On Dec 24, 12:46 am, Devils Advocaat yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

Someone was thinking of me.
Were they thinking of you?

http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/553/404199ph0.gif

xanthian.

Should we view our history as a list of occurrences since the
beginning of our time on the planet or should we have a much wider
perspective? Should we, for example, see ourselves as a very focused
form or configuration of matter and view our achievements accordingly?
Or should we view ourselves as a uniquely gifted species? If the
latter, should we inquire, or speculate, as to what this species might
eventually achieve? Should we speculate as to the fetch - to use a
nautical term - of the species?

If we choose any of the avenues mentioned above might we then go
further and ask whether our achievements to date constitute a fair
return on our potential or whether, indeed, we have gone considerably
off course and celebrated error to our own long-term cost?

Is it possible to draw up a dossier of what we should expect of the
human being? Is it possible to eliminate error, not the short-term
error of the moment but long-term structural illusion and confusion
about the nature of human existence?

An interesting article, which only requires free registration to
access it:

http://www.the-scientist.com/templates/trackable/display/article1.jsp?type=article&o_url...

I made sure to open it last. It came in a plain manila envelope, with
no colorful wrapper or bows, but I knew that it would be my favorite
gift. I haven't been able to put it down! It's riveting reading, with
plenty of those "why didn't I think of that?" moments. One example: We
all know that there's no line between "macro" and "micro," but who'd
have guessed that it doesn't mean support for "macro", but rather
falsification of "micro"!

I don't mind at all that "Darwinism" has been thoroughly refuted -
like any "Darwinist" I'd love a better explanation, if someone would
ever take the time to support it. With few exceptions, such as the
author of this paper, anti-evolutionists increasingly refuse to
describe their "theory," let alone support it. I especially like the
fact that this new "theory" confines every other creationist and ID
"theory" to the same dustbin as "Darwinism." Other "kinds" of anti-
evolutionists now have another "theory" to misrepresent while
pretending to falsify it. Darwin can finally rest in peace.

Like I said, I'd like to share it with TO regulars, but I can't,
because y'all know that I didn't get it, and that this is all just a
sick joke.

On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 14:39:10 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova :

And Addled, having no response, remains mute. Again.

On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 13:40:54 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova :

And Addled slinks away again...

--

Bob C.

On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 01:59:59 -0800 (PST), Devils Advocaat
yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

snip

On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 21:46:39 -0800 (PST), Devils Advocaat
yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

snip

On Dec 25, 5:03 am, Richard Clayton verizon.net>
wrote:

And a happy Boxing Day to you!



Kermit