Date sent: Fri, 9 Apr 2004 19:17:03 -0700 (PDT)

The parts Roger has written are in italics. The parts Toby has written are in normal text.

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

Roger: Let me ask you:

o How old do you think the universe is? 4,122,122,122 and 12 nanosecs more or less

o How big is it? bigger than a bread box, never paid much attention to light years accross stuff

o Is all this universe established just to produce one world with humans on it? good question, better question what is outside it? what is man's fate one solar life or 45 billion years from now?

also, i guess you would agree with the following statements:

> Because of Darwin and his progeny "Now atheists, and others who wish to be, are free from the need for religion."

This reflects an odd fixation on Darwin. Science, as I know it, has moved so far beyond this statement that it's hard to relate to. I have to ask: free from religion in what sense? In the sense of explaining how the universe works? (ans: clearly yes) In the sense of explaining how people think (ans: clearly no.)

sub the current word for your fave materialistic philosophy will u agree that your dispute is with the name because it is dated not, the evolutionary sicence behind the question to wit it explains humans better than religion which explains it without science

> All design is apparent.

I have no idea what this means. It needs context. If this is another way of asking is there an Intelligent Designer? No, there isn't.

> Purposeful form of life is not really purposeful, it is random events without an underlying purpose.

Once again. This needs context before I comment on it.

Here is the context if you look at human or an ameba it sure looks like the form was designed for a purpose, but actually that is a charade, it just came to be like the ten thousand mokeys with a typrwriter who write a couplet.

> Only the Darwin world-view can explain the mysteries of life. (your younger, more efficient, achievement of life would be a corollary to this broader concept or "evdience" to support it)

I'd say evolutionary science has proved itself to be heads-and-shoulders better than non-evolution-based alternatives. Keep in mind that DNA, GM foods and such, and almost all the medical advances since the 1980's are based on this "Darwin world-view", as this statement puts it.

actually the statements are less than ten years old: Richard dawkins, oug futuayma missia landauGeof clark 1997 clark and willermet

> you might even agree that biology is the study of complicated things we define as life which give an appearance of having purposeful design.

I can't figure this one out, either. It needs more context.

same thing, there is NO PURPOSE, but it sure looks that way.

> which do you agree with (if any)?

Let me point out that the above quotes are all using Darwin as a symbol for the whole field of evolution-based science, and I am answering them based on that assumption. If that is not your intent, if you are trying to talk about Darwin "The real man", then we need to do some defining of terms before I can answer your question accurately.

Let me also ask... where did you find such archeaic language? These quotes all look like they are contemporary with Darwin. Point me to this source as your Intelligent Design article!

many sources not so old. neo-darwins or more highly evolved darwinism if you will same idea. randomness leads to what looks like purpose.

The parts Roger has written are in italics. The parts Toby has written are in normal text.

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36