 | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Dave Schuler
| | | | (...) Well, lighten up, because both of the above were hypothetical assertions under which one might be able to say conclusively that God cannot be physically visited. I was *not* categorically stating that God does not exist. You're missing the (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —James Brown
| | | | | | (...) So, did you snip my arguments to pick a nit because you agree with them, because you can't refute them, or because you're ignoring them? James 1: Or rather on "somone", before that nit gets picked. (23 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Dave Schuler
| | | | | | | (...) Because the necessary level of proof for your claim is considerably smaller than the necessary proof for Tom's claim and mine. Again, if you can provide even one example of a way to visit God physically, you'll singlehandedly eliminate any and (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —David Eaton
| | | | | Wow, this thread is fast becoming hard to track! :) (...) Maybe you changed the point, Dave, but just to backtrack: James: (...) Tom: (...) James: (...) Tom: (...) DaveE: (...) Basically, the point was, what makes proving Brazil different from (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | | |
