 | | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
|
(...) I'd just like to clarify that I never said that at all, but you rather assumed that's what I meant. I did say "interestingly enough". Just one response to this message (see my reply to Ross's message for why I didn't respond to the others) (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
|
(...) Thank you Ross. This citation is the most direct refutation you could have found :)...and since I don't have any counter-refutations myself, I'm not going to argue it :) Please note that this does not, however, mean that I believe it or admit (...) (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
|
(...) I can't say as I've actually pondered those particular facts personally....but you sure do have some good points! (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) I think the main point here is that while some things can be objectively stated, their implications may be subject to historical context. For example, say 100 years from now, it would be true to say that Elizabeth II and Henry VIII were both (...) (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
|
(...) Well it's nice that you bring that up....what is it about evolution that you DO believe exactly? (...) Jeepers Bruce! At least Ross showed me where I could find counter-arguments! Not only do you not cite a source you just throw a couple (...) (24 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
