|
|
 | | Re: Why not Both?
|
| (...) OK. So in the system you accept as a true, revealed system, your god exists forever and created the universe, but himself doesn't need a creator. In the one I accept as likely based on the evidence and observations so far (note the difference, (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
| (...) Do you understand what a theory is? Do you understand that gravity is a theory? Do you understand that science deals in theories all the time? (...) Man's best friend (dogs). Tested, observed, and demonstrable. Perhaps you may wish to be more (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Why not Both?
|
| (...) You'll have to clarify here: your personal relationship has a historical basis, and is based on the evidence of your life and others'? Actually, I'll correct myself by saying I think you're adressing two topics-- both the personal connection, (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Evolution - Impossible!
|
| (...) Here's what you said: How about another point of view? msnhomepages.talkcit...ssible.htm -Jon (I was being conservative with 10^50) Don't see any conditions, I don't see any call for refutation. Again, you have been challenged by several (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Why not Both?
|
| (...) Here we come to what is seemingly an impossible thing to answer: HOWEVER: If you are already in a position where you say you believe the Bible the answer is simple - the Bible clearly states that God always was, is, and always will be (sorry, (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
|
