Kenneth Anderson wrote:
> When William says things like “... my objection to evolution - that
> since there is no evidence to its truth, it is necessarily
> faith-based...” this sort of crack could be tolerated if it were only
> occasionally posted, but when this kind of thing dominates the digest,
> as it has been doing--and is also done to provoke--then for me at
> least it makes the digest a pain to read. I suppose that means that I
> should not read the digest.
> 
> Ken
> 

While I like William's extreme position on paleo since I think sometimes 
good things are discovered by taking an argument to it's logical 
extreme(s), the claim of "no evidence" for evolutions is merely an 
attempt to place any ancient superstitious god claims on equal footing 
and that sciences is just a different form of "faith", when in fact it 
takes evidence to even assemble a theory.  Sure, one can continue for 
100s of years to insist that the earth is flat, that their is no 
evidence for a heliocentric theory, but that requires one to never 
actually look at any evidence.

-- 

Steve - [log in to unmask]

"The Problem with Socialism is that eventually you
run out of Other People's Money." --Margaret Thatcher

"Mistrust of Government is the Bedrock of American Patriotism"

Take World's Smallest Political Quiz at
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html