The basic problem with their underlying thinking is this: There is no one ultimate locus of control. Our entire society is completely interdependent. If the network people quit doing what they do, things are hosed. The same goes for doctors, police, firefighters, manufacturers, and farmers.
1 Corinthians 12 (NIV)
14Now the body is not made up of one part but of many. 15If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. 16And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. 17If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? 18But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. 19If they were all one part, where would the body be? 20As it is, there are many parts, but one body.
21The eye cannot say to the hand, "I don't need you!" And the head cannot say to the feet, "I don't need you!" 22On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, 24while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, 25so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 26If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.
The is a difference. Check this article for a explanation:
http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v1i4f.htm
Personally, I think that the names micro-evolution and macro-evolution are pretty poor choices anyway. It really should stay natural selection and evolution, which are not equivalent.
I'm sorry, but Evolution (macro-evolution that is) is not fact. It is a theory, and one that is inconsistant with observable fact. Someday the general scientific community is going to have to come to terms with the reality that Evolution is hoax. Here is one particularly good article on the subject:
http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v1i9f.htm
You can also follow the links on the page to the main site from which it comes (Science Against Evolution).
Really, I like Star Trek as well as the next guy, but the "scientific" premises on which they base most of there plots are fantasy.
Based on the comments in your earlier post:
>Personally, I'd like to see someone shut down
> these religious hoaxsters for good. Take these
> fundies out of the school system and out of our
> government. Religion, the crutch that it is,
> has no place in public life, mine or anyone
> elses.
It obvious that the "FAITH" placed in evolution is based not in fact, but in people who wish to deny the evidence currently available points to an "intelligent designer", not random chance.
Slashdot Mirror
1 Corinthians 12 (NIV)
14Now the body is not made up of one part but of many. 15If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. 16And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. 17If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? 18But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. 19If they were all one part, where would the body be? 20As it is, there are many parts, but one body. 21The eye cannot say to the hand, "I don't need you!" And the head cannot say to the feet, "I don't need you!" 22On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, 24while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, 25so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 26If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.
The is a difference. Check this article for a explanation:
http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v1i4f.htm
Personally, I think that the names micro-evolution and macro-evolution are pretty poor choices anyway. It really should stay natural selection and evolution, which are not equivalent.
Regards,
Steve
I'm sorry, but Evolution (macro-evolution that is) is not fact. It is a theory, and one that is inconsistant with observable fact. Someday the general scientific community is going to have to come to terms with the reality that Evolution is hoax. Here is one particularly good article on the subject:
http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v1i9f.htm
You can also follow the links on the page to the main site from which it comes (Science Against Evolution).
Really, I like Star Trek as well as the next guy, but the "scientific" premises on which they base most of there plots are fantasy.
Based on the comments in your earlier post:
>Personally, I'd like to see someone shut down
> these religious hoaxsters for good. Take these
> fundies out of the school system and out of our
> government. Religion, the crutch that it is,
> has no place in public life, mine or anyone
> elses.
It obvious that the "FAITH" placed in evolution is based not in fact, but in people who wish to deny the evidence currently available points to an "intelligent designer", not random chance.
Regards,
Steve