"Robert Calvert" <Hercules1@pcstarnet.com> wrote:
"Road Warrior" <el_guerrero_del_camino@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Robert Calvert" <Hercules1@pcstarnet.com> wrote:
". R.L. Measures" <+r@somis.org> wrote:
el_guerrero_del_camino@yahoo.com (Road Warrior) wrote:
"Robert Calvert" <Hercules1@pcstarnet.com> wrote:
I have my doubts about this explanation. I would be willing to
bet that the minimum IQ needed to read and discuss the Torah is
only about 70.
First, Copernicus taught us that the universe didn't necessarily
have to be created for us after all. Then came Newton who taught
us that it didn't necessarily take a god to keep the universe in
working order. Then came Darwin who taught us that even life itself
didn't need a supernatural being.
keee-rap ... Darwin taught no such thing.
. Indeed
Before Darwin, every watch needed a watch maker. After Darwin, the watch
maker became redundant.
If there are two or more positions on an issue and if one of them is
redundant, then the others are also redundant. That is what redundant
means. Redundancy by its very nature is mutual.
So you admit that a god wasn't absolutely necessary?
Redundancy is sometimes necessary, Robert. Regardless, I've no axe to
grind as you appear to have. The ToE is a marvelous idea that ought to
be investigated. But, by symetry, if god is not absolutely necessary
because of other redundant explanations then those other explanations
are not absolutely necessary either. BTW, *you* are the one claiming
redundancy, not me, so it appears that the point you made is made against
yourself.
Besides, Darwin wrote
the Origin of Species not the Origin of Life.
Unlike creationists, Darwin didn't pretend to have all the answers. But he
did speculate on this.
Thanks for your down grade from "taught" to "speculate."
Robert, at this juncture you should do the wise thing and quit
pontificating about IQ and religion.
No, I think you've just proved my point right here:
Oddly enough, one of the forgotten ingredients of the Miller-Urey
experiment you refer to is an intelligent agent. Kismet.
And here's Alan's answer to your logical fallacy:
I see. So if we can't reproduce the creation of life in the lab,
that proves that it requires intelligence to create life. If we
can, that *also* proves that it requires intelligence to create life.
But surely a high IQ genius like you, Robert, can see the obvious logical
fallacy in Alan's answer. I'd give you a free clue but I find it annoying
when a post from another branch in the thread is jumbled up into another
so, for clarity's sake, I prefer to address Alan in the other post. Join
in over there if you wish.
.
