|
|
 | | Re: Why not Both?
|
| (...) Wow. You really ARE missing the point. One last chance, and that's all. You claim that the Bible is right. You admit that you may be wrong. Therefore, the Bible may be wrong. And quite frankly, I don't care if you think the Bible is right. I (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | 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 (...) (25 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 (...) (25 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 (...) (25 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 (...) (25 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
|
