Hello Everyone,

I lead with this:

Roman 1:22 - Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Now look at this:

"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having 
been designed for a purpose." 

Richard Dawkins

Here is what I think of Dawkins' statement:

Dawkins, a confirmed Darwinist, contends that the appearance is misleading, but
admits this `appearance' exists nevertheless. He goes on to assert that 
organisms are actually the product of genetic mutation and natural selection. 
The very phrase "natural selection" makes one question the
critical reasoning 
ability of the evolutionist. Is this not a contradiction in terms? Natural, in 
the mind of the evolutionist, is indicative of random chance occurrences while,
selection is indicative of a conscious choice. The mixing of the terms shows 
the innate fallacy of trying to define God's creation as an accident. Some 
evolutionists these days even try to deny they are saying everything is an 
accident. Yet, the very foundation they build upon is rife with declarations of
happenstance. How can a selective process that brings about order from chaos be
mindless or algorithmic? This type thinking is as silly as belief in animism. 
In fact, it would be interesting to see the atheist defend the charge that 
evolutionary theory is nothing more than a `branch' of this belief.

Well, Ross, David, Fred, Dan, Cindy, Sally???

Laterness . . . 
David Ragland

There are 3 kind of physicists: The machine builders, the experimentalists, and
the theoreticians.
On Columbus discovering the Americas the machine builders were the captains and
ship builders who got them there, the experimentalists were the fellows who 
jumped upon the new islands and wrote down what they saw,  and the 
theoreticians were the fellows back in Madrid who told Columbus he was going to
India. 



 * SeM. 2.26  * I think therefore, atheists hate me.
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a