 | | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) A-ha! Your judgement tells you that such evidence supports the existence of God, yes? Mine doesn't. (...) I shall correct you by saying that scientific evidence does not contradict creationism, just as it does not contradict evolution. Neither (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A whole new debate.
|
|
(...) Since you conveniently cut the first half, let me point that you are clearly not disputing that you are in fact ignorant of what constitutes science, and what constitutes a scientist (there's nothing wrong with being ignorant, but I have a (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) Actually, he doesn't address the points I make - all he produces is more sophistry and verbal obfuscation, the main thrust of that being that anything with the word "evolution" in it is akin to Darwin's Theory of Evolution. I have provided a (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) Well, I don't have kids of a relevant age, but I can certainly state definitively that they were clearly seperate and not intertwined when I learned about them in school - In fact, when I took that kind of stuff, the Big Bang Theory was only (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A whole new debate.
|
|
(...) Essentailly, yes. Show me how a dog reproduces where its offspring contains NEW material (for example, has grown an entirely new organ) and is able to undeniably pass that organ on to all succeeding offspring. "Please understand, when I talk (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
