On 4/13/2011 11:11 PM, Warp wrote:
>    Also, a significant portion of Christians don't believe in the literal
> interpretation of the Noah's Ark story because of all the problems it would
> present (such as how and why would all members of sibling species travel
> from the Ark's landing point to the other side of the world, crossing vast
> oceans, and without leaving any representatives of their species along the
> way, either by living descendants or fossils).
>
A lot of Christians are not Christians, save that they use the same 
name. Fundies are right about one thing, *most* Christians believe 
almost nothing "in" the Bible, even, in some cases, being willing to 
state that Jesus may not have been divine, but his ideas where sound, so 
they still call themselves Christians.

No, the major fundies latch on to things like "kinds" as a way to avoid 
dealing with the fact that they don't have much of anything else. ID 
uses it, to an extent, but only as a sort of "starting point", from 
which some limited, God driven, evolution took place, which produced all 
the variation. After all, if you only had a few hundred years to turn 
one bird into hundreds of thousands of species, the "genetics" had to be 
guided somehow, or front loaded. I have seen both arguments.

The only thing I am certain of is that after 10 years, the best the 
moron that came up with "ontological depth" for genetics has been the 
excuse that, "its real, even if I can't tell you how the hell to even 
try to define/calculate it!" Right, so.. your entire ID concept is 
predicated on evolution being impossible, based on a non-existent 
equation, to measure something you can't properly define, which you 
can't even give evidence exists in the first place. And you thought Behe 
had problems applying math and logic to the subject...

Post a reply to this message