Prof. Tim wrote:
> is consistant with a Darwinian
> model of development.
>
> Do you mean that it happened by chance (accident)...that there is no meaning
> or purpose (only that it was never destroyed by something stronger)...that
> we can only evaluate it by its subsequent effect (it's usefulness to
> ourselves in making whatever point we want to make so that we can compete
> and kill others who use different interpretations)? If that is what you
> mean by "Darwinian", then I don't think that the rest of my post backs up
> that interpretation.
Wow! You just take the ball and run with it don't you?
No, that isn't what I meant. You've ass-u-med a lot. Too much. Find out
a little more about Darwinism and get back to me. (I'm sure several people
here could offer you URLs. Or you could check out the CoV homepage.)
-Prof. Tim