Re: Expelled...not bad....anyone?

"Mark Morrison" <blank@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:a6su04lti72j5f1igp77rui49nrbuhoclt@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:11:53 -0700 (PDT), "broughps@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"
> <broughps@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>On Apr 20, 5:06 pm, Weirdwolf <h...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> Ken McElhaney <mcelha...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
news:f944cba5-6920-41c9-
>>> 8260-a8624d1ad...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > Just saw it this morning, pretty decent stuff though it's more
serious
>>> > than "funny" as the ads for it suggest. The most interesting aspect
>>> > was watching hardcore Darwinian scientists admit that they know
>>> > absolutely nothing about how life (i.e. the first single cell
>>> > organism) was formed on Earth and yet in the same breath rule out
>>> > "Intelligent Design".  Gee guys...if you admit you don't know...And
>>> > yet the theories they propose (such as the combination of the
>>> > necessary elements forming on the back of a crystal...I'm not making
>>> > this up) make "Intelligent Design" look pretty darn sane.
>>>
>>> > The ending of the film is even more astounding as one simple
question
>>> > gets the most unlikely answer from one of the most visable Darwinian
>>> > proponent/athiests/whatever in today's media.
>>>
>>> > Good job, Ben Stein...anyone?
>>>
>>>  Before you praise this movie Ken you may wish to see the special that
>>> Scientific American put together, basically this is about as much a
>>> do***entary on evolution as "Bowling for Colombine" is on gun control.
>>>  They actually put out several stories in a special email, including
one 
>>> on
>>> the main misrepresentations in the film.this might be a good place to 
>>> start
>>> as a basic 
>>> rebuttal.http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=sciam-reviews-expelled
>>>
>>>  I'm not sure if you know this but I studied biochemistry at
university 
>>> and
>>> so this subject is of interest to me even though I admit that my 
>>> knowledge
>>> now is limited to reading the less technical papers and I am a little 
>>> out
>>> of date.
>>>  I.D. gives us NO answers, it obscures the work done by scientists and
>>> pretends to be scientific but has none of the rigor. It replaces a I 
>>> don't
>>> know but I am going to explore,to ponder,to experiment,to sift through

>>> the
>>> data with, my choice of deity did it no matter the evidence may show.
It 
>>> is
>>> a dead-end, and intellectual cul-de-sac.
>>>  A couple of months ago I stood with my daughter in the natural
history
>>> museum cafe and showed my daughter the statue of Charles Darwin,(and
yes 
>>> I
>>> do agree he should have a more prominant position,) explaining that
this
>>> man was the most im****tant biologist in the world. Everything that 
>>> anybody
>>> in the biological sciences studies directly relates to his work.
>>
>>so what is the current thought on evolution. it seems to change every
>>so many years. are we still descended from apes? i can't seems to keep
>>up. are we calling adaptation evolution, natural selection evolution,
>>what?
>>
>>and you'll find that many christians don't agree with intelligent
>>design because it's not creationism. it doesn't state that God created
>>life.
>>
>>Penni
>
> I think it goes gloopy creatures -> proto-fish -> land creatues ->
> mammals -> early bipedal creatures -> Millwall sup****ters->  apes -> us.
>
You missed a step

> Bear in mind that each -> indicates a branching off.
>
> I'm not sure when the aliens turned up to probe us.

They used rohipnol

-- 
Paul R

I've got a lovely bunch of coconuts