 | | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) Gee I can say wrong too! :-) "Abiogenesis" is not taught in schools as "abiogenesis" - it's called 'evolution' too. And my other comment still applies - they're all intertwined - one cannot exist without the other. If one claims that simple (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) Thanks for falling into the logic trap. Given: You are not infallable Statement: You state the bible is not wrong. Conclusion: The Bible might be wrong. Pretty basic logic algorithm. James (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) have (...) level is the Big Bang theory, which has nothing to do with Darwin's theory of (...) In your experience, perhaps, but then we're all limited by our own personal experiences. Evolution and the theory of origins, and the Big Bang are (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Credibility... (Was: Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!"))
|
|
(...) Self-aggrandizement. (...) Not that I know the answer for this guy, but different colleges award credit hours differently. I've attended 4 colleges and they all used different measures of "credit hours". -Jon (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) You're being silly (or - more likely - provocative) I've posted my answer. -Jon (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) I believe, given my time limits, it's far easier to adopt Tim's methodology - cite a concise preexisting answer. Why is Christianity supreme? - Why is it different? (URL) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) Easily explained away. All that is required is a god that wants to rig the game... The stars were created in 4006 BC with the appropriate compositions and velocities and things were set up so that light of the appropriate frequency was already (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) Good - an easy one! "Sect" I usally take to mean a small, off-the-beaten-path branch of something greater. Although that may not have been your intention, I _did_ only say 'a bit.' My branch of Christianity is actually pretty mainstream - I (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) How do I know your interpretation of the Bible is flawed? I'd really like to answer that... What is your interpretation? Or are you just using hyperbole to imply that you and Darwin are both evolutionists? Please elaborate. -Jon (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) Okay, let's hear it (or is this another one of those I-can-answer-but-won't situations?) Dave! (24 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 (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)
|
