Wiz, sorry about the Munsell notation. It was 5Y-4/2 . That comes out of a soil color chart. I always wanted to get a master color chart . I assume its rather unwieldy.
I see -- okay. Without actually seeing the room, it's difficult to make a judgement. Maybe we should wait for natural selection to take care of it?
Chumly wrote:rosborne979 wrote:If this were happening, then the philosophical question would be "is there any difference between an undetectable creation event, and no creation event at all".
Very crisp! It comes back to proving the realty of existence in any manner.
Those who argue a creation which is in conflict with physical evidence are just wrong. While those who argue a creation which is indistinguishable from nature are just wasting time.
What really matters is the choice we make, whether to believe the world is full of gods and demons and magic and mystery beyond all knowing. Or whether to believe that we have the capacity to understand our reality.
OK How about this:
You people are a small minority of troublemakers (the bible warns us about you) while the vast majority of faithful Americans, even the President himself, refuse to be bamboozled by your evil logic. Your purpose is clear! To turn people away from the love of GOD !!! But it's not your fault, the devil is making you do it. Stop using your brain in his service and start using the love in your heart instead, and seek some REAL answers !!
Ooohh -- the Devils Advocate jumps out of the woodwork!
Eorl, surely you jest. (?)
Well I was getting bored waiting for them to arrive.
I tried to cover the main arguments...authority, popularity, predicted evil opposition and emotional change of subject. How did I go?
Existence proves ID, it could not all be pure chance, that's not rational.
Do you really think the fabulous breasts on "Seven of Nine" are just pure chance?
No, she's a Republican . . . or was, until her hubby wanted group sex . . .
Ah...Chumly, at last a demonstrable case of Not-Very-Intelligent-Design.
Quote:Inamed reported that in a two-year study, the rupture rate was 1.2 percent and that 7.5 percent of its 987 implants were removed or replaced. Some women had infections; others developed hard and painful scar tissue over the implant. The F.D.A. data from other studies indicated that on average, a quarter of implants had ruptured within 12 years and 55 percent had ruptured within 16 years.
Very sad stats.
It seems to me the argument for un-ID is a lot more convincing than the argument for ID.
Speaking of which....still no evidence has been posted here.
Funny that.
The "designer" is preparing the evidence on his cloud drawing board.
I harken back to the time when Pat Robertson cursed the town of Dover PA.
The ID camp wants us to believe that ID is science and not religion, then , if they see themselves losing , they quickly return to a god to send out curses to the unbelievers. I know that We will never see any evidence . We can lay good money down betting against that.
The "designer" will not bet money. It's a dirty, man-made thing. Actually, the next thing you know is that it will take credit for the Internet.
Chumly wrote:Existence proves ID, it could not all be pure chance, that's not rational.
Do you really think the fabulous breasts on "Seven of Nine" are just pure chance?
I think you are jumping to conclusions when you say existence proves ID....thats not very rational either
farmerman wrote:The ID camp wants us to believe that ID is science and not religion,
How can this claim be made with a straight face? Now, I'm not the smartest guy alive, far from it, but it seems to me that the core of the ID argument implies the existance of a god, if not the religious version. Am I wrong?
Thats what they would have us believe that they are saying. We know that their roots are deeply planted in the "Scientific Creationism" garden. The ID camp merely has adopted a public face that says it is a purely scientifc "theory' when the very foundation documents (in the US camp) are from the "Renewal of Science and Culture" arm of the Discover Institute.
The ID defense in Dover was entirely based on a legal theory that it "was not" religion and therefore not subject to the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. The case was presented in a really dumb fashion . In my mind , they should never have brought the case up here until they had a few more years of separating themselves from the very Christian roots of ID.
Now there are several "sub-institutes" who, separate from Discovery, are working up a lather to try to provide funding for actual scientists and grad students in the sciences to do theses and dissertations of "the search for order and/or patterns of origins".
We could fund a few students , the only thing is that wed have to tell them the sincerity of Upton Sinclairs statement that "Its diifcult to get a man to undesrtand something when most of his salary depends on him not understanding it"
