Subject:
|
Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 23 Jan 2001 17:07:18 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
576 times
|
| |
|
|
Tim:
Thank-you. You got ahead of me, but I suppose that's ok.
I wanted to reach some agreement on the basis for the debate before I began to
present research.
I will continue to go down that road, but your references should give them some
food for thought in the meantime.
-Jon
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Culberson writes:
> I'm stepping out onto shaky ground here as I have to admit that I've
> only been sparatically(sp?) following the whole
> "Christianity/Darwinism/Evolution/Religion" debate except I have been
> reading the "Macro Evolution" thread thoroughly- but I will now step in
> to address this (as Jon did not immediately respond with the specifics
> as you asked) and state my opinions and beliefs)
>
> First of all I will state my beliefs:
>
> I am a strong believer in Creationism - that is to say I believe in a
> 6000-10000 year old earth and creation of every living thing by God. I
> believe that the theories on the origin of the earth, man, and other
> living things that are being taught in our public school systems are
> one-sided and very VERY often wrongfully presented as scientific truth -
> not the twisted anti-Christian theories that I believe them to be (and I
> have "studied" this topic to some extent - although I must say that I am
> anything but a scientist)
>
> Now, on to your request Dave:
>
> You state that you wish for citations within the "legitimate scientific
> community" - I'm fairly sure before proceding any further that you will
> debate the following sources to at least some degree based on that
> premise - but IMO, the following sources/people DO in fact fit this
> criteria (sorry if one of these is the same as Jon mentioned):
>
> (1) http://www.drdino.com
> I have personally attended a 2-3 hour presentation by Dr. Kent Hovind as
> well as viewed several of his seminar videos. Before questioning his
> credability I urge you to see
> http://www.drdino.com/Ministry/DrHovind.jsp ........Although his Online
> Seminar is new since the last time I visited his web page I would be
> willing to state that if you want to know what I believe you can read
> through the information available here and I will agree with most if not
> all of it. (Note: there is A LOT OF IT) --- if you'd like more info you
> can order his resources from the web page too.
>
> (2) http://www.answersingenesis.org
> I have also heard Ken Ham
> (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/ham.asp) speak in
> person (although this was probably at least 10 years ago - which would
> make me 9 yrs old :) - and have viewed many of the videos and
> information put out by this organization.
>
> ---These are the two main ones that I am most familiar with (you did ask
> for ONE specific example) - although there ARE in fact many more.
>
> (3) FOR EXAMPLE - just to list some more CREDIBLE scientists - I ask you
> to visit http://www.icr.org (specifically,
> http://www.icr.org/creationscientists.html
>
>
> Dave Schuler wrote:
> > Jon:
> > You've repeatedly mentioned leading scientists and overwhelming numbers to
> > defend your case against evolution without giving actual names or numbers.
> > For the umpteenth time, can you provide any actual names or numbers, other
> > than those gleaned from that single misleading web-article you cited? Can
> > you, for instance, point to any studies within the legitimate scientific
> > community (by which I mean people who pursue science as a means of
> > understanding, as opposed to proponents of Creation Science, which is a
> > misnomer) or any non-virtual articles using science to discredit evolution
> > (the process, not the theory).
> > Further, Bruce hasn't "bought into" the theory; he has given the matter,
> > judging from his posts and from correspondence, appropriate critical thought
> > and formed his conclusions. This is not, I should add, the "final"
> > conclusion impervious to future modification. Rather, it is logically the
> > best conclusion based on the staggeringly overwhelming evidence in support
> > of evolution.
> > PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE give one or, preferably, a few citations other than
> > The Bible or your single Web-Article to support your claim.
> >
> > Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
78 Messages in This Thread:
  
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
