Subject:
|
Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 11 Jul 2002 14:28:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5682 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Spencer Rezkalla writes:
> > Scientific Creationism is NOT a valid scientific theory
>
> I think this is the attitude that James B. was referring to.
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 means the first to be scorned for no apparant
reason beyond his holding a faith-based position.
thanks,
James
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
| (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
395 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
