Guys You are killing this board.

Eta writes:Heck if you need a Mod for the Cosmology section I'll do it.

buz writes:So either rename the forum or allow us to debate on Biblical creationist supernatural assumptions as set forth in our Biblical ideology.

Brad writes:It is because of the *strong* molecular representations we have and can have here at EVC ,unlike other boards, (which is a good thing) that makes it possible to think that a "great" debate would be appropriate where I think I can say both me and JD would disagree. It was clear EXACTLY why I had problems at Cornell(Stan and I never explicity discussed canalization but Provine thought that the 50s/60s period was necessary to understand embryology. He was wrong. Smallhausen and Waddington started all that that information gains from the knowledge needs today(regardless of computers). Dawkins makes the distinction (between recipe and blueprint embryology) but gives the fox till 2050 for him(RD) to make a recipie criticsm or any energy division no matter how arranged before then. The date WAS 1551 as Gould had it instead.I'll open this parenthetical later if at all). I will address this later if I can exact my hedgehog spines from the opening image in my mind. I however have NOT had my gradfather's thoughts which did not change since 54, for sure!

It is because of the *strong* molecular representations we have and can have here at EVC ,unlike other boards, (which is a good thing) that makes it possible to think that a "great" debate would be appropriate where I think I can say both me and JD would disagree. It was clear EXACTLY why I had problems at Cornell(Stan and I never explicity discussed canalization but Provine thought that the 50s/60s period... blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah...