 | | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) "Oxymoron" may have been a cruel overstatement, but I stand by my assertion that there is nothing scientific about Creationism. However, in another post, I recognized the error of my absolutist stance and acknowledge that it's fair to call (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) I agree, and hope that Dave(!) will reconsider. Since it is a name of a belief/theory, and the name is reasonably illustrative of what the theorists are thinking about, I think the name is fit. (...) That's completely wrong. Plenty of (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) What's the difference between "pure Creationism" and "Scientific Creationism?" Both are based on anti-logic, and both are necessarily rooted in theistic dogma. If you want to produce a totally non- sectarian vision of spontaneous generation ex (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
|
(...) Please don't misunderstand me--I reject "Scientific Creationism" as a term because there is nothing at all scientific about it. It makes no claims that can be tested, it calls for no experiments that can be repeated, it uses no evidence that (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
|
(...) This claim got me interested. I decided that a thorough analysis of the past fifty years of US politics was beyond my level of interest. So I narrowed my exploration to the current US Senate. I sifted and sorted some stats and came up with: 50 (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
