|
| |
|  
impossible
(score: 0.883)
|
|
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
| David Eaton wrote: <...snip interesting set of propositions...> (...) This is closest to the general Unitarian Universalist Christian theology (I say "general" because UU theology doesn't require a single answer). However there are some possible (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
impossible
(score: 0.883)
|
|
| |
|
impossible
(score: 0.883)
|
|
| | Re: Evolution - Impossible!
|
| (...) I guess that's the best I can expect? Surely you can do better than name-calling - how about some specific refutation. If you won't or can't - you've closed your mind and further discussion will probably be futile. -Jon (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
impossible
(score: 0.883)
|
|
| |
|
impossible
(score: 0.883)
|
|
| | Re: Evolution - Impossible!
|
| (...) Dave mentioned elsewhere that he is preparing some kind of response to this, so I am defering to him at the moment rather than duplicate effort. To cover it all would take quite a bit of effort. Tell you what, though, show me where he got any (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
impossible
(score: 0.883)
|
|
| | Re: Evolution - Impossible!
|
| (...) Nice - you want me to defend him. I'm not attacking him. (!) Why don't you try and dispute any of it? I won't be so foolish to claim that it's perfect, only that I probably agree with most of it. Defer to Dave if you will. -Jon (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
impossible
(score: 0.883)
|
|
| | Re: Evolution - Impossible!
|
| (...) No - I just want you to provide some evidence for your claims, which you refuse to do. I'm afraid we are fast approaching the, "A non-answer IS an answer" stage (i.e. you don't answer because you can't). (...) Didn't say you were. (...) What (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
impossible
(score: 0.883)
|
|
| | Re: Evolution - Impossible!
|
| (...) The article has evidence enough, shall I quote it? (rhetorical) (...) I toyed with posting the article in it's entirety :-) But I'll simply say this: I'll be happy to defend anything in it. -Jon (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
impossible
(score: 0.883)
|
|
| | Re: Evolution - Impossible!
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jon Kozan writes: you can't). (...) I gave you essentially two options and I'd respond to either: point out where any parts of the article were published in a reputable scientific journal and I'd respond to those, or tell (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
impossible
(score: 0.883)
|
|
| | Re: Evolution - Impossible!
|
| (...) You're missing the point again. I started the thread - and I asked for refutation - it is you who have provided none. Nor have you cited any published articles which refute it. My condition stands. You are the target of your own words. Somehow (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
impossible
(score: 0.883)
|
|
| | Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!"
|
| (...) Okay, but you haven't named names in any thread in which you've participated. My objection isn't simply to your line of reasoning (which is a substantial objection, I grant you) but rather to your willful choice not to support your claims (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
impossible
(score: 0.883)
|
|
| | Re: Evolution - Impossible!
|
| (...) Sorry for the delay in replying to this -- I've just spent a few very relaxing days by the beach! *Donahue's introduction Two glaring flaws. He links abiogenesis to species-becomes-species evolution, and says that if he can disprove the former (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
impossible
(score: 0.883)
|
|
| | Macro-Evolution - Impossible!
|
| "Remember, the evidence the fossil record gives us is not about *how* macroevolution happens, merely that it does." ++Lar The fossil record as an evidence for macro-evolution has two aspects which must be considered: 1) Do strata (layers of soil) (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
impossible
(score: 0.883)
|
|
| |
|
impossible
(score: 0.883)
|
|
| | Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!"
|
| (...) I thought that the fossil record does not show any evidence of survival of the fittest. It is my understanding that the fossil record does show ample evidence of evolution per se, but gives no reason why. "Survival of the fittest" is a catch (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
impossible
(score: 0.883)
|
|
| | Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!"
|
| (...) I stand corrected. With the caveat that Darwin had no part in the phrase "survival of the fittest". Evolution was postulated before Darwin, he simply came up with an explanation for the mechanism behind it. His evidence was in large part from (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
impossible
(score: 0.883)
|
|
| | Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!"
|
| (...) Ok, so you're saying it can't be debated? You think evolution is a fact? If you don't like my #2, please restate it in the form you like better. After everyone agrees on the form of the question - I'll then address it as the unsupportable (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
impossible
(score: 0.883)
|
|
| |
|
impossible
(score: 0.883)
|
|
| | Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!"
|
| (...) Jon: You've repeatedly mentioned leading scientists and overwhelming numbers to defend your case against evolution without giving actual names or numbers. For the umpteenth time, can you provide any actual names or numbers, other than those (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
|
impossible
(score: 0.883)
|
