 | | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) ? Lemme rephrase what I think Dave! was saying: 1. Given that evolution appears to have happened 2. Given that we cannot disprove creationism may have happened Can we say that both may be true, hence avoiding the need for further dispute? And (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
I see from the below that we have a difference on debate styles and definitions Ok. I believe that when I present scientific evidence I'm arguing scientifically. If I don't, then I'm not. That simple. Anything else is philosphical. (by my (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) Scientific argument isn't simply about presenting evidence; it also entails analyzing that evidence in accordance with the scientific method. This is a failure of that article you cited (in addition it its idiosyncratic spelling and grammar). (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) Scientific argument isn't simply about presenting evidence; it also entails analyzing that evidence in accordance with the scientific method. This is a failure of that article you cited (in addition to its idiosyncratic spelling and grammar). (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) Ok, so the reason: "it misses the scientific evidence for creation that is indeed consistant with the Biblical account - a literal 7-day creation." is a philosophical rebuttal because it doesn't specify WHAT evidence? I disagree because it's (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) Yes: (URL) revised again in: (URL) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) later this evening or tomorrow, because I have to consult a text at home. Dave! (23 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
