 | | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
This reply is brought about by Dave's direct request: (...) (URL) (sorry to keep using and defending this source because you all hate it so much - but it is the best online one that I know...if you're immediately plannng on saying "that source isn't (...) (24 years ago, 10-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Creationists' theory
|
|
(...) I don't even knwo why I bother since I could cite every source ont he subject known that explains this but here's another one just for the record: (URL) to answer your fish question from the next message: (URL) Kent Hovind also explains this (...) (24 years ago, 10-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
(...) The breaking point with both analogies is that they refer to human-invented artefacts (leading to the spurious conclusion that the universe is _necessarily_ a God-invented artefact). Re the scaffolding, I can give an example from embryology. (...) (24 years ago, 10-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
|
(...) Many organisms, particularly plants, cope very well with multiple copies of the same (or similar) chromosomes. For example, modern agricultural wheat has three "sub-genomes" which are more or less identical. Spelt (I think), a more ancient (...) (24 years ago, 10-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A question about this creationism/evolution debate
|
|
(...) Unless you believe the Bible. The Bible tells VERY clearly how and when earth was created, and if you don't believe that then you don't have to believe anything else the Bible says. There are multiple conflicts between the Bible and the (...) (24 years ago, 10-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Creationists' theory
|
|
(...) I was so busy at work that I forgot one of the more obvious grevious errors with your speaker. He seems to think that Noah only needed to gather land dwelling animals, that the water dwelling ones just swam around happily....PAP. Have you ever (...) (24 years ago, 10-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Creationists' theory
|
|
(...) I think you need to reread his original post: (...) Obvious typo, which he corrected, he added 3 too many zeros, he meant 1.8Million. But note the "different species OF LIVING BEINGS" (...) The LARGE majority of species on this planet are (...) (24 years ago, 10-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
(...) This is a good start. I have some additions to this but I'm late for an event I have to go to. I'll send my comments ASAP. -chris (24 years ago, 10-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | A question about this creationism/evolution debate
|
|
This question is mainly aimed at the individuals here supporting 'scientific creationism', but anyone else is free to add their own thoughts. What is the creationist community afraid of when it comes to evolution? There is no conflict that I can (...) (24 years ago, 10-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 2002 Lord of the Rings Lego line?
|
|
David Gowing <davidgowing@lineone.net> wrote in message news:G8FH27.AE8@lugnet.com... (...) are (...) more (...) could (...) more (...) I have actually read the first, well, less than 3 pages of the first book, BUT my girlfriend has read them all. (...) (24 years ago, 10-Feb-01, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Creationists' theory
|
|
(...) Okay now I'm REALLY questioning the credability of these numbers. Please give me an authoritative source on this. First you (inclusive of "the evolutionists in this discussion") say "1.800.000.000 species", then you correct yourself and say (...) (24 years ago, 10-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Creationists' theory
|
|
(...) Hah! Like that matters! Do you want to even TRY to calculate the sheer volume of 2.2MILLION insects, especially since then would have to be housed separately to avoid some eating others? Want to try to figure out the food requirements for (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
(...) Repeatedly shaking such a box is simply re-randomization. If somehow you could discard every faulty physical combination of the elements and preserve the useful ones (as traits are discarded or preserved through evolution) your chances at (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
(...) You're quite correct. (Maybe if you gave it BILLIONS of years at that temperature though (note tongue-in-cheek....sort of)) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
(...) "do not, do to, do not, do to, do not...." - how many times are you going to say this Larry? (...) First of all, I never suggested that Creation should REPLACE all "Eolutionary" teaching in the textooks - I personally would like to see it (...) (24 years ago, 9-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
