yabble about the subject ad naseum you can e-mail me *mod willing I post my e-mail?* via august_friendly@yahoo.com to avoid forum clutter about something that's old and tired anyway. *I can't open winword because of disk-space errors so forgive any spelling/grammer errors in advance*

Hmm...while I'm not all 'against homosexuality' it's ridiculous for those crazy liberals to bark at conservatives and a second later demand the conservatives 'recognize their right to free speech' The door swings both ways and if one side wants things to be 'fair and equal' they ought to be ready to allow everybody to have their say, however wonky that say is. Teach the bible, teach the bible literaly, and if it's rejected, so be it. Try to force your morals on the masses, and what you get is a bunch of oppressed drones paying lip service while I.Qs drop rapidly, but hey, all is fair in love and war (which is pretty much the same thing)

Evolution has more basis in what can be observed than Creationism (as you call it "intelligent design") Or at least parts of it. And while we may not have 'missing links' one can not observe an animal vegitable or mineral magically appearing out of thin air, ever. However we can observe the life-cycle of a tad-pol. "Intelligent Design" is mythology, and there's mythology electives already in existance, so let's just toss it in there.

It's a fallacy to think that complexity = improvement. If one thinks about this reasonably then they'll realize that: complex organisms burn more fuel faster. Occupy more space and wear down quicker. Are more susceptible to less complex organisms like bacteria and viruses, and are more prone to malfunctions (hence birth defects, for example) As far as 'DNA similarity' goes...sure it's probably bogus. Anyway...as far as that age old "creationism in science classes" there's a simple solution friends: the schools could just offer alternative-science classes, allowing parents the option to sign waivers if they want their kids to be able to sign up for such classes. Sure it'll be a little extra in taxes...but so is every other easy fix.

Well, nobody can really know for sure 'how it all began' because nobody was there. However, I'm pretty sure that my neighbors are just slightly more developed apes. Anyway, suppose we considar 'intelligent design' how can you be so sure just who the 'designer' is? If popular opinion counts for anything, then 'Hillary Duff is a good actor' and we all know that's just not true.