[TowerTalk] TowerTalk Digest, Vol 35, Issue 6

[Michael Tope]

Aside from the fact that listening to behavior in DX pileups
proves unequivocally that man evolved from lower forms of
life, what the heck does this discussion have to do with
towers and antennas? There isn't enough bandwidth on this
reflector to settle these questions about origin of the species.
Please QSY this discussion to ALT.DARWIN.ARGUE or
some other suitable forum, before this thread spins totally out
of control :)

Thanks,

Mike, W4EF............................


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "kd4e" <kd4e at verizon.net>
To: "Jim Brown" <jim at audiosystemsgroup.com>
Cc: "Tower Talk List" <towertalk at contesting.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2005 2:13 AM
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] TowerTalk Digest, Vol 35, Issue 6


>> "Big Bang" and Evolution are both based on the scientific method, and the
>> latter has been quite well proven. Creation and Intelligent Design are 
>> both
>> matters of faith. If the human race is to survive, it is critical that we
>> understand the difference, and not be shouted down by those who would 
>> impose
>> their faith on others. While I am a person thoroughly grounded in my 
>> faith
>> and practice it, I do understand that difference.
>> Jim Brown K9YC
>
> This statement is not based upon fact.  Darwin noted later
> in life that he had serious concerns that his *theory*
> may be unsupportable.
>
> The *theory* of evolution has never been successfully
> subjected to the most critical elements of scientific
> validation (reproducability among others).
>
> Mathematicians have shown the presumptions of evolution
> so greatly exceed the requirements of possibility so as
> to be categorized as absurd.
>
> The scientific movement known as "intelligent design"
> counts among its number many who claim no religious
> faith whatsoever, some of whom have labeled the zealots
> for evolution as behaving in a "religious" manner.
>
> That there are some in the movement who have personal
> religious beliefs is not a ground upon which one may
> rationally dismiss their arguments.
>
> Non-religious supporters of intelligent design do not
> claim to have the answer to the origins of life on
> earth, they merely have the integrity to recognize
> that evolution fails scientifically.  (Some non-religious
> intelligent design proponents postulate that life on
> earth came from species from other planets.  They
> choose to not attempt to speculate on their origins.)
>
> It is interesting that supporters of evolution want to
> so desperately prove that the origins of life on earth
> are the result of random spontaneous events -- such
> is driven by a "religious" insistence that life started
> on this planet.
>
> One must recall that the origins of the theory of
> evolution are in a religious dispute and Darwin's goal
> was to present an alternative to the dominent religious
> theory -- his presumption was non-scientific because he
> left no room for a non-earth source of life.
>
> I am *not* promoting a non-earth source, I am just
> noting that it is not correct to state that the *theory
> of evolution* "has been quite well proven" because
> it is not so.
>
> Here are a couple of resources:
> http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/
> http://www.arn.org/
>