From: "Robert Comer" 

> I'm afraid you're confusing me with someone else. All I have done is
> express irritation at the attempts here to portray ID as somehow the same
> kind of concept as evolution.

I don't think anyone here has stated that, and I know I haven't. (we're
arguing past each apparently other here.)  I have yet to say anything about
ID other than that I was a Christian. (which implies a belief in
intelligent design)

>In fact, ID is meaningless waffle designed
> to make people who haven't thought about the issues believe that there is
> scientific proof for various peculiar belief systems.

That is offensive and uncalled for.

> There's quite a lot of words flowing here, and I don't blame you for not
> carefully studying everything I write. However, I think you are assuming
> arguments that in fact I have not proposed.

I've said exactly the same.

> If you're asking, of course I realise that science doesn't explain
> everything. I am the one who loudly proclaimed that evolution has nothing
> to say about how the first life began - evolution just describes how some
> life gets more complex.

Believe me, I know it doesn't answer everything, I've been studying science
my whole life it seems.

And really, the "more complex" really isn't what evolution is
about, "changes" is a better fit.

> Also, your use of "we" is not really reasonable. What YOU
say, and what
> GaryB says, are very different.

May be, but we're arguing the same point, that being that even in science
there are components of "faith".

--
Bob Comer


"John Beckett"  wrote
in message news:2cgon1td9u7bfjk4rto0qh9pqs8jpkebll{at}4ax.com...
> "Robert Comer"  wrote in message
> news::
>> And it sounds like you want anti-religion to make a comeback in the US.
>
> I'm afraid you're confusing me with someone else. All I have done is
> express irritation at the attempts here to portray ID as somehow the same
> kind of concept as evolution. In fact, ID is meaningless waffle designed
> to make people who haven't thought about the issues believe that there is
> scientific proof for various peculiar belief systems.
>
>> Actually the problem is you are not reading our arguments like we meant
>> them, we are *not* arguing against evolution, we're just pointing out
>> that
>> it doesn't cover it all and if you believe in evolution, there are some
>> things you have to take on faith -- just like someone who believes in
>> God.
>
> There's quite a lot of words flowing here, and I don't blame you for not
> carefully studying everything I write. However, I think you are assuming
> arguments that in fact I have not proposed.
>
> If you're asking, of course I realise that science doesn't explain
> everything. I am the one who loudly proclaimed that evolution has nothing
> to say about how the first life began - evolution just describes how some
> life gets more complex.
>
> Also, your use of "we" is not really reasonable. What YOU
say, and what
> GaryB says, are very different.
>
> John
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5