 | | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
(...) I've heard nothing about it in the Pittsburgh area, other than a poorly-written editorial in the Gazette. Be assured I will personally burn every textbook, funded by my tax money, that espouses creationism or intelligent design as viable (...) (24 years ago, 8-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
(...) The major scientific community? Are you basing this on Behe's statements or maybe the intro to the article? Most of the major scientific community that I know have dismissed Behe-- I know I have. He has flaws in many if his arguments. One of (...) (24 years ago, 8-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
(...) The article stated: "What distinguishes intelligent design from creationism is that it has won the backing of a minority of scientists" To my way of interpreting things "a minority of scientists" does not imply "the major scientific (...) (24 years ago, 8-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
(...) Hope away. Since you've demonstrated your inability to understand the processes of science and what science represents, your assessment of the alleged merits of Dr. Behe's theories is meaningless. (...) Yeah--just like begging the question of (...) (24 years ago, 8-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
(...) I can only hope that you take this as an indicator that the major scientific community does recognize the futility of macro-evolution explanation for how life cameinto existance and 'progressed'. The intelligence often pointed to is often (...) (24 years ago, 8-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
My views about creationism should at this point be fairly well established, but I came across this piece in the local paper today. (URL) Pittsburgh Post Gazette isn't exactly a rigorous scientific journal, so the inclusion of this article shouldn't (...) (24 years ago, 8-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 2002 Lord of the Rings Lego line?
|
|
(...) Yea, what a game... What I'd like to see is ICE re-release Riddle of the Ring. It was a nice game, and one of the few games I have ever seen which played well for 3 players (too many 3 player games consist of 2 of the players ganging up and (...) (24 years ago, 8-Feb-01, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 2002 Lord of the Rings Lego line?
|
|
(...) Fellowship of the Ring - Christmas 2001 The Two Towers - Christmas 2002 Return of the King - Christmas 2003 *sigh* Have to wait 3 years to see them all. ARGH! In any case, I'm sure we'll see plenty of merchandise, but LEGO sets would be darn (...) (24 years ago, 8-Feb-01, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 2002 Lord of the Rings Lego line?
|
|
(...) Err bad news.. from what I read quote The Lord of the Rings game will follow along the lines of the popular(sic) warhammer fantasy battle series unquote (24 years ago, 8-Feb-01, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 2002 Lord of the Rings Lego line?
|
|
(...) Yes. (...) As long as it's not anything like "Fellowship of the Ring" by Iron Crown Enterprises. "So, the Fellowship player wins if he makes it to here by turn 11, but if he hasn't been to Rivendell by Turn 6 he has to make it over here to (...) (24 years ago, 8-Feb-01, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
