|
|
 | | Re: Why not Both?
|
| (...) Okay, let's hear it (or is this another one of those I-can-answer-but-won't situations?) Dave! (25 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | 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 (25 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 (...) (25 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. (25 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 (...) (25 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
|
