 | | Re: Problems with Creationists' theory
|
|
(...) I'm not quite sure what you mean by this - because this sure does sound like an evolutionist's argument to me. Certainly you have hit on a point where "practically" speaking a creationist can't argue against the monstrosity of the event you (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
(...) I realise the limits of taking an analogy too far...but since you already did it.....what you've just said is still intelligent design. What are the chances of a moustrap forming if you put all the parts into a box and shake it - that's not (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
(...) Maybe, but only insofar as the peppered moth was espoused as proof in a very public way, which it wasn't. Correction in future texts would be appropriate, as would a mention of the erroneous conclusions about the moth. For that matter, in my (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
(...) I certainly agree-- but who? Let's say we discovered that, oh, I dunno, Rome didn't 'fall' to the Visigoths, but instead some disease infested the city and they were forced to relocate. But the Romans, not wanting to appear as though Gods (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
|
(...) Generally a full autopsy requires the examination of such soft bits as are seldom preserved for 65+ million years. With this in mind, it's difficult to assess the viral pathology of an organism of which you have only fossilized bones (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
