 | | Re: I've said enough...
|
|
(...) Honestly, I don't think that at all. What do I think? I think this is a phenomenally hard topic for a lot of people. I'm used to it. So are a lot of the people here. Heck, that's why we post so much-- because we've had lots of practice at (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) This is not so. As pointed out in a very recent post, any cause and effect (and there may be none, some, or a lot) is unidirectional. Perhaps some explanation? First of all, let's get the temporal sequence correct, where "->" means "happened (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | I've said enough...
|
|
...And now that you've all read that subject line you've probably said to yourself "aha! - He's been trapped and knows it and is going to make an excuse so he doesn't have to admit he's wrong".....and you're entitled to think that if you wish, and (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
|
(...) Well, we did indeed go to different schools, so at least in this case we can both be right :-) (...) What can I say? In my experience this has not been the case, and I have yet to hear any sufficient explanation of why all these things are (...) (24 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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 (...) (24 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 (...) (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)
|
