You just get done breaking the ice, and you look up and … whaaa?
Curiously, Jurassic Park author Michael Crichton called consensus science an extremely pernicious development. And aspiring mammoth cloner George Church praised Steve Meyer’s Darwin’s Doubt.
but it turns out, most Democrats could not correctly answer both that the Earth goes around the Sun and that this takes a year. The two divergences are treated as if they are exactly the same, of course, and guess which gets the more publicity?
Is the point of Mooney’s claims to constantly diminish the claimed figure but never quite get there? All he is really diminishing is the apparent value of the genome as a source of information about life forms. If he never quite gets to 100%, he still has a story.
Despite the fact that information not matter underlies the universe, thinking appears just too old-fashioned now. 😉
A friend writes to say that, listening to the Steve Meyer vs. Charles Marshall radio debate, he sensed that the message regarding the centrality of “information” to the history of life is starting get across.
The theory goes from worm to man to nature without a pit stop.
Did Charles Darwin ever invoke his own theory in order to justify the extermination of one race by another? If the term “extermination” refers to systematic genocide, the answer is an emphatic “No”; but if “extermination” is defined more broadly to include the displacement and consequent extinction of one race by another, more technologically advanced Read More…
How about: Winning tickets almost as rare as orthodontics for hens.
Just think, these folk are the heirs of the Enlightenment.
How about a rock that does not have an aging process and has negligible metabolism, but does have a brain composed of non-living elements? … To avoid needless novelization, let’s assume that it is of low, not high intelligence, something like that of a turtle.
The basic problem seems to be that a planet, even in the habitable zone, can mostly be a gasball with a thick, very high pressure atmosphere that would inhibit life as we know it.
To the Darwinist, it looks like selfish genes (but then everything does). The rest of us would not put that much faith in the gene alone as the unit of inheritance. Separated from the rest of the story, it is probably usually meaningless.
Evolutionists like to say that there are mountains of evidence for evolution, but what is the best evidence? What would make a creationist think twice? Twenty five seconds into this video evolutionist Richard Dawkins answers this question. His killer evidence is the congruence between the genes of different plants and animals. Compare the genes across Read More…
Dear Nick, We’ve had this exchange: Barry Arrington: “If you came across a table on which was set 500 coins (no tossing involved) and all 500 coins displayed the ‘heads’ side of the coin, would you reject ‘chance’ as a hypothesis to explain this particular configuration of coins on a table?” Mark Frank: “. . Read More…