 | | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) I was only answering the "willingness to admit that I MAY be wrong." Not the other - although I can provide one to that too. -Jon (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) Which Bible, exactly? You're aware, I expect, the so-called original texts have been translated and copied and edited and excerpted and altered and reinterpreted and re-translated and re-copied over and over and over again?What makes you think (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) No, I certainly might be wrong. I refuse to admit that the Bible might be wrong. (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Its Own Worst Enemy (was Re: Support for Creationism )
|
|
(...) snipped from (URL) Questions for Evolutionists for the purposes of review and discussion. No challenge to the copyright status of this work is implied or should be inferred. (...) It does not evolve into a butterfly; the organism has the same (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) Hmmm....I wish I had seen this earlier. Did you happen to follow the link to "Answers to commonly asked questions about the $250, 000 Offer" ((URL) addresses every point that you mentioned in your previous post so rather than me try and defend (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) Carbon dating. Speed of light. (More specifically, observed doppler shift as pertains to stars (and other astronomical bodies), indicating direction, speed of travel & distance.) Two well established scientific processes, both of which (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) And I have repeatedly asked you to provide an example showing their unlikeliness and telling me at least one or two available observations that don't support it. (Notice that I left out "Unverifiable" since the claims of Evolution are also (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A whole new debate.
|
|
(...) What sort of "cross" are you looking for? Do you require a fish with legs or an ape with gills? As Bruce points out correctly, *everything* is a transitional stage. I myself am a transitional point between my father and my son. The fact that (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) So, in other words, you refuse to admit that you might be wrong. James (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) I argue first and foremost that the Creation we see all around us is evidence of God's existence (as is mentioned in the Bible). I also argue that scientific evidence supports the Creation theory. Of course there's no proof, then there would (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) Before you assume that I am going to answer a question by simply stating "God's Plan" (which I agree is a cop-out if used as a response to every question), why don't you ask one. I will say, however, that you may insert "God's Plan" in front (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Macro-Evolution - Impossible!
|
|
(...) IANAP either, however: (URL) -TiM NB, CA (URL) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) So how can one say that issuing a misleading textbook without pointing out the BLATANT errors isn't misleading the student? (...) There are a heck of a lot less evidences to discredit the above theories compared to Evolution. (here's 20 to (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Which was Created first man or animals?
|
|
(...) (URL) read: (URL) -TiM NB, CA (URL) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A whole new debate.
|
|
(...) And since you gave me a few huge websites to dig up the information I'll return the favor: (URL) links to: "What does the fossil record teach us about Evolution" (URL) there fossil evidence of 'missing links' between humans and apes? Did (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A whole new debate.
|
|
(...) Although indirectly it seems that you are agin debating terminology and avoiding the real question (unless you misunderstood what I (they) meant by "transitional". Why are there no fossils that demonstrate transitions between any modern (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Chaotic Systems... (was: Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism)
|
|
(...) I'm with Scott A. on this, while all patterns are equally likely (in a fair draw) to come up, if you want to maximize your expected result, choose patterns less likely to have been selected so you reduce the odds of splitting with someone (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) I've detailed this in previous posts, including the following one where I made a distinction between evolution as a process and the theory of evolution: (URL) that we are discussing material presented in schools, and so I will reiterate here (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Chaotic Systems... (was: Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism)
|
|
(...) Well, definitely such a sequence is much less likely than a more "random looking" sequence. If you 6 numbers are the digits 1-9, there are only 4 such sequences compared to a total of 9!/3! sequences (if each digit can only occur once, 9^6 (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Probability: (Was: Re: Chaotic Systems...)
|
|
(...) Most definitely, but that's only because there are more non-sequential combinations. But any PARTICULAR non-sequential combination is just as likely, obviously... (...) And again, the same applies... given that it'll be sequential, the (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
