In a message dated 10/5/2000 10:50:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
Nucacids@aol.com writes:
> << Certainly the fact that we can use our technology to manipulate
> biological systems is hardly evidence of ID in nature. That would be
> begging
> the question. >>
>
> FMAJ,
>
> I'm afraid your response indicates you missed the whole point of my essay.
> For just the briefest moment, you'll have to step out of your anti-ID armor
> to
> understand what I am saying. Do you want to battle or understand?
Do you have any argument to make other than to assert? Why do you suggest
that I do not want to understand? Nor is battling an argument inconsistent
with understanding an argument. If you want to make an argument then at least
address why my argument is incorrect.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Oct 06 2000 - 02:17:12 EDT