Debate : 17023


Off-Topic / Debate / 17023

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —James Brown

(...) Evolution isn't trying to explain the universe. You seem to be stumbling over that. (...) Now *THIS* I can agree with (the reaction, not the notion). It's an impression I've had for a long time in .debate, although I don't think anyone's (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Tom Stangl

I don't have a problem with someone believing in a Greater Being... What I DO have a problem with is the following: IF such a Greater Being exists, why is he/she/it such a bastard? I don't take with the Watchmaker theory, it basically doesn't jive. (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —John Spencer Rezkalla

(...) I don't have a problem if someone believes in a higher power, wants to attend a church, etc. This is America and you have that personal right. I DO have a problem when lawmakers in Ohio try to push their religious views into public school (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —David Eaton

(...) I think this is the attitude that James B. was referring to. Let me ask you, what's not "valid" about Creationism? I don't think 'science' can or will be able to disprove it-- although I don't doubt that it will find mounds more evidence to (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —James Brown

(...) Only in part. I was partly refering to the trend to dismiss faith-based arguments, but I was more speaking to the further dismissal of anyone bringing forward faith-based arguments. John (Neal)'s borne the recent brunt of this, but he's by no (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Creationism —Dave Schuler

(...) Well, you're making several different points here, so let's take them one by one; First off, John R's not saying Creationism isn't "valid;" he's saying that it's not a "valid scientific theory," and he's 100% correct. Creationism is not (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Creationism —David Eaton

(...) Disagree-- but you won't like the answer. (...) Sure it is. It's just that *IF* most Creationists were presented with conflicting data, they'd choose to ignore or dismiss it. Just like you ignore or dismiss the Bible as evidence against (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Creationism —Dave Schuler

(...) Actually, no it's not. At least, not Christian Creationism, which is really what we're talking about. The presence of an omnipotent being by definition eliminates all falsifiability or empirical verification--two necessary criteria for a (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Creationism —David Eaton

(...) Well, that's not the part that's falsifiable. And, I agree-- if we take the absolutemost non-literal translation of the Bible and say 1 day = 8.6 billion years or what-have-you, then yes, you're right, it may *not* be falsifiable. Certainly (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Creationism —Dave Schuler

(...) Okay, but it's still not scientific. My claim that I just came back from the men's room is falsifiable, but that's not really scientific, either. (...) The flood story? the GLOBAL flood story? Not hardly. And anecdotal examples of failures of (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Creationism —David Eaton

(...) I know this ever-so-rarely ever happens, but I think I'm going to switch gears and join your team on this one, based on something that struck me after writing this post: (URL) that the Biblical Creation story *does* have evidence to support (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Creationism —Dave Schuler

(...) In an arena of two competing theories, the one that is able to make testable predictions is stronger than and therefore preferable to the one that is not so able. If the theory does not make testable predictions, you can't really perform (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Creationism —David Eaton

(...) Question is, is it still "scientific"? I'd still want to say yes. (...) Alright, fine. Switch the example then (we can play this game for a while yet to come). Suppose we *don't* know the chemical makeup of Halley's Comet, because it gets (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Creationism —Dave Schuler

(...) Are you asking if post hoc reasoning is scientific? No--it's actually one of the hallmarks of pseudoscience, like palmistry or astrology or Creationism. (...) For the umpteenth time in this debate you have presented the falacy known as "the (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Creationism —David Eaton

(...) I think the issue here was my interpretation of your specific problem with Creationism wherein you said: (...) The issue I was attempting to discuss here (if you trace back) is with the 2nd item in your list: "does not make any predictions (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Creationism —Dave Schuler

(...) Again, I've been basing my argument on the notion of the Xtian interpretation of Genesis re: infinite Creator. All bets are off once an infinite entity steps into the equation, so my objection stands. This is also, by the way, why studies into (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Creationism —David Eaton

(...) I'll still argue that Biblical Creationism is falsifiable-- it's just that CreationISTS tend to either bend with the evidence, or refuse it. If, for example, we were able to "prove" that humans preceeded the Earth, out goes Biblical (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Creationism —Dave Schuler

(...) See my previous point that falsifiable theories that are proven false have no explanatory scientific value. This is the case with biblical creation. The "day-lengths" thing--to which you correctly refer as disproven--was by the way a classic (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Creationism —David Eaton

(...) Apparently without a 2nd thought, sadly :( It still rather catches me by suprise that the 1st instinct isn't "Oh! We might be wrong!" but is instead "Oh! We must have misinterpreted!". The justification, BTW, is just that: 'Our former (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Creationism —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Yaay, another Larritarian! I expect a love offering from you, acolyte. Took you long enough though. (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Creationism —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) What? Of course the Big Bang theory makes predictions. Virtually any model makes predictions. You then see if observable data matches the predictions - in the case of the Big Bang, are galaxies (or more properly galactic groupings) moving away (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Creationism —David Eaton

(...) I think you reversed the prediction with the evidence. The evidence was (IIRC) that galaxies are all moving away from each other, and the *conclusion* was that the Big Bang happened. There is no "Therefore, BECAUSE the Big Bang happened, X". (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Creationism —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Seriously? Where'd you get that stat? Chris (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Creationism —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) <goad> Well, it's because the other 33% are Hindus and Jews, and the rest aren't really humans. </goad> The figure is closer to 30-35%, by the way. (URL) best LFB (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Creationism —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Chris (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Creationism —David Eaton

(...) rather than 1/3 which is I think what I heard the stat as... sorry 'bout that one... DaveE (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Creationism —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) I cited one aspect of the Big Bang, that's all. You usually have some kind of evidence, contruct a model, and then see if you can find new evidence to confirm or deny the theory. I spoke from the standpoint of the model, not the actual linear (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Creationism —David Eaton

(...) Well, the point on this one was that I think Dave! insinuated that in order for a theory to be 'scientific', one requirement was that the theory must be able to make predictions. And I disagreed with that assertion. That's where this one was (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Creationism —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) I don't think what makes a theory scientific is as hard and fast as some would like to indicate. Does it have to "helpful" to be scientific? Why would it have to? (...) Basically, Creationist Theories don't fit the known evidence. (...) (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Creationism —John Neal

(...) But I could say the same about the existence of an infinite Being. <snipping here> (...) This is because science is using a loaded bat (to continue the metaphor). The presuppositions of science are that if you can't test it, observe it, (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Creationism —John Spencer Rezkalla

(...) Yep, thank you for clarifying that for the audience. I suppose I could have emphasized the term "scientific" rather than "valid", but it seems perfectly clear to me the way I originally wrote it. I don't oppose the teaching of creationism, I (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Dave Schuler

(...) I'm one of those people, so I'll offer something of an explanation. It's not that we (allow me to presume to speak for others who share my view on this) think an anti-evolutionist is a lesser *person,* but it is almost invariably the case that (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —David Eaton

(...) Isn't accusing someone of using "falacious logic" an insult to their person? IE assuming they're a lesser one? I think the assumption you're making is that "I would *never* come to that conclusion, but you would, and that conclusion is (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Dave Schuler

(...) Well, don't condemn me for the assumptions *you're* making. Here's a restatement: A: Rational reasoning is based on experience and observation of verifiable evidence B: Intuitive reasoning is based on feelings and impressions independent of (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —David Eaton

(...) I dunno if I'd go so far as to distinguish these two methods of reasoning as much as you'd like to... Could you give me an utterly basic example of each? (...) Ah-- so here's the clutch. Your argument is that your reasoning is superior to (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Dave Schuler

(...) Rational: After repeated trials eliminating as many external variables as possible, it is apparent that penicillin has a positive medicinal effect on the disease tuberculosis Intuitive: I slept with the window open, and my tuberculosis (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —David Eaton

(...) Really? Now, I'd call them both rational (==logical?) decisions, there's just less support for the 2nd as opposed to the 1st. IE I'd be "less sure" of the 2nd assumption than the 1st. Which is really how I feel about Creationism. It's not that (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Larry Pieniazek

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes: <snippety snip> (...) I'm OK with that view! (does that come as a shock to anyone???) Reason is our evolutionary advantage. If you can't or won't reason, you're repudiating your humanity. I'm an (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Richard Marchetti

(...) Let me play off this idea for a minute... The problem with faith-based assertions in a category like debate is that it tends to operate as a trump card of a kind. Faith-based assertions are not logical -- they skip over such a concern and go (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —David Koudys

(...) Very well thought out and written, Dave! A few of my thoughts and ideas (that I can guarantee won't be as thought out nor in any sense a coherent order)... I find that there are fellow Christians out there who *have* to hit others over the (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Joseph Williams

(...) Mabye this seems cold but I feel that this has to do with continuity of the species. Maternal instinct is found in many species to varying degree, as is monogamous relationships. Monogany helps assures fidelity, security and assures the (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) [snip] (...) Well, there are only three organisms that routinely recognize individual identity through graphic representations and the notion of self as tested with a mirror. Dolphins aren't one of them. We are. Obviously there is yet much to (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Joseph Williams

When anthropologists encountered stone age tribes in Africa they exposed them to many objects of the industrial world including pictures. They didn't perceive them as a representative image, let alone the object they were depicting. To expose a (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) I call "bullhockey." Citation, please. This just screams residual imperial mentality and the racist anthropology of the pre-WWI era--and the fact that you use it to make a point about nonhumans is extremely problematic. best LFB (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) (probably should clarify--I'm not calling you racist, but calling the example one that's generated by racist hierarchy and totally useless in the context.) -LFB (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Joseph Williams

(...) thanks for clarifying to me that I'm not a racist there, I was wondering about that for awhile now, nice for you to set me straight. As far as it being a useless point out of context, I was replying to a statement that dolphins could not see (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) Because "tribes in the stone age" is a severe value judgement. It implies that they exist along a continuum that has us at the "good" end and them at the "primitive" or less developed end. That's the core of development theory. And it's (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I'm OK with that so far as it goes... Tribes in the stone age ARE less developed. And I am perfectly OK characterising my life (and my society) as "better" than theirs. We have LEGO(r). They don't. QED. Next! ++Lar (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Joseph Williams

(...) I had no idea that Stone Age was an unpc term. I must update my civilization terminolgy lexicon. Mabye metallurgically challenged? Not preferring alloys? Archae/anthro 'gists have been the worst ambassadors and tomb raiders since recorded (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) The big problem with it has little to do with the "emotional distress" it supposedly places on people (I said nothing about this, so I'm not sure where you got it from). It has to do with the fallacious logic that the creation of this linear (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Joseph Williams

(...) There are actual groups of people for lack of a better term, we'll call a tribe, who having no technology beyond stone tool making and limited agriculture fall into a social development known as the Stone Age. These cultures have been having (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) Where did you read that this was an indictment of your intentions regarding cultures? I was making a general point about the problems with the terminology *that is used in the field*, and you're accusing me of something totally out of left (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Joseph Williams

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Careful, your (non classical) liberal education is causing you to use loaded words... that they happen not to be correct is an added bonus for those keeping score at home. (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I too wonder about this. I've heard that bandied about for years, but haven't seen any real accounts of it. I would like to read an account of this occurance. Chris (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Dave Schuler

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes: Well, super. After I climb all the way up onto my high horse someone comes along with a polite and articulate post (and he's Canadian, of all things!) Some great points follow: (...) "Missing link" (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Tom Stangl

(...) BTW, it's bugging me that people haven't detailed the fish yet, just because I used to follow the info on it closely. It was just in the last decade or so that they've caught LIVE ones for scientists. For the longest time, they were just (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) "Micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" are creationist terms, not terms used by scientists. That should tell you something right away. Further, in evolution, what you would call "macro-evolution" is nothing more than "micro-evolution" over a (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —David Koudys

(...) Once again, the difference is jumping species. Whether it's 2 years or 2 thousand years, or 2 million years, a fish is still a fish. Sure, it adapted over the course of those millions of years to climate changes, grew a new fin to help it (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Tom Stangl

(...) False. Evolution describes the changes to fit the environment (simplifying greatly). If the Ceolacanth evolved to the point *where it succeeded in its' environment*, it doesn't necessarily have to change any more to fit Evolutionary Theory. (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) In fact, the coelecanth *has* undergone further change. Genus Latimera is unknown in the fossil record; it is *a* coelecanth, but there are many, many types. A few of the changes that have happened to the coelecanth since the end of the (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —James Brown

(...) <...> (...) <...> (...) Dave, I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding about what evolutionary theory is. I would encourage you to step back from the evolution:creation debate, and try and look at the theory of evolution from within a (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —David Koudys

(...) Now this is refreshing--'The theory of Evolution' and saying that it has nothing to do with the plausibility of God. For the record, I believe the world to be millions of years old. I believe the universe to be even older. I believe that there (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —David Koudys

(...) To clear up after reading my post and realizing that I didn't complete this thought--I was thanking James for his well worded response. It was shown to me thusly (trashing God) in parts of this debate and I appreciate his efforts to clear it (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) But no one said that about evolution. I don't even thing that anyone asserted that about science. I happen to not believe in any kind god-stuff, but that has nothing to do with the topic. Even if I did, it would still be clear that evolution (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —James Brown

(...) Ya know, I think that's the most succinctly phrased understatement I've heard in a long time. thanks James (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Well, people have been saying that all along!!!! What took you so long? Science in general has nothing to say about faith based beliefs other than "they are outside the purview of science". You can't use science to prove or disprove them. But (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —John Neal

(...) That may be true, but I wonder: When evolution is taught in schools, is it preceded by the topic "origin of the universe"? That seems logical to me, and I'd be willing to bet that Big Bang garners all of the press (to the exclusion of (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Larry Pieniazek

(...) A creator is not a theory. It fails the falsifyability test. You seem not to understand this... (...) The evidence indicates support for the Big Bang (I think that's a misnomer in modern terminology, but OK...) and as Dave! is relating quite (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —John Neal

(...) Would you say that it is possible to talk about events prior to the big bang without referring to religion? -John (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Larry Pieniazek

(...) It is not possible to meaningfully talk about events prior to the big bang (1) at this time. Period. With or without religion. (except in the negative sense of saying that we can't talk about them as we have no frame of reference and no way to (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —John Neal

(...) Am I *that* transparent? :-) So regarding events prior to the Big Bang, all we have are opinions which may or may not be based upon religion. To say that a Creator started it all or to say that it all just happened are equally neutral. Would (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Dave Schuler

(...) A "fairer" assessment would be that, regarding issues which we cannot verify even in principle, science makes no statement. Similarly, some people (myself included) might say that, since we have no basis for making a determination, it is (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Richard Marchetti

(...) No, not actually. Scenario 1: a creator and the kernel of the universe (2 elements) Scenario 2: the kernel of the universe itself (1 element) All things being otherwise equal, I would tend to choose the scenario with the fewest assertions. The (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —John Neal

(...) No, scenario 1 has 1 element: the Creator. The Creator is alone until the creator creates something from literary nothing. The creator and the kernal are the same thing-- the beginning point. -John (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —David Eaton

(...) I'd say you're accurate-- both statements are (AFIAK) equally valid. Which is precicely why "science" says neither of them, but instead says "I dunno, I won't commit to either option" DaveE (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Absolutely. If the universe is cyclic, then simply everything collapsed back into as small of a point as possible until the big bang was triggered. An interesting question would be if the physical laws of the universe change from one (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Once again, the difference between species isn't something magical, or even obvious. It's (usually) merely a matter of reproductive capacity. There are many, many examples of two species that are so similar that only recently have scientists (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Of course a fish is still a fish. I mean, what else would it be? If you are trying to state (but not quite saying it) that a fish can never evolve into another species, that's easy to answer: yes it can. I think you are really trying to say it (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) Also, fish aren't fish. There is no class, subclass, order, family, genus, or species known as "fish." What we know colloquially as fish are in fact four (maybe five now) classes of vertebrates that happen to all share certain features that (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) *CRASH*!!! Nobody expects the Taxonomic Scale Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise. Surprise and anal retentiveness.....oo...ooo....two chief weapons are surprise, anal retentiveness, and a ruthless devotion to splitting scales....three! (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Know Thy Python (was: Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism) —John Neal

(...) If, for no other reason, you have to respect a man who knows his Python.... <okay, I just cracked *myself* up with that one!> -John (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)