YOu're still missing the point. I don't really care whether biological evolution is scientifically valid or not, I'm convinced it isn't merely because of my religious objections to it. If there was never any evidence against it and there was all the conclusive evindence in the world for it, I still wouldn't buy it. However, I don't have any religious objections to the dialectical procession of ideas or of history, or of anything else except evolution, so please, continue to debate and discuss. Also, you haven't presented a single reason why biological and ideological evolution are the same. Debates are so much more fun if participants actually try some refutation instead of just insulting eachother. And premptively, I haven't read your earlier posts, nor do I intend to; I don't know enough about science to enter into any of those debates. What I was trying to say was that you were confusing the religious and philosophical implications of the theories, which are totally different.

I am also curious to know your justification for claiming that I'm "in over my head." Remember that I haven't contributed to, or discussed any scientific issues in a discourse other than philosophy. And, I understand every argument made in this area quite well. And I suggest that you desist from telling people that their "in over their heads" when you haven't even grasped the theological difference between ideological and biological evolution. And maybe you could use a little more study in those areas.

• Daily, I find new things I make mistakes about! - kantolfir2 - July 30, 2002 - 04:51 UTC
  • Mike man... Ted listen! - emperor__alikar - August 1, 2002 - 02:39 UTC
    • I don't think anyone will drown here...thanks for the note - carefuluniverse - August 1, 2002 - 05:59 UTC
      • Actually I know ted personaly - emperor__alikar - August 3, 2002 - 03:21 UTC