Re: How Our Brains Ignore Unpleasant Facts was: Re: The Reasonable

On Jan 3, 3:17 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 3, 3:16 pm, Evopeach <keaton1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Jan 3, 1:48 pm, Ye Old One <use...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 06:57:50 -0800 (PST), Evopeach
<keaton1...@xxxxxxxxx> enriched this group when s/he wrote:

On Jan 3, 1:14 am, "R. Baldwin" <res0k...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"SeppoP" <seppo_pietikai...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:5u3egjF1g7jt6U1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Evopeach wrote:
On Jan 2, 6:32 pm, murd...@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Dec 20 2007, 2:29 pm, Evopeach <keaton1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[...]
I don't know if ou're noticed but classes on ID and inclusion of ID in
other classes is already in place in several notable public
universities. I assure there are more to follow as the word gets
out ...go Ben go!
Mr. Peach, are you ever going to get around to telling us which
notable public universities have classes on ID and also telling us
whether or not it is taught as pseudo-science?

If not, can Ben go out and do this? Or is Ben already gone?

---DPM

Try this highly technical maneuver... google Intelliegent Design
Classes and scroll through them or hire a monkey to do it for you.

LOL!!!

Apparently you didn't do the search *even* with correct spelling of
"intelligent" yourself...  :)
Ok, my estimation that you're just another fraud and a dishonest religious
freak got even *more* confirmation.

I scrolled through the first 10 pages (100 hits) and found 1 philosophy
class at Knox College teaching Intelligent Design. Not quite in the "notable
universtiy" category.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Notable is in the eye of the beholder.
http://www.researchintelligentdesign.org/wiki/ID_at_the_academy

Ok, I've taken an hour and gone through a lot of those. Nothing
promoting ID as a science there.

Care to try again?

--
Bob.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Naturally, I note the intent is not to "promote" science of ID as it
is to discuss it in various thematic ways, examine its claims and
stregths and weaknesses, etc. That's how paradigm shifts begin and
expand..wide exposure to open minded audiences. You didn't really
think we'd start with the dunderhead biology types did you? Your idea
of a new science would be wearing foil hats.

Evolution has to be constantly " romoted", shined up , spiffied,
marketed, and such because of its vacuous nature and lack of real
content.

That's interesting.  Let's start with the standard evidence for
evolution as presented in college textbooks, and you can detail the
faults of each one.  Hmm. The one I'm most familiar with, Campbell &
Rees, starts with about 2 billion years of fossils. If you have an
issue with the age of the earth, now's the time to bring it up.

It's an unsettled issue with me but I respect OEC for sure.

Then say why, if there are fossils of organisms that are no longer
alive,
and the organisms that are alive are not present in the ancient fossil
record, why evolution is not a reasonable answer.

There are species which appear unchanged for millions of years except
in size or other minor changes. Stasis followed by rapid periods of
change is called PE. and radiation.

Then we can move on
to comparative anatomy: why do apparently related organisms have
similar anatomies, and they becomes progressively more dissimilar as
the degree of purported relationship decreases.

Purely tautalogical..how do you know the're apparently
related..because they have similar anatomies..why do they have similar
anatomies..because there closely related.

After that comes biogeography: why do organisms that are related
appear close to one another, except in cases of continental drift?

Like all the chimps in North America for instance. Of course you all
encompassing refuge is whenever its untrue you can envoke drift...
unfalsifiable by caveat.

Why should genetically similar species almost always be found in
proximity to one another, except in the cases I mentioned?

Same answer...unfalsifiable caveat.

Finally, we can look at the molecular evidence: proteins and DNA. It
seems reasonable to conclude common descent in light of the work on
proteins, and especially on DNA.

 If you don't think so, please tell us why- be sure to include plenty
of
references to the primary literature, since really, that's what you're
refuting.

Primary literature is defined as only that literature acceptable top
you. What's is acceptable to you...that literature that agrees with
your predisposed conclusions.

Thank you. We're still looking forward to your paper, and your
explanations of the workings of baramins- cockapoos and coyotes,
remember?

Happy New Year.

Chris- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


.

Quantcast