 | | 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)
|
